Schumer Sets Sights High for 2006: Will Target 7 States

[Sarnstrom]

WASHINGTON Dec 27, 2005 — Despite being New York's less-famous senator, Charles Schumer stayed busy in 2005, keeping a hand or quote in almost every major congressional battle.

Now he is out to prove he has the strategy to elect Senate Democrats and maybe wrest control from the Republicans.

Schumer, the head of Senate Democrats' campaign efforts, said Tuesday he is focusing on seven states where he believes they can take GOP-held Senate seats in 2006: Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Montana, Tennessee, and Arizona.

"If the stars align right we could actually take back the Senate," Schumer said.

The Senate currently has 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one Democratic-voting independent. In 2006, there are five open Senate seats, as well as 14 Democratic senators seeking re-election and 14 Republicans seeking re-election.

Schumer heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which had more than $22 million available according to their last fundraising report. That's more than double the cash available to their counterparts in the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

NRSC spokesman Brian Nick said Schumer's current fundraising advantage "means zilch" and his list of target states "is suspect at best."

The NRSC also is looking at replacing some Democratic senators in places like Maryland, Minnesota and New Jersey.

Missouri GOP strategist Lloyd Smith, who is a senior adviser to Republican incumbent Jim Talent, added that Democrats will need a lot more than a financial edge to win next year's race in his state.

"There's gonna be an attempt to nationalize this race by the Chuck Schumers and the Hillary Clintons, but ultimately the political singing senators from New York aren't going to play that well here," Smith said.

But one political observer said Schumer's list of seven target states in 2006 may not be as far-fetched as his detractors claim.

Bruce Oppenheimer, a Vanderbilt University politics professor, said the conditions in Tennessee may be ripe for a Democratic win.

"People think this race would lean Republican, all other things being equal. But it's in play," said Oppenheimer. "For the Democrats, it's certainly doable."

In part to counteract charges that Democrats are disconnected from average Americans, Schumer has for years boosted his political strength by constant public appearances throughout New York state.

Every year, he has visited each of the 62 counties, talking up local issues or touting some new piece of federal funding. In 2004, that effort paid off with Schumer winning all but one county.

It is a strategy he is preaching to 2006 candidates.

Schumer is also trying to pare his party's message down to a few straightforward ideas.

"Mostly, it's the meat and potato issues: Save Social Security. Fix prescription drugs. Energy independence," he said.

Democrats are staking a large measure of their future on public dissatisfaction with President Bush, highlighted by the recent battle over renewing the Patriot Act.

Senate Democrats forced a temporary extension instead of the permanent extension Republicans had sought. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid gave Schumer credit for the win.

"I can say, without any amount of puffing, that no one was more responsible for our working out the Patriot Act to our satisfaction and to the benefit of the country than Schumer," Reid said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1446601&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[Sarnstrom]

It's interesting that the DSCC has outraised the NRSC by more than 2 to 1.

[Sarnstrom]

GREAT for him

He's forgetting one, though!  My state!

If Lott does retire than yes we should and will target the state assuming that Mike Moore runs. But if Lott does run for re-election than Moore won't run, and Erik Fleming doesn't have chance in hell of ever making it to the Senate.

[Ben.]

I’ve been saying for a while that Schumer has been a darn fine leader of the DSCC.

And despite his terrible ability to insert his foot in his mouth, Dean’s not been bad on the technical side, nor has Harry Reid been too bad in the Senate only weak link I can see is Na…. [unintelligible rant]  

The fundraising is good, a clear national message is key and would be a big step for such a usually fractious and ill disciplined party (in the past thanks largely the way in which Progressive and Pragmatic Dems have clashed and ended up helping no one but the GOP)… what is now key is getting the right candidates and only rank and file Dems can balls that one up now.


I would also say that if Mississippi comes up though and Moore runs it’s a much better bet than Rhode Island, Arizona (both of which are long shots at best IMHO), Tennessee, Montana even Ohio and Missouri… what is more Moore (no pun intended) will rake in huge amounts of cash from the trial lawyer lobby and deserves all the help the DSCC can give him.            

[TheresNoMoney]

GREAT for him

He's forgetting one, though!  My state!

Well if Lott retires then Mississippi will certainly jump ahead of Arizona, and possibly Tennessee and Montana as well.

[TheresNoMoney]

Missouri GOP strategist Lloyd Smith, who is a senior adviser to Republican incumbent Jim Talent, added that Democrats will need a lot more than a financial edge to win next year's race in his state.

"There's gonna be an attempt to nationalize this race by the Chuck Schumers and the Hillary Clintons, but ultimately the political singing senators from New York aren't going to play that well here," Smith said.

Too bad neither Schumer nor Clinton are running in Missouri, you idiot.

[Moooooo]

It's interesting that the DSCC has outraised the NRSC by more than 2 to 1.

Probaby because we have more incumbents up for re-election.

[TheresNoMoney]

Probaby because we have more incumbents up for re-election.

I'd give the credit to Chuck Schumer. He's one of the top fundraisers in Washington.

He raised a gazillion dollars for his Senate campaign in 2004 and has extensive contacts.

[Galactic Overlord]

Schumer is audacious if nothing else. I'm not willing to grant him Tennessee or Arizona, though.

Missouri GOP strategist Lloyd Smith, who is a senior adviser to Republican incumbent Jim Talent, added that Democrats will need a lot more than a financial edge to win next year's race in his state.

"There's gonna be an attempt to nationalize this race by the Chuck Schumers and the Hillary Clintons, but ultimately the political singing senators from New York aren't going to play that well here," Smith said.

Too bad neither Schumer nor Clinton are running in Missouri, you idiot.

No, but a vote for McCaskill would put them in power. That's what the Talent campaign would tell MO voters.

[Moooooo]

Schumer is audacious if nothing else. I'm not willing to grant him Tennessee or Arizona, though.

Missouri GOP strategist Lloyd Smith, who is a senior adviser to Republican incumbent Jim Talent, added that Democrats will need a lot more than a financial edge to win next year's race in his state.

"There's gonna be an attempt to nationalize this race by the Chuck Schumers and the Hillary Clintons, but ultimately the political singing senators from New York aren't going to play that well here," Smith said.

Too bad neither Schumer nor Clinton are running in Missouri, you idiot.

No, but a vote for McCaskill would put them in power. That's what the Talent campaign would tell MO voters.

That little theory works both ways.  In MN, NJ, MD, RI, and PA Democrats can claim a vote for the Republican is a rubber stamp for Bush who is still widly unpopular in all of those states (and several others).

[TheresNoMoney]

No, but a vote for McCaskill would put them in power. That's what the Talent campaign would tell MO voters.

They can try it. Missouri until 2004 was the ultimate swing state, and even in an extremely strong GOP year, Kerry still got a little over 46% of the vote.

Bush's approval ratings in Missouri have been in the 30's the past few months, and I don't think that will help Talent.

[Q]

charges that Democrats are disconnected from average Americans

As we saw in 2004, Americans are not polarized along lines of economics or "class" or some other factor that creates "average" or "true" Americans.

I've never understood the basis for this claim, and it probably makes me more angry than anything else the Repubs do (other than policy stuff).  It's things like that this that make me keep my red avatar (and the equivalent in real life) rather than switching to independent.

Oh, and Chuck: Don't waste any money on Arizona.  The other 6 are great, though, but if you have any extra, save it for Mississippi in case Lott retires.  If not, then focusing on PA, OH, MT, RI, MO, and TN (in that order) would be ideal.

[Galactic Overlord]

No, but a vote for McCaskill would put them in power. That's what the Talent campaign would tell MO voters.

They can try it. Missouri until 2004 was the ultimate swing state, and even in an extremely strong GOP year, Kerry still got a little over 46% of the vote.

Bush's approval ratings in Missouri have been in the 30's the past few months, and I don't think that will help Talent.

Missouri's swing status has been owed to the fact that some rural areas, primarily in the north, have voted for Democrats, and that, combined with the St. Louis and Kansas City vote, can swing the state for the Democrats.  But if the rural areas line up along with the conservative suburbs near St. Louis, the Republican wins.  The challenge for McCaskill is to win over rural voters, and if she's pro-abortion rights and pro-gun control, she's toast. She'd cut it close, but she wouldn't win.  Also, even though Missouri hosts tight contests, the Republican candidate has generally been more successful, such as Senator Danforth in a tight re-election race in 1982 amid a bad GOP year, or Senator "Kit" Bond winning in 1992 even though Clinton carried the state, or for that matter his win in the 1986 GOP washout or the 1998 blacklash over Clinton's impeachment.

Re: Kerry's 46%. Certainly nothing to sneeze at.  Then again, no Democrat has gotten to 51% in a presidential election in the state since Jimmy Carter in 1976. 46% is just one or two percentage points below what Democrats have usually gotten in Missouri lately: Gore 2000 47%, Clinton 1996 48%, Dukakis 1988 48%,etc.

[TheresNoMoney]

Missouri's swing status has been owed to the fact that some rural areas, primarily in the north, have voted for Democrats, and that, combined with the St. Louis and Kansas City vote, can swing the state for the Democrats.  But if the rural areas line up along with the conservative suburbs near St. Louis, the Republican wins.

Obviously turnout will be lower than in a presidential election year, and the race will likely be determined by who gets their voters to turn out. But you're right that McCaskill will have to do better than Kerry did in rural areas (although that shouldn't be too hard). She was born and raised in rural Missouri.

The challenge for McCaskill is to win over rural voters, and if she's pro-abortion rights and pro-gun control, she's toast.

No offense, but I'm really sick of these litmus tests you Republicans hold up for every Democratic candidate. Tim Kaine was painted as a "pro-abortion", "pro-gun control" "liberal" and he won the Virginia governor's race in an upset by 6% (in a state more strongly Republican than Missouri).  Why do Republicans think that abortion and gun control are the only two issues that matter??? It's quite tiresome. These are the most important issues only for the most far-right conservatives.

McCaskill is pro-choice and I honestly have no idea what her stances are on gun control. She could be a big gun rights supporter or not. A certain segment of the population are single-issue voters that vote purely on abortion, and 95% of Democrats will never win those votes so who cares?

Anyway, there will be many, many issues more important than gun ctontrol. Rural people care about economic issues too, you know? Also, stem cell research will certainly be an important social issue in this race, as there will likely be a statewide vote on state-funded embryonic stem cell research, which most voters are in support of. Talent in the past has been a staunch opponent, but could possibly flip-flop on the issue if he thinks it will hurt him.

The Missouri economy has gone way downhill in Bush's tenure and it has resulted in extremely low approval ratings in the state of Missouri. Talent votes with Frist/Delay/Bush/Rove 99% of the time and the voters of Missouri certainly could decide they want a change from the same old Republican crap.

And remember, McCaskill led Talent 47% to 45% in the most recent Rasmussen poll.

[Galactic Overlord]

Missouri's swing status has been owed to the fact that some rural areas, primarily in the north, have voted for Democrats, and that, combined with the St. Louis and Kansas City vote, can swing the state for the Democrats.  But if the rural areas line up along with the conservative suburbs near St. Louis, the Republican wins.

Obviously turnout will be lower than in a presidential election year, and the race will likely be determined by who gets their voters to turn out. But you're right that McCaskill will have to do better than Kerry did in rural areas (although that shouldn't be too hard). She was born and raised in rural Missouri.

The challenge for McCaskill is to win over rural voters, and if she's pro-abortion rights and pro-gun control, she's toast.

No offense, but I'm really sick of these litmus tests you Republicans hold up for every Democratic candidate. Tim Kaine was painted as a "pro-abortion", "pro-gun control" "liberal" and he won the Virginia governor's race in an upset by 6% (in a state more strongly Republican than Missouri).  Why do Republicans think that abortion and gun control are the only two issues that matter??? It's quite tiresome. These are the most important issues only for the most far-right conservatives.

McCaskill is pro-choice and I honestly have no idea what her stances are on gun control. She could be a big gun rights supporter or not. A certain segment of the population are single-issue voters that vote purely on abortion, and 95% of Democrats will never win those votes so who cares?

Anyway, there will be many, many issues more important than gun ctontrol. Rural people care about economic issues too, you know? Also, stem cell research will certainly be an important social issue in this race, as there will likely be a statewide vote on state-funded embryonic stem cell research, which most voters are in support of. Talent in the past has been a staunch opponent, but could possibly flip-flop on the issue if he thinks it will hurt him.

The Missouri economy has gone way downhill in Bush's tenure and it has resulted in extremely low approval ratings in the state of Missouri. Talent votes with Frist/Delay/Bush/Rove 99% of the time and the voters of Missouri certainly could decide they want a change from the same old Republican crap.

And remember, McCaskill led Talent 47% to 45% in the most recent Rasmussen poll.

I'd hardly boil this down to "litmus test" issues.  Do you think Democrat Ike Skelton would retain his high popularity in his heavily rural, heavily Bush-favored district if he did not oppose gun control?  How about  Skelton's pro-life views?  They certainly keep Mr. Skelton untouchable, and he's winning in territory Democrats need to if they wish to win Missouri.

You may hate hearing about these "litmus tests" but many rural voters in states like Missouri care about them a hellvalot.  You say who cares?  They might say, well we used to vote Democrat.  Now we don't.  It is no accident that Kerry, who was perceived as more liberal than Gore, did worse in rural counties that Gore had managed to win. 

Re: Kaine.  That election proved that going negative against someone is useless without having a proactive agenda your base can get behind.  Kilgore tried to define his opponent as liberal, but he didn't define himself enough as conservative.  Notably, the Republican candidates for attorney general and lt. governor did better in places like Virginia Beach, while Kilgore did badly.  Talent is a different matter.  He can excite conservatives and religious voters to turn out for him.  There was a lot of grumbling that Kilgore just wasn't doing it on the conservative side.

Re: Stem Cells. I don't know. We'll have to see on that one.  You may be right.

I don't discount the poll.  I didn't say Talent wasn't in trouble.  But the man still has some powerful arrows in his quiver.

[TheresNoMoney]

I'd hardly boil this down to "litmus test" issues.  Do you think Democrat Ike Skelton would retain his high popularity in his heavily rural, heavily Bush-favored district if he did not oppose gun control?  How about  Skelton's pro-life views?

They help him, but I'm sure he could still win re-election if voters knew him and trusted him. Most voters are not single-issue voters.

You may hate hearing about these "litmus tests" but many rural voters in states like Missouri care about them a hellvalot.

I'm sure they do, but you have to remember that these voters are going to vote Republican anyway. 98% of gun nuts and strict pro-lifers are going to vote Republican no matter what. You can't worry about voters that aren't going to vote for you under any circumstances. Clearly you can still win the state without winning the votes of gun nuts and pro-life activists.

And for the record, I did a search and it seems like McCaskill is at least moderate on gun issues. I'm sure the NRA will endorse Talent, but I don't think gun control will be a big issue.

Re: Kaine.  That election proved that going negative against someone is useless without having a proactive agenda your base can get behind.  Kilgore tried to define his opponent as liberal, but he didn't define himself enough as conservative.

I disagree. Everyone knew that Kilgore was a fire-breathing conservative, but voters wanted someone who could actually govern in a pragmatic, effective manner. Kilgore was a right-wing ideologue who offered little more than the usual right-wing rhetoric. He would've been a horrible governor.

Notably, the Republican candidates for attorney general and lt. governor did better in places like Virginia Beach, while Kilgore did badly.

Bolling and McDonnell vastly outspend their opponents and had much more visibility during the campaign. Deeds and Byrne greatly exceeded expectations given their disadvantages. Byrne getting 49.32% of the vote as a very liberal Democrat was a huge surprise. Deeds would've won his race if he had been close to his opponent in spending and visibility.

Talent is a different matter.  He can excite conservatives and religious voters to turn out for him.

Religious voters probably peaked in the 2004 elections. They'll still be a pretty big factor, but not as much as before. Much of the state of Missouri is disgusted with Bush/Blunt, and many Republicans and GOP-leaning independents will either not be very motivated to vote or will be open to voting for McCaskill because they want a change. 

I don't discount the poll.  I didn't say Talent wasn't in trouble.  But the man still has some powerful arrows in his quiver.

Well, he's an incumbent in a GOP-leaning state, and those are definitely "powerful arrows". But voter dissatisfaction is high with the current Republican regime in Washington, and the time may be right for McCaskill to win.

[MissCatholic]

Its being very optimistic. I would take 2/3 victories from Ohio, Missouri or Pennslyvania. Montana is important as democrats are enjoying the winning feeling and Burns is a very naughty boy. Arizona no chance. Rhode Island will be difficult. I cant see how the republicans are going to be able to win in Minnesota when democrats have already said that they plan to nationalise both the senate and governor races. Maryland could be a real bloodbath but will help democrats.

