Election Roundup -- Senate 2006 Email Print

Yesterday we peeked into new developments in the 2006 House elections. Today, we'll sniff out the Senate '06. Monday, we'll take on the White House '08.

As we move on, it's worth noting that the NRSC is trailing the DSCC in fundraising by a margin of almost 2-to-1. Republicans have raised $5.5million in February while Democrats raised $3.8 million. Additionally, Democrats still hold "a big advantage on money in the bank with $27.4 million, while Republicans have $14.5 million."

That is at least part of the reason that the White House is increasingly concerned about losing the Senate. According to the US News Bulletin:

... strategists for the White House and the Republican party are increasingly concerned about losing control of the Senate in this November's mid-term elections -- a worry made more intense this week by continued weak job-approval ratings for President Bush and the GOP. Such a reversal would make it more difficult for Bush to fill any future Supreme Court vacancies with conservatives -- a high priority for Republicans. And loss of the Senate would turn Democrats loose against the White House through endless oversight and investigatory hearings by various committees, which would also be true if the House fell to the Democrats. Finally, loss of the Senate or the House would give anti-Bush legislators more opportunity to level impeachment charges against him for allegedly misleading the country about the need for invading Iraq, for warrantless domestic surveillance, and for other perceived offenses. GOP insiders think chances for impeachment are remote but a debate on such charges would be a huge distraction.

And no doubt this is creating some ulcers in the Oval office as well:

"Eight months before midterm elections, Republican incumbents in Pennsylvania, Montana, Rhode Island, Ohio and Missouri face difficult races for re-election in a noticeably more challenging political environment for the GOP. And the early polls show a competitive campaign in Tennessee, where Majority Leader Bill Frist is retiring." Sen. Charles Schumer said, "We're feeling pretty good. If they did a snapshot today, the Senate would be 50-50."

And here's a take on some of the particular White House headaches blossoming throughout these 50 states:


Missouri

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports political experts "say the political landscape has shifted and opened the window for bigger Democratic gains." Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report said, "The bottom line is, Democrats will pick up seats. The question is how many." The Post-Dispatch adds Duffy "moved the Missouri race -- which will likely pit Republican Sen. Jim Talent against Democrat State Auditor Claire McCaskill -- into her 'toss-up' category at the end of January after polls showed the race neck-and-neck."


Florida

In 2000, Katherine Harris was the Republican's savior. And in 2006? -- Not so much.

According to the Washington Times, "Speculation continues to mount that Rep. Katherine Harris, Florida Republican, will bail out of her bid for a US Senate seat, possibly as early as tomorrow." However, "a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee said the committee expected Ms. Harris to stay in the race, and some analysts who have followed her tumultuous political career said they would not bet on her withdrawing."

That's right Katherine. Don't let them push you around. You saved their collective ass. Now it's payback time.

In fact, Harris is so determined to stick it out, she announced that she "plans to spend $10 million she inherited from her father in her race to unseat Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson." The decision "at least temporarily puts her on even financial ground with Nelson, who began the year with $8 million in his campaign account compared to Harris' $1 million."

But that might not matter since Harris is "a polarizing figure who enjoys strong support among conservatives but is not as popular among Florida's key independent voters." If her name "appears on the ballot in November, it is expected to boost turnout among Florida Democrats, who want to vote against the woman they still blame for 'stealing' the 2000 election from Al Gore."

Go, Katherine! Go!


New Jersey

"We'll take your money, but then take your scandalous incompetence, get lost and leave me alone." That might have been the thought running through the head of Republican senate candidate Tom Kean Jr. when he decided to diss Vice President Cheney who spoke at a recent Kean fundraiser.  Kean "got a financial boost from Vice President Dick Cheney at a campaign fundraiser Monday." Cheney's appearance "was expected to raise about $400,000 for the Republican state senator, who is lagging slightly behind [Sen. Robert] Menendez in recent polls." However, "there was one problem" with Cheney's appearance, "Mr. Kean was a no-show. Actually, Mr. Kean did show up at the event, which was held at the offices of the IDT Corporation in downtown Newark. But he did not make it until 6:15, roughly 15 minutes after Mr. Cheney's motorcade had left...  So what should have been a routine political story about a successful fund-raiser, netting close to $400,000, became one in which Mr. Kean was asked repeatedly whether he had deliberately avoided being photographed with the vice president, who is deeply unpopular in New Jersey."


Connecticut

In yet another slap at the Administration's agenda and ideology, Bush's best Democrat buddy, Joe Lieberman will face a primary challenger for the first time within his party during his 18 years in office.


