Top 5 Senate Takeover Targets — Another Democratic Field Day

[babylonsister]

Top 5 Senate Takeover Targets — Another Democratic Field Day
By Bob Benenson, CQ Staff



Since the previous Jigsaw Politics provided a list of the five House seats rated by CQ Politics as most vulnerable, it’s time to survey the Senate — and as with the House Top 5, it brings more bad tidings for our Republican readers out there.

The five Senate seats most likely to flip parties (with links to more details on the races) are:

• Virginia, where Democrat Mark Warner, a popular governor from 2002 to 2006, is heavily favored to succeed retiring five-term Republican Sen. John W. Warner (no relation). Mark Warner’s 2001 win for governor stanched a long-running Republican trend in Virginia and set the stage for further major Democratic gains this decade. His political strength is based largely on his reputation for having fixed a fiscal shortfall he inherited from his predecessor, Republican James S. Gilmore III — who happens to be his Republican opponent in this year’s Senate race. Gilmore, a conservative who barely edged out an even more conservative candidate at the state Republican nomination convention, argues that Warner trumped up a fiscal crisis to raise taxes. CQ Politics rates the race as Democrat Favored, meaning this is a likely pickup for the challenging party.

• New Mexico, a swing state, where six-term Republican Pete V. Domenici ’s decision not to seek re-election has created a golden opportunity for a Democratic takeover. Five-term Rep. Tom Udall , who was unopposed for the Democratic nomination, has opened up a big lead in polls over the Republican nominee, strongly conservative three-term Republican Rep. Steve Pearce . Pearce won a narrow victory in the June 3 primary over the state’s third House member, Heather A. Wilson , whose image as a less-hardline conservative than Pearce led some GOP strategists to view her as potentially a stronger contender against Udall. Running in a state that is split very evenly between the parties, Pearce is staking his hopes on persuading voters that Udall’s House record is too liberal. This race is rated Leans Democratic, which means Udall has an edge in a contest that still is highly competitive.

• New Hampshire, where first-term Republican Sen. John E. Sununu ranks as the incumbent most vulnerable to defeat this year. Sununu faces Democratic former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in a tough rematch of their 2002 race. He won that contest by 4 percentage points, but, oh, how times have changed in this longtime bastion of Yankee Republicanism. Democrats have long been gaining ground: George W. Bush won New Hampshire by just 1 point in 2000, and the state flipped in 2004 — the only one to go from Republican to Democratic in Bush’s two elections — by giving Kerry a 1-point edge. State Democrats, aided by strong voter dissent toward the Iraq War, then had one of their biggest years ever in 2006, capturing both of the state’s U.S. House seats and control of both state legislative chambers as Democrat John Lynch won a landslide victory for a second two-year term as governor. Shaheen has enjoyed big leads in polls so far, though the outcome ultimately is expected to be close. CQ Politics currently rates this and the final two races on this list as No Clear Favorite.

more...

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000002914905

[kentuck]

1. Does it really matter ?

If they continue to vote with the Republicans?

[babylonsister]

2. Oh please. Does a clear majority in the Senate matter? Yes it does.

Just imagine...we could even get rid of Lieberman if that happened.

[kentuck]

3. As I recall...

When Clinton came into office, we had about 55 Senators and a huge majority in the House and could not pass healthcare legislation? Just saying...

[babylonsister]

5. Please don't equate the 90s to now. Times have changed, and not

for the better. But now, even the rethugs might finally vote in our best interests if they're in the minority. Check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3597486&mesg_id=3597486

And as usual, I prefer my glass being half full instead of half empty. You should try it!

[cali]

6. golly. think there could be a bit more to it than that? Damned straight there was.

Just saying.

[ToeBot]

7. Could, but Wont. Reid must be replaced as Majority Leader, then it might happen. nt

[babylonsister]

8. How do you know? Did you see this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3596637&mesg_id=3596637

[kentuck]

9. Reid is a mouse.

He is no leader.

[babylonsister]

11. Tear this OP down all you want, kentuck. Post your own doom and gloom,

why don't you? This is positive news whether you choose to believe it or not.

[cali]

4. largely a fallacy. but oh well. it's one with a long half life.

sorry, most dem senators do not usually vote with the repukes. And Tom Udall is a galaxy away from Pearce politically, as is Warner from Gilchrist and Shaheen from Sununu. Do a little homework.

[kentuck]

10. Does anyone remember yesterday?

We could have had 15 more Democrats voting and still would not have had enough to continue a filibuster against FISA? Until there is some strong leadership in the Senate, they will continue to break ranks on all the important and controversial issues.

[babylonsister]

12. Coulda shoulda woulda... past vs. future. You can't change the past,

but the future could look better if you'd consider it.

[kentuck]

13. I'm a realist.

Sorry.

[babylonsister]

14. I didn't know realists could 'predict' the future. nt

[TexasObserver]

15. I'm very excited about the senate prospects.

I think we'll pick up several seats, and we need to. That's the only way to strip Lieberman of his goodies.

[babylonsister]

16. So am I! It'd be great if we could hit the magic number of 60. A

real majority in the Senate would accomplish wonders, or at least get something done for a change.