GOP Lowers '04 Senate Expectations

When Republicans took a look at the 2004 Senate races, they were drooling at the prospects of significantly boosting their 51-49 advantage. However, several rejections from possible high-profile GOP candidates have forced the party to temper its high hopes.

"This has to be considered nothing but a disastrous recruiting period for Senate Republicans," Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse said about the GOP’s failure to capitalize on several potentially vulnerable Democratic incumbents up for re-election.

Democrats are starting out with a significant disadvantage in 2004, having to defend 19 of the 34 seats up next year. And of those 19, there are several that Republicans were hoping to snatch from the Dems by putting up well-known, battle-tested candidates.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/22/politics/main579544.shtml

there is a bush backlash now...

most political campaigns try to lower expectations before an election. If the election goes poorly it lets them avoid the sting of failed predictions. If the election goes well they get the added boost of beating expectations.

As things stand, the senate outlook is grim. Leaving out other considerations, the Edwards, Miller, and Hollings retirements leave the party in a VERY uphill struggle.

you know.... the Suzy Terrells, Arnies, and Norm Colemans, will produce yet another brain dead yet telegenic candidate that stands a 50/50 chance of getting elected. Odds good enough to bring our numbers down in the Seante another 3 to 4 seats. :scared:

It's always a big boost to morale when you win in an unexpected landslide, it really sets the tone for a good term in office.

They are "shooting for the moon," and will be rather dissapointed with anything less than finally breaking the back of the Democratic Party.

Down to 3-5?

Did anyone here think we could possibly lose seven? I think four would suck and I don't apreciate them "spinning" that as a good thing.

So they've had trouble recruiting candidates? We've had trouble keeping out incumbents (and the disease is getting worse)! Even with a top-tier challenger in a "leaning-your-way" state you always have a tough run against an incumbent. But an open seat? You don't need the best candidate (as evidenced by E Dole).

Or something like that.

The party is just following his lead...again.

Yeah, we do have some seats to fill, but any time I see the experienced guys saying they don't want to run I have to feel they are smelling blood in the water. Remember, thsy have been elected before--these guys have lists for fundraising, and they know how to do it--they know what is involved. They also know it is a LOT more difficult to raise funds if there is no real belief that candidate will win.

Right now, I do think there is every sign of a backlash against shrub. I also think the experienced candidates know it too.

Laura

..any time I see the experienced guys saying they don't want to run I have to feel they are smelling blood in the water.

Ummm...
Miller, Breaux?, Graham?, Edwards, Hollings.

Here's hoping they aren't smelling blood in the water.

Miller, Breaux?, Graham?, Edwards, Hollings

Breaux, I'm not too shocked by--he's looking at a retirement and providing a Dem with a chance to run as an incumbant after being appointed by the next Dem Governor.

Graham just was in the Presidential primary. I doubt he'd have been in it if his health was poor, nor do I think he'd have beenn in it if anybody had any dirt on him. I have to wonder if he's tired of the political scene or if he's unhappy with the DNC for some reason.

Edwards is playing the VP card, IMO. He's freeing himself up.

Hollings is the only one on the list I'm wondering about. Does he have any health issues? Does somebody have some good dirt on him? I honestly don't know. Maybe one of our fellow DUers can answer that, but I sure can't.

I know that here in Illinois Edgar does not want to open the door to inspection of his insurance dealings. If he runs for that Senate seat vacated by Fitzgerald it is all gonna come up--and it is ugliness in a state already pissed off at the GOP for corruption.

I supose it is possible that that same thing is going with the GOP in other states, but I'm just more inclined to think it is fear of dubya backlash jeeping a lot of those guys on the sidelines. The fundraising argument jsut doesn't hold any water for me, however in most cases.

I could be wrong about it, I dunno...

Laura

You're right about him freeing up for a VP. He should have noticed the best service for his country would be retaining his much-needed seat in the Senate. IMO, his move for Presidency was self-centered and didn't focus on the realities of politics. If we don't control the Senate, we are bound to fail. The loss of his seat will ring for years to come.

That just started because of George Will article when he targeted seven Democrats. The conservative media has been touting that ever since.

I think that the Democrats have done a wonderful job in recruiting for the 2004 election. Erskine Bowles, Inez Tenenbaum, Tony Knowles, Joe Hoeffel, and Brad Carson are all excellent candidates, and I think we have a good shot with Nancy Farmer and possibly Michelle Nunn.

The Dems are having a terrible time trying to recruit someone to run against Brownback in KS. Granted Kansas is a Republican state, but they've elected a Democrat as governor and Brownback doesn't follow in the moderate footsteps of Dole. I really think he's vulnerable, but no one seems willing to take him on and it's getting very late.

Would that fly? She's a "centrist?" Right? It wouldn't be unprecedented. She could position herself like Nancy Kassebaum--a moderate.

Georgie is going to spend that 200 mil.

But we have a couple spots that demand better candidates:

Ohio
Colorado
New Hampshire

We need to have some better people running there.

It was only a matter of time before they lowered their own.

> Miller, Breaux?, Graham?, Edwards, Hollings
and Fitzgerald make 6 likely Repub pickups.

If we lose one or two others we won't even be able to filibuster.
Even if we lose 6 we will barely be able to.

He's a republican. And that is a democratic state that will probably elect a new democratic senator. Graham may run and we have good shots of holding onto the other states. There are vulnerable republican seats in Alaska, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. Possibly other states like Colorado, Missouri and Kentucky will also become competitive.

Miller has been opposing the filibusters anyway and it is hardly a loss if that seat goes republican. He just filed a bill that would prevent all filibusters actually. It is probably better to take the risk of having an open seat than a safe seat for Miller.