Tennessee

True, it's a solidly red state, but Republicans are still concerned about the power of the Harold Ford Candidacy. Republicans "are so worried about" Ford's Senate candidacy in Tennessee that "they're going negative five months before the primary. They have reason for concern. During five terms in the House, the 35-year-old Ford has established himself as one of the Democrats' most polished stars. Back home, he's gone out of his way to highlight differences with liberal party leaders, opposing partial-birth abortion and gay marriage." Republicans "are scrambling to depict him as the second coming of Al Gore."


Pennsylvania

PA is a slightly different story. It's a place where the Democratic candidate is trouncing the Republican incumbent in the polls -- and yet some Democrats are trying their best to ignore the nature of a two-party democracy in their search for the perfect ideological representative. This is only going to wound the Democrat's chances. People have to learn that the most important aspect of the Senate races is NOT to have any particular senator in total agreement with the progressive ideological line. Instead, the most important aspect is to gain the majority position in the senate. Only with that majority is the progressive agenda likely to move forward. And at the moment, Casey is the most likely Democratic candidate to unseat Santorum. Why on Earth would any progressive threaten that likelihood?

While Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, "the Republican Party's most vulnerable incumbent, trails state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. by 10 to 15 percentage points," the "race will tighten when Democrats learn more about Mr. Casey's pro-life views." Casey's "pro-life position has angered pro-choice Democratic activists and could bring into the race Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. Should that happen, it would split the Democrats and turn the November election into a competitive contest, independent polls indicate."

And so it goes -- the National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority Fund endorsed Democrat Alan Sandals over his pro-life opponent Bob Casey, Jr. in Pennsylvania's Democratic Senate primary. Sandals "faces an uphill nomination battle" against Casey and "Chuck Pennacchio for the right to take on Republican incumbent Rick Santorum in November.'

And, as always, Santorum insists on... well... being Santorum. The Washington Post reports that after "saying in January that he would end his regular meetings with lobbyists, Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), the third-ranking GOP leader in the Senate, has continued to meet with many of the same lobbyists at the same time and on the same day of the week."

Come check out the race for the White House on Monday.


KEYWORDS: , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Election Roundup -- House of Representatives 2006 | Lieberman for Republican Spokesperson; Lamont for Senator >
 Display:
IN PENNSYLVANIA  Bob Casey Junior isn't "trouncing" Rick Santorum and the polls do NOT show Casey to be the only Dem candidate who can beat Santorum.

Casey is leading Santorum, but that lead is extremely soft.  Over 30% of the pro-Casey respondents in polls regularly say that they don't know enough about Casey and/or they have a neutral/negative view of him.  This means that nearly a third of his support is merely anti-Santorum.  Most of the balance of his support is merely name recognition -- as the Quinnipiac and Zogby polls bear out.

This kind of weak support has been responsible for Casey's previous historic lost leads.  In the Dem gubernatorial primary, Casey had a double-digit lead late in the primary.  He lost to  Ed Rendell by 12 points.  The same trend is showing in this race.

In Quinnipiac's December Poll, Casey's double-digit lead devolved to a statistical tie with Santorum when Casey supporters were told that Casey was in favor of banning abortion and overturning Roe v Wade (which he is).

And this was on only ONE of the major issues of the day.

When voters learn that Casey is also supporting Bush policies on Iraq, stem-cell research, the death penalty, Alito, universal health care, the living weage issue, and others, Casey actually polls weakest against Santorum than either of his Dem opponents.

Unlike Casey, his opponents, particularly Dr. Chuck Pennacchio, a history professor and foreign policy expert, are progressive Democrats who support traditional Democratic issues and values.  Unlike Casey, Pennacchio and Sandals endorse policies that align with the majority of Pennsylvania voters.

It is unfair and uninformed to say that, by opposing Casey, Pennsylvania Democrats are merely seeking the "perfect" ideological candidate.  They are, rather, seeking a candidate who can win in November.  Casey was selected (by  NY Sen Chuck Schumer) based on his name recognition and money raising ability.  

This is the same tired formula which PA Dems have used for 44 years to select their Senatorial candidates.  This strategy has resulted in 14 CONSECUTIVE full-term Senate race losses in Pennsylvania.  Backing Casey is employing this same losing strategy and expecting a different result.

by Tom Ford on 03/25/2006 06:44:17 AM EST

You should submit your full arguement for your prefered candidate and against Casey using the "Submit New Article" link.

Your focus and insight on the race would be welcome.

Thanks.

Political Cortex -- Brain Food for the Body Politic

by Tom Ball on 03/27/2006 12:22:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: