Road to 60

[MarkWarner08]

Here's how the Democrats could reach 60 Senate seats:

1. Hold Lousiana and South Dakota
2. Win the GOP open seats" Colorado, Virginia, and Nebraska.
3. Pick off the GOP Senators in blue states such as Oregon, Maine, Minnesota, and New Hampshire
4. Beat at least 2 of the following GOP incumbents: Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Lamar Alexander, and Liddy Dole.
5. Hope Ted Stevens or Pete Domenici retire or receive strong challenges.
6. Pray Jim Inhofe or Saxby Chambliss has a macaca moment.

Up 15 of the GOP's 22 Senate seats up for reelection this cycle could be competitive. If the Democrats can take strong leads in the 7 open seats or blue state seats, they can refocus their energies to defeating three of the eight red state Republican senators who are in varying degrees of trouble.


This scenario, if it occurred, would create the first opportunity since 1976 for one of the two major parties to have full governing power. This would place a massive level of responsibility on the Democratic party. If the Democrats fail 1992-1994 style, expect the GOP could be reborn in 2010.

On the other hand, if Democrats pass a series of popular reforms, the Democrats could take advantage of the GOP's strong 2004 Senate cycle to cement the Democratic majority in the Senate. One other thing about 2010. If the Democrats can hold onto their 2006 gains and possible 2008 gains in that election, then the Democrats will likely control the redistricting process in states like Michigan and Ohio, thus giving the Democrats a huge leg up for the 2010's.

[memphis]

I think you're being unrealistic. We're definately going to gain a few seats, but I don't see how nine is within reach. From your list, 4, 5, and 6 are exceedingly unlikely. I think Louisiana is going to switch to the Republicans as well.

[MarkWarner08]

I think you're being unrealistic. We're definately going to gain a few seats, but I don't see how nine is within reach. From your list, 4, 5, and 6 are exceedingly unlikely. I think Louisiana is going to switch to the Republicans as well.

I'm just showing a scenario in which the Democrats could reach 60 in the Senate. This is of course contingent on a strong nominee (read: not Hillary), a downturn in the economy, the war malaise continuing, and Bush's approvals staying in Nixonland. If all those factors occur, I don't think this scenario is unrealistic.

It's also possibility that significant progress is made in Iraq, Bush's approvals rise to the low 40's, the GOP nominate Giuliani or Romney and runs an anti-Washington campaign, the Democratic Congress continues to alienate its base, Hillary runs a play-it-safe campaign, Johnson decides against reelection and Landrieu faces off against Kennedy.

Basically, it's impossible to tell this far out what the conditions will be like come October 2008.  Even in September 2006 (before Foley), most people would've thought it absurd that  Democrats would win races like KY-03, where the Democrats were saddled with a fourth tier candidate.

[Lief 🗽]

6 or 7 seats is probably our ceiling. Hopefully, we get those 6 or 7 seats, and then Clinton (or Obama or Edwards) doesn't screw up too badly so we can get at least 2 more in 2010. Then we can really reform this country and fully undo the excesses of the Bush and Reagan administrations.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not going to happen. Worth noting though the GOP could easily be shut out of Senate gains three cycles in a row.

The GOP was COMPLETELY shut out in 2006. Didn't gain a single Senate seat, House seat, or Governorship. They're basically guaranteed the Louisiana governorship and a few House seats now, but the only vulnerable Senate seat really is Louisiana. So if they fail to take that, that's two shut outs in a row.

And 2010? Still too early to tell, but the map doesn't look good for the GOP. They'll target Salazar, but he's so popular it's hard to see him going down. Where else? Barring some surprise retirements, it's tough to see any pickups. Oh sure the GOP hacks have delusions about Arnold beating Boxer, but Boxer is more popular than Arnold, always has been and strong entrenched incumbents in states that lean toward their party don't lose. There's Indiana if the Dem candidate is stupid enough to think Evan Bayh would add anything to the ticket and he ends up as VP, but I doubt the candidate will be that dumb.

