Google Ads


Site Stats

Teabagger Cattle Call

by: DavidNYC

Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 8:29 AM EST


Here's something fun. There are ten Republican senators up for re-election in 2012, so my question to you is, who among that group is most likely to get teabagged to death? There are of course a lot of factors which go into this question, but at the end of the day, all we're asking is which GOP incumbents are most likely to get derailed on their way to seeking their party's (re-)nomination?

I've taken a stab at ranking this gruesome tensome, in order of likelihood of getting consumed by the tea-flavored beast:

  1. Olympia Snowe
  2. Orrin Hatch
  3. Kay Bailey Hutchison
  4. Richard Lugar
  5. Bob Corker
  6. Scott Brown
  7. John Ensign
  8. Roger Wicker
  9. Jon Kyl
  10. John Barrasso

Ensign deserves an asterisk. While he's probably vulnerable in a primary, I don't really see such a race turning into a teabagger-fueled challenge. So on an ordinary list, he'd rate much higher, but here, he's toward the bottom of the pack.

What do you say? How would you rank this list? I see a lot of juicy targets for the Sharron Angle/Christine O'Donnell brigade!
DavidNYC :: Teabagger Cattle Call
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Teabagger Cattle Call | 175 comments
Agree with your logic.
Though I'd put Hatch slightly ahead of Snowe based on the lean of his state and the fact that he's actively gone out of his way to tell the teabaggers to go Cheney themselves. Still, both Hatch and Snowe are facing closed caucuses, so they're both pretty hosed.

KBH's wounds are all self-inflicted, but she doesn't have just teabaggers running against her. It could be an IN-05/TX-Gov 2006 situation where so many challengers run that she wins with 29% of the vote, which is what I'm leaning towards right now.  Or she could just keep her promise to the voters and resign.

I'd actually be surprised if Lugar lost. Indiana Republicans are crazy, but he's built up literally generations of bipartisan goodwill, it's not a closed primary, and the Marion County vote for him will be substantial, as always.

Everyone below that is safe unless something really weird happens, with Ensign, as you say, being an asterisk. He IS facing a caucus, after all.  

Hatch
I definitely agree that he's going to be ousted at the Utah Republican Convention. I also don't see how Snowe can win as a Republican in Maine anymore. If she wants to win reelection, she has to run as an Independent (or Democrat, but that doesn't look likely and may be a more difficult path for her because of primary opposition).

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Both caucus states.
Any moderate GOPer going before a caucus in this day and age is royally hosed. That goes for Hatch, just based on what happened to Bennett - but also because he's actively had a feud with the baggers since 2008.

This goes for Snowe, because the baggers hate anything moderate, and resent her popularity.

This could even go for Ensign if Sharrrrron Angle wanted another shot, which rumor has it she does.

Other states with closed GOP caucuses, according to fairvote.org:

Montana (could mean trouble for Rehberg)
West Virginia (likely to mean Manchin gets a pass, assuming he doesn't decide to run as a Republican AFTER the caucus)

Also Iowa, but there's nothing big in IA up in 2012.  

[ Parent ]
Note here
that I'm using the teabagger definition of "moderate", which is, roughly, "anything to the left of Genghis Kahn". "Establishment" prolly would've been a better word.  
[ Parent ]
Perfectly put
Moderate = "anything to the left of Genghis Kahn"

+1

[ Parent ]
Hey, Obama!
Hands off my Mongol hordes!  
[ Parent ]
If Sen. Manchin wanted to be a Republican...
This was the year to cross over. He would have walked away with something like a 40-point margin if he had run as a Republican in the Senate race.

He's a Democrat. He's a conservative Democrat, but he is a Democrat.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
If he's really a Democrat,
why leave the door open to a future party switch? Just because he rebuffed that silly Politico spin about switching this year doesn't mean he doesn't realize that he only won as a Democrat at the Federal level in WV because Raese turned out to be a terrible candidate.

If he was really committed to being a Democrat, he wouldn't have sent a shill to Fox News to say this (from here Note that I don't normally link to Huffpo, but it's just the quote I'm interested in, not the article itself):

"He was elected as a Democrat and he has to go to Washington as a Democrat to try, in good faith, to make the changes in the party he campaigned on," one Manchin advisor told Fox News. "Now, if that doesn't work and Democrats aren't receptive, I don't know what possibilities that leaves open."

In other words, blackmail the party, get them to give him everything he wants, and threaten to switch if he doesn't. Sounds like a great Democrat to me. He may caucus with us "for now", but I trust the guy about as far as I can throw Appalachia.  

[ Parent ]
Manchin just hired John Edwards ally Chris Kofinis for chief-of-staff
He's staying a Democrat.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
I'll miss Kofinas on MSNBC
But "onward and upward," I guess.
[ Parent ]
Oh, come on.
If he wanted to switch, he'd probably have switched. It'd be pretty hard for the Democrats to have a worse year than they had this past year, and if he could not only beat a Republican but actually smack him around, he's probably fairly safe in 2012.

As far as leaving the door open, it's basically a matter of establishing his profile as someone independent of the national party--an independent Democrat, if you will. That way, when he needs to campaign or try to legislate, he's not fighting the Dirty Fucking Hippy/Turned Washington on Us stigma that the Republicans would try to label him with.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
i also thought that report..
Was pretty much debunked.
[ Parent ]
He
was quick to deny it. Don't trust faux. Also he wasn't the only dem to win in WV. Rahall won despite voting for HCR, stimulus and pretty much everything besides cap and trade. The article helped bolster the conservadem credentials, that was it's only purpose. He's really not that bad. I expect him to be more of a Pryor type. What I saw in the debate was a genuine dem who was just running to the right because he had to.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
Fair enough.
Better a Pryor than a Ben Nelson, IMO.  
[ Parent ]
Yeah
I really wish I would have read about the whole Pryor gaffe today before writing that but still my point still stands. His politics next Congress all depend on his 2012 opponent. If he gets serious opposition then he'll probably be a thorn in our sides but if not he'll be ok and when he wins I am confident he'll be a fairly quiet and somewhat reliable vote. Remember he was for HCR before he was against it.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
2014 opponent.


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
No
I'm talking about Manchin.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
Sorry, mix-up.
I thought you were talking about Pryor.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Maine uses a primary, not a caucus
I'm not sure why folks are saying that Maine selects their nominee via a caucus -- unless something has changed since this year's primary, the state uses a primary system where candidates get on the ballot by petition, not party nomination. (This should not be confused with the caucus system they use to select delegates to the national presidential nominating convention.)

I can't find anything on-line suggesting the rules have been changed. According to the Maine Secretary of State's website, " §331. Primary required
1. Nomination by primary election.  A party's nomination of a candidate for any federal, state or county office shall be made by primary election, as provided in this Article."

http://www.mainelegislature.or...

In terms of selecting federal nominees, Utah is fairly unique - while some other states (Connecticut, New York for example) use a party nominating convention to select nominees, in those states a candidate can alternatively petition to get on the ballot even if they haven't gotten enough votes at the convention. Utah law gives the party supremacy on this issue, meaning that if Hatch can't get 40% and be one of the top 2 candidates at the state convention, he can't run in the primary.

(Virginia gives the party the choice - they can decide in any election which method they will use, and for the 2012 Senate seat they have already decided to have a primary...)

I think Snowe is still vulnerable in a primary (which would be closed to only Republican voters), but not as much as she might be in a much lower turnout caucus system.

[ Parent ]
Rehberg won't have teabag problems
He won his primary against a challenger who even ran a couple of TV ads with 85% of the vote or so this year, and is a member of the Bachmann caucus.

18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)
[ Parent ]
Agree on Lugar to an extent
I'd be suprised but not shocked if Dick Lugar was successfully 'bagged.  Also agree that he has a large Marion County vote to draw on (and some of the more country club Republicans from Hamilton County).  But if he's going to rely on Dem crossover voters, I'm not sure that will help him if there are competitive Governor, Senator and other Dem primaries to vote in.
[ Parent ]
True,
but at least in theory, it's fair to say that Lugar has a better shot because it's an open primary, esp. because independents and moderate R's are likely to break for him in large numbers regardless of what the teabaggers and Dems do.  

Also, Hamilton County country club? Haha, Dan Burton's 29% base! Seriously, though, I agree with you - the richer, more moderate Republicans are going to go for Lugar in droves (I think Burton + Messer supporters in Hamilton, with the other candidates' supporters going for the bagger). Suburban Lake has some votes for Lugar, too, I think, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a decent number of Lugar votes come out of the larger small cities (South Bend, Ft. Wayne), as well. He's going to get creamed in the countryside, especially downstate and in the non-urban parts of IN-03, but I think he's got the votes to win by greater than a 1% margin.

It also really depends on which Dems run. Lugar was unopposed last time, and while that's not likely to happen again, we're also not likely to get Evan Bayh running for Lugar's seat, either. It probably more depends on the Governor's race - if Bayh locks up the nomination early, it might push more Dems to help Lugar in the GOP primary. If, however, Bayh decides to, say, be a total douchebag and primary Obama instead and the field is wide open, it could be close for Lugar, esp. with Pence in the Governor's race. Even so, I think the chances of him losing are fairly slim. Not impossible, just slim.  

[ Parent ]
Do you really
think Bayh will launch a primary challenge against Obama? If there's anyone besides Joe Lieberman who would make that a fool's errand, it's Bayh. Hell, I could see Obama winning back some disaffected base voters if only because they probably loathe Bayh.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
I've heard it rumored.
Now, I'm not saying he will. He's probably not THAT stupid. Then part of me thinks, eh, it IS Bayh, and running for governor again wouldn't get him anywhere he hasn't already been....I would be a little surprised if he did run against Obama (the hubris! it burns!), but not totally shocked - mainly because it would end his political career if he lost, which he would - then again, he could probably just wait for Lugar to retire, take back the open seat, and be Senator for Life.

If he did run, Bayh would try to resurrect the whole DLC zombie argument trying to appeal to the disaffected Clinton voters from last time. He might even do ok in Iowa and other DLC-leaning states with no black population to speak of, though of course he'd still get crushed. There's that quote that he made when he retired saying that he wants to be "in an executive role" that everyone thinks means he wants to be Governor again.

He's also gone out of his way to screw other potential statewide Dems, not adequately helping Ellsworth and totally kneecapping Hill. And he's held on to $12 million, which is overkill for a gubernatorial campaign when he already has near-universal name rec, but could pay for quite a campaign if he focused entirely on winning Iowa.

Of course, it's all circumstantial at this point. He could just be a douche who can't share his sandbox with anyone else. Either way, I can't stand the guy.  

[ Parent ]
Here's my hunch on Bayh...
He's sitting on a pile of cash, but I don't think he wants to face a gubernatorial showdown vs. Pence. He'd jump in if he weren't facing a top-tier challenger, but I think he realizes Obama's probably on the cusp of losing Indiana by 5 points or more, and that Pence can ride the GOP nominee's coattails to victory.

In terms of a primary challenge to Obama, I think Bayh would only enter if Obama's approval not only slid into the low-40s overall, but also took a hit among registered Democrats ('cuz there's no point in primarying a guy with 80% approval among the base). Bayh would need to paint Obama as "too liberal," and thus, if Obama starts compromising with the GOP-ers, there's really no rationale behind a Bayh bid. Likewise, if Obama opted to steer sharp to the right, you might see Russ Feingold mull a run, but that too is only if Obama's approval is shaky.

I actually think a primary would be a scary proposition for Obama, given the Indie participation in NH, plus his #s may have slipped in Iowa too. The thing is, he'd steamroll over Bayh or Feingold in the Super Tuesday states. The challenger would need to win both IA and NH to have a real shot.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

[ Parent ]
A few things:
1. There isn't any indication of how he'd do in Indiana right now. I don't recall any polls that show anything. Now, while the midterm results weren't encouraging, it's not exactly surprising that they did well in a center-right to red state in a Republican year. Maybe it means that he'll have his work cut out for him in the state, or maybe it just means not much of anything.

2. I just don't see Bayh as a credible challenger to Obama in any sense, unless there's some sort of corruption scandal. He's already to the right of Obama, which is hardly pleasing to the liberal base of the party. Obama looks good by comparison. Unless he's supposed to run to Obama's left, which would make him look entirely phony, what's the point of running in order to lose?

3. This is especially true in New Hampshire. Even if he does capture the Independent vote that would participate in the Democratic primary, will he capture enough of the Democratic vote to make a difference? Again, what's the point if he doesn't get anywhere?


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
If
Obama only loses by five then Bayh will win. There are many, many people who would vote generic R for Pres and Bayh. Obama would have to lose by 15-20 to drag Bayh down, I really do believe that. If Pence runs then he keeps it competitive but I still feel confident about Bayh. People would feel a lot more comfortable voting for him on for Gov, rather than Senate (not that I think he wouldn't have won this year, he would have). Oh and he's full of himself but I don't think he's stupid enough to think he can beat Obama in a primary. If he ran for Prez, highly unlikely then it'd be as an I and all he'd do would make sure Obama wouldn't win Indiana. He wouldn't get more than 5-6 percent nationwide.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
I don't see it
Evan Bayh has spent the last twenty years of his career avoiding any kind of risk, anything that could end with him losing. Bayh's an irritating corporatist stooge, but he's also got a strong record of grousing about how terrible liberals/the Senate/partisan rancor/etc. are and then not doing anything about whatever he thinks is a problem.

Bayh can do all the heckling of Obama he wants from op-ed pages, but that's all he's going to do.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09

[ Parent ]
No way
Bayh is 100% out for himself not the DLC. He's not going to prove that the moderate Dems are dead (politically and legislatively) so he can get whopped on by Obama. Bayh is running for Governor, period.
[ Parent ]
The only way Bayh would go for it
Is if Obama's national popularity drops to below 40%. Democratic primary voters are legendarily wishy washy. Remember all of this "my heart says Dean but I want to vote for the guy who can win so I'm going for Kerry?" crap from 2003 that saddled us with the one guy who couldn't possibly win? I can see that happening again, even with a guy as cautious, boring, corporatist, or whatever as Bayh. It won't be enough to beat Obama, but it could certainly hurt him enough that the

Bayh might also be deliberately paid off by Wellpoint (aka his wife's employers) to run against Obama, lose, then come back to Indiana and do his "I'm a principled moderate" crap and hold any statewide office he wants forever. Hell, if he ran against Obama, his popularity in Indiana would probably go UP.

Meanwhile, I'm not convinced Palin would have the GOP side of the field to herself if she won. Romney could easily mount an Independent candidacy a la Murkowski - he's got more money than God and the party bosses and most of the corporate wing of the GOP will NEVER back Palin. If that happened, we know Romney would win New Hampshire in the general and probably be competitive in most of the "swing" states (especially Florida). It could end in a brokered electoral college that ends with the House electing Palin on a party-line vote. Truly horrifying prospect.

Of course, this is ENTIRELY speculation, and really one of my posts that more goes into the realm of political fiction. I just think it would be interesting, if horrifying. I'll shut up now.  

[ Parent ]
*that he'll be damaged.
n/t  
[ Parent ]
Ugh
I wish I could say what you said was false. But the more I think of it this could happen and be bad, very bad. Bayh running against Obama would hurt as it would create the whole Obama in trouble narrative and the Jimmy Carter comparisons would start. Then after losing but possibly costing Obama the election his price in corporate America will probably triple or quadruple and he can save up and be Gov (with CoC bankrolling him) in 2020.    

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
Eh, I think Obama's got Carter II written all over him anyway.
It's only a matter of time before the comparisons start.

Not that I want him to lose, just that this conciliatory "let's all be friends while I compromise with myself to give the store away" crap is really getting old, and I'm not sure he's capable of doing anything else. Frankly, I'd rather Biden were President. He may be the Senator from MBNA, but at least he knows how to stand up to people.

As to what I said, though, don't take it too seriously. It's just speculation and probably won't actually happen, if for no other reason than Bayh is boring and risk-averse. Makes good fiction, though, like I said.  

[ Parent ]
Carter was under-rated.
He just got blamed for the stagflation generated by Nixon switching us to unbacked dollars.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Nah.
I think Obama will win, I really do. Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic but his approval isn't horrible, especially with everything going on. I think the economy will get at least somewhat better, it can't get any worse. The only way I see Obama losing is if Romney is the nominee, and that's not going to happen. Though I do think the MSM will do the Carter comparisons though, that's to be expected. I can't pretend I'm 100% satisfied with everything Obama's done but for the most part I'm satisfied enough. It's easy to criticize him from a cable news show or a keyboard but it's a rough job and not as easy as some think. I'm a blue blood all around liberal but I understand I'm to the left of where the country is, and that Obama has to do some not so liberal things in order to win a second term. He's got to do better with indy's who broke GOP this time, so yes he'll probably be a Clinton his second half of this term but it's better that than a President Palin. Oh and very good fiction, would make a good horror movie.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
I still don't know that my GOP theory isn't credible, though.
Romney is toast as a Republican, and if Palin beats him, he's got nothing to lose and certainly has the financial and power base to stage an indie bid - it's probably the only way Palin can actually win, unless Obama REALLY screws up in a dead girl/live boy sorta way (and he won't - one of the things that the GOP hates about him is that he's so much more moral than they are. Such an easy weakness in Clinton's case, but they actually have to work to sandbag Obama).

Worst case scenario, it's a 3-way race, Romney takes enough swing states to keep either of the major party candidates from hitting 270. That throws the Presidential election to the House, which votes on a one-delegation one-vote system that essentially hands the election to Palin (because there are more GOP states by number). Meanwhile, though, the Senate ALSO has to vote on VP, and they do it by individual member, probably on a party-line vote. So in such a case we'd likely end up with a President Palin and a Vice President Biden, which would be high comedy in the most horrifying "I'm moving to Canada now" way possible.

On the other hand, if Dems took back the House in 2012, they could wait for Palin to do something criminal (give it about 10 minutes), impeach, then Biden is President.

I recognize that Obama inherited one hell of a CF from Bush and that governing is damned difficult, especially in times like these, and especially especially when the opposition wants to ruin you just for the hell of it. I just think the messaging out of his White House has been piss poor, as have been most of his non-Elisabeth Warren appointments, particularly where the economy is concerned. You can't run on change, then immediately put Geithner and Summers in your cabinet, shut out all other economic viewpoints, and especially refuse to fire Bernanke. The optics of that are terrible, and a good part of the reason why Dems got their asses handed to them.  

Incidentally, I'll be voting for Obama no matter what, unless the GOP nominee is Mitch Daniels. And I say that because if Daniels is the nominee, he'll win Indiana by such a large margin that my vote in that contest won't matter either way. Not that he will be, though he'd probably actually be relatively sane compared to the rest of the 2012 field and could probably give Obama a race if he made it to the general (which of course he won't)  

[ Parent ]
I
don't think Romney would go third party. Now I could see Bloomberg running if Palin is the nominee. That would hurt and could lead to what you describe. As for Obama, like I said I don't approve of everything he's done but we live in challenging times. He has done some avoidable things that annoy me but overall I still think he's the best we can get. Gotta keep in mind the obstacles he had to go through to get what he got done. And he has done a lot despite obstacles. I don't want to get into too much but I think he's done great with a Senate full of hell no Republicans. You'd not vote for Obama only if Daniels was the nominee? Heck I'd vote Obama ten times if I could under that case.    

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
I also think Obama will win, although it'll be closer than '08
I think Indiana's a goner, and, depending on who the GOP nominee is, there'll be at least one other state lost (if it's Huck/Palin/Gingrich, NC; if it's Romney, NH). I don't at all buy the sentiment that SC/GA/TX will be in play. Besides that, though, I think he beats "generic R" in NV/CO/NM/WI/PA/VA, meaning he loses FL/OH/IA/NC...which is still enough for him to win.

In terms of the central GOP candidates, Palin's surely the weakest, then Huckabee, then Gingrich, and Romney's handily the strongest. I can't fathom Pawlenty igniting much fire, though Thune (besides Christie) may well be the strongest conservative Republican the GOP could nominate. (Can he Thune win the nod if Huckabee/Palin/Santorum vacuum the religious right in IA, though?)

Presuming Obama approval is hovering in the mid-40s, Palin can probably retake NC, and perhaps nothing else. Huckabee might win NC/IA, but it's shaky from there. Gingrich probably out-performs Palin/Huck in OH/FL, and wins NC too...but is he competitive in CO/NV/PA/NH? Nah. I think with lukewarm Obama approval, Romney has the ability to win CO/NV/NC/FL/OH/NH, and, while Obama would still narrowly win, it at least makes for a long time.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

[ Parent ]
Whoa there
I see him winning in IA unless the GOP candidate is Thune or maybe Daniels.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
FWIW, I think Iowa would've been a dead heat in '08 had Huckabee won the GOP nod


For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
You're probably right.
Ok, I'll add in Huckabee to that list with Thune and Daniels.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Christie
He can't actually win unless he loses ~150 pounds and ditches cap and trade.

That said, the media has really fed his image quite well. So has his team. Those youtube videos are great.

[ Parent ]
Those
videos suck. I'm not saying that because I'm a dem, they are just really bad. The cheesiest thing I've seen. Worse than Sarah Palins Alaska. Chris Christie moments? I practically spit up my tea when watching them.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
Tea, huh
A lot of people like them.
[ Parent ]
Why
do you think Indiana is a goner at this point? And why would those three beat him in North Carolina and Romney beat him in New Hampshire? From what I understand, Romney isn't that well liked in New Hampshire. Some have even said he's viewed terribly in that state, at least amongst the population in general. And why do you think he has such appeal in Florida, Nevada, and Colorado?

As far as states like Texas, South Carolina, and Georgia being in play, it all depends on whether he enters the contest in a relatively strong position or a relatively weak one. If it looks like he's going to have to fight to the death to win Pennsylvania, he won't focus on expanding the map. If it doesn't look like he has to do that much more than last time, he probably will. It's really that simple.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
New Hampshire swung wildly, possibly the most of any state this year...
I think Obama will lose in 2012 there.

It's gonna take a few years for them to swing wildly back in our direction.

21,Democrat, NY-02, male

[ Parent ]
Why do you say that?
Bush went from 273,559 votes in 2000 to 331,237 in 2004, in what was a good year for Republicans. Yet Kerry received 340,511 votes in 2004 compared to Gore's 266,348 votes in 2000. McCain received 316,534 votes in 2008, slightly less than Bush in 2004, but Obama improved on Kerry's numbers by a pretty significant number, ending up with 384,826 votes.

There could be a lot of different reasons for these results from year to year. But while the Democratic candidates didn't do well this year, I wouldn't be so quick to write off this state in 2012. If nothing else, it doesn't look like our side is simply taking votes from the other side. It looks we are adding our own voters. They can easily do the same, and some of ours can switch to their side, but it's not that we are competing over the same exact pool.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
His job approval in the exit poll was 46-48
Decent position IMO.
[ Parent ]
The economy certainly could get worse
There are a lot of things really wrong with the economy. Plus, we don't know whether or when unemployment will really decrease, and nothing has been done to prevent foreclosures or prosecute the tremendous conspiracy of fraudulent foreclosures.

We don't discuss presidential politics here as a rule, though.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
I don't see how
Romney, as an Independent candidate, ends up being competitive in enough states to win any of them. He'd have to win essentially all of the right-leaning votes and then enough of the left-leaning votes to end up in first place. I don't see large numbers of Democrats voting for him. And Palin may not be liked by all of the Republican base, she's probably liked by enough to get at least half of the right-leaning votes in competitive states. Thus, I don't see either of them consolidating all of the right-leaning votes with both of them on the ballot.

Simply put, your scenario doesn't make much sense. If anything, Romney running as an Independent candidate makes Obama a shoe-in for reelection. He wouldn't lose states like California or New York or any of the other very blue states, and he'd probably secure all of left-leaning votes in traditional swing states like Ohio to win them unless Palin or Romney get all of the right-leaning votes plus just enough of the left-leaning votes to move past him. And again, which left-leaning voters are going to vote for Palin or Romney?

As for this sentence, "Hell, if he ran against Obama, his popularity in Indiana would probably go UP," where's the evidence he's that unpopular in Indiana?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I LIVE in Indiana.
It's common knowledge that Obama won this state as a fluke. It's unusual to see people still supporting Obama even in Marion County, black people and token white liberals excepted (and believe me, there aren't enough of either in this state for Obama to count on them alone). Very few white people here still seem to have a favorable impression of him, especially the lower classes. Go to the south side of Indy, it's like walking into a Republican convention. (Of course, it was always like that, but I think it's gotten worse in the last year or so.)

Now, Obama will probably still win Marion County in 2012 (unless Daniels or maybe Romney is the nominee), but in general he won Indiana by getting just enough blue-collar crossover votes in places like Muncie and south Indy to win the state as a whole - those votes won't be there in 2012. Guaranteed. Obama might still keep Indiana close if he decides that campaigning here is worth his time, but he won't flip it again.  

[ Parent ]
I can see
why Daniels would take Indiana off the table entirely, but why Romney?

You live in the state, and I don't, but you know as well as I do that anecdotal knowledge has its limits. But even if it is does in fact represent that would be backed up by statistical evidence right now, we're still two years out. That's a long time. You could end up being right, but that's pretty hard to tell right now.

While it looks like Obama did win some voters that usually go Republican, he added more voters than McCain lost from Bush's total. In other words, a lot of the votes that he received were votes for him, not against McCain or the Republican. Maybe they won't show up in 2012, but he already won the state once. He probably has the best infrastructure in the state, unless McCain set up some ground game here that I am unaware of, and he can always add more voters to his side.

Basically, he already won the state. It was by a small margin, and the environment, both in this state and nationally, might not be as favorable to him in 2012 as it was in 2008. But I wouldn't simply write off the state, unless Daniels was the nominee--certainly not this early.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
You don't win Democratic primaries from the right...
... and you don't win Republican primaries from the left.

Both parties nominate the most ideologically-comfortable candidate that is electable. Democrats nominate the most liberal but viable candidate and Republicans nominate the most conservative but viable candidate.

The only way someone wins a Democratic primary for president running to the right is if there is such a strong Republican trend in the country that nobody to the left of Bayh is perceived as winning.

Ain't gonna happen.  

[ Parent ]
Oh, no, I never said he'd be in it to win.
He'd be in it to kneecap Obama for not picking him as VP, to boost his popularity in Indiana (which doesn't like Obama at all), and because his wife's buddies at Wellpoint promised him unlimited funds, in-state political support, and a salary increase for his wife in exchange for weakening the guy who passed HCR.

He'd be DOA in the coastal states and he knows it. He's not going to win New Hampshire and the black vote in South Carolina is too strong in a Dem primary. But he could still do well in Iowa, start a media snowball to bury Obama, then gracefully bow out after he loses everything else.  

It's not going to happen anyway, but Bayh wouldn't be in it to actually win. He'd be in it to boost his profile and to be as much of a jackass as possible in the process.  

[ Parent ]
Runoff
Texas would have a primary runoff, so it's not possible for KBH to win a primary with 29%.  General election, yes, but in a primary election she'd have to clear 50% of the vote to win.

Texas does have an open primary, which benefits her to a certain extent, but the Republican primary electorate is typically very right-leaning.

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

[ Parent ]
Runoff = KBH's death
Just need a tea-party nut to get into the finals with her. Then she's dead.

Sharp better be licking his lips. He's going to get an open senate race in a Presidential year.

[ Parent ]
...where the Democratic presidential nominee will lose statewide by double-digits
Unless Alan Keyes moves to Texas and wins the nomination, this should be an easy GOP hold. Don't get me wrong - John Sharp would be a fine nominee. But, so was Bill White.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
Maybe, maybe not.
But why would Michael Williams or any of the other truly non-statewide candidates be in such a significantly better position than a moderate Democrat like John Sharp?

If the exit polls this year correct, Bill White did better amongst whites than Democrats usually do. He also only got crushed when it comes to voters 50 or older. He won voters 18-24 and voters 25-29 by a few points and lost voters 30-39 and 40-49 by a few points. The problem was that the other groups, 50-64 and 65-older, made up 58 percent of the electorate.

Now, if I had to bet money, I'd say Obama will lose Texas, but you never know. He didn't contest the state last time and got about a million more votes than John Kerry did. Yes, it was a Democratic year, and yes, McCain wasn't nearly as popular as Bush, who was actually from Texas. But if the Obama team goes into the state with the same expansive mindset, it wouldn't astonish me to see Obama get even closer this time. If he wins, Sharp or whomever the Democratic nominee is almost certainly wins, but the Democrat could outperform the top of the ticket by a few points fairly easily, I would think.

Simply put, the Democrats have only one place to go in Texas, and that is up.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I think any Democrat who wants to legit contest Texas...
Needs to target the suburban vote. As Obama showcased in '08, a Democrat can win Harris, Dallas, Travis, and Bexar Counties, ditto run-up the usual 2-to-1 margins way downstate, and that still only gets you to about 43%. If I'm Obama or John Sharp, and I feel like pumping millions into a state where half the electorate are self-described conservatives and want to repeal health care, I'd focus upon the following three counties...

Fort Bend County (23% Hispanic, 21% black, 16% Asian, it's a county represented in the U.S. house by the polar-opposite likes of Al Green and Ron Paul.)

Tarrant County (20% Hispanic, 13% black, it's a bellwether Obama lost by the same 12 points he lost statewide by.)

Williamson County (17% Hispanic, there's a fair share of white Democrats here, and it's trending bluer and bluer; Kerry out-performed Gore here by 8 points, and Obama out-performed Kerry by 19.)

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

[ Parent ]
Why focus on those three counties?
All three of them are big counties, and Tarrant clearly the biggest of the three, but all three of them are a lot smaller than Harris, Dallas, Travis, and Bexar Counties. All of those four counties have lots and lots of unregistered voters. Harris County alone supposedly has more than 600,000 unregistered voters. No, not all of them will be registered, and no, not all of the ones that will be registered will be Democrats. But if they can register new ones in the really big counties and turn out the ones that are already registered, which they'd probably see a lot of progress with since there wasn't as much of a campaign in the state last time like there was in Florida, they'd probably get a lot of votes.

If the state is going to be contested, they should focus on any area where there are a decent number of voters. But it doesn't look like they've come close to realizing their potential in the biggest areas of the state. There are just far more voters in these places, so that's where their attention should be at first.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Alan Keyes didn't move to Illinois in 2004
and he still won that nomination.

He wouldn't necessarily have to move.

Just saying....

[ Parent ]
He wasn't exactly "nominated"
More like "drafted-by-the-Republican-Party-in-the-wake-of their-scandal-plagued-candidate-dropping out..."

Radical or something, WA-07
[ Parent ]
KBH to Run-Off in Primary
KBH's wounds are all self-inflicted, but she doesn't have just teabaggers running against her. It could be an IN-05/TX-Gov 2006 situation where so many challengers run that she wins with 29% of the vote, which is what I'm leaning towards right now.

Texas primaries have run-offs.  Texas generals don't.  The crowded field in Texas is likely going to be the Republican Party Primary, so it see will see a run-off where she will have to face her toughest challenger head-to-head in the primary.

[ Parent ]
I Only See 5 at Risk
As you say, Ensign could lose, but it wouldn't clearly be because of teabaggers.

1) KBH, 2)Orrin Hatch, 3) Snowe, 4) Corker, 5) Lugar.

Lamar Alexander belongs there too, I think.


21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
except, he's up in 2014.
fail. I need to get more sleep.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
KBH and Ensign will retire
Unfortunately, Ensign might not last out his term; any appointed replacement would be far stronger politically.

I expect teabagger challenges to Snowe, Hatch and Lugar, with the first two being successful.

Retire?
Ensign won't retire or he would have before now.

KBH is too arrogant to retire in my opinion. She's the Republican version of Blanche Lincoln.

[ Parent ]
Ensign needs the paycheck
And holding on to his Senate seat gives him a plea-bargaining chip with prosecutors.
[ Parent ]
Teabags & Tea leaves
I agree with the first six on your list, although I'd rank Brown above Corker. I just wonder how big the Tea party bench is in Massachusetts. Hudak perhaps? Whether KBH retires or not, the Texas GOP primary will be a battle royale. I wonder if Debra Medina will run for the Senate...

Has Kyl, Wicker, or Barrasso done anything extraordinarily offensive or bipartisan to merit a tea party challenge besides perhaps a vote or two for TARP?

Who among these ten will be running in closed primaries? I think that will help further put the potential precariousness of their situation in perspective...  

26, Liberal Democrat, gay male, CA-38

I think Sean Bielat is tea-flavored, too.
Don't know much about the other GOP challengers from Mass this year. They were all pretty some dudey. The two who got closest aside from Jeff Perry were Bielat and whatever some-dude ran in MA-05, and Bielat probably has better name recognition and fundraising.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Brown was smart this year...
He did a lot of events for all of the candidates running for Congress, and I don't think any would backstab him by challenging him next year.  Again, he's got a unique retail politics charm that personally I think will prevent any viable challenger.  The tea party crowd seems to target the insider Washington-type Senators.  Brown is all over every Massachusetts happening and is very likeable.  He's the opposite of distant.  

There really is something to be said for "star power".  Look at Christie.  Could any other politician go on Meet The Press and say "I think Delaware lost a chance to have a great Senator in Mike Castle" and STILL have Jim DeMint say that he should consider running for President?  Try to analyze that and you'll have a stroke. In my personal opinion, Brown has more than enough juice, star power, and banked goodwill from all Republicans in Massachusetts (and the USA) because of January that he'll be fine.  

[ Parent ]
I don't think a tea challenge would get more than 20% in Mass
While the few hardcore types are disappointed with Brown the vast majority of Republicans here are thrilled to have a senate seat and are sensible enough to realize that Brown's their only shot of holding it.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08
[ Parent ]
What did you think were the odds
that Castle would be ousted by O'Donnell? I'm not convinced. I think Scott Brown has to watch his back from the right while also watching it from the left for the general election.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
You can't compare Castle and Brown
Castle was everything that the far Right hated about Republicans.  Career politician, in various offices for years, too cozy with insider Washington, doesn't drive a truck (snark), and yes, more Liberal than most.  But it's more than ideology.  If it was just how the person votes, Bennett and Murkowski wouldn't have had such bonafide challenges.  I always saw the Tea Party rallying against the Republicans who have "lost touch" with the people.  No one could argue that about Sen. Brown.
[ Parent ]
I'm not convinced.
These people are crazy and will turn on their former allies at the snap of one's fingers. Maybe it's wishful thinking but I think Brown's not safe in the primary.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
That is wishful thinking
There isn't any southern DE in MA. No pack of social conservatives that will oust a "liberal". MA republicans are less rural and wealthier than your typical republicans.

Castle was a good congressman but he was also pretty boring and had been around a long time.

Brown is young, fresh, articulate, and good on the stump. It's crazy to think he'd be out done in populist appeal.    

[ Parent ]
Not gonna happen
First of all, there's no conservative bench here. Well, there's Romney, but he's going to be otherwise occupied in 2012. Brown was an early supporter of Perry, and none of the other 2010 losers are serious enough candidates to get any traction. For the statewide candidates, Charlie Baker and Richard Tisei are to the left of Brown, Kerry Healey is disliked by the state party, and Karyn Polito has her eye on the MA-03 race.

Secondly, Delaware has Kent and Sussex counties, which are very conservative, like the Eastern Shore of MD. Massachusetts has nothing like that: it's an evenly blue state without a true bastion of conservatism sticking out like a sore thumb. There are some areas that vote more Republican than others (South Shore, Cape Cod, Merrimack Valley, outer Worcester County) but none of those are breeding grounds for O'Donnell type candidates.

Finally, Brown still has that savior aura about him for MA Republicans. That might not be there anymore in 2012, but for now, he's the hero that took back the Kennedy seat. He has a reservoir of goodwill and would need to take a string of Castle-type votes (like cap and trade) to see that dry up.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
It's two years from now...
all I'm saying is, never say never.

And while Mass may not have a breeding ground for "O'Donnell type candidates" it can still produce teabaggers. I can totally see a teabagger coming out of Middleboro/Lakeville or one of the more Republican Merrimack Valley towns, say Dracut or Tewksbury. Maybe even one of the towns near Worcester.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

[ Parent ]
I think Avi Nelson once got nominated for something...
..and he as certaining far out insane enough to be a proto-teabagger.  He wanted to privatize the national sea shore in cape cod.  Which is about as popular a free market solution in Massachusetts as paving the Everglades and turning it into a parking lot would be in Florida.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...
[ Parent ]
I know several tea partiers
In MA, and they still love Brown. A few are upset with him, but the possibility that Frank or a Kennedy runs keeps them supporting Brown.  
[ Parent ]
They
would have to be stupid to primary him. No one else stands a chance. IDK though, if O'Donnell can win... But I think the TP hype will die down a bit. Who are some potential primary challengers from the right? At this point I think it's safe to say that Hatch and KBH will not be a Senators come 2012, I think all others can survive. Snowe's the most vulnerable.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
Come 2013


Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
Well
California Republicans were at least sane enough to nominate Maldonado over the more conservative Aanestad, and also Cooley, who almost won. (Though it still wasn't enough, since a growing number of California voters now hate Republicans with a passion, even worse than "San Francisco liberals".

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
It Won't Work.
Massachusetts doesn't have its Senate primary at the same time as its Presidential primary, which actually could help a challenger to Brown from the right. By far the most significant thing on the ballot will be the Senate race and most of the action will likely be on the Democratic side, making the Republican voter pool smaller and more right-skewing. Moreso if there are any Congressional open seat elections...even in the less Democratic House districts, the Democratic primary is going to get far more attention.  

However, I don't ultimately think that a tea-flavored challenger to Brown could win. He or she would have no real base area to work from, the way O'Donnell did with downstate Delaware. Also, as said above, the Republicans in Massachusetts are very aware they are badly outnumbered and nominating someone with limited appeal to anyone outside the conservative base is a sure way to lose.

This challenger might do better than 20% if they get enough funding but I imagine that there are other races that would make fundraising for a challenge of this sort tough.


36, M, Democrat, MD-03

[ Parent ]
Don't underestimate...
The stupidity of the average voter (which goes exponentially up when dealing with partisans who vote primaries).  Further, brown has trouble either way in an open or closed primary.  In a closed primary he gets attacked for being a rhino.  In an open election dems may be persuaded to go vote for the tea bagger if the dem primary is cleared.
[ Parent ]
MA is semi-open
Unenrolled voters can vote in either primary, but those registered in a party must vote in that party's primary.  

The Dem primary will likely be competitive, so that will draw some of the left leaning indies who might otherwise mess with the Republicans.  Also in much of the state the only race that matters for state senate and state house is the primary, so for me personally at least, I would be loathed to skip a competitive legislative race just to torpedo Brown, but we'll see.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08

[ Parent ]
My order
    Orrin Hatch
   Olympia Snowe
   Kay Bailey Hutchison
   Richard Lugar
   Bob Corker
   Scott Brown
   John Ensign

I'm having trouble imagining Tea Party challenges to Roger Wicker, Jon Kyl, or John Barrasso. What did they do "wrong"?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

They've Been in DC Too Long
Well, not Barrasso so much. Wicker's been on Capitol Hill for 16 years, Kyl even longer than that. These Tea Party types don't usually like people who stay in Congress that long.

If it was just about how you voted, Bob Bennett would still be in the Senate.



36, M, Democrat, MD-03

[ Parent ]
TARP! TARP! TARP!
That's the vote that cost Bennett the nomination, and that's what they shouted during the convention. He also worked on HCR with Wyden, which probably also cost him support.

NY-14, DC-AL (college) Distraught Mets fan
[ Parent ]
Wyden-Bennett was undoubtedly
also a big player in him losing.  God forbid Republicans try to get things done.

Ah, conventions, where traditional democracy is co-opted by mob rule.  Might as well call it the torch and pitchfork caucuses.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

[ Parent ]
I mean
"God forbid Republicans try to be bipartisan."

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
My list...
1. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
2. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
3. Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)
4. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)
5. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
6. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)
7. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA)
8. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)
9. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)
10. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
On second thought...
Swap Sens. Corker and Hatch. Realistically I think the top five are toast, but Corker winning the nomination would surprise me slightly less than Hatch winning.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
The top five is likely
It's possible that none of those people will win their primaries. Lugar has the best chance, but Indiana is conservative enough for a Teabagger to gain enough support to win.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
I remember seeing something on Redstate suggesting Wicker as a target
Though I think that was partially strategic, because the seat would be easy to hold in the general election.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08
My List
I think that I would go with the following:

1. Snowe - this is as close to a lock as possible. The conservative base hates her because she is a "liberal"
2. Hatch - welcome Senator Jason Chaffetz
3. Corker - his comments about being "adults" and an overall very conservative base in his state isn't going to do him any favors
4. Lugar - his work for the START Treaty and voting for Obama's SC Justice picks won't help. I think he's too popular though with the non-base type and with an open primary he should be fine.

Ensign is done for other reasons more that he couldn't keep something in his pants. KBH is going to retire so I am leaving her off my list.  

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  

Orrin Hatch should be number one in my opinion
Not only is Utah more Tea-Party friendly, but the repercussions of replacing Hatch are far less, and tea partiers have one prominent possible challenger (Jason Chaffetz). And its a convention, not a primary. So far and beyond I see Hatch easily losing in a convention.

On the other hand, there are repercussions if Olympia Snowe is not the GOP nominee, especially considering that if she is defeated in a primary (and not retired outright) that a candidate would be to far right for Maine. Perhaps tea party activists see LePage as an example of a conservative, but the left wing vote was split between a weak Democrat and a strong independent in the election, and LePage will likely strong support Snowe in the primary. Still probably number 2.

I think Hutchinson is simply going to retire and I seriously doubt Lugar will be seriously challenged. He is one of the best US Senators today and Indiana Republicans know this.

Of the others, Wicker, Barrasso, and Kyl don't even belong on this list. MA Republicans aren't foolish enough to dump Brown, just having some federal office after such a long drought will overcome any tea flavored dissatisfaction with Brown. And I don't know what the deal is about Corker, hes a pretty conservative Republican, just a little more amenable to bipartisanship than what the normal conservative is. Much less than Hatch and Lugar for sure.

Snowe
I think that you nailed exactly why Snowe will be challenged. The GOP base is going to be emboldended by LePage winning and having control over the legislature now. They likely think that they have a shot with one of their tea baggers running. Snowe has plenty of "toxic" votes for them to go after; TARP, Stimulus, Financial Regulation, SC Justices, etc.  

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  
[ Parent ]
Well
if Snowe falls in the primary. She could always run a write in candidacy like Murkowski did. Especially if the teabagger turns out to be the second coming of Joe Miller. Though the danger is the center left vote will be split, but Snowe's the incumbent and plenty of independents and Democrats will vote for her.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
Write In Odds
Considering that only 2 people have ever won write-in campaigns for Senate ever, I think Snowe's chances of that are remote. Sure ME is a small state and Snowe is easy to spell but ME is more liberal than AK or SC and a Dem candidate will surely split her vote too much.

I think if she lost the primary she'd endorse the Democrat like Castle did.

[ Parent ]
Maine Likes Independents
A lot will depend on the year and who the Democratic nominee will be. But if there's a weak candidate on the Democratic side, and something that happens...

36, M, Democrat, MD-03
[ Parent ]
Castle didn't endorse the Democrat
He emphatically made a point of not endorsing O'Donnell, but he also refused to say anything publicly indicating that he was voting for Coons. He was neutral throughout the campaign - although his refusal to endorse the Republican who beat him for the nomination was pretty clear.
[ Parent ]
Just for fun
1.  Orrin Hatch--He might survive, but I have serious doubts that he will survive in the convention.
2.  Richard Lugar--His only problem is that he doesn't use the teabagger rhetoric.
3.  Kay Bailey Hutchison--I think she's definitely in trouble amongst the teabaggers.
4.  Olympia Snowe--the only reason why I have her as high on this list is that she's one of the few quasi-moderates within the GOP senate ranks.  I think she will survive mostly because Maine seems to be more tolerant to Republicans in the mold of Snowe.  Could be wrong...
5.  Bob Corker---I don't think he will be bitten, but Tennessee has definitely taken a hard turn to the right.
6.  John Ensign--He too will probably survive a fringe teabagger, but he has enough baggage that it could spill over into the teabagger mania.
7.  Scott Brown--He's another Republican that's not conservative enough for the hard right, but I imagine the teabaggers know that they can't get one amongst its ranks to survive a general election.  Cough, ODonnell, Cough...
8.  Roger Wicker---he will be fine.
9.  John Kyl--he will also be fine.
10.  John Barrasso--he's definitely in the mold of the teabaggers.  He will also be fine.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04
TARP and Confirmations
WILL GET TEABAGGED:
1. Hatch (D.O.A.)
2. Snowe (probably will still win as an Indie)
3. Lugar (crossover Dems cannot save him)
4. Corker
5. Brown (if they can find a challenger)

WILL LOSE FOR OTHER REASONS:
6. Hutchison (also gets teabagged)
7. Ensign (pushed out from the inside)

MAY GET A CHALLENGE:
8. Kyl
9. Wicker

PROBABLY SAFE:
10. Barrasso

Excluding Scott Brown, who was not in the Senate during these votes...

* All of them voted for TARP except Barrasso and Wicker.

* All of them voted for Eric Holder except Barrasso, Wicker, Ensign, and Hutchison.

* All of them voted for Tim Geithner except Kyl, Lugar, Wicker, Hutchison, and Barrasso.

And if ideological purity is not enough:

* All of them have been in Washington for many years except Brown, Corker, and Barrasso.

That leaves Barrasso as the only one without a glaring reason to get teabagged, and he was appointed by a Democratic governor.

None of the poor suckers are safe.

So then,
Indiana Democrats should be looking for a credible candidate?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Yes!
That's the problem, though -- if Lugar runs, he scares off anyone wanting to make the serious committment to run a credible campaign, but then if he gets beat, we want a good Dem. candidate to take on the nutjob who took him down.

All of that said, I want to see a credible Dem candidate regardless of who the Rep opponent is.

[ Parent ]
Sore-loser laws
Snowe couldn't run as an indie if she lost the primary. She could do a write in but the odds are much lower.
[ Parent ]
Or could she....
pull a Crist and run as an Independent and not even enter the primary?  
[ Parent ]
Barrasso was appointed from a list of three candidates
After Craig Thomas died, the state GOP was required to submit three names to the governor, and Freudenthal had to choose one of them. All three were very conservative Republicans--Barrasso, longtime Thomas aide Tom Sansonetti, and then-Treasurer Cynthia Lummis, who would go on to win WY-AL and has been one of the most conservative Republicans in the House.  

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
[ Parent ]
The main issue I can see with Corker
is that Tennessee has an open primary, and no runoff, both of which could help him survive.  The lack of a runoff helps because two conservatives could split the teabagger vote and allow Corker to win with 40%; this basically describes how he was elected in 2006 (and how Bill Haslam got elected governor.)  The open primary helps as well, because if Democrats decide that the race is hopeless for them, they might cross over and decide they'd rather stomach Corker for six more years rather than someone like Wamp.

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent
Agree with TDDVandy's assessment, which is spot on
Tennessee Primaries of late have a pattern of a single moderate establishment/pro-business/country club Republican type solidifying around 40-45% of the vote, while two or more social hard-right conservative split the vote and go down in flames. Corker could be beat, but it would take him facing a single high-name populist conservative one on one. Two names that come to mind are former Congressman Ed Bryant or Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey, both of whom could rally the conservative wing of the party with their populist appeal.

Democrat: TN-8
[ Parent ]
Methinks...
1. Hutchison
2. Hatch
(defeated in primary/convention by Tea Partier.)
---------------
3. Snowe
(bolts from GOP, runs as Independent, wins in general.)
---------------
4. Ensign
(has 50/50 shot of winning primary, Lean D general if he wins nod.)
---------------
5. Lugar
6. Brown
7. Corker
(Coats win proves establishment Republicans can still win in IN; no credible Tea Party challengers for Brown; Corker a snooze, but, like Richard Burr, probably won't be a huge Tea Party target.)
---------------
8. Wicker
9. Kyl
10. Barrasso
(may garner a nominal Tea Party challenger, but will win comfortably.)

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
Write-In
As a moderate Republican I'm confident both Lugar and Snowe will survive but, in case they don't, don't you think they would have a shot at winning as write-in candidates? I mean, both got more than 70% of the vote the last time around....
No way they survive the primary
Snowe and Lugar are the top targets of the Tea Party. They will lose the GOP primaries if they run. But I agree that both would win as indies or write-ins as long as there isn't a strong Dem challenger that draws Dem votes away from the moderate Republicans. (Lugar won last time unopposed, which is why his margin was so high.)
[ Parent ]
I'll play
Toast:

1. Orrin Hatch. They already did the same thing to Bennett.
2. Olympia Snowe. I don't see how she gets through a Reep caucus that has moved far to the right. She'll have to pull a Murkowski to keep her seat.

In serious trouble:

3. Kay Bailey Hutchison. She might pull it out if the opposition splits, but her opponents will probably only have minor ideological differences among them.
4. John Ensign. Oddly enough I think he has a better chance to squeak through the primary because he'll probably get both a tea party challenge and a mainstream challenge, making it less likely that the opposition coalesces around 1 candidate. If he steps down, there should be a competitive tea party v. mainstream primary.

In less trouble:

5. Bob Corker. Relatively moderate Republicans can still win primaries in TN. Ask Bill Haslam.
6. Richard Lugar. This is the same electorate that went with Dan Coats and Mitch Daniels, and in an open primary he'll benefit from a big independent vote and even some Dems.
7. Scott Brown. Mass Republicans have recognized for a long time that the only way they can compete is to run moderates. I don't see them losing their heads now.

Not in trouble:

8. Jon Kyl. They didn't come close to McCain, who had a history of heresies and is probably less popular than Kyl among primary voters.
9. John Barrasso.
10. Roger Wicker.  

41, Ind, CA-05

I like your list

I think it is very realistic. My alone comment would be about S Brown, what can be in high risk if his record is not enough conservative, but at this point you are right.

I think this cycle the teabagger movements will have some targets, but less than in 2010. I think they will work only against the obvious targets, and I think they will be more focused in the fight against Obama. They will work hard in the presidential republican primary.

If some republican want run for president as moderate can go to the list of high risk before than Lugar or Corker.

[ Parent ]
Opposition to KBH
Kay Bailey Hutchison. She might pull it out if the opposition splits, but her opponents will probably only have minor ideological differences among them.

Texas primaries have run-offs, so the opposition can't split in the Republican Primary.

[ Parent ]
I'd take Scott Brown off the list
They are not going to primary him. Agree on Snowe and Hatch, but I'd put Ensign in third place, then Lugar and Kyl. I'm not aware of Corker doing anything in particular to anger the right-wing base.

Lindsey Graham is lucky he's not up for re-election in 2012. He's a goner in a GOP primary.

More Tea Leaves...
The vote about earmarks:

Democrats the supported the (R) bill (* Gone baby gone):

Bayh*
Bennet
Feingold*
McCaskill
Nelson (FL)
Udall (CO)
Warner

Republicans that didn't support it:

Bennett*
Cochran
Collins
Inhofe
Lugar
Murkowski
Shelby
Voinovich*

This was seen as a symbolic vote, that had no real chance of passing.  The fact that Snowe and Brown voted for it was interesting.  Hatch probably would have anyway.  Kirk was a bit surprising.  Also you figured Ben Nelson would have wanted some Conservative Cred like McCaskill, Bill Nelson, and Warner wanted.

One by one:
I'll deal with both their primary chances and their general election chances:

1. From what I've read, Snowe either has to get LePage to endorse her, win a divided primary, or run as an Independent or Democrat. I am not sure what will happen, but I don't see her surviving as a Republican without the race turning brutally nasty in the end. I'd say she's the favorite in a three-way race and would almost be willing to not run a Democrat to make a two-way race, but if there are four candidates--a Democrat, a Republican, Snowe as an Independent, and a Green Party or Teabagger-type--I'm not sure what would happen.

The Democrats better be ready to pounce if it looks like she'll be vulnerable.

2. It seems likely that he'd be taken out, but I don't think this changes anything other than giving us a far more radical Republican. If there's any Democrat who can win the seat, that would be great, and I'll probably give him money. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

3. This is a real wild card, because while she'd probably be pretty hard to beat if she's the nominee, we'd need someone who doesn't have a huge statewide profile to have a decent shot at taking the seat, or so I think. If it's someone like the lieutenant governor, it's only slightly better than Hutchinson running.

And yes, call me crazy, but I think we can take the seat, if there's enough investment in the state and it's not a bad year for Democrats. The problem is that I don't see the investment coming from anywhere but the Obama campaign. I hope they are seriously considering throwing some money into the state, if only for building the party.

4. If he is Teabagged, we could take the seat, but if he runs, it's still his. I'm not sure what I want to happen, because he appears to be one of the few grown ups left in the party.

5. This is another race where it's hard to say what will happen. I don't think anyone has announced a challenge to Corker besides Hank Williams, Jr. (By the way, is this guy as much of a dumb ass as I think he might be? I know very little about him, but he strikes me as a more annoying version of Toby Keith.) But Williams has already supposedly consulted with Frist and Lamar Alexander, which is pretty incredible if it's true. Corker's not a moderate, let alone a liberal Republican. What did he do besides take financial reform seriously to have two big wigs in Tennessee politics start actively plotting against him?

Can the Democrats take this seat? I'd sure like they to try. Tennessee may not be the friendliest state for the Democrats these days, but why not run a major from one of the big cities? What's the worst that could happen? We lose by 10 points? I don't know if there is that deep of a bench in the state, but it doesn't look to be like Kansas, where we are scrapping the bottom of the barrel.  Plus, there just aren't that many pick up opportunities in 2012, so why not try to make this, and Texas, one?

6. He'd probably survive a primary, if only because the Republicans aren't stupid when it comes to this stuff.

Can he be beat? I doubt he'd go down like Santorum, but there's absolutely no reason the Democrats shouldn't work like crazy to take him out. This is a legitimate pick up opportunity where the battle really isn't uphill like it might be in some other states. They could always fail to knock off Brown, but they have a home field advantage, a deep bench of candidates, and a presidential year working for them.

7. I can't imagine he survives a primary, if only because he's so tainted. I don't know enough Nevada politics to know if anyone besides Angle might run as a Teabagger favorite, but unless the Republicans put up someone like Heller, I'd probably favor the Democrats here.

8. Again, what did he do to piss off the base? Or is this just a matter of the Red State crew wanting an even more conservative senator?

Is there anyone in the state Democratic party that could get more than ten percent of the white vote? The black vote already turns out strongly, so while there's some room for improvement, there's not that much room. Still, perhaps this is more gettable than some here think. I doubt the Republicans would take a challenge seriously, so perhaps we'd catch them napping until September, when they'd be pretty far behind. I almost want to try for this seat just to keep them on their toes.

9. I don't know of any primary challenges he's supposed to be facing, so it's really more of a general election question. Even more than Texas, Arizona is begging to be turned blue, so unless it's a bad year for the Democrats, outside investment in the state combined with a good candidate could give us a good shot at taking the seat.

Who could take him on? Harry Mitchell? Ann Kirkpatrick? I don't know who else might be competitive. PPP had him up 52-39 over Giffords in a somewhat recent poll, but does she have statewide name recognition?

10. Why wouldn't he survive a primary? And who else might take him on besides Dave Freudenthal?


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

Some good analysis but...
Can we give up on Texas already? Every year (beginning in 2002 with Ron Kirk) we hear the Democrat has a good shot, and every year we lose, usually substantially.

At some point, 10 years from now, Texas may become purple. 2012, it's bright red. So yep, on this one, I'm calling you crazy (well, at least deluded).

And I think there's very little chance in Tennessee, either. You saw what happened to Dems on Nov. 2nd there, right?

On the other hand, I agree with you on Arizona. With the right candidate, I do believe Kyl might be vulnerable.  

[ Parent ]
I think TX-Sen is Safe R, whether or not Hutchison survives the primary
John Sharp might well run for the Dem nod, especially if the GOP primary gets heated (which it will), but I suspect any of the Republicans, sans maybe Debra Medina, could pretty comfortably defeat him. Michael Williams, who I see winning the GOP nod, is more conservative than Hutchison, but has a "charming" Mike Huckabee-style demeanor that makes him appealing to many outside the base.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
Absolutely, it is Safe R
I think Texas is sometimes the eqivalent for Dems of what California is for Republican: a state that people always think we can win (mostly because of a surging Latino population), but we never do.

At some point, that may be true, but it certainly is not now, and won't be for probably the next several election cycles.

Talk to me in 2020.


[ Parent ]
Except that,
California isn't undergoing extreme demographic changes that are favorable to the Republicans, which they have yet to fully exploit. That's the key difference between Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California.

It might not happen as soon as I would like, but it's happening a lot sooner than some people think. 2020 might seem very far off to you, but it's terrifyingly close for Republicans.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
What makes Medina and Williams
so different? And exactly whom outside the Republican base is Williams going to appeal to with his Teabagger rhetoric?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Medina/Williams?
Medina was Sharon Angle of Texas, but she went on Glenn Beck and questioned the govt's involvement in 9/11, he basically called her an unelectable, moronic wacko, and she went from surging in the polls back down to the teens.  Good thing Angle didn't do something similar!  She got 18% of the vote in the only election she's ever run in, and it was a Primary election.  Michael Williams has been nominated and elected statewide 3 times.  He's very conservative, but he has a history of appealing to enough people to get elected in primaries and generals.  There is no comparing the two in terms of electability.  
[ Parent ]
Interesting.
However, while may not be as nutty as Angle or Medina, but he doesn't strike me as a particular political powerhouse. His victories are nice, but they aren't that huge, and my guess is that most people weren't voting for him because of his positions, but because he was a Republican in a Republican state--and in 2002, in what was a very Republican year.

I wouldn't say that he'd be an easy opponent, but he looks to be far more conservative than Hutchinson or even Cornyn. Maybe he's just a little too conservative for the state as whole. It wouldn't surprise me to learn he's very much against not only Medicare but Social Security. I wonder how that will play with voters in Texas, particularly the seniors that seem to always vote for the Republicans.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I really have to disagree
He's the kind of Republican we don't want to run against at all.  (Whereas I'll take Angle and Medina every day of the week...) Very conservative but a very diverse and impressive resume that hides his convictions.  All of his alt-energy stuff in Texas, the work with Big Brothers/Sisters, and the prosecution of the KKK as a member of Justice make him look very appealing.  Trying to paint him as anti-Senior is not going to work, even if it were true.
[ Parent ]
I don't doubt
his strengths as a candidate, but his job as senator would be different than his job as a railroad commissioner. It would directly concern areas like Social Security and also Medicare. The Democrats proposed some fairly minor cuts to Medicare in the coming decade as far of health care reform, which the Republicans, many of whom want to phase it out to the point of irrelevancy or eliminate the program entirely, used to bludgeon Democrats over the head with. It's that powerful, for better or worse, and unless Texas seniors are drastically different from other types of seniors, it could hurt him a lot. Maybe Texas is still friendly enough to Republicans that he can glide past this issue if it does hurt him, but if there's some sort of way to connect him to ending Social Security and Medicare, it'll be amongst the first lines of attack Democrats use.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Yes, I agree about Texas
If the Hispanic percentages continue to tack upward and the GOP does not improve its outreach to Hispanic voters, Texas will eventually become a swing state. But not until then.

For now, Texas is to the Democrats what California is to Republicans--fool's gold. It is a tantalizing state because it is the cornerstone of the other party's electoral college coalition, but even with strong candidates, it's a bridge too far. The difference, of course, is that long-term trends in California bring even more bad news for the GOP, but I bet that Carly Fiorina and Bill White could find a lot to talk about if they had a drink together.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
As long as the GOP keeps getting 40 percent of the Latino Vote
they're not going to lose in Texas any time soon.  Perry wiped the floor with White.  And considering the hype for the Dem candidate, 13-points was a massacre.

Bush did well with Latinos.  Perry even got 38 percent this year.

Latinos in Texas just aren't as liberal as they are in New York or California.  Unless or until that changes the GOP is safe in Texas for at least another decade.

[ Parent ]
~65-35 for White according to one.
And of course the TX GOP will be in control for another decade, but past that, they risk a serious wane of power.  Well, the TX GOP can go back on its new platform of supporting AZ's immigration law (something Perry opposes).  Also, the TX Dem Party needs to do MUCH better to register voters and GOTV.  Statewide, Latino turnout was 38% of registered voters, below the national average this year of 49%.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
For whatever reason,
older voters showed up in greater force than younger voters, amongst all races, in Texas this year. Fifty-eight percent of the electorate was over the age of 50 in this past election, according to the CNN exit polls. In the other age groups, they were far more equal. White actually won younger voters by a small margin.

Take a look at the link below, which I also posted in another thread. These two paragraphs are key:

For the Democratic Party nationally, the overwhelming Hispanic support presents an inviting opportunity, especially to develop party loyalty among younger Latinos, who backed Mr. Obama 76 percent to 19 percent for McCain, according the Pew analysis.

In Harris Country, which includes Houston, 70 percent of people older than 60 are Anglo, while more than 75 percent of people younger than 30 are non-Anglo, notes Professor Klineberg.

There's no guarantee that Texas Hispanics will vote exactly like Hispanics nationwide or that the presumably more liberal young Hispanic voters, both in Texas and nationwide, won't become a little more conservative as they get older. But if those numbers don't change drastically, both in Texas and nationwide, Republicans are pretty screwed.

http://www.politicalarticles.n...

There's also the issue of whom they are voting for. I could easily see some Texas Republicans doing better than national Republicans amongst Hispanics. It's already the case now.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
It's a mistake to assume the situation with hispanics remains static
Latinos and more specifically Mexicans tend to be more Democratic than they are liberal.  I'd use the analogy of white Catholics.  Republicans and conservatives in general were avowedly nativist and used anti-catholic sentiment to win elections or at least make them close.

Then once the demographics shifted enough to make that stategy untentable they reached out in part by using other groups as targets for attack (such as blacks) and common cause on a number of "cultural issues."

Now these previous attitudes continue to havea bit of a residual effect.  It's a factor in why catholic whites unlike most protestant whites are regarded as swing voters.  But once Catholics whites became important enough to woo they actually didn't hold back as much as one would've assumed years earlier.

The death of the Republilcan Party among hispanics is greatly exagerated.  Just look at the dems they usually end up nominating in the Bronx.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

[ Parent ]
Yes, but it's
stunted greatly outside of Florida, especially if they keep pushing nativist sentiment.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
The Republicans
could still get as much as 30 to 35 percent of the Hispanic vote and still lose big. That's probably enough of a percentage so that all of the Hispanics who might feel more comfortable with conservatives for any number of reasons might vote with or for Republicans and not really impact the Democrats much.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Here's the thing:
the number of seats that we can potentially pick up isn't high, if only because of the simple lack of Republicans running. We certainly need to be focused on keeping the seats in Montana and Virginia and the other states, but we shouldn't necessarily limit ourselves to trying for the seats in Nevada and Massachusetts as well as Maine and maybe Indiana. If we aren't in a weak position, there's no reason not to try to pick up some seats in states where the incumbent could be knocked off, leaving an unknown and/or extreme candidate as the nominee. We will also likely have the resources at the top to make investments in different states, something that might not be the case in a few years.

Will we win? I don't know, but even if we end up losing, it won't be without accomplishing anything. If our side makes an investment in registering new voters and turning them and older voters out through a new and better ground game strategy, we'll have a foundation for the future. If we can actually gain traction against some of these guys, which is far more likely if the incumbents are Teabagged, we will at least draw resources away from Virginia and other competitive seats. And if we get a little luck, we might be able to win some of them.

It won't be easy, but I wouldn't say it's impossible, regardless of how it went this year.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Here's my concern
I get the whole 50-state strategy, but we will have limied resources compared to what we had in say, 2008. We have to pick our battles wisely. If there really is a shot in Texas, than sure, we should try to win. But I don't think we should be putting money into a state that is a). not neccesary for presidential hopes and b). has proven again and again to be a loser at a statewide level.

I think 2012 is going to be a tougher year for Dems than you might, although I still think Obama is favored. I'd much rather put money into keeping the Virginia and Montana seats than trying to knock off incumbents in Texas and Tennessee. Sure, if we had unlimited resources, we could try it, but that's likely not how the world will work in 2012.  

[ Parent ]
What makes you
think Obama will have limited resources? About half of his donors from last time, which is about one million people, could give just one quarter of the $2,400 limit*, and he'd have $600 million. That would be about $67-67 million more than he collected last time--and this time, he won't have to worry about winning a primary.

The Democratic candidates running for House and Senate seats might have more trouble attracting dollars, but Obama could help them tremendously by simply setting up campaigns in their states and subsidizing the most expensive parts of their operations. You'd probably have to worry about the legal limits of this stuff, but it's insane to expect whatever Obama does to help other Democrats even if there's absolutely no coordination. And in a lot of these states, but especially Texas, it's easy to make the case we aren't performing anywhere close to our potential, making any return on investment even more worthwhile.

Of course, if money is tighter than I think, I wouldn't question the notion of defending the seats in Virginia and Montana for a second. But I don't think it'll be that tight at all.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Well first of all, why do you think Obama will collect that much?
it seems to me that there could be a ratcheting down of funds. Some the luster is off Obama right now.

Beyond that, the Republicans are likely to have more resources than they had in 2008 as well. Certainly the Senate and House committees will, and assuming they replace Steele, the RNC should be in pretty good shape too.  

[ Parent ]
I'm not saying he
will collect this much or that much. I'm simply saying that, right now, he has the potential to collect a lot, even if his support isn't what it once was--even if, as you said, some of the luster is off.

Forgive me if I sound like an insufferable bastard here, but I gave well over $1000 to various Democrats around the country this past cycle. I don't make that much, and it was probably more than I should have doled out, but that's what I gave. I considered giving even more. And while I seem to remember giving even more to him, assuming the records aren't off, I gave Obama $245 in 2008, back when I had even less money than I do now. There aren't that many people like me in this country, but there are probably enough that he doesn't have to worry about not having enough money. And this is before he even conceivably adds new donors to his list.

Now, this isn't the same thing as the Senate candidates or organizations having money, but as I've said, I figure that the Obama campaign can plow far more of the millions needed to register voters and set up a ground game. Maybe only the Obama campaign can do this.

I suspect, unless it's clear from early on it's going to be a bad year for the Democrats, they will be more or less equal when it comes to funding for campaigns besides the presidential campaign, both from inside and outside groups. And while they will do better than they did in 2008 if only because their ticket will likely be more popular with the base unless it's a very bad year for them, I am not sure their candidate will be able to have the same sort of fund raising success that Obama had. The ones that are likely to have the most success with the base and thus most able to raise money from small donors will probably struggle with everyone else, while the ones who are more mainstream won't be as acceptable to the base, thus forcing them to rely on more traditional fund raising. It's not that they won't be able to do better; it's that I suspect they won't be able to match Obama, who will now come equipped with the power of the presidency and everything it entails.

Now, will Obama be able to raise money, and thus help candidates in indirect ways, even if his base is kind of pissed off? I think so. There are always going to be people who sit one election out, but unless he does something truly boneheaded, I think his base will rally, especially as the Republicans pick their candidate and they start to think about what it'd be like to have Sarah Palin as president.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
White only lost 55-42
in a year that per stereotype should have been a landslide for an R in a state like TX.

A decent D Sen candidate in '12 should get more than 42%. Maybe 45%? Not yet competitive, barring a Christine O'Donnell quality candidate teabagging KBH.

'14 will be another off-year election, and hopefully the 6th year of an Obama administration. Under those circumstances, whomever is the R Gov candidate (along with Cornyn) will be heavily favored.

But what happens in '16, after the voter registration drives cited by user b.j. have had a chance to take hold? The D sweep of Dallas this election gives hope. If Hispanic registration / voting levels can rise to national norms by then, I think TX will begin to look purplish red.  

[ Parent ]
Lemme see...
Certain to be challenged and probably lose.

1) Kay Bailey Hutchison - She stepped on far too many toes in a very unsuccessful primary challenge to Rick Perry.  She drew blood first and after challenging a sitting governor the establishment won't just not come to her defense but may end up with their own piece of flesh.

2) Orrin Hatch - Too many deals with folks like Ted Kennedy coming back to bite him.  His only hope is if he can somehow change party rules and establish a primary.  He could try tacking right but how far is there to go?  Advocating secession and the stablishment of a Deseret Republic?

Gov. Gary Herbert himself could also use a process change and an open primary since he's also a moderate by Utah Republican standards.

3) John Ensign - The walking wounded.  However before we dismiss him let's look at David Vitter.  Vitter tacked hard right and snuggled up hard to the teabaggers.  And got lucky to run in the right year.  But Ensign's baggage is far more formidable.  And everyone smells blood.

Will get a challenged but probably win.

1) Richard Lugar - He's an adult in the hyperkinetic zoo of Fox Nation.  But he's also a very beloved figure in Indiana who has been around forever.  And he isn't exactly weak on any conservative issues except talking in even and measured tones.

He'll have just about the entire party for him.  But he also may get a top tiered challenger.

2) Olympia Snowe - Unpopular with Republicans but popular with the rest of state.  Sounds familiar.  But unlike Castle she is an incumbent Senator.  And the Republican Party in Maine is far healthier than that in Deleware where the atrophied electorate played no small part in Castle's defeat.

However Maine like Deleware is a closed primary.  But interest in the Republican Party among moderates may increase due to the wide open Republican contest for President which could pay dividends for her.

One other connection to Delaware however. What do Delaware and Alaska have in common?  Small populations and cheap media markets.  Which make it far easier for a challenger to pick up steam.

The rest

1) Corker - Tennessee is trending Republican and conservative but has a history of electing a more genteel class of politicians.  As long as he covers his right flank properly I don't see him getting a serious challenger.

2) Wicker - Even if the establishment takes on the trappings of populism the establishment tends to rule there.  Of course this is Mississippi so given the conservatism anything is possible.  But this is the state that coronates the very patrician Thad Cochran every six years.

3) Scott Brown - The Massachusetts Republican Party is not crazy.  After being in the wilderness they aren't going to mess with a good thing.  The last time they went hard right was in 1984 when Ray Shamie beat Elliot Richardson costing the Republicans a very winnable Senate seat.

4) Kyl - If McCain after sticking a needle in the eye of the Republicans repeatedly survived there is no way the more conventionally conservative Kyl goes down.

5) Barrasso - It is Wyoming with it's low population and cheap media markets so anything is possible.  He hasn't really done much to offend.  He used to be pro-choice but changed his position to pro-life.  He could be scalp that one could go after.  But there isn't much of a reason besides just getting a scalp.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

Yep, agree with this.
I think KBH will retire, and Ensign might get taken out by a non-teabagger. I also think Corker is more vulnerable than most people.

But otherwise, spot on.  

[ Parent ]
With Corker I'm just going on history.
Both Lamar! and Corker are moderate establishment politicians.  Albeit both moved right to stay in the good graces of a party that has moved to the right.

Before them Frist showed independence and broke with his party on occasion before becoming the Republican Majority Leader.  Senator Fred Thompson while using his acting talents to pretend to be Estes Kefauver was a moderate Republica establishment figure who frequently joined with Hagel and McCain.  Before them you had the very moderate James Sasser and Al Gore (who only later tacked left).

Going back further Howard Baker was the epitome of an establishment moderate Republican.  Bill Brock might be considered a notable exception but was from a very established political family and only served one term.  Before him was the very moderate Al Gore Sr.

Even Estes Kefauver with his fur caps, populist style, and showy Senate hearings where he never met an issue he wouldn't demagogue (pursuing such important issues as Betty Page and comic books) was a moderate who refused to sign the Southern Manifesto.

Tennesee doesn't have the same history of going for the fringes that other states have.  And it's why I'm giving Corker the benefit of the doubt.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

[ Parent ]
Good Analysis
One quibble though... running in Delaware involves advertising in the Philadelphia media market, which is not cheap. Probably a majority of Delaware's population lives less than an hour drive (well, absent traffic) from Philly.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03
[ Parent ]
Why am I reading that so many people are SURE Brown and maine won't get teabagged
I distinctly remember people saying the same thing about Mike Castle.  What people don't understand is that all of the moderates left the GOP in 2008 to have a say in the democratic primaries.  This has left the republican party a smaller and more conservative.  Christine O'Donnell would have never beat Castle in ANYTHING other than a GOP primary after 2008.  Not in in 1980, not in 2000, not in ANY OTHER YEAR.  I was pretty confident that O'Donnell was going to win late in the race, because she had momentum, and was a tea party darling.  I can GUARANTEE YOU that the same thing has happened to to MA GOP and the ME GOP.  It is smaller, and more conservative.  How can some right wing loser win in a supposedly moderate ME GOP gubernatorial primary last year?  No republican is safe, at all.  Not even Luger.  

They are all going to be challenged, I guarantee it.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

They'll probably all get challenged, but most of them won't get beat.
You cant apply the results of 2010 to 2012 automatically, and you certainly can't compare Scott Brown (a younger populist who everyone knows is about as moderate as Massachusets can elect) with Mike Castle (who was the ultimate establishment guy, had alienated a lot of South Delaware voters who make up the majority of Republicans in Delaware).

I mean, yeah, someone is going to primary Scott Brown, and that person will lose big

[ Parent ]
Brown teabagging
I mean, yeah, someone is going to primary Scott Brown, and that person will lose big

That sounds about right.  The questions are whether they'll gain enough traction to draw in lots of funding, and whether Brown will emerge damaged.

[ Parent ]
I'm going to go a litte against the grain here
I think there's a little bit of overestimating the effectiveness of tea party challenges in 2012 based on what happened in 2010. All of the above people likely will get some form of tea party challenges. But, the economy is likely to be better in 2012, and that's going to help incumbents of all stripes. Also, if you look at the effective tea party challenges against incumbents, there were two: Joe Miller in Alaska, who was able to defeat Lisa Murkowski on the basis of Palin's endorsement and there was an antiabortion measure on the ballot; and Christine O'Donnell, who won because of the perfect storm that was Mike Castle (i.e. moderate establishment Republican, angry South Delaware voters). And keep in mind that both Erik Erickson (the high priest of tea baggers) and the Tea Party people who actually dole out the funds are very conscious about what happened in both elections, despite their bluster. To mount an effective challenge, you need money, and it might not come as easy to crazy challengers as it did in 2010.

For example, take Olympia Snowe. It's true that the last PPP poll showed her not all that popular with Republican voters, but she'll likely have the strong endorsement of Paul LePage (who she went all out for in the last campaign - and keep in mind Castle had no such person in Delawara), she'll have money, and people will be aware she's a viable candidate as opposed to some random Christine O'Donnell type. That may not be enough, but I wouldn't count her out, especially if anger abates in the next couple of years. Erikson has already discourage people from focusing on her.

From my perspective, the two most vulnerable are Hatch (who I think is probably a goner because of Utah's convention system), and (surprisingly) Corker, who doesn't have the institutional support Lugar has built up and has only been in office one term in a state where Republicans will win the Senate race no matter who is the nominee. Erikson has already set his sites on him.  

Sorry, I know I forgot Bennett in Utah
But that was a convention system. I guess you could also argue that both Toomey and Rubio were effective Tea Party challenges, but Toomey was in before the Tea Party caught fire and Rubio always had some institutional support against Crist (i.e. Jeb Bush)  
[ Parent ]
good points...
Many also have over a year and a half to prepare for 2012.  Ask Murkowski or Castle how many days before the election they thought there was any chance they could lose the primary.  The number would probably be in the low single digits.  These others have much more time to prepare and not be caught off guard.  Doesn't mean they will all survive.  But none on the list are going to take the primary electorate for granted.   They will be calling county and municipal and precinct chairs PERSONALLY over the next year if they want to win.  Their opponents don't exist yet.  So they can be everywhere and make contact with the grassroots, and build up some good will.  This is exactly what I see Brown doing every weekend in Mass., and why I think he'll be fine.  He knows exactly what he has to do to win.
[ Parent ]
Barrasso is safe, Wicker probably also, but otherwise..
... they could all face a stiff challenge.  

Coats would have lost to Stutzman if the primary had been one week later. No comfort in that.  

The question on these is, WHO runs against them.

If ONE credible teabagger runs, then they could definitely pull an upset against a Lugar or a Corker or a Ensign. Potentiaally the same can be said for Kyl. McCain didn't trounce Hayworth despite Hayworth's considerable baggage.

Hatch is D.O.A. and Snowe can't win as a GOPer.  Hutchison is toast is she runs.

Brown is probably safe in the primary, but if he keeps the peace in the GOP, he may make himself more vulnerable in the general.

There is a very good chance that at least 5 of these senators will not be back, or at least not under the GOP label.

1) Hatch
2) Snowe
3) Hutchison
4) Ensign
5) tie Lugar
5) tie Corker
7) Kyl
8) Brown
9) Wicker
10) Barrasso

Maine
Since the consensus here is that Snowe stands a good chance of being ousted by her party - anyone know which Democrats are weighing bids for that seat in 2012?
They should draft
either Eliot Cutler or Rep. Michaud.  Either would be good.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Michaud might want to do it
if the GOP-controlled legislature draws a really bad map for his House district.
[ Parent ]
It's hard to do that in Maine.
There's only 2 districts so they must be roughly equal in population.  Therefore, in order to hurt Michaud, they will end up shoring up Pingree.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
One problem:
Michaud's district is more conservative of 2 - even some Democrats from Northern Maine are relatively conservative (especially - on social issues). Michaud got modest 55% in 2010 against not especially strong opponent, and LePage won it (Michaud's district) rather handily, so Republicans can surely compete here..

But in general - i agree...

[ Parent ]
How about one of the candidates
That ran against Pingree in her initial run for Congress in 2008? Maybe Adam Cote or Ethan Strimling? I remember both of them having pretty decent profiles and being good fundraisers. I think they'd be solid B-list candidates if we can't get a Cutler or a Michaud or a Pingree to risk it.

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)
[ Parent ]
What is
The liberal version of teabagging? Haltering? Sestaking? Lamonting?

I can see some crackpot taking a shot at Dianne Feinstein. And, of course, Lieberman.

Lieberman isn't a Democrat
n/t

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)
[ Parent ]
speaking of Sharron Angle
which we (kind of) are in this thread, Sue Lowden tells a reporter,

"I'm still surprised I didn't win," Lowden said. "I thought I'd be packing for D.C. right now, absolutely." [...]

"Chickens are funny," Lowden said. "I didn't know just how funny they were. People enjoyed that and got a laugh."

She was shocked that the comment at a town hall meeting in rural Nevada became so widespread so quickly.

"And how it went national," Lowden said. "I will never understand that, how it was interpreted as something funny. But chickens are a funny subject.

"I don't know if that was the defining moment," Lowden said. "But I look back and still don't quite understand how that took off the way it did. I didn't understand how it went so nuclear. I don't understand why it got so big."


Most will survive
I actually think most will survive and not even face big challenges.  There will be too many Dem seats to target; I think it's more likely that you will have GOP primary races there - with Tea Party candidates against establishment GOPer for the right to take on some of the big Dem targets.

1. I don't expect KBH to run again; if she does, she will lose the primary.

2. I don't expect Ensign will run again; if he does, he will lose in the primary - probably not to a Tea Party candidate, though.

3.  Hatch is well aware of his risk and will make damn sure he has enough supporters in place at the convention to hold on to the nomination.  He is MUCH better at this game than Bennett - I expect him to win.

4.  I expect Snowe will be challenged, but my gut feeling is that the challenge fizzles.

5.  I don't see Brown being challenged at all.

6.  I wouldn't be shocked if someone challenged Corker, but don't think it's likely to be a serious one.

7.  Lugar?  He'll draw a challenger, but will fight him off with indy and Dem votes if needed.

The rest I don't see any real threat to.  This year gave all of these guys a big head's up.  They have two years to position themselves and I expect they'll do well at it.  I look more for fights in places like Ohio, Nebraska, Florida and Pennsylvania.  

43 - Male - GOP/Libertarian - FL 22

welcome back
n/t

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)
[ Parent ]
Thanks
Just had to take a 'lil break. :)

43 - Male - GOP/Libertarian - FL 22
[ Parent ]
I honestly could see every single one of them losing
except for Barrasso and maybe Wicker.  And they will start much much earlier this year.

Corker could have a very tough time with him acting so god damn Senatorial and being in such a tea-bagger heavy state like Tennessee.  I could see him going down in the biggest defeat.

Hatch by a mile
1. Orrin Hatch- Top-tier challenger waiting in the wings with Jason Cahffetz, plus its a convention, with no option to fight it out in a primary unless he holds Chaffetz under 60%

2. KBH- After Hatch, she has the strongest potential challengers, plus TX, unlike Maine, has run-offs.

3. Snowe- An endorsement from LePage, her moving to the right, and the possibility of a fractured field make me more confident about her. Plus, she has a ton of money for ME, and, like McCain, see's her challenge coming and is ready for heavy oppo research and to strangle her opponent's campaign in the crib.

4. Lugar- Same as Snowe, he sees it coming and has a ton of money in the bank to nuke his opponent. His refusal to move right will hurt, but may end up being smart by attracting more opponents, dividing the field. Plus, open primaries.

5. Corker- No idea why, but teabaggers are pissed at him. However, moderate Bill Haslam's strength in the gov primary have to give him hope.

6. Wicker- There is no obvious challenger here, and he has reversed his position on earmarks.

7. Barrasso- If Lummis wants to move up before 2014, she could primary him. I don't see him being seriously challenged though.

8. Brown- Popular even with teabaggers.

9. Kyl- Only Republican in Senate leadership teabaggers somewhat like.

10. Ensign- He's one of the more likely people on this list to lose, but if he does, its not because he isn't conservative enough.  

The difference between Snowe and Lugar
Lugar is manifestly popular amongst everyone.  Snowe is only popular amongst Dems and Indies.  She's seriously underwater amongst Republicans and they have closed primaries there so there won't be a repeat of the MI-Gov primary there.

Also, Castle had a ton of oppo research on hand (it's very easy with O'Donnell), threw that out at her with all his strength after seeing Murkowski lose, and he lost.  Up in Maine, Snowe is less liked amongst local Republicans than Castle was in DE.  And not even a LePage endorsement can help her as they will still tear her to pieces.  We'll see what TPX does.

Snowe must know that she cannot appease them.  They'll still go after her like zombies in "Dawn of the Dead."  You can't reason with zombies.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

[ Parent ]
Castle
Waited until too late.
[ Parent ]
Disappointed by all the negativity here
Republicans set about putting as many seats in play as they could in early 2009 when it still looked like the most likely outcome was Democrats gaining seats in the chamber. They ended up winning seats in MA, IL, PA and WI where Obama had just won by double digits. They likely would have won in DE too if their star recruit hadn't been teabagged and different nominees may have changed the outcome in NV and CO. In all those states Obama's winning margin was at least nine points. Nobody knows what the national environment will be like in two years time and with the disparity in the number of seats up there is even more need for Dems to find some offense. Chris Coons had the balls to try and was ultimately rewarded. John Sharp in Texas is probably as good as it gets. The other one that stands out to me is TN. I think Corker is more vulnerable than CW suggests.  
I don't think Corker is vulnerable... (or maybe you were talking about in the primary, where I still don't think he's vulnerable)
but there is practically nobody who could challenge him on the Democratic ticket. Democrats received a horrible "shellacking" in the TN-House (I can't remember the exact amount of seats). We saw Lincoln Davis lose by a 20 point margin (far worse than anybody expected), Roy Herron not even get 40, and Brett Carter not even get 30. And Jim Cooper has already announced he is not running. The Democrats in TN will only be really competitive in Memphis and Nashville for a while.

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26
[ Parent ]
Why can't
any of the mayors from the big cities in the state run? Most of them are Democrats.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
I was talking primary
Obama carried Illinois by 25 points in 2008. Debbie Halvorson won by 23, Melissa Bean by 22, Bill Foster by 16 and Phil Hare was unopposed. They all just lost and Mark Kirk was elected to the Senate. To not even try would be pathetic.  
[ Parent ]
Exactly.
Plan to be on offense. Nobody is saying that we need to be pouring money into Texas in September of 2012 if Sharp is 18 points down. What we are saying, or at least what you and I are saying, is that we should find the best candidates possible, get to work early setting up ground games, and then campaign as if we are ten points down, to borrow the Carville saying, until election day. If we end up losing, we will have shocked nobody, but if we end up making it competitive, or even winning, in some of these states, it will mean nothing but good things for Democrats. We can make adjustments to the races as things become clearer, but there's absolutely no reason to throw in the towel now.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Teabagger Cattle Call | 175 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox