The powers to be in the GOP don't give a rats ass if they win the presidency in 2012.

[LynneSin]

This is 1996 all over again, and the higher-up powers would rather not waste any time with the presidency in 2012. Another Bob Dole type candidate will run against Obama and lose.

In the mean time, they are building a new group of 'Bush Brothers' - governors who are getting strong names in the press who will be groomed to run in 2016. I think back then the GOP wanted Jeb as their candidate but he lost his governor race in 1994 so they had to go with George. But by the time 2000 rolled around, they had George secured as their candidate of choice and they had Florida and Texas already protected as wins for the GOP (even if they had to cheat to get there).

There are no more Bush brothers nor are their any other children of famous GOP politicians available to run. But instead we have a host of GOP governors that will be groomed to win in 2016. And while only one of them will be chosen as the candidate of choice, the others will do what they can to secure the win in their respect states including Wisconsin, New Jersey, Michigan, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. Expect to see wretched redistricting and a flurry of voting laws to help prevent alot of people from voting (people who tend to be democrat).

Our goal? I wouldn't worry too much about Obama - unless he decides to broil a small child and dine on him while burning the bibles all while televised by Faux News - he should be able to win fairly easily. But the GOP would like to still keep us discourage, try to divide the party up a bit more because disgruntled democrats means nothing when it comes to Obama, who will win, it will impact the races downstream and benefit the GOP.

If anything, I know I would rather spend more time helping local races. I know Tom Carper will win in a landslide here in Delaware so my eyes will be more focused on Pennsylvania, where the GOP would love to go after freshman Bob Casey Jr. Or if Bob seems to be holding his own, I'm sure we'll have tough races with other freshmen up for re-election with Bob Menendez in NJ or Ben Cardin in Maryland.

I don't think we can get the house back but I'd like to try, but we need to hold on to that senate else we could be back to 2000 all over again in 2016!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. Macaca Allen could potentially run in 2016 if he resurrects his career with a Senate win in VA.

[LynneSin]

6. With the GOP they do better with Governors, not Senators

Senate bills are setup with little 'gotcha' amendments used as campaign ploys. I remember back in 2002, the republican candidate running against Biden created the dumbest ad that said Biden doesn't support seniors and refused to vote for some bill that would help seniors. What the ad failed to mention was this was definitely a pro-seniors amendment tossed into an overall bill that was extremely hurtful to the government overall. But the GOP puts that crap in there so they can use it against another senator. Governors are way more projective and it will be a governor running in 2016 for the GOP

[sofa king]

20. That holds true for both sides.

Yes, sitting Democratic Senators have been elected at a rate of two to one compared to Republicans... but that's because two sitting Democratic Senators have been elected President in the past 200 years, while only one Republican has.

Both of the two previous Senator-Presidents are worth examining. Warren G Harding wandered in on a gimme-putt election after Woodrow Wilson lied during his election campaign, jumped into a war, then had a stroke and left his wife to become the first de facto female President through the age-old "interpreter of his wishes" ruse. Just as then-Senator Obama did, Harding ran against the sitting President's record, rather than the actual nominees, former Ohio Governor James Cox and an obscure running mate named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Just like the Bush coup, Harding's group were corrupt-to-the-bone gangsters and it was only his premature death in office that puts him beneath other Worst Presidents Ever, George W. Bush in the highest.

Kennedy, on the other hand, went straight at Richard Nixon and won by the narrowest of margins. The narrow win allows lookers-back to focus on the televised Presidential debate which Nixon tanked, but Nixon was already well known as a theatrical bullshitter in Congress and a completely invisible Vice President with whom Eisenhower was clearly embarrassed. Like President Obama, Kennedy's time in the Senate was short enough that he didn't have much of a record to run against.

The bottom line is that, just as you suggested, no Senator has it easy. The way Congress works, a Senator winds up on paper being both for and against every major issue. American voters, being for the most part deeply stupid about politics, have a habit of simply not paying attention anymore when presented with contradictory "facts." Thus the Bush Administration survived to commit more crimes by simply saying, "no we didn't" at the start of each new scandal, then walking that position back to "maybe we did" as the facts overwhelmed them, long after the voters stopped listening. In the same fashion, a Senator's record can be assailed at every point, even if that Senator clearly supports one side of an issue.

[villager]

2. while this is doubtless true enough, we the people also need to figure out strategies *outside* of

...orthodox, two-party politics.

After all, we had 1996 and look where it got us. The point is, however Washington "ebbs" and "flows," we march inexorably toward a corporate state.

So we need to work on non-electoral strategies as well: boycotts, strikes, withdrawal of economic participation to whatever degree practicable, cooperative non-consumerist living arrangements, etc.