So if they also completely fail in 2010, that's three complete shut outs in a row. Ouch.

[opebo]

...Then we can really reform this country and fully undo the excesses of the Bush and Reagan administrations.

This is the wishful thinking part, not the 57 or 60 seats.  If they ever have a dominant position again, that is when the real right-wing nature of the Democratic Party will be revealed.  I.E. no significant change in the american economic system.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

At the moment the Democrats will win these states:
New Hampshire (52)
Virginia (53)
Colorado (54)
Nebraska (55)
Minnesota (56)
Oregon (57)

Possibly:
North Carolina (58)
Kentucky (59)
Maine (60)
New Mexico (61)
Tennessee (62)

It looks at the moment that we will have anywhere from 57-62 seats.  Therefore, we will probably have 60 votes on social issues, thanks to moderates like Snowe, Collins, Specter, McCain, Voinovich, and others.  On the War, we will probably still lack 60 votes, but if a Democrat wins, then we won't need it.

[Lief 🗽]

...Then we can really reform this country and fully undo the excesses of the Bush and Reagan administrations.

This is the wishful thinking part, not the 57 or 60 seats.  If they ever have a dominant position again, that is when the real right-wing nature of the Democratic Party will be revealed.  I.E. no significant change in the american economic system.

The last time the Democrats had a huge majority and a Democratic president, we got the New Deal and the Great Society. Hardly right-wing.

[Mr.Phips]

I think you're being unrealistic. We're definately going to gain a few seats, but I don't see how nine is within reach. From your list, 4, 5, and 6 are exceedingly unlikely. I think Louisiana is going to switch to the Republicans as well.

I'm just showing a scenario in which the Democrats could reach 60 in the Senate. This is of course contingent on a strong nominee (read: not Hillary), a downturn in the economy, the war malaise continuing, and Bush's approvals staying in Nixonland. If all those factors occur, I don't think this scenario is unrealistic.

It's also possibility that significant progress is made in Iraq, Bush's approvals rise to the low 40's, the GOP nominate Giuliani or Romney and runs an anti-Washington campaign, the Democratic Congress continues to alienate its base, Hillary runs a play-it-safe campaign, Johnson decides against reelection and Landrieu faces off against Kennedy.

Basically, it's impossible to tell this far out what the conditions will be like come October 2008.  Even in September 2006 (before Foley), most people would've thought it absurd that  Democrats would win races like KY-03, where the Democrats were saddled with a fourth tier candidate.

I would not call John Yarmuth a "fourth tier candidate".  Ive seen him speak and seems like a perfectly capable politician.  It also helps him that the district he won is one of the most Democratic non-black majority districts in the south. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Up 15 of the GOP's 22 Senate seats up for reelection this cycle could be competitive.

Uh, what?

If the Democrats can take strong leads in the 7 open seats or blue state seats, they can refocus their energies to defeating three of the eight red state Republican senators who are in varying degrees of trouble.

Oh, it's that simple, eh?

On the other hand, if Democrats pass a series of popular reforms, the Democrats could take advantage of the GOP's strong 2004 Senate cycle to cement the Democratic majority in the Senate.

Considering how well Democrats have been doing while in control of the House and Senate, I'd say your 2010 scenario seems extraordinarily unlikely.

One other thing about 2010. If the Democrats can hold onto their 2006 gains and possible 2008 gains in that election, then the Democrats will likely control the redistricting process in states like Michigan and Ohio, thus giving the Democrats a huge leg up for the 2010's.

Michigan's 2010 Gov race will likely be intensely competitive (and Republicans could find themselves back in control of the legislature by then), and Democrats made little headway into the Ohio State Senate, leaving the GOP a huge, nearly veto-proof margin there.

[Mr.Phips]

Up 15 of the GOP's 22 Senate seats up for reelection this cycle could be competitive.

Uh, what?

