« President's Job Approval Continues to Rise | Main | No Thanks, You Can Keep Them »

New Hampshire Senate Race

Republicans are going to have a very difficult time taking back the Senate in 2008. As of tonight, it looks very likely that we would lose at least three seats - Colorado, Virginia, and New Hampshire. Jeanne Shaheen has apparently decided she will run against John Sununu in 2008, and polls show her leading by a very wide margin.

That does not have to be the case. Sununu would be helped tremendously by a strong Presidential candidate. Rudy Giuliani is currently in a tie with Hillary Clinton in the Granite State according to a recent Survey USA poll. Each received 47% of the vote.

In Virginia, Mark Warner has decided to run, and a Rasmussen Poll shows him trouncing either Republican candidate by double digits. That said, the same poll showed Clinton defeating both Giuliani and Thompson, which I highly doubt is the case. Warner most certainly leads in the Senate race, but I suspect the margin is not as large as reported.

The bottom line, however, is that Republicans seem set to lose at least two Senate seats. In Colorado, my understanding is that the polling shows the Democrat narrowly ahead. No Democratic seat seems likely to switch hands at this point. It's time for better recruiting.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/24095.

Comments (10)

Big leads in early polling ... (Below threshold)

Big leads in early polling can disappear quickly - just ask George Allen.

In Virginia, Patrick Ruffini and others are urging Rep. Eric Cantor to make the run. The only poll taken posing him against Mark Warner still shows Warner winning handily, but by a smaller margin than the roughly 20-point edge he holds against Gilmore and Davis. Since Cantor has far lower name recognition, he has the best potential upside.

That said, we have to expect to lose seats in the Senate. We are defending 21 seats, at least three of which will be "open" seats with no incumbent. Democrats only have 12 at risk, none open.

Given the long term average of at least 90% incumbent reelection, we could project losing about 1-2 incumbents, and 1-2 open seats, while winning one Democratic seat, for a net loss of 1-3 seats. But presidential years have a way of messing with the averages. The winning candidate usually gains some seats for his party, although rarely many unless it's a landslide. If we win the Presidency, then, we might expect to hold our losses to as little as one seat in the Senate, but if we lose it could be as many as six.

As you note, recruiting is the key. We failed to recruit the strongest candidates for vulnerable Democratic seats in the 2004 and 2006 cycles, and we are paying the price for that now.

The is zero chance that the... (Below threshold)
superdestroyer:

The is zero chance that the Republicans will take back the Senate. The real question is how close to 60 seats will the Democrats get. Why? Because when the Democrats get to 60 seats, the Republican Party becomes irrelevant to national politics. The Democrats can then pass campaign finance reform, another fairness doctrine, update the civil rights act, and pass hate crimes laws that will eliminate the Repubican Party.

One of the the most interesting stats I have seen is that over half of the Democrtics in the House are probably not going to have a Republican opponents in 2008. How can the Republicans still be considered a national party when they concede so much to the Democrtats? Doesn't it take more than Alabama and Utah to be considered a National political party?

Don't judge anything by Hou... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

Don't judge anything by House races. Those "no Republican opponent" districts have been gerrymandered so that no Republican could possibly win them anyway. The Republicans have about as many secure districts. In general, no more than about ten percent of House races are ever competitive, whether the opposition party in that district runs a candidate or not.

However, I do agree that if nothing changes, the Republican Party is dead next year - further loss of the Senate, probably further losses in the House, and almost certainly the White House. The only hope I can see is that the FemSlug does something so egregiously stupid and evil that even moderate Dems start to turn against her, and vote R on the pricniple that "anyone is better than that bitch."

If something major does happen on the national or international scene ... say, another major terrorist attack that is obviously due to D policies, or the FemSlug being destroyed by corruption scandals ... then the Republicans will have a chance again.

I am not concerned at this ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I am not concerned at this point. Way too early to even concede or boast of anything. Don't forget, congress has garnered a "historic" low from the democratic leadership. This year the congress has really accomplished nothing. The democratic leadership stated they were elected to end the war, but they have not even chipped away at it. The economy it great and the debt is going down faster then expected. Moron.Org slimed a dedicated patriot nationally. All these things haven't even been brought up yet by the RNC. I can see the ads now... ww

Does anyone believe that th... (Below threshold)
superdestroyer:

Does anyone believe that the Kossites who are made at Congress are somehow going to start voting for Republicans? maybe people have been drinking the Karl Rove Kool-aid for too long. the reason that so many Democrats are running unoppose is that such huge segments of the population will not vote for a Republican no matter who the candidate is or what their campaign says.

President Bush, former Speaker Hastert, and the Republicans in Congress have basically destroyed the brand name of Republican.

How pathetic is it that the only hope the Republicans have is for illary Clinton to screw up badly. And even if that happens, the Republicans will still be the underdogs.

Of course the total lack of leadership from the Republican candidates for President doe snot help.

No Democratic seat... (Below threshold)
DLJessup:
No Democratic seat seems likely to switch hands at this point.

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I thought that Sen. Landrieu (D-LA) was considered a likely flip because (a) she won by a very close margin in 2002, (b) Louisiana has become more Republican because Katrina scattered a significant part of the Democratic electorate to other states, and (c) Ray Nagin was re-elected as mayor of New Orleans over Sen. Landrieu's brother, which means that she will not have as much control over the election machinery as she did in 2002.

Tim Johnson is vulnerable.<... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Tim Johnson is vulnerable.

Hey, with Mel Martenez as t... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Hey, with Mel Martenez as the RNC chairman (he's so good that he can do it part-time) and the strong party leadership, and message, how can the Repubs not win? sarc/off

"Republicans are going to h... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"Republicans are going to have a very difficult time taking back the Senate in 2008." -- Alexander McClure

Ya think so, Alex??? Yeah, and I guess you think that Andy Roddick is also going to have a very difficult time defeating Roger Federer in all four Grand Slams next year!

But you may want to think a bit more deeply, though we both know that that's hard for a conservative to do. Let me help out. Find out just what's going down (or should I say, "who's going down"?) in Alaska, Nebraska, and Idaho and get back to us.

Herman, step away from the ... (Below threshold)
The Exposer:

Herman, step away from the crack pipe. Alaska doesn't vote for Democrats for federal office, period (it hasn't since the nutty Mike Gravel in 1974), Nebraska isn't clear sailing for the erratic and non-resident leftist Boob Kerrey, and if you think Idaho is a pick-up for the 'Rats, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. And, hey, who knew you compassionate rodents were so concerned about gay people not serving in Congress. Talk about homophobia!

But then, we don't want you hypocrite leftists taxing your brains to think, since yours are such puny (if non-existent) organs. ;-)




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy