Winning the senate AND the presidency in 2004

[sweetheart]

For all the energy and money spent on this presidential primary, consider that the senate is just as important, and the races we need to win should be everyday knowledge for the folks here.

Are they?
Here is what the optimists say:
http://www.dscc.org/Races/poll

Here is what the pessimists say:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1051443&mesg_id=1051607&page=

I am hoping y'all can put foward reasons how we are going to win, in these races where we appear weak, if you feel that is the case.

Winning the presidency will just be window dressing, we need to win the senate too.

Please put forward your battle strategies for winning. There is no option to lose... we can't afford it, as a people and as a nation, we can't afford it.

[SheilaT]

1. Not to mention the House.

A Democratic president will have a hard time if he doesn't have a Democratic Congress to help him change things around.

If Bush stays in power, and Congress retains a Republican majority, the next four years will be truly scary.

[sweetheart]

3. given the gerrymandered redistricting in texas...

My strategic sense says to stop loss in the house, and focus all the artillery on gaining a senate majority.

The house is "hold the line".

The senate is "attack and fire at will."

Focus. The house will come, if we turn the tide this year.

The presidency is not turning the tide... it is stopping loss. To turn the tide, we ***MUST*** take the senate.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Winning the House

in Arkansas, we have a Democratic contender for the Third Congressional District, which has been Rethug since Nixon's time (even Bill Clinton couldn't get elected when he ran for the seat). The local Democratic committee isn't going to do anything to help, but an independent group wants to. Boozman, our Congressman, is vulnerable on veteran's issues; he voted to cut funds to vets, and he's on the veteran's affairs committee. I'm hoping to get out information about his opponant, Jan Judy, who has a track record working for women and families in the Arkansas state legislature.

[adadem]

4. We at DU must help support

whoever wins the primary against DeLay. Do we have a Texas DU'er who could keep us up to speed on what's happening in that race? And, yes we must work really hard on all the senate and house races.

[Lisa0825]

9. I just found out last night that I am now in DeLay's new district:-(

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!! :wow: :scared:

I have heard that Nick Lampson won't run in Dist 22, because he'd have to move from Beaumont (not sure if that is correct, but it's what I read).

Richard Morrison's campaign is starting to gear up. One of his volunteers (who I think posts here, but I don't know his screen name) was telling me last night that they'll take all the help they can get in dollars and volunteers. I don't have the bucks, but I am signed up to volunteer when he's ready to launch his fight.

www.takingontomdelay.com
www.richardmorrisonfordistrict22.com

The good news/bad news deal is that Democratic Galveston County was swallowed up in the new district, BUT, that may also mean a change in demographics for DeLay, so it might be more possible to beat him now than in his old district. again... repeating what I heard, no sources to back it up yet.

[dusty64]

5. I'm envisioning

a 50-50 tie. I was WAY off on my 2002 predictions, but feel certain the electronic "voting" machines had a great deal to do with it. I think Georgia is lost (although that really is a wash), and at least one of the Carolinas. Providing there is a FAIR election Louisiana, Florida, and the other Carolina should be a hold. I'm thinking Illinois and Alaska will be pickups as well as a "surprise" in Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, or Colorado. Lets hope the Democrats take back the WH so that the VP will be able to break the many ties that would happen in this scenario.

[sweetheart]

6. a tie with a veep tie breaker

i'll go for that.

This narrows down the areas for door-to-door work, much more than in a presidential contest, or perhaps the two run together.

We MUST win the senate.

[Walt Starr]

7. OUCH! 50-50 is a LOSS if Kerry is the nominee

Since Romney is the Republican governor of Massachusetts, Kerry would be replaced with a Republican.

[WI_DEM]

8. one drawback of having John Kerry as the nominee

and I don't mean this as a dig but as a fact, if he does get nomination and wins--his state has a GOP Governor who will appoint a Republican to fill out Kerry's term through 2008. A loss of even one seat could make a big difference.

[leyton]

10. True, but:

1) Whoever Romney appointed would probably lose reelection in 2008. Massachusetts voters don't really elect Republicans to the Senate anyways, and I don't think voters like it when governors appoint Senators from parties other than that of whoever vacated the seat. It doesn't fly well.

2) I don't know that with Kerry as the nominee we'd have a 50-50 tie. For our coattails to carry Bowles, Tenenbaum, etc., we need to nominate a Southerner. (Although Kerry is about as good a non-Southerner as you could find...)

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. would you rather have a Kerry presidency or a Kerry senate seat?

I'll take a Kerry presidency and tip a 40 for his senate seat. :)

[progressivebydesign]

11. I like that Dean has been addressing that...

He's been saying in his public appearances that winning the presidency doesn't do enough if you don't have control of the House and/or Senate. He has mentioned that if he is nominated, there will be a concerted effort from his campaign to help candidates in crucial races. Good thinking... we all need to remember that, or face four years of partisan attacks and witchhunts on whomever gets in office and sends Bush back to Kennebunktport. I think that Dean's message is one that will be adopted by other candidates.. hopefully. Of course that's the ONLY message I want the other candidates lifting from his speeches!