If the Democrats can take strong leads in the 7 open seats or blue state seats, they can refocus their energies to defeating three of the eight red state Republican senators who are in varying degrees of trouble.

Oh, it's that simple, eh?

On the other hand, if Democrats pass a series of popular reforms, the Democrats could take advantage of the GOP's strong 2004 Senate cycle to cement the Democratic majority in the Senate.

Considering how well Democrats have been doing while in control of the House and Senate, I'd say your 2010 scenario seems extraordinarily unlikely.

They are doing about as well as Republicans did by this point in 1995. 

[Person Man]

Yeah, one place where redistricting could play out well is in Colorado where there is now a fairly substantial dem majority in the legistlature.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Up 15 of the GOP's 22 Senate seats up for reelection this cycle could be competitive.

Uh, what?

If the Democrats can take strong leads in the 7 open seats or blue state seats, they can refocus their energies to defeating three of the eight red state Republican senators who are in varying degrees of trouble.

Oh, it's that simple, eh?

On the other hand, if Democrats pass a series of popular reforms, the Democrats could take advantage of the GOP's strong 2004 Senate cycle to cement the Democratic majority in the Senate.

Considering how well Democrats have been doing while in control of the House and Senate, I'd say your 2010 scenario seems extraordinarily unlikely.

They are doing about as well as Republicans did by this point in 1995. 

Which makes the GOP's 2010 the equivalent of the Democrats' 1998?

[Mr.Phips]

Up 15 of the GOP's 22 Senate seats up for reelection this cycle could be competitive.

Uh, what?

If the Democrats can take strong leads in the 7 open seats or blue state seats, they can refocus their energies to defeating three of the eight red state Republican senators who are in varying degrees of trouble.

Oh, it's that simple, eh?

On the other hand, if Democrats pass a series of popular reforms, the Democrats could take advantage of the GOP's strong 2004 Senate cycle to cement the Democratic majority in the Senate.

Considering how well Democrats have been doing while in control of the House and Senate, I'd say your 2010 scenario seems extraordinarily unlikely.

They are doing about as well as Republicans did by this point in 1995. 

Which makes the GOP's 2010 the equivalent of the Democrats' 1998?

A Republican being elected President in 2008.

[Democratic Hawk]

The thing is, as far as the Senate goes, although the Democrats had a good 2006 and are, possibly, on course for a good 2008 once the 2012 and 2014 cycles come around, it will be the Democrats playing 'defense'

2010, of course, will see the Republicans playing 'defense' with 19 Republicans and 15 Democrats being up for re-election. Democratic 'targets' would be Martinez of FL, Bunning of KY, Burr of NC, Thune of SD (especially, if Herseth-Sandlin runs) - all elected by narrow margins in 2004; together with PA (if Specter retires or is taken out in a primary) and Gregg of NH (but only, if Lynch runs); Republican opportunities, on the other hand, seem much narrower, 'targets' being Salazar of CO and possibly an outside shot at an open-seat should Mikulski of MD opt for retirement

2012, of course, will see Democrats defending 22 seats to the Republicans 9 with 3 Democratic seats being gained in 2006, by pretty narrow margins, ranging from Webb in VA, Tester in MT and McCaskill in MO

Much will depends on who wins the White House in 2008 and how their popularity stands both mid-term going into 2010 and going into the presidential race of 2012

The opportunities are certainly there for Democrats to consolidate their position in the Senate but it's important they don't blow it ; while a Democratic president must make the most of their, likely, Congressional majorities. Perhaps then that 'magical' 60 will become a reality

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

the Democratic Congress continues to alienate its base

Regardless of how the Democratic Congress performs, that base must never lose sight of the only possible alternative to a Democratic Congress

I certainly wouldn't be standing for any of this nonsense

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/woolsey-calls-for-attacks-on-colleagues-2007-09-12.html

The Democratic Party's electoral viability rests on it being a "big tent"

Dave

[sethm0]

 VA, NH and CO are lean Dem.

 ME, NE, OR, and MN are toss-ups. Let's say the Dems win half of them.

