August 11, 2006
Yeah, right
Dingy Harry Reid thinks the Dems will pick up at least five Senate seats this fall, including CT and VA, which will require knocking off Lieberman and George Allen. I just don't see it happening. Steve-O what do you think of Reid's prediction?
YIPS from Steve-O:
Here goes: it's quite realistic to project the Democrats picking up the following currently Republican seats in the Senate this fall--
LIKELY DONK PICK-UPS--
Rhode Island
Pennsylvania
QUITE POSSIBLE DONK PICK-UPS--
Ohio
Montana
Each of these four are in trouble for one reason or another. That leaves Missouri as the big ticket which would get the Senate to 50-50 (according to the Big Kahuna, who I have no reason to doubt, Tennessee is also possible). That would leave the Senate tied at 50ies, which would leave Cheney as the tie-breaker.
Except......
I'm not sure what the rules of voting are for Impeachment, though, because the Vice-President doesn't preside in an Impeachment Trial---it's the Chief Justice. I don't know how a tie is resolved, and would have to look that up.
As Robbo would say, Just Sayin'.
As to Virginia, Allen's seat is about as safe as a Senate seat goes for this year, but remember one thing: while this is his third statewide race, it's only his first defense of his Senate seat, which can be tricky. Jim Webb is an enigma---it says a lot about the state of the Democratic Party that they will defenestrate and then exile Joe Lieberman---who votes with the party 90% of the time---as being an apostate, but endorse someone like Webb who, except for his strong opposition to the Iraq War, is in effect a conservative Reagan Republican (except, perhaps, for that Eleventh Commandment bit, and the opportunistic stab in the back, but hey, who's perfect?) Does he have a chance of winning? This year, more so than most years, anything's possible, but I wouldn't bet the ant farm on it by any stretch of the imagination. I do also think it's a bit of a danger for the Donks to place so much emphasis on the Warner Magic(TM)---the ability of Mark Warner to win in Republican Virginia. After all, Republicans have been governors of Massachusetts now for the past 16-ish years, and that hasn't exactly translated into a national political plan.
What I think would be the hilarious outcome would be for the Donks to get their six seats, but with Liebs winning, and pulling a Jeffords and caucusing with the Republicans. The perfidy! Also, the Mikey Moore/Kos purge plan of this week is going to not play too well in the Senate--look for someone like Salazar to pull a Nighthorse-Campbell and switch parties if they press to hard on the Senate's prerogatives.
The worse thing, though, for Republicans to do going into the fall is fall victim to the cocoon effect, and only believe what they read on Red State. It's what the Donks did in 04, and why they were so hilariously deranged when the lost---all the news sources they were reading had them winning triumphantly. Don't drive angry, but do lock and load.
Posted by LMC at August 11, 2006 10:28 AM | TrackBackI don't think Allen will lose. Unless I'm missing some big news here in VA.
I think Reid doesn't have a good grasp of reality most days.
Posted by: jen at August 11, 2006 11:28 AMDoesn't say much about the Dems in Virginia if they have to recruit a former Reagan Administration official to run. A true-blue lib cannot win statewide unless he runs as a pragmatic centrist in the mold of Warner, Doug Wilder, Chuck Robb, etc.
Posted by: LMC at August 11, 2006 01:09 PMIf Ned Ahmademocrat manages to beat Lieberman in the general election, the Democrat's don't gain anything in the Senate. If Lieberman wins, it remains to be seen what that will cost the Party.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at August 11, 2006 07:01 PM2/3rds vote on impeachment, so it ain't gonna happen, except in Nancy Pelosi's botox-feververed dreams, even if a few weak sisters like Hagel and Voinovich go all wobbly.
Posted by: The Colossus at August 12, 2006 04:46 AMI disagree Stephen. There would be many similar votes between Liberman and Lamont, but (at least the hope is) Lamont will not be the adminstration enabler that Liberman is. Lamont is clearly against the Iraq war (unfortunately not so vocally anti-war with the current Israeli crisis) and the hope is that he would not be as damaging to the Democratic agenda as Liberman has been these last 5 years. The fact that so many prominant Republicans are speaking out strongly in favor of Liberman speaks volumes to the Democratic voters...
Posted by: LB buddy at August 12, 2006 02:29 PMWell, if Lieberman is such the Republican neo-con the left claims (which I guess is anyone who votes with the party less than 90% of the time), than maybe you should think twice that in one of the blue-est states in the country, in a heavily contested primary open only to registered democrats, with record turnout, 48% chose the Republican.
Over the course of American history, two things stand-out as signs of political parties in trouble: purging of the less-pure, and wallowing embracing of conspiracy theories designed to explain their out of power status (think Republicans in the 1950s). It's the political equivalent of having your disabilty and unemployment checks mailed straight to the liquor store. Which party is acting like that right now?
Angry wins primaries, but generally loses general elections.
When Kos and Mikey Moore are done purging their party what they are going to be left with is going to resemble much more the perfectly elegant bansai tree than the mighty oak.
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at August 13, 2006 08:32 PM