We must starve the beast, even if working for the least offensive corporate drone running for office might buy us a little more time...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Excellent synopsis, my dear LynneSin!

I think you're spot on.

Recommended.

[blue neen]

4. There's a lot of buyer's remorse in Pennsylvania over Tom Corbett.

I've heard life-long voting Republicans complaining about Governor Gashole (who by the way had surgery today on the taxpayer dole after removing 41,000 working Pennsylvanians from insurance).

Worst governor ever...bar none.

[LynneSin]

7. He's an embarassment to those of us who graduated from LVC

My mom asked if I was excited to see an alumni from my college elected as governor. I told her Corbett was an asshat and an embarrassment.

[Yavin4]

5. None of the Current Republican Governors Are Popular in Their Own State Except Christie

In fact, most of them will probably lose big time.

[LynneSin]

8. Yes but those governors have the secret weapons that we don't have

redistricting

[uponit7771]

27. +1

[blueclown]

21. I live in New Jersey.

The only group where Cristie is popular is with the press. Don't let the press fool you.

[FrenchieCat]

9. The way back to a majority in the house is exactly to

get folks out to vote for the Presidential race in every state.

To give the impression that Pres. Obama has this all sewn up is
Terrible strategy IMO especially when we have so much to lose
if that prediction is proven wrong...considering Citizen United money
as well as the voting right laws going into effect in many purple states,
coupled with assaults on Unions,etc...

I believe that the only way folks will vote "D" down ticket
is to make sure they are eager to come out and vote for Pres. Obama's
re-election...

....saying over and over again that he will for sure be re-elected,
means many folks will opt to stay home thinking someone else has it covered.

Same goes with not donating to the Obama campaign......
one may think that there will be other big donors so why bother....
but let me tell you...if everyone starts thinking like that....
we will be losing bigtime, and what we will be left with, we will
not be able to reverse until this time just totally way too late to save
ourselves.

[Dawson Leery]

10. Certainly. This is not 1996. The GOP is highly unpopular.

The same applies to their policies. The Democrats can retake the house. The 1948 election resulted in the voters reject the GOP who won in 1946 (as the Democrats stayed home and the swing voters had a temper tantrum).

[Phx_Dem]

11. Oh, they definitely care. It's just that they know they don't have any

viable candidates. They aren't exited because they have no one to be excited about, but they'll still get their big donors to put up a ton a money (as Rove's organization is already doing) and they'll run nasty, racially tinged ads and try to steal the election like they do every year. Yawn.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. They just take over the hard drives of the voting computers - easy peasy

[SteveG]

13. Any chance Carney might be vulnerable?

I personally don't think so, but teabagger sentiment in Sussex Co. is very high, and there are rumors of Urquart giving it another try.

[Dawson Leery]

15. Carney took 58%.

New Castle County has more than enough sane people to overcome the rural and sparsely populated Sussex County.

[LynneSin]

19. There just isn't enough insane people in the state of Delaware

And with Obama on the ticket, the other statewide races are pretty much a shoo-in for the democrats.

O'Donnell, Uhraquat and Protack are ruining the party but unfortunately there isn't a whole lot the GOP can do to stop them in a state with closed primaries.

[Fire1]

14. With any luck at all by 2016 I won't give a shit. n/t

[RBInMaine]

16. The house will fall like a ton of bricks IF we continue to bash them bigtime on Medicare.

[MadMaddie]

17. You are right, the local races are critical

Folks but this is not just State level races..

If you have it in you, run for

City councils
School Boards
etc

This is how we have ended up in the situation we are in in this country. Since the 70's the Repugs have been quietly winning the seats in these local races and have been moving the country to the right under our noses. Look at the makeup of these councils and boards I think you will be surprised.

[AndiMer]

18. You're probably right

But I'll still be paying attention to the returns.

[Keith Bee]

22. K&R, but remember Jay Rockefeller

Over-40 DUers know what I'm talking about.

[bemildred]

23. Correct. nt

[themaguffin]

24. they know it will be too hard to beat Obama & prefer to run for an open race

[CTyankee]

25. sometimes I wonder if I will be mercifully dead before I see this...

I know how defeatist this sounds but I just don't know if I could take another election as stupid and idiotic as 2000 and 2004. Not again. Not all over again. Dear god.

I'll do my part, but from my perspective here in CT we don't have too much to worry about with our local folks (except my New Haven corrupt Mayor DeStefano!). So, yawn...

[quaker bill]

26. They will want a 2012 candidate

that will not do damage to downticket races. If they can find one that drives the base to the polls and does little damage (a truly tough pick) they will not mind losing so much. Yes, they are looking for another place holder, like McCain but perhaps a bit better.

One hopes the tea party drives their process to a more reactionary choice. This will help us downticket.