 KY, NC, NM, OK and ID are Dem long-shots. Let's say they get lucky and take one.

 I'll assume that LA and SD stay Dem, though LA will be close.

 This puts the Dems in the 54 - 56 range (including Lieberman and Sanders). Keep in mind though, that there will be virtually no Republican moderates left.
 

 The '08 Presidential race could have an effect on some of those toss-ups and long-shots. I disagree that Hillary will hurt Dem candidates. I think she actually might help them. People underestimate the ability of her political machine to win people over and drive turn-out...


 It's way too early to be thinking about 2010. There could be some interesting prospects though...Sestak in PA?

 

[Jake]

At the moment the Democrats will win these states:
New Hampshire (52)
Virginia (53)
Colorado (54)
Nebraska (55)
Minnesota (56)
Oregon (57)

Possibly:
North Carolina (58)
Kentucky (59)
Maine (60)
New Mexico (61)
Tennessee (62)

Chalking up anything beyond Virginia and New Hampshire at this point is severely premature. And calling Tennesseee (Alexander!?) a possible pick-up is a joke. I'll give you the rest as rather unlikely but possible pick-ups. Colorado, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Oregon in that order are vulnerable too.

You're forgetting Louisiana as well. The GOP is as favored there as the Democrats in Minnesota or Oregon.

[MarkWarner08]

...Then we can really reform this country and fully undo the excesses of the Bush and Reagan administrations.

This is the wishful thinking part, not the 57 or 60 seats.  If they ever have a dominant position again, that is when the real right-wing nature of the Democratic Party will be revealed.  I.E. no significant change in the american economic system.

The last time the Democrats had a huge majority and a Democratic president, we got the New Deal and the Great Society. Hardly right-wing.

Those were great achievements, but the actually 1976 was the last year the Democrats had a huge House majority, 60 Senators, and a Democratic Party. Sadly, little was a achieved legislatively because Carter was arrogant in his relations with Congressional leaders.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sadly, little was a achieved legislatively because Carter was arrogant in his relations with Congressional leaders.

Understatement of the year

[Brittain33]

One other thing about 2010. If the Democrats can hold onto their 2006 gains and possible 2008 gains in that election, then the Democrats will likely control the redistricting process in states like Michigan and Ohio, thus giving the Democrats a huge leg up for the 2010's.

Michigan's 2010 Gov race will likely be intensely competitive (and Republicans could find themselves back in control of the legislature by then), and Democrats made little headway into the Ohio State Senate, leaving the GOP a huge, nearly veto-proof margin there.

Redistricting in Ohio is done by a panel of executive branch officials, and that group now has a Democratic majority and may well keep it after the 2010 elections. In Michigan, even a split D/R process for redistricting would favor Democrats because Republicans have overstretched their numbers in the current map and should the state lose a district it will have to come out of their hide.

[Mr.Phips]

...Then we can really reform this country and fully undo the excesses of the Bush and Reagan administrations.

This is the wishful thinking part, not the 57 or 60 seats.  If they ever have a dominant position again, that is when the real right-wing nature of the Democratic Party will be revealed.  I.E. no significant change in the american economic system.

The last time the Democrats had a huge majority and a Democratic president, we got the New Deal and the Great Society. Hardly right-wing.

Those were great achievements, but the actually 1976 was the last year the Democrats had a huge House majority, 60 Senators, and a Democratic Party. Sadly, little was a achieved legislatively because Carter was arrogant in his relations with Congressional leaders.

I am always amazed that Democrats didnt pass universal healthcare after the 1976 elections.  They could have easily done it with their huge majorities and Democratic President.  I think it could have been done in 1993 as well had Clinton and Democratic leaders in Congress worked much harder.  All they needed to do to pass universal healthcare was to pass it in the House easily(258-177 Dem) and held their caucus together in the Senate(57-43 Dem) and picked up just three Republicans like Packwood(OR), Jeffords(VT), and Chafee(RI).