60

11:30 pm EST October 31st, 2008 | Politics, Republicans | 10 Comments

In all likelihood, the Democrats will not hit 60 votes in the Senate (but come damn close, including possibly Liddy Dole’s seat). But if Sen. Obama wins, I don’t think they’ll really need to get all that way. Democrats will be at historical highs in the House and Senate, with a Democratic president. The country will have sent a serious message about a change in direction that is far stronger than the “capital” Bush spent in 2004-5. There will be enough Republican senators hanging on that they’ll know better than to stand in the way filibustering the agenda.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

10 Responses to “60”

  1. Michael says:
    October 31, 2008 at 11:45 pm

    I would prefer 58 or 61 so Leibermann is not a factor and keep his chairmanship. We probably will be able to find 2 Republicans to help make 60 when needed. The Republicans will feel the need to be bi-partisan to keep from losing in the next election for Senate.

  2. Oliver Willis says:
    November 1, 2008 at 12:18 am

    Lieberman won’t be a factor once we’re over 50.

  3. Sean D. Martin says:
    November 1, 2008 at 4:44 am

    OW: The country will have sent a serious message about a change

    Yup, just like they did in 2006 after which the Dem majority stood up to Bush and stopped telecom immunity and funding the war and made sure impeachment didn’t get swept off the table and… um…

    Oh, never mind.

  4. Jaim says:
    November 1, 2008 at 6:08 am

    Remember when Bush called his victory in 2004 a “mandate”?

    Just sayin’.

  5. SaveFarris says:
    November 1, 2008 at 8:56 am

    The Republicans will feel the need to be bi-partisan to keep from losing in the next election for Senate.

    Uh … what? Republican hopes for 2010 rest entirely in Democratic hands (since everything else will be in their hands too [according to polls FWIW]). If Dems f*** it up, it won’t matter what the Republicans do. It’ll be 1994 all over again.

  6. August J. Pollak says:
    November 1, 2008 at 9:18 am

    This is where Farris, of course, lays out which Senate seats in 2010 Democrats are in danger of losing.

    Meanwhile, Specter and Gregg will have no choice but to play nice in their heavily-Dem environment, Snowe and Collins were never right-wing to begin with, and John McCain will probably retire so he doesn’t have to be humiliated by Gov. Napolitano.

    Democrats lost eight senate seats in 1994, dipshit. Which ones you planning on taking in 2010 from the Democrats? I’m waiting…

  7. Parthenon says:
    November 1, 2008 at 10:43 am

    I sort of wanted to see sixty just for the symbolic pwning value of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. But 58 will do just fine, as far as I’m concerned.

    They’d better be careful though. Really easy to mess up when you control everything. The lack of a respectable opposition can make one lazy.

    For the sake of discussion:

    2010 — 19 Republicans up for election and 15 democrats. Sam Brownback is retiring and Chris Dodd might.

  8. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    November 1, 2008 at 11:08 am

    “If Dems f*** it up, it won’t matter what the Republicans do.”

    If there’s a civil war in the Republicans, it won’t matter what the Democrats do over the next two years.

    Here’s seats I think the Democrats might lose…

    Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, especially if he retires.

    Hmmm… I think that’s it, but I’m certainly willing to listen to reasoned debate over other seats.

    Here’s seats I think the Republicans might lose…

    Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, especially if Palin decides to take her on as a step to the President in 2012. Regardless, Murkowski barely won last time.

    John McCain of Arizona – He might lose the state in the presidential race, which is a terrible sign. Also, early polling has him behind potential Democratic candidate.

    Mel Martinez of Florida – May face serious primary challenge. If he loses, the state will be a toss-up. Even if he wins, he could come out of the primary bruised enough to lose.

    Chuck Grassley of Iowa – May retire. Even if he doesn’t, the state is turning blue.

    Jim Bunning of Kentucky – Very unpopular, but a red state. Could lose a primary and that might be the best news for the Republicans here.

    David Vitter of Louisiana – Likes to wear diapers and solicits prostitutes. But he’s also a ‘Family Values’ Republican, so that might not matter.

    Kit Bond of Missouri – early polling shows she is vulnerable, and Democrats have made gains in the last six years.

    Judd Gregg of New Hampshire – Popular, but a blue state. Could fall like Lincoln did in Rhodes Island in 2006. Or they could convince him to switch sides.

    Richard Burr of North Carolina – Underperformed Bush in 2004, while North Carolina has become more blue since then

    George Voinovich of Ohio – Tainted by scandal. Ohio more blue than last time he ran.

    Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania – Retirement. Hell, he could switch sides before he goes.

    …

    So that’s one Democratic Senate seat that is vulnerable, and eleven Republicans. Perhaps I’m blinded by my bias, and I’m willing to listen to other opinions, but I don’t see where the Republicans could make serious gains.

  9. Oliver Willis says:
    November 1, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Republicans have now taken to warning that complete Democratic control of the government sets them up great for 2010.

    In the world of politics this is called a problem you want to have.

  10. Bruce Henry says:
    November 2, 2008 at 9:28 am

    Mr. Strowbridge, just one quibble. Isn’t Kit Bond a “he”, not a “she”?