"... becoming the sixth Senate Democrat to leave the chamber in the 2014 elections, according to Democratic officials close to the senator."
[T]he Democrats will now be defending open seats in Iowa, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, South Dakota and West Virginia.
Seeing the news this morning, I felt I already knew that. I had to look up
what I'd written a few days ago about Baucus (when he called the implementation of Obama care "a huge train wreck coming down"). That referred to
an article that had this paragraph:
A six-term veteran, Baucus expects a tough re-election in 2014. He’s still trying to recover from approval ratings that nosedived amid displeasure with the health care law in his home state.
So
do the Democrats risk losing the Senate?
During the last midterm elections in 2010, the GOP picked up a net six senate seats.
पोस्ट्स
५५ टिप्पण्या:
If the Senate does swap and the House holds, as the latter looks like it will, it will be a very lonely term for one BHO.
I would expect the executive decree machine to crank up into overdrive at that point.
As a side note, Canadian universities have to cut their budgets by 10% partially because Canada's healthcare costs are rising.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
There's a lesson in there somewhere.
2014 won't be boring.
The republicans have an uncanny ability to lost seats in states/areas that they should win (given demographics/voting patterns).
The latest from DC wherein some republicans have signed on to the internet tax bill is a prime example of why they lose.
Besides, it was just last year that Montana sent democrat Tester to DC.
Repubs should win here. I just don't think they will.
I also don't believe they will pull in the kind of candidates needed to take the Senate, and, as in the Sanford debacle in South Carolina, just a few more boneheaded primary elections and we could lose the house.
It would be a reverse Sally Field moment, you don't like me, you really don't like me. The ego with 24 months left to go is a scary thing indeed.
Good riddance. Schweitzer is a 100 times better than Baucus.
Schweitzer is a 100 times better than Baucus.
Cite please.
In the end, there may be only two positive things to come out of the Obama administration: the Tea Party and a long overdue examination of the constitutionality of the executive order as an end-run around bicameralism and presentment.
I was surprised to see Rockefeller (D-WV) was retiring as well, as I thought he had died long ago.
I'm sorry Baucus is leaving, but only because he opposed the internet sales tax. Good riddance otherwise.
"Good riddance. Schweitzer is a 100 times better than Baucus."
-- But he's not a shoe-in with name Baucus' level of recognition and seniority, which is more the point. The seat went from relatively safe to not safe.
The Senate should aleady be in Republican hands, except for nomination of people like Akin, O'Donnell, Angle, and Murdock. Somewhere along the line the GOP needs to nominate people who aren't dingbats.
Sure, the GOP could certainly win the Senate in 2014, but after the last presidential election I don't assume anything given the capricious nature of the American swing voter as well as the Democrats remarkable abilities at misdirection and demagoguery.
Once he said, "train wreck", he was a dead duck.
Actually, he's been a dead duck walking since he faced his constituents on ObamaTax and they told him they we not amused.
Drago said...
The republicans have an uncanny ability to lost seats in states/areas that they should win (given demographics/voting patterns).
The massive vote fraud has a lot more to do with it.
But Chuckie Schumer's immigration bill would be the last nail in the coffin.
Correct me if I am wrong but if he gets to keep his campaign war chest then it's a helluva smart move. He keeps the loot, gets a fab retirement package and avoids risking a humiliating defeat at the end of his career. All thanks to Barry, Nancy and Harry.
Scott M said...
Schweitzer is a 100 times better than Baucus.
Cite please.
I would like to have a GOP win, but all things being equal, I Dem Senator who was previously a Governor is more likely to be grounded in reality than a Dem Senator after 38 years in DC
We had to first suffer under it in order to know it was poisonous.
Cite please
Here.
He also makes beltway Democrats nervous because of his independence.
I wish Schweitzer would run for POTUS.
"Somewhere along the line the GOP needs to nominate people who aren't dingbats."
Big Mike:
Oh, the Dems have more than their fair share of dingbats, too. The difference is, the MSM plays "gotcha" and only EXPOSES the GOP ones.
Baucus has a $5M campaign chest - does he get to keep it in retirement? (I know in the old days that's how it worked.)
Big Mike said...
The Senate should aleady be in Republican hands, except for nomination of people like Akin, O'Donnell, Angle, and Murdock. Somewhere along the line the GOP needs to nominate people who aren't dingbats.
you're half right.
There was nothing wrong with Mourdock or what he said. He was demogogued shamelessly and the RINOs were more than happy to sit back and let him swing.
As for Akin, he was the Demos' candidate for the Republican nomination. They poured all kinds of money and support into his campaign.
Angle and O'Donnell, whatever their failings were as much undone by the RINO establishment and Demo machine politics as anything else.
Like it or not.
What Big Mike said.
What's Schweitzer's position on Obamacare?
Would he have voted for Manchin-Toomey?
Keystone Pipeline?
He's going to run to the right o the Republican nominee
I thought Angle only lost by 3% & that was after Harry loaded up the Vegas union buses & got the vote out?
Edutcher
Romney trounced Obama in Indiana but Mourdouck got beat handily. He was a bad candidate.
Reid bypassed the Senate Finance Committee and brought the Internet Tax directly to the Senate Floor. Baucus got pissed and announced retirement. I think he hopes his seat - and the entire Senate - will flip.
If Congress fails to succeed in postponing the onset of Obamacare, all bets are off for 2014.
If the GOP taies the Senate I hope Obama doesn't rry to play the executive order crap or he may be the firsr succesfully impeached president in hisrory.
sorry about typos.phone keyboard.
Big Mike said...
The Senate should aleady be in Republican hands, except for nomination of people like Akin, O'Donnell, Angle, and Murdock. Somewhere along the line the GOP needs to nominate people who aren't dingbats.
4/23/13, 12:03 PM
Two problems with this.
First The democrats nominated people like Warren albeit in safer waters for a rich white person who takes advantage of the affirmative action system designed to help poor minorities. She was just as bad as any of those four. But the demos got her in.
Two this is the same line used by the establishment when outsiders push someone on them they don't like. Crist, dewhurst, Spector and several other lifers who paid their dues and toed the line were weeded out. The problem is the democrats don't weed out their culls, not the other way around.
The problem with primaries and elected office in general is you get people who want to be in government. These people in general think the government can do more than it can and some think it should literally control everything. It is self selecting. The best thing we can do is limit the power of people that want to be in government and reduce the amount of graft that takes place.
There is a funny piece of paper lying around DC with just that sort of intention. Maybe we should refer to it some time.
Harry has been running the Senate like the Old House for 5 years now and even some on his side of the aisle are really getting p/o ed at him.
@GM
Here.
He also makes beltway Democrats nervous because of his independence.
I wish Schweitzer would run for POTUS.
No, no, no. It's only funny if you would have done this.
The Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves. The House sets up well thanks to redistricting but Senate seats get lots of attention and weak candidates won't win.
So do the Democrats risk losing the Senate?
Don't worry, the Republicans always manage to come up with the stupidest candidates to lose the shoo-in seats: e.g. Akin and the other guy whose name thankfully is gone from my memory.
Schweitzer will be tough to beat. I'd wager that Baucus was pushed.
What's Schweitzer's position on Obamacare?
Would he have voted for Manchin-Toomey?
Keystone Pipeline?
He's going to run to the right o the Republican nominee
If he runs to the right of the republican, gets elected and votes right of the republicans then he will be better than the republican.
mccullough said...
Edutcher
Romney trounced Obama in Indiana but Mourdouck got beat handily. He was a bad candidate.
You miss my point. Mourdock was slimed and the attention drawn to a reasonable statement was what did it.
After "Immigration reform", national elections are going to be a forgone conclusion.
36 years in the Senate!
The rats are leaving the sinking ship.
"I hear the train a comin'
It's rollin' 'round the bend"
Baucus noted last week that the train was off the tracks and decided to get out of the way. Smart man.
Big Mike--
Thought experiment: If a Democrat were to be asked questions about abortion, how long would it take for them to say something extremely stupid?
Darth Sebelius found his lack of faith disturbing.
This sounds like he's been woodshedded by the Administration. Based on his no vote on universal background checks and his public upbraiding of Sebelius and Obamacare, he was clearly position himself for his re-election campaign. Now, less than week after grilling the Secretary, he's going to pursue other opportunities, or spend more time with his family, or (most likely) land a lobbying job.
Obamacare is going to be an even bigger issue in the next mid-terms than in the last. While the Administration will want to preserve as many D-seats in the Senate as possible, having such a prominent Dem as Baucus go rogue couldn't be allowed. No doubt he had a "come to Obama" meeting over the weekend and he's gone as an "example to the others."
I still want to see how they are going to get this done. Frankly I don't see it from an IT perspective. Just doing one state is a monumental amount of work but setting this up for all 50 states within a year?
Not a chance.
They will have to pass legislation that pushes the start of ObamaCare back and probably beyond 2014 as a way of avoiding getting their heads handed to them in the mid-term elections.
Rats are always the first to desert a sinking train-wreck.
Somewhere along the line the GOP needs to nominate people who aren't dingbats.
No more "witches and bitches"...speaking of which, anyone heard from Crack lately?
So do the Democrats risk losing the Senate?
Uh oh.
But he's not a shoe-in with name Baucus' level of recognition
Equivalent name value here in Montana! But that doesn't mean Schweitzer will be able to raise as much out of state $$$ as Baucus did.
I counted the days for six stinking years waiting for my chance to vote Claire McCaskill out of office. The dumbass Republicans allowed that bitch to run campaign ads during the Repubican primary in favor of Todd Akin, her preferred opponent. Akin prevailed in a three way race and took about ten seconds to make his self unelectable.
With months before the deadline to withdraw, the dumbass Republicans did fuck all to pressure the arrogant dickhead Akin out of the race. What they did do - withdrawing national campaign funds - just made him sink faster. McCaskill was toast in this state. Her base wasn't all that excited and a fair portion of the electorate had been waiting for as long as I had for the chance to put a finger in her eye. I couldn't vote for Akin. In the best case it was a lesser of two evils situation to begin with. You know, like always. Akin is such a block head that he wouldn't let go of the nomination even in the face of a certain loss.
The Republicans could have done and should have done what it took to win that seat even after Akin's nomination. It's been a long time since I've misunderestimated the likelihood of the Republicans fumbling the ball and I'm not going to start misunderestimating them now. I guess the good news is that they are, after all, only Republicans. It's not like we stand to get anyone worthwhile in office either way. Once more into the breach and we'll see if there's any new life in them.
Baucus is worth more to big donors than Schweitzer can be, since Baucus ran the Senate Finance Committee.
Still nobody who can tell us if Baucus can keep his campaign kitty? (A cool $5M)
Sorry repubs, the dem senate majority is perfectly safe. Your house one, though ...
avwh:
No "personal use"
There's a lot of overlap in that map between contested states in 2014 and the so-called "New Confederacy." If I were a liberal, I'd double down right now on charges of bigotry, gun clinging, and xenophobia against those states from my urban lofts and townhouses. That's the ticket!
"
The Senate should aleady be in Republican hands, except for nomination of people like Akin, O'Donnell, Angle, and Murdock. Somewhere along the line the GOP needs to nominate people who aren't dingbats."
I think the Tea Party is learning about candidates like O'Donnell. Angle wasn't that bad a candidate. Akin was NOT a Tea Party candidate and Murdock shows the risk of social conservatives. He did not have much help in learning to be a candidate and Lugar certainly did what he could to sink him.
I expect better in 2014.
"Still nobody who can tell us if Baucus can keep his campaign kitty? (A cool $5M)"
They used to be able to keep it, but I believe they did away with that.
May Baucus die right now and rot in hell.
Whoa there Methedras. He did some credible damage on his way out and opens the field. It'd been worse if ran again and won.
Hail to the next piss-poor choice who, when that person gets there, in any case will no doubt disappoint the pure and true (who, interestingly enough, seem to be most satisfied when disappointed).
I don't care about Baucus (and, in addition, I care a great deal about ridiculously long careers in elective office, especially on the national level).
All of that is for the record, as well.
; ) : ) /:>
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा