Redstate

The more I listen to Hagel the more he sounds like a Democrat. Can we actually
count on him as a reliable Republican vote? I heard rumors he might become an
Independent.

He is a very reliable Republican vote.  Here is his ACU rating of 85 lifetime, 87 last year, and 100 the year before.

It also makes no sense to leave the majority party unless you get something for it.  Jeffords did so (with a much lower ACU rating) when it flipped control of the Senate.  Even then, it worked out poorly for him when Rs took back the Senate.  Only Chafee and Nelson (NE) are in a position where switching parties helps them in any way.  And neither would do so unless they switched into the majority.

appreciate your crystal ball work.  You have no idea how impressed my some of my less politically immersed friends are when I can rattle off 2006 Senate matchups, even though quite frequently I merely repeating your work, as well as Jerome's over on MyDD.

One quibble though - I understand the bitterness at Jeffords, but it's not like he invented the party switch.  In fact, this is from the hip, but I'm guessing the last 40 years have seen more D to R than R to D.  Politics makes strange bedfellows, for sure.

the problem, as it was the method of the switch.

When Phil Graham opted to switch, he did so, by changing, then running for reelection as a republican.

Jeffords flipped not long after the election, from which he took GOP funds to get elected, and had no intention of running as a dem or independant.  He also did so in an attempt to gain power.  I sometimes given the defeat of the dems in the next election cycle, if he didn't regret this move-he didn't get to keep the power he traded for, for very long.

I don't mind party switching.  It does bother me when one switches parties without running for re-election.  It's tricking your voters.  I think the same of Rep. Alexander in LA who did so D to R as Jeffords (although the Senate is a bit more serious).

I really appreicate what Graham did in TX.  He resigned and ran as a Republican in the election to replace himself.  The fact that Jeffords was elected as an R and served 5 years as a D strikes me wrong since party affiliation is the best predictor of voting.

But more to the point, I find it humorous that Jeffords political calculus was so off.  He must have expected to stay in the majority if he was willing to go through the process of switching.  Instead within 2 years he lost his power when Dems lost the Senate.  Then with the 2004 results, he must have realized that any hope of chairing Environment and Public Works again was pretty slim.  And so he doesn't even give voters the chance to affirm or reject his party switch (which I am sure they would have affirmed).

And thanks for the kind words about the updates.  They take more time than I should spend on blogging.  But I do enjoy them so.

"Mr. DeWine is in a good position in this race...It seems more likely that Mr. Brown will secure enough support to give Mr. DeWine a decent race but again it would take a landslide to take out Mr. DeWine"

Hmm...last poll I saw (granted, two months ago) had DeWine at 44/43 approval/disapproval.  And that was before the floor fell out for GOP candidates in the last month or so.

Sherrod Brown was a state rep for 7 years, statewide elected official (Sec. of State) for 8 years, and is a 7-term Congressman.   The guy is a name-brand candidate and a proven fundraiser who's pretty solid on a number of issues (for example, solidly anti-free-trade is a good stance in Ohio)...and of course Hackett ran way ahead of standard Dem candidates in a very GOP district.

If I'm looking for a "landslide" in that race, it wouldn't be in DeWine's favor.

make that 42/43 approval/disapproval, for a net approval of minus 1.  Hardly landslide material, anyway.

I remember liberals were very excited in 2004 and predicting a landslide for Kerry along with taking the Senate.  So you may be right or not.

I doubt DeWine loses unless Talent and Burns lose as well.  That would be a landslide.  And I put the odds of it happening around 10-15%.  Possible, but I wouldn't put money on it.

And I'm very happy to see that people think Hackett has any chance in the race.  There werw a lot of things going on in that special election that were ignored in the "Hackett rocks" netroots reaction.  Even the Club for Growth opposed the R who ended up winning.  Please, please nominate Hackett.

Party switching abuses the hard work and dollars of party loyalists who would not support a candidate without the appropriate party label.  But again, Jeffords is not unique, and while I'm well aware of his voting record, he didn't become one of us either.  But your point stands, and I support it wholeheartedly.

I think the biggest potential loss for conservatives would be Santorum in PA;  I would love to support a blog by a pro-Santorum Pennsylvanian.

Santorum is a closely divided state but a huge asset to conservatives.  His new book, "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good," is tremendous (I just finished it).  In my perspective, it is a foundational document for defining the future direction of true conservatism.

We need more Senators like him.  I hope that he has a few rabbits in his bag to boost his numbers.

JR

is for governor.  Gov. Napolitano has good approval ratings and the backing of the establishment media, but has few legislative victories to her name, her most well-known accomplishments being the renaming of Squaw Peak to Piestewa Peak in honor of a fallen soldier from AZ and the creation of an all-day kindergarten program.  Yawn.  In the coming months, she will be forced to take stands on controversial issues like immigration and gay marriage, both of which will appear on the ballot in 2006; she has avoided these issues like the plague so far except for her opposition to the anti-illegal immigrant Proposition 202, which passed with 55-60% of the vote.

Unfortunately, A-list Republicans like State Rep. JD Hayworth have so far declined to run, so Napolitano looks rather safe right now.  But as we know, surprises in politics should always be expected.  Right now, it looks like a dull race, but has the possibility to heat up in ways that the Kyl race never will.

I meant House Rep. JD Hayworth, not State Rep.

See my earlier response.  Ol' Phil did the right thing.  Ben Nighthorse Campbell?  Not so much.  But he did run for and win re-election as an R 4 years after the switch, and he changed to a majority that lasted, so more points for him.  I'm not saying Jeffords didn't earn the animus of Republicans, because he did, I just think he might get a few more helpings of spite than perhaps he historically deserves.

I was hoping Flake would run, but Hayworth would have been good too.

Of course, if Goldwater can win it would be fun to have a Governor Goldwater.  I don't know much about him, but AZ is on the cusp on being a great experiment in progressive Republicanism and Napolitano is holding it back.  The universal school voucher proposal she vetoed really stopped what could have been a grand experiment in helping fix monopolistic education.

It's more laughter than spite.  But I understand others feeling spite.  IIRC, this is the only time a party switch actually switched control of a chamber to another party.  That's a lot of marginal power for one person.

You like a Senator that wants to do away with free, tax payer paid for weather forecasts?

"Do you want a seven-day weather forecast for your ZIP code? Or hour-by-hour predictions of the temperature, wind speed, humidity and chance of rain? Or weather data beamed to your cellphone?

That information is available for free from the National Weather Service....The bill, introduced last week by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., would prohibit federal meteorologists from competing with companies such as AccuWeather and The Weather Channel"

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/epaper/2005/04/21/m1a_wx_042
1.html

What in the wide world of sports motivates Santorum to do something like this?  When did he become a fiscal conservative? Give me a break.

Nephew of the main man is polling within the margin of error of Napolitano.

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2005/10/03/daily31.html

"Free"

It's not free if the government provides it.  My guess is that like news online (yahoo sends updates all the time to cell phones for free), the private groups would end up providing the same services.  And they actually wouldn't cost me anything.  Just because the government was the only one capable in the past doesn't mean it will always be so.

In fact, I get my hour-by-hour weather at Weather.com owned by "The Weather Channel" and it doesn't cost me a dime.

the Goldwater name is still magic in Arizona.  I used to drive on a street named after Senator Goldwater just about every day before I went off to college.  If he steps up, at least he'll have isntant name recognition.  A poor candidate (Matt Salmon) helped Napolitano into office in 2002, so a strong candidate would hopefully be enough to dislodge her.  The gay marriage referendum in particular promises to be explosive, as it is almost certain Napolitano will oppose it.  The manner in which she stakes out her position could determine the election.  There are plenty of things to not like about the way the referendum is phrased, but if Napolitano goes too far and endorses same-sex marriage she could be in a world of hurt.  

There is another interesting dynamic in Arizona politics right now that could hurt her in 2006.  When the GOP majority legislature agreed to pass her expansion of all-day kindergarten programs, she agreed to sign a bill dealing with tax credits that would be given to corporations who donated to scholarships of private schools, a back-door voucher program, if you will.  Instead, when the bill was sent to her desk, she vetoed it.  The likelihood of her getting through any major pieces of legislation to shore up her record for 2006 is about nil now, and it is the first truly serious political misstep while she's been in office.  Things should get interesting.

Does your comment about the floor falling out for GOP candidates in the last month or so refer to the general bad news of DeLay, Frist, Katrina, gas prices, Iraq, and Bush's approval ratings; or does it refer to specific polling data, either nationally or specifically in Ohio?

It would be a shame if a potential rising star like Ken Blackwell were to have his chances at bringing genuine conservative leadership to Ohio torpedoed by his RINO predecessors in the state.

Flake is terrible on immigration, so it might be better if he were to leave Congress (assuming the GOP retained the seat) as it would be one less voice for amnesty.

Casey Jr is no doubt a phony moderate, and it probably wouldn't take long for him to amass a very liberal voting record.  But that would be after the worst had happened with a Santorum loss.  In 2000 I think the the Dems ran a candidate against Santorum who (like Casey Jr) claimed to hold conservative views on some social issues, but that guy lacked Casey's golden name.  Santorum cannot afford any defections from those traditionally Dem-leaning voters who go Republican because of cultural issues.  

Its not over till its over, but its sad to say that Santorum will likely be ousted next year.  He'd have a tough race even if it were shaping up to be an incumbent-friendly election cycle, but since its not, the odds just get longer.

But is the GOP is going to be a 'true' conservative party or just a patchwork of conflicting desires, sellouts to the Dems, payoffs to big contributors, Bush whims, and ad hoc attempts to look good for the press.

In which case, a filabuster proof congress has no meaning.

The problem is Santorum's bill doesn't prevent NOAA from producing the weather forecasts, it just prevents them from disseminating the data to the public for free.

