February 15, 2005


Another Red November?: There's no reason 2006 has to be an off year for Republicans. (BRENDAN MINITER, February 15, 2005, Wall Street Journal)

[I]n 1994 the GOP tide swept several Republicans into office who had no reasonable chance of holding onto their seats for long. One was Michael Flanagan of Chicago, who ousted scandal-plagued Dan Rosetnkowski but lost his seat in 1996. Another was Californian Jim Rogan, who lost his seat in 2000 after serving as one the House Impeachment managers. Now, however, because of redistricting and electoral loses in 1996, 1998 and 2000, there aren't very many unsafe Republicans seats left in the House. Meanwhile there are Democrats who could be picked off. One is Chet Edwards, whose district includes Mr. Bush's Crawford ranch. Mr. Edwards won with just 51% of the vote last year.

On the Senate side there is also reason for Republicans to be hopeful. There were five tight Senate races in 2000 that all broke for the Democrats. One of those seats, in Missouri, is already back in Republican hands. One--and probably two--of the other four Democrats won't seek re-election in 2006. Minnesota's Mark Dayton didn't like the look of recent polls and has bowed out of next year's race, and Jon Corzine plans to run for governor of New Jersey this year. Maria Cantwell, meanwhile, will be the first Democrat to face Washington state voters after last year's contested gubernatorial election. The Democrats won that race, but the lawsuits over vote-counting irregularities are still ongoing and it's anyone's guess whether Ms. Cantwell will be the recipient of voter backlash against her party. Only Ms. Stabenow's seat now appears relatively safe for the Democrats. And the GOP may have other opportunities in states like Florida, Nebraska and North Dakota.

That's before you factor in the rumored retirement of Jeff Bingaman (D, NM), the advanced age of five other Democratic incumbents (Byrd, Kennedy, Akaka, Sarbanes, Kohl) and Jim Jeffords, a Rudy Giuliani challenge to Hillary Clinton, and the possibility that Diane Feinstein and Joe Lieberman have better things to do with their lives than be minority members of the Senate in a party that's headed steadily Left. The GOP has targets aplenty.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 15, 2005 8:47 AM

If Harry "Stonewall" Reid is truly speaking for his caucus, it would seem that they are not worried about a red tide in '06. Of course, it remains to be seen whether their actions match their leader's words.

Posted by: curt at February 15, 2005 11:41 AM

Most of the Democratic Senators probably think 60,000 flipped votes in OH is all that stood between them and nirvana.

Posted by: jim hamlen at February 15, 2005 11:56 AM

I don't understand. One of the arguments that Bush wasn't totally legitimate after 2000 was that he didn't get as many votes as Algore. Yet the Left bases all their fantasies of a President Kerry on him winning an Electoral College majority despite losing the popular vote. (60,000 votes switching in Ohio isn't enough.)

So which is it Lefties, do we keep the College or chuck it? Is your decision conditional based on what happens in '008? Why should anyone take you seriously anymore?

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 15, 2005 12:53 PM


They weren't worried about one in '02 or '04 either.

Posted by: oj at February 15, 2005 1:38 PM

No problem, big can of beer. They now have Howard Dean to do his King Kanute thing.

Posted by: Luciferous at February 15, 2005 2:32 PM

oj --

Sometimes it does seem that Dems are like crayfish -- uneducable.

Posted by: curt at February 15, 2005 4:08 PM

Next time we'll get our message across to the American people. Then they'll see what idiots they were for supporting gthe chimp and his evil puppeteers.

Posted by: BrainsOnDrugs at February 17, 2005 12:48 AM


Posted by: King Kanute Howardson at February 17, 2005 12:51 AM