Rothenberg: Democrats could get to 60 Senate seats by 2010 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 01:09:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Rothenberg: Democrats could get to 60 Senate seats by 2010 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Rothenberg: Democrats could get to 60 Senate seats by 2010  (Read 10029 times)
Deano963
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,866


« on: February 17, 2007, 08:43:38 PM »


I see the Republicans making two net gains, and the democrats making one net gain for a 50-50 Senate...with a Republican Vice President breaking the tie. Then again...it could be a Democrat Vice President...who knows.

Just which two seats do you see flipping to the Republicans? Louisiana is one, and only deluded republican hacks seriously believe that South Dakota or Montana will be seriously contested, so what is your second seat that you are so sure is going to flip?
Logged
Deano963
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,866


« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2007, 09:43:19 PM »

The only reason the GOP gained in Montana is because the Democrats picked up lots of seats in 2004 because of backlash against Martz (similar to the situation in Ohio last year). Baucus isn't going anywhere.

Another reason the Republicans gained seats in the Montana state lagislature in '06 was b/c almost all of the MT Democratic Party's resources and money was put into Jon Tester's Senate race. They had bascially no money whatsoever left over to spend on state legislative races. IMO, it was the right decision, and obviously this won't a be a problem for the MT Dems agian in '08 (Max Baucus's Senate reelection race is different b/c he is the incumbent and he is well-funded already and he is not likely to draw a strong challenger anyways, so he won't be a drain on the party, AND Brian Schweitzer and his stratospheric approval ratings are up for reelection as well) or in 2010 b/c neither Tester or Baucus will be up for reelection. I think the Democrats will win the MT legislature back in the near future.
Logged
Deano963
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,866


« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2007, 10:39:59 PM »

The only reason the GOP gained in Montana is because the Democrats picked up lots of seats in 2004 because of backlash against Martz (similar to the situation in Ohio last year). Baucus isn't going anywhere.

Another reason the Republicans gained seats in the Montana state lagislature in '06 was b/c almost all of the MT Democratic Party's resources and money was put into Jon Tester's Senate race. They had bascially no money whatsoever left over to spend on state legislative races. IMO, it was the right decision, and obviously this won't a be a problem for the MT Dems agian in '08 (Max Baucus's Senate reelection race is different b/c he is the incumbent and he is well-funded already and he is not likely to draw a strong challenger anyways, so he won't be a drain on the party, AND Brian Schweitzer and his stratospheric approval ratings are up for reelection as well) or in 2010 b/c neither Tester or Baucus will be up for reelection. I think the Democrats will win the MT legislature back in the near future.

Tell me again, why did Tester only win by about a point?

1) - What in the world does that question have to do with anything I just said?

2) - Well, one reason why he "only won by about a point" is probably b/c he was outspent by Conrad Burns by $4 million in state where every dollar goes a long way:

http://www.opensecrets.org/states/election.asp?State=MT&year=2006
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 12 queries.