In this case, I suspect that figuring out the forecast is 99.9% of the work, so we'll continue to pay for that, but would be prevented from actually accessing the data.  This legislation seems to exist only to preserve the business model of companies like weather.com, who often just get the data from NOAA in the first place.  So, the issue here isn't whether or not the government should have a monopoloy, but whether we should prevent them from disseminating data that that they have already porduced/collected.  That seems a little silly.

That being said, Flake is one of the strongest Fiscal Cons in the House.  He is a leader in the Republican Study Committee that has been key in bringing some fiscal sanity back to the R party.  And for that, he gets major kudos from me.

What about Lindsey Graham?  I live in South Carolina and voted for him because I wanted my newly elected senator to support President Bush.  What a joke, huh?  He signed on with the McCain moderates over the issue of filibustering court nominees.  Who knows what other compromises he's made.  I now find myself in a position of being unable to trust Graham and I'm wondering what can be done--what I can do as a single voice--to force the SC Republican machinery to find another, more conservative candidate to take Graham's place when he comes up for re-election.  

Since that first post about Flake, I have researched his voting record on immigration more thoroughly.  I must admit, he is not as bad as I thought, and has even cast many good votes (like a committee vote to end the visa lottery).  

My earlier comments were based on his claims that the thinly-veiled amnesty bill supported by himself and Rep Kolbe and Sen McCain is not an amnesty.  

Otherwise, yes, he has a very solid conservative voting record.  So, for the most part I take back what I said and acknowledge him as a mostly good congressman.  

but you are unlikely to succeed.  Specter and Chafee have to fear primary challenges.  Guys like Graham don't.  Why, you ask?

Because his ACU rating is 91 lifetime and 92 last year.  Granted Senator DeMint is a 98 with 100 last year so maybe Graham looks bad in comparison.  To put it in perspective, compare to Fritz Hollings: lifetime 36 and last year 8.

It seems like Republicans in Florida are overlooking the most obvious Senate candidate. Since Governor Jeb Bush is term-limited, why doesn't HE run for Senate in 2006? He's very popular in Florida, and would easily beat Nelson.

He announced early and often that he was not running.  Harris has even said she would step down if Jeb ran.  There is 0 chance he will change his mind now.  Maybe for the Presidency in 2008, but not for the Senate in 2006.

Crist and Gallagher would be the best candidates, but they are dueling for the GOV spot.  Rep. Foley, former Rep. Scarborough or General Franks would also have been good choices.  Alas, we have Harris.

The Dems might as well kiss that seat goodbye, because it's as good as gone, and no amount of vote fraud in Baltimore is going to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Hollings was the worst--glad he's gone.  I ask about Graham because we don't want any more concessions--"compromises"--from him.  We want a Republican with the backbone to stand with the President and not cave on crucial issues.  In my opinion, nominees to the courts are extremely important.  I've written to the state GOP chairman but I doubt my issues will be heard.

Thanks for replying.

I'm from CO, and I'm going to tell you a story that parralels this one. Then it's bedtime. So this will be a bedtime story.

We had an ugly primary last year. The media said Bob Shaffer would be unelectable to the Senate. The Republican Party said he was unelectable. Coors got in and was a dream candidate. Socially conservative Catholic who supported the sales tax AND everything Bush stood for. Shaffer was a dream conservative, having opposed Bush's government expansion, and he knew how to run campaigns and get name recognition. But it was ugly. Shaffer was insanely mean to Coors; meaner than either were to Salazar. Coors was perfectly electable but Shaffer had a following. A cult following. I'm convinced this following could have gotten Shaffer elected. However, Coors got some rude treatment, and when the primary came, people like me and my very politically active family voted Coors because we didn't want to support the bare-knuckles brawl that the Shaffer folks were cooking up against Shaffer (the last straw for me was Coors staffers being booed at the convention, which Shaffer didn't stop). In the end, we nominated Coors, the electable guy who had a great smile and a conservative agenda, despite what Shaffer's supporters were saying. However, he was too beat up to win. Shaffer had ripped Coors to shreds with conservatives, so the get-out-the-vote was hopeless. In the end, Salazar won by a comfortable margin, even though Bush also won by a pretty comfortable margin. Now let's look at the other version of the story.

Shaffer was in the race, much like Harris. Bush didn't like Shaffer (Bush really does hold grudges), so he, Rove, and the party all went around recruiting someone 'electable.' They found Coors. They did their best to end Shaffer's career, and not a word of defence came from the national party. They didn't have to actually throw the mud, they just let the media do that.

Both versions are true. Both people could have been elected. Both were conservatives. But when the primary was over, no matter who won, the two teams were not going to band together, even if the two of them were to kiss and make up. When the dust settled, we lost a Senate seat, a congressional seat, several ballot referendums, and we were the only state in the union to switch both the state house and senate to the democrats and that was after something like 36 years of control. The liberal Denver Post partied it up like there was no tomorrow. Every state in the country got redder except us, and we went really blue.

The moral of the story is support your man or woman. Harris = Shaffer, or Coors after the primary. I don't care what she's polling, those polls won't get better if you don't make them better. You have a strong get out the vote effort with Harris, so please don't grumble over her. Back her like you are backing Santorum, because if Santorum loses, we will need another strong voice in the Senate. DO NOT LET CO HAPPEN TO FLORIDA. I could compare the two all night, but it would really take all night due to my long-windedness. I've only compared one thing and it took forever. Sheesh. Gotta work on that. Anyways, goodnight. And in the morning, put your conservative gravitas (you do have quite a bit here at redstate) behind her in a story or something before she gets butchered without even having to face anybody. Boy would that be embarrassing. Goodnight, seriously.

P.S. Thanks for keeping us up to date. That's actually why I got started here at Redstate. You're doing an excellent job. And write good things about Harris. Propaganda works. Goodnight, sir, and keep up the good work.

The what's his name you refer to is Ron Klink. He gave Santorum a good run, despite having zero pull or help from SE PA(Philly area. Casey doesn't have to worry about that, running with Rendell on the ticket. Fast Eddie's machine will crank out more votes in Philly for Casey than Klink could have ever have wished.

Casey isn't a moderate, it's the label being attached to him by the right and the left. He's an old school Catholic populist. His pro-life stance is why some people label him a moderate, and the label   dosen't fit. Didn't fit his father either.

I seriously doubt that casey would switch his pro-life stance. While running for govenor he stuck with it, answering a questionnaire question with this(paraphrased):

Q: If the supreme court over-ruled Roe v Wade, and the general assembly passed a law outlawing abortion, would you as govenor sign it.

A: Yes if it left a provision for health of the mother and rape or incest.

This response could have very well cost him the election. Casey beat Rendell in 54 out of 62 counties. Rendell won the liberal corner(SE PA) quite handily.  

Didn't his polls say Kerry was going to have a big win last year?

I have seen Republicans discourage trusting Zogby/WSJ poll and I think that is the best way to go. They use some alternative form of polling no one else uses, if I remember correctly.

I worry at times about the fissures in the Arizona Republican Party. Last year almost every Republican Congressional incumbent had a polarizing primary fight (the only one I do not care for is Jim Kolbe, because he voted against the PBA ban). In a bad year for Republicans, those fights can lead to disaster in a general election. Last year there were some very nasty Republican primaries for the statehouse, with some candidates claiming they were followed home and harrassed and other candidates having to battle gay rumors because they were married but childless. This man had to tell people the reason he was childless was because cancer and miscarriages had made his wife barren. I hope Goldwater wins, but I think having a Democrat governor helps keep them focused on who the real enemy is.

I don't speak Goldwater's name to my Republican relatives in Arizona. He became pro abortion and very critical of the 'religious right' in his final years. He also became very supportive of homosexual rights - he was to the left of the Democrats on gays in the military. I think some Republicans tried to have his name taken off a building in Arizona ten or twenty years ago.

Napolitano has, from my limited knowledge of the issue, handled the gay marriage matter with more finesse than many other Democrats. Instead of denouncing the gay marriage amendment, she said if the matter was so important, gay marriage should be put on the ballot immediately, 2005 instead of 2006. Republicans accused her of playing politics, and she was, but they have to twist themselves into a knot because they can be accused of the same since the 2006 ballot has the big elections where conservative turnout is important.

There has been a great deal of confusion on the wording of the Arizona amendment and one poll has a sudden decline in support for the amendment. That decline is based on wording and polls always show more support for homosexual issues than we see at the voting booth. However, the waters have been muddied and conservatives have not yet been able to pin Napolianto down. She can easily say the state already bans homosexual marriage and the amendment is too far reaching, and because of the way the amendment is worded, she would have a point.

There was a great commercial when Gramm first ran as a Republican.  He's speaking at a county fair or some such event, and drawls out, "I had to choose between Tip O'Neill and y'all ... and I chose y'all."

That was a great story. I had wondered why Colorado suffered the setback, now I know.

My question is: what are the primary objections to Ms Harris? Frankly I like her and if I lived down there, I would work to support her. Since I live in Texas, the most I can do is send her financial support, which I have done and will continue to do....

The bitterness toward Jeffords is not over the switch so much as the fact that the switch mattered.

At the Federal level, I don't think there's any other example of one individual switching parties and thus switching control of a branch of Congress away from the party in power.

Phil Gramm switched from D to R when the dems had a 40 seat margin.  No big deal.

Shelby and Campbell switched after the R's had taken over the senate, while it made it easier to get 60 vites on things, it didn't substantively change the power structure of Congress.

But Jeffords maneuver over a fit of pique about education spending changed the power structure and had actual consequences.  So Republicans are justifiably embittered over his demented manuever.

The motivation behind his NOAA bill is that the company that wants to compete with NOAA is based in PA and employes several dozens (maybe hundreds?) of people in the Commonwealth of PA and has said that they would expand in PA considerably if they could compete with NOAA.

So Santorum's bill is a clear example of excellent constituent services and promoting job creation for his state.

I wouldn't get too upset about the bill, though.  It's not likely to go anywhere in the senate and the House has no similart sponsor.

He does two types of polls: tradition phone calling and an online poll.

The online polls have had weird results, predicted races incorrectly in 2004 and have one of the worst track records in polling.  That being said, Zogby even admits that he's trying to master a new form of polling.  With more people having cell phones (i.e. not listed) and more call screening going on, the telephone method has become less reliable.  Zogby is smart to try to create an online way to randomly sample the population.  But he hasn't mastered it yet.  I don't give those polls much credence.

Looking at this article, it seems it was done in the traditional phone way.  Zogby still does these and they are not as bad as his online ones.  IIRC, his record was not at the top in 2004 but it was somewhere in the middle.  So the exact numbers may be off, but I don't doubt that the Goldwater name is running competitively against Napolitano.

though it does sound a wee bit optimistic for the Republicans at this particular moment. Just as an example, saying that Minnesota is "rightward trending" after 2004, when the Republican presidential nominee lost the state by 100k votes (an improvement for Dems from 2000) and the GOP lost seats in the state House and Senate. Also, you say Jim Talent has "no marks against him." Half or less than half of Missouri voters agree with you. And I doubt it would take a Dem wave to oust DeWine, who's nearly as unpopular as (gasp) Rick Santorum.

Just some thoughts. There is plenty of spin on the other side of the blogosphere, to be sure...so let's make sure this side gets it right.

Polls show her further behind Nelson than any other major candidate.  For a Representative she has very high disapproval ratings statewide.  Her role in the 2000 election motivates Ds much more than Rs to take action in the campaign.

Here's the most recent polling.

No Republican incumbents lost in 2004.  OH, MT, and MO are still right-of-center states.  It takes a lot to throw out an incumbent in a friendly state.  Heck it took a lot to throw out Daschle from a very right-leaning state.

A wave could come and would sweep all those states.  But if the election where today, all 3 are safe.  I do, however, appreciate the low expectations.  That way if it's a draw (MN for PA), it will be seen as a Republican win.

There aren't many real opportunities this time around because so few open seats exist and the red state Dems avoided hard challenges.  Since there aren't many blue state Reps, those opportunities don't come often for Ds.  Although this cycle includes 3 of the 5 (Snowe, Chafee, Santorum but not Collins or Specter).

Hagel may be infuriating at times, but I wouldn't worry too much about him leaving the GOP. His office confirmed to me in an interview with NRO that he would not leave the Republican Party.

There is another distinct advantage in the GOP's corner heading into 2006 that most analysts have overlooked. While the party is facing legitimate problems now, there is still ample time to overcome these obstacles. A return to fiscal discipline and a  probable positive shift of events in Iraq are two key elements. What's more, in terms of a news cycle, this is truly about as bad as it gets, even for conservatives. The media will shift its focus, which could actually wind up being good news for Republicans come election time.

I'm too young to remember anything about Goldwater firsthand.  Interesting facts, however.

It would not terribly bother me if Goldwater's nephew is not a hard-core member of the Religious Right.  I vote Republican partly on social issues yes, but fiscal issues and hawkishness are at least as, if not more, important.  I'm with Adam: Arizona is about to be a great experiment in modern conservative issues like school choice and has already built itself into a very pro-growth state (I give Napolitano credit for her corporate tax cuts).  We could go further without a Democrat in the governor's mansion.

As for the gay marriage amendment, everything you said is true.  For instance, my dad who is very anti-gay marriage is probably going to vote against it because he thinks it's too far-ranging.  I'll probably vote for it but I'd like to see the details hashed out before I make up my mind for sure.  

need to go away and die. They are taking the Democratic Party in the wrong direction. A very, very wrong direction.

Look no further than the Kos-supported candidates' record. And they accuse the Bush administration of rewarding failure?

we've already discussed this and I also think the most likely outcome is a 1-2 seat shift in one way or the other. And I'm not as high on McCaskill as the pundits seem to be. I'm just saying that coming up with reasons why a race shouldn't be competitive doesn't make it so...and the Ohio & Missouri races are competitive. People on both sides would do well to be a little more frank with themselves.

Arizona has a high turnover of people. I'm not sure how many people in the state remember Goldwater, or view him as he was in his heyday, instead of the flaming liberal he became. I am also wary of the name recognition argument because Democrats told everyone Paul Babbitt's last name would make him competitive against Rick Renzi, and he lost in a landslide.

A recent poll had Napolitano's approval rating at something around 69%. If that number is true then her only narrowly leading is something I am cautious of.

The same poll has Tim Pawlenty losing to Mike Hatch, even though Hatch is not even very popular among Democrats. So if we believe this poll then that means we should expect to lose Minnesota.

Far more than his uncle I am sure. My only argument was with the idea of the Goldwater name being magic in Arizona. In theory I agree a state is best served with all Republican leadership. In practice that does not always turn out to be the case. After the fights and the bitterness their legislature had last year, I'm not sure if Arizona Republican leaders are ready for so much power. A few years of power now could shut them out of power in ways they never anticipated if voters are alienated by their infighting and tin ears, as happened in Colorado last year.

If I lived in Arizona I could not vote for that amendment. An amendment to ban marriage, yes. I might even vote for a ban on civil unions, since the state is never likely to pass those anyway. If it is true that the amendment will take away health insurance or domestic partnerships which are already provided by some cities, then I think the amendment is unfair. But I do think the amendment will pass. I just do not think the amendment will be a rallying cry for conservative voters. In a number states with pro-marriage amendments on the ballot last year (Oregon, Ohio, Michigan, Utah), Democrats actually GAINED legislative seats. Republican leaders in Arizona should remember that if they are using this amendment solely for political gain.

The fact that Jeffords was elected as an R and served 5 years as a D strikes me wrong since party affiliation is the best predictor of voting.

Technically, Jeffords became an independent, not a Democrat (although he aligns himself more closely with the Democrats than the Republicans, I think).

If Republicans hadn't been undermining her so publically, I don't think she'd be polling far behind at all.

I still say she wins. And then...I hope she gets payback against Bush by zealously attacking his big government expansion.

MAKE HIM RUE THE DAY, KATHERINE!!

However, he does caucus with the Ds which functionally makes no difference between him being an I and a D.  Nevertheless, point well taken.

was always more libertarian.  He was much more small government focused than religiously focused.  In a lot of ways, Senator McCain follows in his footsteps except Senator McCain is also pro-life.  Neither is big on fighting gay rights.  And Mr. McCain still has sky high approval ratings in AZ, much more than Senator Kyl or Governor Napolitano.

The South has some very religious conservative leaders.  I'd like to see AZ champion the fiscal conservative, strong national defense, pro-market parts of the party.  Those play well in the West and could help us hold AZ, NM, CO, and NV while making inroads in CA.  If little Goldwater focuses on those  parts of conservatism, I'd be happy to see him replace Napolitano.

Goldwater has the benefit of a very famous senator who was also a presidential candidate.  Paul Babbitt used to be the mayor of Flagstaff and his brother was Secretary of the Interior.  I think there's a qualitative difference.  Secondly, Babbitt was overhyped from the beginning.  He did run a smooth campaign but unseating incumbent Republicans in Arizona has generally been very difficult.  The dKos types who were hyping the Babbitt campaign knew little, as usual, about local politics.  The fact that Babbitt was slaughtered even in the Native American areas like Navajo County (where Renzi had gotten a lot of support for his role in the water-sharing agreement) should say something about the strength of his candidacy.

As far as the polls go, I believe there are more than one putting Napolitano at around 47-48% among likely voters.  That shouldn't be terribly surprising, as party registration means a great deal and the GOP has 140,000 voter edge.  Early polls are going to reflect the voter makeup of the state.  What will be interesting to see is if Napolitano surges toward her approval rating numbers or continues to sit below the 50% mark in the coming months.  If the latter happens, expect to see some panic from her inner circle starting in the spring.  If the former, the best Republican candidates that are still undeclared will probably vacate and Napolitano will sail to easy re-election.

Another wild card is McCain.  His backing of the Kyl campaign probably ensures a win for Kyl, and if he were to put himself solidly behind the GOP gubernatorial candidate he could do some damage.  If the GOP puts up Goldwater I could see McCain supporting him, if for no other reason then to shore up his own conservative credentials for 2008.  If he were to be a factor in tossing Napolitano out of office then the GOP insiders who seem to despise him so much might cut him some slack.  I, for one, would move McCain to the top of my primary list if he succeeded in unseating Napolitano.

Should be an interesting year.

I think it's fair to say he was fairly out of step with the Republican leadership and particularly the administration.  That'll be my last word on Jeffords, as I'm not really that bent out by criticism of him.

Can soemone tell me his full name?

Looks like it was mentioned below. Sorry.

The issue at hand was whether the Bush admin would reduce the tax cut by an amount sufficient to meet the government's 'commitment' to a desired level of special education funding.  Bush said no and told Jeffords to find that money through the discretionary spending side of the budget.  So Jeffords switched parties for the promise of the Environment committee chairmanship.

So I stand by my estimation that this was just a fit of pique from an elderly senator whose mentaly acuity was never very high and was already slipping away from him.  YMMV.

That's the kind of comment I'm trying to end. It falls under Reagan's speak no evil of a fellow Republican philosophy. Telling moderates that she's very polarizing doesn't garner her votes. Telling Republicans she can't win elections doesn't garner her votes. And if no one is going to oppose her, that's time we throw out the 'polarizing' talk and back her 100%. That means not only do we not talk bad about her, but we also do our very best to play her up as the person Florida wants and needs.

Down in Hamilton County, it seems a fair number of Republican voters want nothing to do with the DeWine name, either father or son. It looks as though DeWine pere will be facing a primary challenge from the former president of AK Steel, who has the finances to mount a substantial campaign.  John Hritz appears to have taken issue with DeWine's lack of fiscal conservatism, and a strong turnout for Blackwell in the primary could give DeWine fits.  A DeFeat for DeWine could hurt the Rs as far as name recognition, but it might also get the base energized, especially if the ticket has both Hritz and Blackwell.

There will be plenty of weirdness in the Ohio 2006 election. Primarily because of the effects of the entire slate. Blackwell and Dewine would be an unusual pairing for voter preferences, although I don't think there's any particular relationship issues, either good or bad. They probably won't run with each other nor away from each other.

The Taft effects will make all GOP candidates distinguish themselves from that fallout.

As for Hackett and Brown - if they were merged they'd be very formidable, but one's strength is the others weakness and vice-versa - name recognition, regional appeal, proven record vis outsider and so on.

The final wildcard is how the democrat slate holds up - they should run as one, and very unified, but they've proven so incompetent in the past as to challenge safe predictions.

And they accuse the Bush administration of rewarding failure?




I don't understand comments like this.  Can't they both reward failure?  Just because you're a hypocrite doesn't mean what you're saying is false.

I'm not saying Bush does reward failure, I just hate lapses in reasoning.

Eric, over at National Review's The Buzz, added some commentary.  He's a pro, I'm an amateur.  And he's more optimistic.  Hope he's right:

But three critical points stand out to me that are not being addressed by the media or even in most conservative circles. First, the GOP does face significant problems. However, the party seems aware of this fact more than a year before votes are cast. Re-locating their direction on fiscal issues would be a great start: budget restraint, tax reform and a steadfast commitment to the president's tax cuts.

The second point is that Democrats still lack direction and a unified message. Until they come up with both, their chances of tapping into any national reform sentiment will remain limited.

Finally, Republicans retain a powerful fundraising advantage. The challenge of maintaining or even picking up seats appears substantial at this point. But the news cycle will eventually turn back at least somewhat in favor of the Republicans, strong fundraising will continue and when it comes time to get out the vote, a unified message beats generalist anger nearly every time.

...who are likely to sit out because of the Harriet Miers nomination?

You don't think that's enough to put a damper in GOP hopes for a fillibuster-proof majority?

I beg to differ.  I think it's going to hurt.

After all, a lot of people like me don't see a point to a GOP Senate majority anymore.  If it happens, so be it; but I ain't gonna spend time and money and effort trying to make it happen.

We're just going to get consensus nominations anyway, so why bother?  All giving Bush 60 Senators will do is ensure there isn't enough Conservative opposition to him in the Senate to vote down Alberto Gonzales next time.  Brownback and his kin can vote "no" to save face with the base, while Gonzales still gets safely confirmed.

Bush gets everything he wants, and the Machine saves face with the base.  Meanwhile, the base gets nothing.

What a deal!!!

He had some heft but the name value alone would not help his brother. I don't think Goldwater's nephew expects people to vote for him because of his last name, but I don't know if others should expect the last name to have automatic value.

All of the top tier candidates bowed out of this race early this year. So unless Napolitano has fallen in popularity the year, then I think the situation is the same as when Hayworth, Salmon and others said no.

McCain will definitely endorse Goldwater, but he probably also endorsed Salmon as well, and Salmon lost in a very strong Republican year.

But I'm quite happy that because we picked up 4 seats in 2004 we have Judge Janice Rogers Brown, Judge Owen, and several other judges on Appeals Courts now.  The confirmation of Justice Roberts was never contested.  If we had lost 2 seats instead of winning 4, it may have been.

We can disagree with the President on the Miers choice, but if that is enough for you to let President H. Clinton appoint Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama then so be it.

In my world, nothing is perfect.  But 55 seats has been better than 51.  And 60 would be better than 55.  At the least, each additional R seat marginalizes Chafee, Snowe, Collins, and Specter by that much more.  Pre-2004 they controlled every vote.  Now their power is much diminished.  Let's keep it that way.

It was a tone deaf move IMHO.

He's under the gun as it is, other than a possible job after he looses his seat, what was the point?

What principle was he upholding that calls for not allowing information gathered with the public dollar being disseminated to the public. This bill just does not make a lick of sense other than campaign contributions.

Dumb move.

also comes from the reaction to Jefford's party switch, where he was lauded as a "Hero" and was praised incessantly for such a courageous move.

You explain why we need the Presidency, but you fail to disprove my absolute fact about the Senate.

There is no point to the Senate majority.

Having judges who will strictly interpret bad law at second- and third-tier courts means nothing.  Nada, zip.

The fact that the White House has openly disqualified anyone openly Conservative (and provably Conservative) for the highest Court in the land shows that a majority isn't needed.  

I don't want Michael Luttig on the Fifth Circuit (or whatever judge on whatever circuit) saying, "Yup.  The Supreme Court ruled Partial Birth Abortion legal, and I'm bound by that ruling; so go ahead and kill your twins."  I want Luttig on the Supreme Court saying Partial Birth Abortion bans should be upheld.  Just an example.

Giving us appointments to second-tier courts and third-tier courts are meaningless if they are never going to be promoted to the Supreme Court.  The White House has now, basically, promised that they will never be.

When they come to take your house and sell it to someone richer, and Janice Rogers Brown in D.C. tells you she's bound by the law per Supreme Court rulings, then tell me how great her appointment was.

It's all about the Supreme Court.  Bush just nullified that consideration for many voters.  Now I have no reason to fear losing in 2006.

Sitting out is the same as voting Democrat. No matter how bad you think Republicans may be, having a Democrat in office will be worse...instead of Miers and Roberts for SCOTUS, you'll get Breyer and Ginsburg (not to mention the rest of the federal courts).

The way you fight is fighting for stronger conservative candidates in the Republican party, not by letting Democrats sneak in.

doesn't have a contested election in this cycle.  Napolitano will unfortunately win, things here are OK and Goldwater is an unknown.  On the other hand, after four years as governor, Napolitano is pretty much an unknown.  But, bottom line, unless the real estate market crashes, Janet's in for four more.

It would take death to cause turnover in the Congress.  Kyl will only get about 65% of the vote.  Jon could not show up in the state from now till election day and still win.  His opponent couldn't buy votes and get elected.  The House seats are all bullet proof.

Okay, I'll accept that Casey Jr is genuinely pro-life (does this populist Catholicism also mean that he's against gay marriage/civil unions?).

But it doesn't really matter, because his very presence in the Senate would lessen Bush's chances (or his hopefully GOP replacement in 09)of replacing Stevens or Ginsburg with a conservative/originalist justice.  I don't believe for a second that Casey Jr would defy the powerful Senate Dems who have basically cleared the way for him by opposing a filibuster of a good SCOTUS nominee.  

He'd be able to maintain his pro-life credentials while joining the effort to make sure that Roe never gets overturned, and probably cite some lame and bogus concern about preserving the dignity and honor of the Senate as his motivation.  

Of course, the same could be said of pro-choice Republicans, but the difference of course is that the pro-choice sentiments of these pro-choice Republicans would likely prevail in their home states should Roe be overturned, while the pro-life sentiment that helps elect pro-life Senators is nullified by the Sup Court.  

to a ProLife Democrat sounds familar.  Rep Klink lost to him in 06 because hard-line Democrat abortion supporters couldn't stomach him.  

They have the passion of the issue partisan not the discipline of the party soldier.  Ditto in 06.

and Jeb still took FL easily in 02 and W in 04.  Will Democrats turn out even more against Harris?  I think not.

It takes a star with fundraising ability to beat an incumbent.  We can't beat them with a nobody.  We now have one, and one is better than two, and everybody knows her name, just like George & Jeb Bush.  I bet more know her than vanilla Senator Nelson.  

Since when do conservatives, or Republicans for that matter, listen to MSM and Democrats (but I repeat myself) when ascertaining a Republican candidate's chances to win?  We don't let Osama push our votes either.

like us by witholding your vote & other support.  We likewise miss the energy your passion provides.  

Instead, we receive empowered, happy Democrat foes in return, and previous allies learn not to count on some of us until you get your way & they "learn" to accept not getting theirs.  

Otherwise, the cycle iterates until you or the other side discipline themselves.  We expect and hope moderates, even RINOs, to back our conservatives when we win primaries, yes?  

Democrats cheer this on:  normally, we count upon the 1%ers on the left to fragment the opposition so we eke out the close victories...a shame to follow their losing playbook.  

Unless we're issuing pitchforks to join the Buchanan Brigades, I trust you will follow the logic that won long, hard-fought victories in 2 branches of government so we can finally start reining in the 3rd.

yes, you are correct. napolitano is a very shrewd politician, goldwater is a nobody and would lose as bad as babbitt. GOP is looking at former DOT head Mary Peters to challenge her. It's probably their best bet, but Janet will prevail, she's too good and wants to run for McCain's seat in 2010.

Pederson is running with a lot of his own money and money from national dems, but he merely will serve as the pesky gnat hoping Kyl screws up. He won't. Kyl has already proven to be a skillfull fundraiser, with $5M in the bank already. He has over 50 democratic elected officials (mostly rural) endorsing his campaign, and aside from the fact that he shuns the limelight, he's a top-notch politician.

Damn shame they can't get a GOP governor, but they are working on shooting for a veto-proof legislature.

The big issues are immigration, national defense, free markets, low taxes/less government, forest health and water security (Kyl has very strong reputation in AZ on these two issues, to which Napolitano basically steals his rhetoric and adds her own twist blaming Washington for this or that).

Napolitano just slapped Sheehan down after she called on the gov to request that AZ National Guard troops be brought back from Iraq. Napolitano refused and publicly denounced Sheehan, so she's in good shape on national defense.

Kyl is in good shape on immigration. His immigration reform bill is more in tune with Arizona voters than McCain/Flake/Kolbe's version and should insulate himself from Pederson's attacks on the Kyl/Cornyn immigration bill. Napolitano could be vulnerable here. She has supported driver's licenses for illegals in the past, and basically has ignored the issue, aside from publicity stunts (declaring a state emergencey on the border) and blaming Washington.

The other issues favor Kyl and Napolitano as well. Pederson has money and ties to the business community, but he's even more dull and a heckuva lot less eloquent than Kyl. He should go down easily.