Originally posted by Jake at The Seminal.
As some of you know I'm not a real 'presidential election' kind of guy. I feel I can evaluate presidential elections with some form of expertise since I did work one, and I do work in the business, but overall I generally have a low opinion of Presidential level politics mostly because it's a media game. I'm a ground game kind of guy. I like the Senate, Gubernatorial, and House races a lot. I like focusing solely on one State and mastering it and then producing great results.
With the 08 election there are 21 Republican Senators up for re-election vs. 12 Democratic Senators. These elections, in my opinion, will be the most crucial in America in 2008. Here's who's facing tough stuff and why, and here's how much of a nerd I am on this stuff:
Just to note: I'm pro-democrat, but in this election there are more Republicans running for re-election than Democrats , and therefore Republicans have much more to lose. Also, given geography and previous election results, most Democrats are very safe to be re-elected (or if they choose not to run, a Democrat would probably beat a Republican, such as the case with Dick Durbin in Illinois). Of the 33 Senators up for re-election in 2006 only 6 were defeated, all Republicans, and this was with a majority of Democrats up for re-election. It's just the way the tides turned. Some of the Republicans running in 08 are running for a 2nd term - which means they're part of the cohort that originally won solely due to Iraq War and post 9.11 voter frustrations. I'm not being unfair, and I think I've shown that if I feel a Republican is going to win, or could win, I'd say it before postulating some erratic scheme of a Democrat winning the seat.
I'm a Democrat, but I'm also realistic...
Here's the real scoop:
Democrats: Most Democrats in 2008 are safe. Senators Kerry (MA), Harkin (IA), Reed (RI), Baucus (MT), Durbin (IL), Rockefeller (WV), Biden (DE), Lautenberg (NJ), and Pryor (AR) face no real opposition...and they're all very well established in their respective states.
South Dakota: The toughest Democratic battle in 08 will be for the seat of Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota. Senator Johnson had a stroke a few months back that has basically left him incapacitated as he currently undergoes extensive rehab. South Dakota has a moderately popular Republican Governor, M. Michael Rounds, who could easily slide into the Senate through the back door should he decide to run, despite Johnson's 70% approval rating (as of Nov. 2006). Johnson's seat is a GOP target, in part because of Johnson's health problems, and could easily be grabbed by a semi-popular prominent Republican. Granted, it's unknown as to whether Senator Johnson is even going to run for re-election or not, and it's rumored that if he doesn't run then former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle would run in his place (if he doesn't run for President, which I don't think he'll do). But even with Daschle entering the race I don't see Democrats holding the seat without Johnson running. His health issues are a shitty way to lose a Senate seat, but it's an argument that's made through buzz-generating whisper campaigns rather than the opponent saying it in his stump speech. I think Johnson, if his rehab goes well (which I hope regardless of whether he runs again or not), might face a tough campaign should the Governor decide to challenge him.
Louisiana: Senator Mary Landrieu, of Louisiana, is also a vulnerable Democrat. She won in 1996 due to a recount, and again in 2002 due to a runoff. The problem now is that many Democratic voters have fled the state after the events of Hurricane Katrina...core voters if you know what I mean without labeling. I'm not sure if the GOP could put up a strong enough candidate, money wise, to challenge Senator Landrieu. But it could happen. The outgoing Governor is a Democrat, but Republicans did pick up the other Senate seat in 2004 when Democratic Senator John Breaux retired. However, it was a close election. Louisiana is a traditional Red State for Presidential elections, but when it comes to more local matters the state is "iffy," kind of like Arkansas. This is certainly one to watch, and Landrieu's best possible outcome is retaining her Senate seat by a 1-3% margin. However, at this time, I can't think of a Republican that could challenge statewide.
Others worth mentioning: Senator Joe Biden of Delaware may decide not to run for re-election if his presidential ambitions start to improve. However, I don't see this happening, and Joe Biden is an "I want to be in there no matter what" kind of guy. I expect him to withdraw from the Presidential race this summer or fall and focus on his secure re-election to the Senate.
Other than these two, excluding Senator Biden, I view every other Democratic Senate seat as "safe" in 2008 election. Some say the GOP is gunning for Kerry but he wants to remain a Senator and he'll win. Tom Harkin, of Iowa, will also easily win even though some consider Iowa to be a purely "Red State." The only person who could beat Harkin is Tom Vilsack, and he's a Democrat.
Let's look at the Republicans, who have a larger amount of Senators running for re-election and/or retiring:
Republicans:
Here's the safe bets: Senators Thad Cochran (MS), Susan Collins (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Pete Domenici (NM) - I might be wrong on this one, give it time - Enzi (WY), Roberts (KS) - if the current Governor who got re-elected decides to run I'll write more on this - Sessions (AL), Smith (OR). But there's also a handful of Republicans running for re-election to the Senate that may face tough re-election campaigns. Here they are:
Tennessee: Senator Lamar Alexander (TN) could face a tough re-election bid if Former Congressman (and ex Senate Candidate) Harold Ford jr. decides to run again (which I think he will). Tennessee has a large amount of solid Democratic voters, and though Alexander is an "under the radar" Senator who represents his State fairly well, he could easily be painted as a do-nothing Senator. Also, Ford had an impressive run in 06 which, if current Senator Corker looks weak, could make voters re-examine why they didn't vote for Ford in the previous election. If former Congressman Ford develops a serious relationship, or gets engaged, he could win this election, especially if he can make the "change vs more of the same" argument well. I also believe that current TN Governor Phil Bredesen could easily, perhaps more easily than Ford, challenge Senator Alexander. Bredesen has already won TN statewide twice (he was re-elected Governor with nearly 70% of the vote in 2006) as a Democratic Governor, and he's the former Mayor of Nashville. I think Breseden has a better shot, if he decides to do it (or is wink wink persuaded), than Ford. Ford should focus on his personal life for once, by that I mean get married or engaged (it helps, I've seen the numbers) and then run for Governor in 2010.
Georgia: Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia is a guy I'd like to see defeated. Fuck this guy. He got into office on the Iraq war in 2002 by defeating Senator Max Cleland. Chambliss ran ads showing Cleland with Saddam and Bin Laden...but Cleland wasn't standing...why? Well, he doesn't have any legs because he lost them in Vietnam...he also lost an arm. He's a triple amputee (he jumped on a grenade to save fellow soldiers) who got trumped by Political War politics in an election year simply because he voted against Iraq (he was one of few...another, Senator Wellstone of MN died in a plane crash shortly before his hotly contested Senate race in 2002 which I will get to). Chambliss, who didn't go to Vietnam because of a Football injury, called out Cleland as weak on American Defense even though Cleland was the first ever Cabinet Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Fuck Saxby Chambliss...I want to beat that guy...and when I told my dad I might work in the south, my dad said this, "Stay away from the south...but that guy Chambliss...get rid of that asshole." I could write a whole rant on how much I hate Saxby Chambliss...he may not run for re-election, and he hasn't made his intentions clear - but either way I'm gonna do my damndest to make sure he isn't a Senator in the year 2009. I might even piss on his porch. I'm not sure what Democrat could run against him, perhaps the Mayor of Atlanta, Shirley Franklin, an African American female who won re-election as Mayor of Atlanta with over 90% of the vote (the fact that I didn't have to look that up worries family members). Yes, you read that right, 90 fucking percent. A grassroots campaign of getting out the vote in larger Georgia state areas like Atlanta, Savannah, Columbus...we could have an African-American female Senator from Georgia. Wouldn't that be bittersweet? Also, Atlanta is an ever changing city with many liberal migrants from the North. She could raise the money, and it'd make the race incredibly interesting and fun to watch. Overall, though, Fuck Saxby Chambliss.
Minnesota: Senator Norm Coleman, of Minnesota, is a Senator in the United States because the great Progressive Senator Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash en route to a debate with then Mayor Coleman, Mayor of St. Paul, in 2002. Former VP Walter Mondale ran in Wellstone's spot and barely lost. Wellstone, as some of you know, was a pioneer in Progressive Politics. There's even a "Wellstone Camp" that trains people in the work of progressive politics on a national level. Wellstone was a good man, Norm Coleman is a hack. Comedian Al Franken, who was raised in Minnesota, has thrown his hat in the ring to run against Coleman for 2 reasons: Franken hates Coleman, and Franken was a good friend of Wellstone. I favor Franken because I believe that campaigning against a comedian is truly difficult, and Franken is even more than a comedian...he truly has an intelligent political mind. I spent some time in Minnesota in 2006, and I think Franken has what it takes. The fact that the GOP convention is going to be held in St Paul might give Senator Coleman a boost in September, but the smart money is on Franken who can rally the support that Senator Amy Klobuchar got in 2006 and also raise Hollywood money. A comedian in the Senate...it'll happen if Franken plays it smart and hires smart people (he is actively recruiting intelligent young Democratic minds for his campaign)...Minnesota also had easy wins for Democrats in the State house and Senate. Also, the GOP, as much as they want to keep a Republican in the north central part of the Nation will ultimately, if challenged viably, choose to protect their roots in the south over a hard campaign in Minnesota. Early polls show Coleman with a lead but the number of people who are "waiting to hear more" is at about 20-25%, so with Coleman at around 49% is encouraging with well over a year to go, especially with a Senate race.
Texas: Senator John Cornyn of Texas might face opposition, but I don't feel that Democrats are willing to raise the dough in 2008 to try and win Texas...even if Cornyn sucks. Honestly, if I can't think of someone off the top of my head to challenge, then the chances are slim. But ya never know...it is politics after all. Can you think of a popular Texas Democrat? Let's hope Cornyn says something really dumb, aside from what he's already said, but other than that he's probably a safe re-election bet for the GOP.
North Carolina: In North Carolina there could be a great race between incumbent Senator Elizabeth Dole and current Governor Mike Easley. A recent poll shows Easley beating Dole by 3%. From what I've read and heard, Easley would be a great addition to the Senate as a Democrat because he'd add to the "big tent" idea of the Democratic Party. Easley's successes in the fields of education and job creation in North Carolina would make him a valuable asset in a majority Democratic Senate. Also, Senator Dole is more of a name than a leader in the Senate. She doesn't bring a lot to the table and could be attacked on that front. Also, North Carolina added a lot of Democratic seats in their state house and in the US Congress, so the notion that red vs. blue is the idea in this race can kind of be thrown out the window with a moderate like Easley. Look out for this one, if could be fun!
Oklahoma: Senator Inhofe, a guy I dislike as a human being, might face a challenge from former Congressman Brad Carson of Oklahoma. Carson, if he's smart, would run the same campaign he ran in 2004 when he lost by 8%. The Democratic Tidal Wave of 06 could flap on Oklahoma if the cards fall the way I predict them to. Oklahoma is my sleeper pick if Carson runs, but only if Carson runs. He has to establish himself as a true Moderate, but he could go anti-war if he wants to - and he couldn't do that in 2004 even though he really did want to. He's against gay marriage and abortion, but...well...if you look at what Senators really vote on 99.9% of the time these facts don't matter, and adding a seat in Oklahoma opens a lot for future elections. I also don't feel that Carson is done yet, and he'll probably end his political career as a cabinet official in the next 15 years.
Kentucky: Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky could face serious opposition if state Senator Dan Mongiardo runs again. Mongiardo, of Hazard, Kentucky (close to where my extended family calls "home") should've beat Senator Bunning in 2004, but the tapes showing Bunning to be completely out of it (he debated via satellite because he thought al Qaeda was gonna hit Lexington) didn't surface until October of 2004, so Mongiardo lost by an impressive 2%. I say impressive because the DNC and DSCC spent no money in Kentucky...had they spent money Bunning would be a hall of fame pitcher AND former Senator from Kentucky. However, Mongiardo is currently running for Lt. Governor of Kentucky, which holds its state elections in an off-year, so it's unclear as to whether he'd be a real candidate in 08. However, McConnell is a true target for the DNC, and the Democratic Party should persuade Mongiardo to hold back on Lt. Governor and focus on Senate in 08, which will be more funded in 2008 than it was in 2004. Maybe I'll get back to my humble roots. Democrats might have better chances in 2010 of winning the seat since I think Bunning will retire, but if Bunning should run for re-election (doubtful) he's easily beatable.
New Hampshire: In New Hampshire it has been said that Senator John Sununu's seat is challengeable. I think so as well, but Sununu has made the correct moves in calling for Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez's resignation very early on when it wasn't as universal as it is now...which is an ever crucial talking point in a swing state that is also incredibly political. Any number of local political celebrities could challenge him and raise serious cash and buzz. Perhaps former Governor Sheehan, but I think Senator Sununu is making the correct moves to secure his re-election, and in the next year he could prove to be incredibly beneficial to Democratic legislative passages. Watch for a certain "deal" to be made in which Senator Sununu gets a pass in his re-election yet also breaks with the Republican Party line and supports the Dems on some serious bills to come about in the crucial months leading up to the 2008 elections.
Un-announced intentions and possible, or committed, retirements: Senator John Warner of Virginia has yet to announce whether he's running for re-election in 2008. He's fairly old to run again, in my opinion, and is facing a state than is increasingly leaning Democratic due to the insurgence of Democratic voters in both Alexandria and Richmond. Former Senator George "Macaca" Allen has somewhat announced his intention to run if Warner decides not to run, but I feel that Former Governor Mark Warner and current Governor Tim Kaine would easily win this seat if they both ran. For one, Democrats have won the gubernatorial races in Virginia since 2001 and raised taxes and made people feel ok about it since they both have 60+% approval ratings. Former Governor Warner, who was considered a Presidential candidate for 08, was shown to be beating Former Senator Allen in 2006, pre macaca, by 8% as early as May of last year. Also keep in mind that Governors of Virginia are only allowed a single 4 year term, unlike the rest of the country which generally allows for two 4 year terms. Therefore Virginia Governors go for the best regardless of re-election, since they have yet to face it. Good for them, and it's proven to be in Democrats' favor in the past two cycles. If current Senator Warner decides to retire, which I think he might do (because of age and, honestly, a job pretty much well done for his State), look for another by the name of Warner to fill his seat...but for the other side.
If Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska retires look for Democrats to make a serious play for his seat. If he doesn't retire, Democrats won't try...because Democrats on the Hill like Senator Hagel and that's how politics is really done. I like Hagel, as stated earlier in other articles I've written, and I will not bad mouth him even if he faces tough re-election...which he won't if he runs again.
Senator Wayne Allard, a Republican from Colorado, is officially retiring. Democrats have a really good chance of picking up this seat. Senator Ken Salazar won an open seat in 2004 in Colorado. Why wouldn't his brother and roommate in DC, who's a Congressman from Colorado, have a good chance of winning the other seat? Salazar represents 3 things important to voters in real Colorado: Hispanic immigration, Rancher qualities, Progressive yet moderate ideals. I see him as the perfect fit as well as a man with the ability to raise a ton of cash in the Democratic favor for this Senate seat. The fact that the DNC is having its convention in Denver, fucking Denver as I call it, in 2008 actually might help this effort. Colorado is trending blue with House and Senate advances at the state level in 2004 and the newly elected Democratic Governor in 2006. In a state where the previous Senator, the one who retired to make room for current Senator Ken Salazar, went by his Native American name Ben "Nighthorse" Campbell, anything is possible (and that's awesome).
But it's all up in the air. You never know...but Senate Races determine what really goes on and who really has the majority. The house may flip 5-7 one way or the other depending on the districts and retirements, but since House elections either depend on heavy local political machinery or a general disapproval of the "way things are" I'm hesitant to talk about them now. As for Governor races...give me a few weeks, or even months for that matter, to really look at these for they truly change with the winds as well. These are early predictions, but in the case of the Senate not much changes unless there's a campaign intangible (again I refer to the Macaca incident involving Former Senator Allen...or should I call him Lobbyist George whose dad was a football coach from now on?).
Another interesting note, to me anyway, is that Country Music star Tim McGraw, a Democrat, has recently stated his intentions to run for Senate, in the future after he retires from touring, from Tennessee as a "Bill Clinton" type Democrat. I've already expressed great interest in this because the campaign trail would be fun, and fueled by music and Budweiser tall-boys, and the idea that perhaps Carrie Underwood would headline a rally. Also, the idea of a country music star, huge star, running as a Democrat in the south is just awesome and I'd love to see how Fox News combats that. Not in 08, mind you, but someday you can say you read it here first.
I'm also personally invested, thanks to my friend Mike (a big shout out to my boys in the 206), in the continued political career of Newark, New Jersey, Mayor Cory Booker (For more on Booker I highly recommend the documentary Street Fight which is about Booker's 2002 mayoral campaign, it's amazing). He's gonna be huge someday. Give it a few years, but he'll be either Governor or Senator from New Jersey...and he'll be keeping it real the whole time. You heard it here folks.
There's more going on than Hillary and Obama...more than Rudy and McCain...A true progressive statement and opportunity hangs in the balance within the Senate in 08. Democrats have a slim majority now...but there are ways to improve upon this majority and it could be easily done if the Democrats focus on 4-6 elections in non-traditional states that are truly trending blue, well maybe purple I guess, such as North Carolina and Georgia.
It won't be easy, but does anything worth having ever come easy?