Rothenberg: Democrats could get to 60 Senate seats by 2010

[Mr.Phips]

Remember everybody was talking about a Republican supermajority after the 2004 election. It turns out that they were wrong. Anything could happen between now and 2010, Although it is very fun to predict.   

I think it was always assumed that Republicans would not be able to sustain the 55-45 Senate majority after the 2006 election.  It just seemed very unlikely that their majority would be lost.

[Mr.Phips]

The idea of South Dakota being seriously contested...Republicans need to let go of that one.  Johnson is running for re-election, is popular and has sympathy for what he has suffered.  He would beat Governor Rounds - even if Rounds ran which seems unlikely.  The Republican bench is pretty shallow in South Dakota.

A recent poll showed him beating Rounds 53%-39%.

[Mr.Phips]

Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine won't really be contested, IMO. Colorado, Louisiana and South Dakota will be close, though.

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.

You must be kidding about New Hampshire.  That is going to be a barnburner.

[Mr.Phips]

The idea of South Dakota being seriously contested...Republicans need to let go of that one.  Johnson is running for re-election, is popular and has sympathy for what he has suffered.  He would beat Governor Rounds - even if Rounds ran which seems unlikely.  The Republican bench is pretty shallow in South Dakota.

A recent poll showed him beating Rounds 53%-39%.

What pollster?

Feldman Group

[Mr.Phips]

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

Because he's a leftie who doesn't fit the state at all. And that makes his victory all the sweeter.

Then why did Brian Schweitzer almost beat Burns in 2000?

So you're admitting that if Burns didn't make totally outrageous comments and wasn't one of the most recognizably corrupt members of Congress tied to one of the most recognizably corrupt men in the country, Tester would have been owned?

[Mr.Phips]

So you're admitting that if Burns didn't make totally outrageous comments and wasn't one of the most recognizably corrupt members of Congress tied to one of the most recognizably corrupt men in the country, Tester would have been owned?

Yes, obviously (although I doubt Tester would have run in that case). But who cares? Now we have a Senator who wants to repeal the PATRIOT Act and immediately withdraw from Iraq. I'm glad we had a narrow victory with a liberal instead of a solid victory with DLCer Morrison.

Burns has been pounding the state with the TV ad message that "Tax-hike Tester is too liberal for Montana" and would have voted differently from Montana's other senator, Democrat Max Baucus, on the Bush tax cuts, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the energy bill, Patriot Acts I and II, the flag amendment and the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts.

He's also pro-choice and opposes ANWR drilling. It must irritate you to no end knowing that he was elected in a state that voted 59 percent for Bush... it would be like Jim Talent winning in Rhode Island.

Not quite.  Montana is not an evangelical Conservative state like states in the deep south.  It is more of a libertarian state and is majority pro-choice.  Notice how Tester is strongly against gun control?  That plays well in Montana.

[Mr.Phips]

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

Because he's a leftie who doesn't fit the state at all. And that makes his victory all the sweeter.

So you're admitting that if Burns didn't make totally outrageous comments and wasn't one of the most recognizably corrupt members of Congress tied to one of the most recognizably corrupt men in the country, Tester would have been owned?

Yes. Your point?

Just making sure you guys weren't on your whole "Montana is going to be a Dem state in two years!" kick anymore.

Then why did Brian Schweitzer almost beat Burns in 2000?

I don't think Schweitzer is a liberal at least not to the extent that Tester is a liberal.

Tester is hardly a liberal.  He is against gun control and a lot of other things that liberals support.

[Mr.Phips]

Not quite.  Montana is not an evangelical Conservative state like states in the deep south.  It is more of a libertarian state and is majority pro-choice.  Notice how Tester is strongly against gun control?  That plays well in Montana.

It's not a religious right state, but that doesn't make it socially liberal. Montanans tend to be economically conservative, too.

Tester is hardly a liberal.  He is against gun control and a lot of other things that liberals support.

I'm a liberal, and I oppose gun control. Tester is left-wing on almost every issue...

... although nobody would consider Tester an anti-globalization activist, his position on international trade is more in line with the protesters who shut down Seattle in 1999 than with the Democratic Leadership Council.

In addition to the examples I gave above.

Being pro fair-trade makes Tester a populist.  Free trade is not popular in Montana.