Florida could go republican if they find a good candidate.

[Gustaf]

Arizona is pretty much out of the question, I think Schumer is just saying that to give the impression that Democrats are going for 51 seats. The other 6 are possible but several are unlikely. I think a high-profile incumbent in a friendly state is likely to be reelected, but we'll see...

[Galactic Overlord]

Wow...I've never had my post dissected section by section before...heh heh.

Anyway...

I'll grant the Democrats that they've recruited the best candidate possible to take on Talent, and that if the year breeds discontent with the GOP, he will probably lose.  1986 would be Exhibit A for such a scenario.  I still think the trends in the state favor Talent, though.

I'm not sure it's necessarily that they are "single issue" voters.  I think it's more of a general mentality.  People who support position A may be inclined to support Position B.  And as to whether religious voters have peaked last year, there's always the chance that a Supreme Court battle, whether it happens with Alito or if a new vacany appears, will stir them up again.

People knew Kilgore was conservative, but it seemed he wasn't standing strong enough on those issues.  You can find articles that talk about various conservative groups being somewhat frustrated with him for not signing no new tax pledges, being fuzzy on abortion, etc.  From what I read, it seemed Kilgore had a suburban problem more than anything else.  He won rural counties that Warner had won four years back, but he lost ground in the suburbs, moderate and conservative.   

Rhode Island will be difficult. I cant see how the republicans are going to be able to win in Minnesota when democrats have already said that they plan to nationalise both the senate and governor races.

I think Chafee has a chance if he gets past the primary, but the NRSC isn't helping by bashing Laffey.  It's just making the Republican base madder. 

Minnesota is a blue state, but a lighter shade, more like a purple state.  Republicans have actually done quite well on the state level.   Kennedy will do well in his surburban base and in the southern rural country, but key for him will be the northern areas that have gunowning, pro-life Democrats.  Bush tried but wasn't able to win enough of them to win the state.  Kennedy, being a local official, may do better.  It will be interesting to see how Ms. Klobuchar does in the Iron Range.

[Sarnstrom]

Interesting comment from Jon Kyl:

“I think they were embarrassed at not having an opponent for me” in 2000,” Kyl said. “Because my opponent is very well-funded they see that he may have a chance. Because of his money he probably does have a chance.”

http://www.mohavedailynews.com/articles/2005/12/29/news/local/local1.txt

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Minnesota is a blue state, but a lighter shade, more like a purple state.  Republicans have actually done quite well on the state level.   Kennedy will do well in his surburban base and in the southern rural country, but key for him will be the northern areas that have gunowning, pro-life Democrats.  Bush tried but wasn't able to win enough of them to win the state.  Kennedy, being a local official, may do better.  It will be interesting to see how Ms. Klobuchar does in the Iron Range.

Here's your answer:

Amy Klobuchar   70.87%
Mark Kennedy   25.88%

[Rob]

Minnesota is a blue state, but a lighter shade, more like a purple state.  Republicans have actually done quite well on the state level.   Kennedy will do well in his surburban base and in the southern rural country, but key for him will be the northern areas that have gunowning, pro-life Democrats.  Bush tried but wasn't able to win enough of them to win the state.  Kennedy, being a local official, may do better.  It will be interesting to see how Ms. Klobuchar does in the Iron Range.

Here's your answer:

Amy Klobuchar   70.87%
Mark Kennedy   25.88%

lol. Republicans always say that they can trick the Iron Range into voting for them because of guns and gays, and the Iron Range always returns the same overwhelming Democratic vote it always has. Of course, the media doesn't help by pretending that it's some kind of swing region.

Give up on it, GOPers. You are simply not going to carry those areas.

[MarkWarner08]

"NRSC spokesman Brian Nick said Schumer's current fundraising advantage "means zilch" and his list of target states "'is suspect at best.'"

What a hack. I bet he's out of a job now.

[Deano963]

"NRSC spokesman Brian Nick said Schumer's current fundraising advantage "means zilch" and his list of target states "'is suspect at best.'"

What a hack. I bet he's out of a job now.

Are you kidding? He probably got awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom!