Governor's Races 2006 (One way we can win back the nation)

[mndemocrat_29]

First off, I'd like to apologize for the length of this post. If you have a particular interest in one of these seats, please feel free to skip down to that section. I'm posting this early because, to use a cliche "The early bird catches the worm." Predictionists have said that in 2006 and 2008, Democrats have a fair chance to gain a lasting majority in all branches of government. I know this may sound like a pipe dream, since we don't control any of the branches currently, but if you look at some of these races, I think you'll agree that Democrats could have one of our largest majorities in the governorships by 2007. The 2002 wins were a start, but we need to go much farther. I'm posting this now so that we can share information, opinions on the races, and overall raise each others spirits on the chances of these races. With an energized electorate, we will win over a dozen seats in 2006, and the nation will be on its way to recovery, after the beating its received under Bush, Hastert, Cheney, and all of the Republicans governors who are destroying our states. The time for action is now.

I think that in 2006, we have our best shot in years and years to take back the majority of the governorships. If we can hold onto three out of the four seats in 2003 up for election, then we've got a good shot at taking back the majority in 2004 (we've got chances in Vermont, Montana, and Utah). In 2005, we'll be defending both the seats we have up for election (New Jersey and Virginia), and both will be difficult to hang on to.

However, in 2006, we will have an almost unimaginable shot at regaining not just the majority, but having a majority so large that the Republicans won't be even poised upset it for a decade, maybe longer.

Some people out there will wonder why I'm posting this so soon, but I think that it should be obvious. If we can start to learn who the best candidates are as a whole for 2006, we can start to learn about these candidates, keep these candidates in the forefront of our minds and when these candidates do announce their candidacy, we'll all know about them and be able to campaign and contribute for/to them right away. If we can know the best candidates now, we can keep them in our minds and start preaching their praises in the next four years, and as the Republicans who currently hold the seats, we can urge inform what great candidates could be holding these seats.

Here is a list of seats (divided into categories) that I think will be in definite play in 2006. All of the seats are currently held by Republicans. Currently, I'm worried about recruiting candidates for races. I hope to post a thread on candidates who may face difficult reelection in 2005 and 2006 in a later thread.

Really Liberal States That Have Republican Governors:

(All of these states are far too liberal to have Republican governors and when we finally elect a Democrat, that individual will have no trouble winning elections here)

Connecticut-Gov. John Rowland, who won in 2002 because he faced a weak challenger, I believe can't run in 2006 (correct me if I'm wrong). Sen. Chris Dodd is considering a run in 2006. Though I'd much rather have Dodd in the Senate, he'd make a terrific governor. Another candidate from the Democrats could be Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal. Connecticut is overwhelming Democratic and would elect a Democrat to office, if we can put up a candidate of any caliber.

Hawaii-Probably the most liberal state in the Union (rivalling only Massachusetts, who ironically is also on this list), Hawaii elected a Republican in the wake of Ben Cayatano's unpopularity. I can see Ed Case or Matt Matsanuga running for this seat, though both will also consider Senate runs in 2006. For. Lt. Gov. Mazie Hirono, who barely lost to Hirono in 2002 would also be a fair candidate, but she really needs to prove that she could beat her this time around. Hawaii deserves a Democratic governor. This should be an easy pickup if we run an even halfways plausible candidate.

Maryland-Archconservative Bob Erhlich is far too right for a state that's as liberal as Maryland. This state should embrace a Democrat in 2006, especially with Sarbanes or an open seat on the other half of the ticket. I'd really like to see Rep. Elijah Cummings run here. I don't think that Kathleen Kennedy Townsend should run against Ehrlich again. If she runs for anything, it should be for the Senate. Gov. Glendening brought down the ticket in 2002, and this should return to our column in 2006.

Massachusetts-All right. I'd like to know why one of the most liberal states in the country consistently is resided over by Republicans (William Weld, Paul Celucci, Jane Swift, and now Mitt Romney). Romney is a potential candidate for president in 2008, and if we defeat him now, we'd be rid of him as a candidate (Romney would in fact make a fairly good candidate, which is why eliminating him in 2006 would be so important). Ten Democrats sit in the House from Massachusetts. Which one should run here?

New York-Gov. Pataki won't run in 2006 (I'm betting he's either up to a presidential race in 2008 or planning on challenging Hillary). Either way, we need this seat. We hold the top spots in California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. New York is the fifth of the five electoral rich, fairly liberal states that Democrats consistently need to rewin elections. Having a Democratic governor's going to help in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Illinois in 2004 and will help if Arianna Huffington or Dianne Feinstein are governor. Sen. Chuck Schumer, along with Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer are considering the race. This should be considered a must for Democrats in 2006. Considering its size and importance to our party, any popular Democratic governor of New York would automatically be shortlisted in a presidential race, so electing a Democrat here is important.

Rhode Island-I suspect that the best candidate in this race would be Atty. Gen. Patrick Lynch. Carcieri will be running for reelection, and I've heard he isn't doing too well with the liberal voting block in Rhode Island. If we could nominate Lynch for governor and Pat Kennedy for Senator, we'd have a good chance in 2006 of knocking the last two statewide Republicans out of Rhode Island.

In conclusion, I think that all of these races are incredibly winnable in 2006. I urge anyone who has any opinions or information about any of the above races (or the ones to be listed below) to post their information. It's vitally important that we constantly be learning about our chances and our candidates in these states. I will be severly disappointed if we don't take all of the above liberal states. The only Democrat serving as governor in New England is John Baldacci. We can win this region back.

Here are some of the states that Democrats can win. While these are all considered far more moderate than the above states (some went for Gore, some for Bush), they are all states in which there are currently situations that could lead us to a victory in 2006:

Arkansas-This state nearly went for Gore in 2000 (and we would do well to win it in 2004). It has two very popular U. S. Senators from our side, and the so-called "invincible" GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee nearly lost to Jimmie Lou Fisher in 20002. Huckabee won't run in 2006 (I believe he's term-limited). For. Rep. Asa Hutchsion has expressed interest in the race. Make no mistakes about it, Hutchison will be hard to beat. However, if we play a decent candidate, we'll win and rid Arkansas of its two top Republicans (Huckabee and Hutchison). Fisher would make a really good candidate. However, if he isn't on the 2004 ticket, I would beg all of the DU and all Democrats to plead with Gen. Wesley Clark to run in 2006 for governor. I really wished he would have won in 2002 (he'd have that one extra credential that would've launched him to the top tiers of the presidential race by now). Clark vs. Hutchison would be a marquee match that Clark would most likely win.

Florida-Gov. Jeb Bush won't run in 2006 (term-limited) and this seat is ours for the taking. Sec. Mel Martinez is currently the leading Republican, but Democrats like Rep. Robert Wexler would be poised to beat Martinez. Not having a Republican in 2006 could help the Democrats in 2008 (hopeful for a presidential reelection). Florida needs to have a Democrat by redistricting in 2010. This state is far more moderate than the House makeup makes it look like.

Georgia-Sonny Perdue, a racist who I believe cheated in 2002 to beat Gov. Barnes, has to be ousted. Atty. Gen. Thurbert Baker and Sec. of State Cathy Cox have both expresssed interest, and I believe either would win here. Having Andy Young as a senator would help a Democrat defeat Perdue in 2006, so I really hope Young will run.

Minnesota-Minnesotans are growing in their dislike for Tim Pawlenty. He didn't win by a majority in 2002 (we have a strong three-party movement in this state) and his corruption from within will not sit well with the non-Metro portions of Minnesota. For. Aud. Judi Dutcher is the best candidate that Minnesotans have to offer here and I think she'll run. Democrats can win here. Like Massachusetts, Minnesotan Democrats lack of power in the governor's seat remains a complete mystery. Dutcher could win this seat and she will with some support! REMOVE TIM PAWLENTY!

Ohio-OK, I know that it seems like this state is simply too Republican for words, but I have a theory that the Great Lakes states are slowly joining the Democratic safe column that New England has been in for years. Ohio and Indiana are the sticklers, and may need to be prodded by strong candidates who upset the establishment. If we elect Joe Andrew in 2004 and a Democrat in 2006 in Ohio, we will be speeding up the Democratization of these two states. A Democrat's best bet for winning would be to link the Republican with the corrupt and awful Gov. Bob Taft. A Democrat like Sherrod Brown or Ted Strickland, or even a liberal like Marcy Kaptur could really do some damage in this race. Additionally, a truly strong race here could be enough to edge Mike DeWine out of office, giving us another Great Lakes seat in the Senate.

The Other Seats:

I'm not going to delve to far into these seats, mainly because I don't know much about these races (IF ANYONE ELSE KNOWS OF ANY DEMOCRATS THAT ARE CONSIDERING THESE RACES, PLEASE TELL!!!!) However, I'm not going to dismiss them. In 2002, we won seats in traditionally Republican Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Kansas, and I'm still holding out that we'll win a seat in Utah in 2004. Therefore, any of the following could be considered a race in 2006, with the right candidate (I put candidates I know would have a lot of potential in parentheses behind the states):

Alabama
Alaska (Fran Ulmer)
Colorado (Ken Salazar, though I hold out hope for a Senate run)
Idaho
Nebraska
Nevada (This could be open, and therefore would be a free-for-all)
South Carolina (Inez Tenenbaum, though I'd much rather have her run for the Senate)
South Dakota
Texas

If we could pick up just one or two of these seats (especially Nevada or Colorado, the closest these states get to be being moderate), that would be a great acclompishment.

In conclusion, I thank any one who posts here. I know we are all interested in winning the majority of these seats listed here (something I TRULY believe we can do. This is not a wild goose chase, I think we can hold at least 35 governor's seats by the times the 2006 election seats are called), especially the people who live in the above seats. Thank you for your time.

[LewisJackson]

1. Hello, fellow Minnesotan

I agree that Pawlenty needs to go, but I don't want Dutcher to take the spot. Personally, I'm for Hatch. THAT would be a helluvan election, as seven months in, they're already having fights. It would just be priceless.

That, and Hatch's speech at his inaugeration this year was brutal and truthful.

The other two govs I'd like to go more than ever are Romney and Purdue- ESPECIALLY PURDUE.

[ButterflyBlood]

2. anyone but Pawlenty

I hope he doesn't run for reelection and goes against Dayton instead. Then Dayton's safe. Hatch or Dutcher, I don't care.

[mndemocrat_29]

14. Dutcher over Hatch

I think Dutcher has the appeal to really win this seat. Hatch has always seemed more interested in the legislating side, IMHO. I can see him running for senator against Coleman in 2008 (if Betty McCollum doesn't). But you're right. Anyone's better than Coleman.

On a side note, do you think Jesse or Dean Berkley will try running again in 2006?

[ButterflyBlood]

16. No way

Jesse's political career is over, otherwise he would've ran for reelection. I think Barkely's giving it a rest too, unless he decides to become a Dem or Repub. He actually ran for Senate in 2000, and got around 5%.

[tpub]

3. Louisiana

Gubernatorial election is THIS year! We currently have a Repub who can't run again. And the top 2 potential replacements are both Dems (Kathleen Blanco and Richard Ieyoub)!

[mndemocrat_29]

8. Louisiana a great pickup

I think that Louisiana will be a great pickup in 2003 (it's our only shot at a pickup in 2003!). Blanco is my candidate and I think will be the next governor. One thing that may be of importance here (at least politically) is the Landrieu question. Mary Landrieu is one of the leading politicians being considered for the number two spot on the VP ticket. She's just won a seat in the South that was basically a Landrieu vs. the Republican party, she's articulate, she's not up for reelection in 2004, and she's attractive and a skilled debator. If Blanco is governor, she would chose Landrieu's replacement. If a Republican is governor and the presidential candidate is Lieberman or Kerry, then both of them could be leery about selecting Landrieu, since if the Democrats win, they'd be taking two Democratic senators out and replacing them with Republicans. This would almost guarantee a difficult to work with GOP senate. If Blanco is govenor, then Landrieu's seat would be completely safe. I'd suspect that Blanco would appoint either Richard Ieyoub or Chris John to this seat.

[tpub]

9. you know more about this than I do

but IMHO part of the reason Landrieu won was because her competition was clueless. Not a good speaker, flip-flopped on the abortion issue, came across as not so smart.

I haven't been in LA that long, so I'm still trying to pick out the differences between Blanco and Ieyoub. Why do you prefer Blanco?

[mndemocrat_29]

11. Blanco vs. Ieyoub

I think that Blanco is the better campaigner of the two. Also, I like her views on Education (one of my biggest issues is education, and Blanco seems to have a real handle on this issue).

[GBD4]

4. Robert Wexler? Nah.

<<Florida-Gov. Jeb Bush won't run in 2006 (term-limited) and this seat is ours for the taking. Sec. Mel Martinez is currently the leading Republican, but Democrats like Rep. Robert Wexler would be poised to beat Martinez. Not having a Republican in 2006 could help the Democrats in 2008 (hopeful for a presidential reelection). Florida needs to have a Democrat by redistricting in 2010. This state is far more moderate than the House makeup makes it look like.>>

Palm Beach liberals have a very tough time winning statewide. Additionally, being a U.S. Rep. isn't the type of experience people look for in a Governor. Ken Jenne, Broward County Sherriff, could suffer the SoFla curse but he would likely be an awesome candidate. He has been in politics for decades and as a County Sherriff he could be less of a target for being too liberal. Of course, the dream candidate would be former Attorney General Bob Butterworth, but he refused to run in 02, and so an 06 run seems unlikely. Mel Martinez is indeed the leading Repub but he's been in Washington for a while, so I'm not sure how that'll play out in FL. Scott Maddox, current State Democratic Party Chairman and former Tallahassee Mayor, ran in the 02 primaries and could run again. He is arguably the best speaker I've ever heard. Very energetic and enthusiastic. Alex Sink, wife of Bill McBride, was rumored to be in the running, but I have also heard rumors that she has ruled out running, so I am not sure which is true!

[mndemocrat_29]

6. Florida

I also think that Bob Butterworth could be a great candidate here. Florida is a very moderate state that could easily go Democratic (I still think it did in 2000, but that's a thread for a different thread). I believe that Alex Sink would also be a decent candidate. She's bright and articulate and a much better speaker than her husband. I also think that having a top candidate like Butterworth or Sink would help us in the constitutional officers elections, since we don't currently hold any of those spots.

[burr]

22. What if Bill Nelson pulled a Lawton Chiles in 2006...

and ran for Governor? Of course I only think he should try doing this if the Democrats hold on to Graham's Senate seat this year. But if he did it, we would probably win back the Governorship in that state, and run a congressman, like Jim Davis, to hold on to Bill Nelson's Senate seat.

[mndemocrat_29]

26. I like this idea

I think that Bill Nelson is far more popular in Florida than Repukes give him credit for. However, I believe he'd be a better governor than senator. With him at the top of the ticket, he'd beat Martinez (giving Democrats the all-important Florida governorship). Then Butterworth or Sink could come in and ride Nelson's coattails to a victory. With the three top spots in Florida, this state could start progressing to the Democrats. There are several districts in this state that I think we can start picking up. Florida is far too moderate to be lumped in with the rest of the South.

[GBD4]

28. Sounds good to me . . .

Representative Davis is very popular in Tampa, which is always a swing region of the state. Senator Nelson not only won his Senate seat pretty solidly, but has won statewide offices before, such as State Insurance Commissioner or some office like that, I am not 100% sure it was called Insurance Comm. He and Bob Butterworth are the only Dems that could run who have previously been elected statewide.

[NewJerseyDem]

5. New York, Massachussetts and Connecticut

In New York Rudy Giuliani is probably going to run. If he does run it will be very hard to defend this seat. He is so popular and is a moderate Republican. Luckily, the only two democrats in the state who could beat him are considering a run. Eliot Spitzer and Chuck Schumer are both popular, but I think that Spitzer will run and that Schumer will probably stay in the Senate. Also, it is possible that Pataki will run for a fourth term. Mario Cuomo tried, but he lost.

In Massachussetts, Marty Meehan might run according to dcpoliticalreport.com. I would also think that some of the 2002 candidates might run like the nominee Shannon O'brien or Robert Reich. Maybe Joe Kennedy will try to run, but I don't know if he is still in politics. Anyway, I think that we have a really good shot at winning this one.

Rowland can run in Connecticut. However he, like Pataki, was elected in 1994 and probably won't run for reelection. Dodd could run and he may prefer to stay in one place since I think he has a new child. He would be the favorite if he did but I still think that he will stay in the Senate. The democrats should have a great shot here with Dodd or with anyone else who runs. Again according to dcpoliticalreport.com Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz and New Haven mayor John DeStefano are two democrats that may run.

[mndemocrat_29]

7. I agree

Rudy would be a tough challenger, no matter who ran against him. I think that Spitzer is a candidate of the future, someone who could really be a mover and shaker. I mentioned that the next Democratic governor of New York could easily be a future presidential candidate, and I had him in mind when I said it.

Massachusetts: I think that Joe Kennedy has three options in his future.

A. John Kerry is on the Democratic ticket in 2004 and wins. Gov. Romney appoints his successor (probably For. Gov. Paul Celucci) and Celucci faces an election 2006. Joe Kennedy runs (alongside his uncle Ted) and wins a Senate seat.

B. Ted Kennedy retires. The only plausible Republicans for a Senate seat in Massachusetts remain Romney and Celucci, so without either of them, any Democrat who makes it through the primary would win. I believe that Joe Kennedy could take this seat (despite the scandals)

C. He remains retired.

I don't see Joe Kennedy running for governor, simply because I don't believe he could be the Democrat to beat the Republican string of governors. I do think that Shannon O'Brien could (though she'd need to focus on Romney's Republicanism) and Rep. Marty Meehan would also be a terrific candidate. Massachusetts needs a Democratic governor.

Connecticut-I think that Chris Dodd has always wanted to be a governor. He seems very close to his Connecticut roots and is one of several senators considering gubernatorial runs. I think he's come to terms with the fact that he'll never be the leader of the Senate and that he'll never be president. Being a governor would probably be his best alternative, then.

If he does run (against Rowland or any other Republican), he'd win. I doubt he'd select Richard Blumenthal to replace him (I still think Blumenthal will be running for Lieberman's seat in 2006). Instead, he'd more than likely pick the liberal and energized Rep. Rosa DeLauro or For. Rep. James Maloney. Both of them could buck the appointed senator curse and would make fine senators.

[Composed Thinker]

27. There's been talk of Schumer running for governor?

I didn't know about that. One of my teachers mentioned that Spitzer might run. That seems like a decent idea. But why would Chuck Schumer run for governor of NY?

[mndemocrat_29]

33. President Schumer

I think that Schumer is considering a run because he wants to run for president someday. With all of the senators running currently for president, I've read many articles about how Warren Harding and John Kennedy are the only sitting senators to be elected president (John Kerry will be number three, IMHO). I think that Schumer is trying to better his chances by being governor.

[Composed Thinker]

35. That's interesting to know, but a few questions

Why would he run for governor if he's already in a nice position in the Senate? No serious Republican challenger, or so I think, will take him on because he's got a warchest of $15 million. Wouldn't running for governor be a risk, in a way?

But then again, if he's elected again relatively easily, and I think he will be, that shows a nice amount of support for him. And if he leaves the Senate, that makes Senator Clinton the senior senator from New York. That leaves her in a nice position to start to become more well known for legislation, whereas now, with the general practice that junior senators take a backseat to senior senators, her work doesn't make headlines. Although people say she might run in 2008, I think she'd be wise to remain in the Senate for at least two terms. The American public has a short memory, or so a lot of people seem to think, and if she gets two full terms, she'll have the right to say she has enough experience. She'd also have the chance to get her name attached to some important legislation.

Why do you think Kerry's going to be the next president? (I'm not looking to attack you; I am just curious)

[mndemocrat_29]

38. Kerry, Clinton, and Schumer

First off, I think that Schumer being governor would help in several key areas in a presidential race.

First, he'd be governor of the third largest state in the union.

Second, he wouldn't be in Hillary's shadow. If Chuck Schumer ran in 2012 (or 2008, though I don't like to deal with hypothetical situations that have Bush being reelected) as a senator, he'd start out the race as the OTHER senator from New York. The same thing that probably kept Chris Dodd out of the presidential race (since Lieberman was so well known) could deter Schumer. As governor, he would still be from the same state, but not as prone to comparisons.

Third, winning that governor's race would show some real party loyalty that would impress Democrats. A safe senator risks his political future on a gubernatorial bid? Very risky, but the payoff would be even bigger. Schumer would give Democrats a governorship they've wanted for years and right off the bat and would have the opportunity to put someone in the Senate who would be a huge asset to him in a future political primary against Hillary.

For example, if Schumer appointed Carl McCall to be the other senator from New York (he'd be a leading candidate for the job), then McCall would be more inclined to endorse Schumer over Hillary in a presidential primary. If two of the top three political office holders were running for president, the third office holder's endorsement would gain a lot of publicity.

Finally, on the Kerry win, I just see Kerry as being the guy who can win in states like Missouri, New Hampshire, Arkansas, West Virginia, Arizona, and Florida.

[Composed Thinker]

39. That's interesting

To my discredit, I never really followed New York's governor's race, but I did want McCall to win since he'd be a respectable black leader. As a senator, he could become a rising star that might overshadow the embarrassing Al Sharpton. Actually, that might work well in a few ways, since Hillary would be the senior senator from New York, where she could command the spotlight, keeping in line with the unwritten rule.

Do you think he'll run in 2006? Or is Spitzer more likely to run?

[mndemocrat_29]

42. I think they'll both run

If Rudy's in the race, Schumer will receive the nomination because he'll be toted as the only person who could win this election. Without Rudy, it would be a real race. This would be Schumer's only real chance at using the governor's mansion to move himself into the White House. I don't see Schumer running for president as a senator. If Schumer does stay in the Senate, I see him eventually becoming a candidate for leader or whip.

[Composed Thinker]

45. And do you think he'll be reelected in 2004?

I think he will be reelected.

[mndemocrat_29]

46. Absolutely

Schumer will without any trouble. Repukes only have two candidates left in New York: George Pataki and Rudy. Once these two are gone, I think this will become as reliably Democratic as Massachusetts. Look at the other high profile names: For. Sen. Al D'Amato is in lobbying, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is unbelievably unpopular, and Rep. Peter King, who may still run for office, would probably lose his seat to the Democrats if he left for higher office, and that higher office he most likely couldn't win. I belive there are only nine Republican districts left in New York, and most of them went for Gore in 2000. If we really want to pickup some seats, we should send really good candidates into some New York races and we could possibly win three or four seats, like we did in California in 2000.

[Composed Thinker]

47. Hmm

"I belive there are only nine Republican districts left in New York, and most of them went for Gore in 2000."

I don't know about that, but yes, New York is very liberal and it would be nice to reclaim the governorship.

[NewJerseyDem]

49. Gore won all but 6 congressional districts

Bush won in the 19th, 20th, 23rd, 24th, 26th, and 29th districts. This state is clearly very liberal. However, New York seems to be willing to vote for moderate republicans like Pataki. There are 10 republican congressmen and many of them are moderates. Most of them have been winning extremely easily though and it would be hard to defeat any of them.

Schumer should win easily. The republicans have basically given up on winning this seat and King has decided not to run. King may very well run for Governor though.

[mndemocrat_29]

50. King's Seat

If he were to run for statewide office, however, I think that King's seat could very easily go into our column, the way that Steve Israel's and Tim Bishop's now are.

[Composed Thinker]

51. King decided not to run because of Schumer's money

And that seems like a good thing.

[NewJerseyDem]

41. I doubt Schumer will run

He has been mentioned a lot but I personally don't think he will. He doesn't want to face Giuliani if Giuliani does run and Schumer won't want to get into a primary battle with Spitzer, who is almost certain to run. It is much safer for Schumer to stay in the senate as the popular senior senator from New York. If he loses to Spitzer or to Giuliani it will hurt him a lot.

[ButterflyBlood]

23. Schumer's the only candidate who can beat Rudy

So if he doesn't run, Rudy automatically wins

[NewJerseyDem]

32. Spitzer is popular

According to a Qunnipiac University poll. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has a 57% approval rating and a 14% dissaproval rating. He is even popular with republicans because he gets 59% approval rating from them and from independents. However, in a Zogby poll back in April Giuliani beat Spitzer 59% to 29%. So that poll is very concerning.

Schumer is also popular. He has a 57% approval rating and a 23% dissaproval rating. A December poll done by Marist College gave Giuliani a 58-37 advantage over Schumer in a prospective gubernatorial battle.

The two of them are the best candidates but Giuliani would still clearly be the early favorite.

[mndemocrat_29]

34. Will Rudy run?

This is probably the biggest question in this race. I'm wondering if Rudy, who has always wanted to be president, will use this race to prove how seemingly invincible he is, or if he'll skip this race and start running straight for the primaries. This race will depend a lot on who is elected president in 2004. Without Rudy or George Pataki, Spitzer or Schumer would be unstoppable. If Schumer is elected, I'd guess that he'd appoint either Spitzer or 2002 gubernatorial nominee Carl McCall to his Senate seat.

[NewJerseyDem]

40. He is reportedly running

There have been some reports in the media that Giuliani is telling friends that he will run for governor. I don't think that Giuliani will every be president. He is way too liberal to win the republican nomination. Right now he is popular, but after his views are revealed in a campaign he would become unpopular in the republican party. Pataki may very well run for Senate against Hillary. Also, Pataki is unpopular enough that he would probably lose to Spitzer or Schumer.

[Composed Thinker]

48. But that's because Rudy is an icon, not a politician

Before 9/11, he was another washed up politician. Now, after 9/11, he's an icon. If he were to enter politics again, he'd lose some of that status.

[goobergunch]

10. A few thoughts

Maryland-Archconservative Bob Erhlich is far too right for a state that's as liberal as Maryland. This state should embrace a Democrat in 2006, especially with Sarbanes or an open seat on the other half of the ticket. I'd really like to see Rep. Elijah Cummings run here. I don't think that Kathleen Kennedy Townsend should run against Ehrlich again. If she runs for anything, it should be for the Senate. Gov. Glendening brought down the ticket in 2002, and this should return to our column in 2006.

I've heard that Mayor Martin O'Malley (D-Baltimore) is running in 2006...Rep. Ben Cardin is also a possible candidate.

Massachusetts-All right. I'd like to know why one of the most liberal states in the country consistently is resided over by Republicans (William Weld, Paul Celucci, Jane Swift, and now Mitt Romney). Romney is a potential candidate for president in 2008, and if we defeat him now, we'd be rid of him as a candidate (Romney would in fact make a fairly good candidate, which is why eliminating him in 2006 would be so important). Ten Democrats sit in the House from Massachusetts. Which one should run here?

I think Marty Meehan is interested in this race, and his district is fairly safe.

Ohio-OK, I know that it seems like this state is simply too Republican for words, but I have a theory that the Great Lakes states are slowly joining the Democratic safe column that New England has been in for years. Ohio and Indiana are the sticklers, and may need to be prodded by strong candidates who upset the establishment. If we elect Joe Andrew in 2004 and a Democrat in 2006 in Ohio, we will be speeding up the Democratization of these two states. A Democrat's best bet for winning would be to link the Republican with the corrupt and awful Gov. Bob Taft. A Democrat like Sherrod Brown or Ted Strickland, or even a liberal like Marcy Kaptur could really do some damage in this race. Additionally, a truly strong race here could be enough to edge Mike DeWine out of office, giving us another Great Lakes seat in the Senate.

Sherrod Brown seems interested in running, and we should be able to hold his district. St. Sen. Eric Fingerhut, Rep. Ted Strickland, and Mayor Rhine McLin (D-Dayton) have also been rumored as candidates.

Nebraska

Possible candidates (according to the Almanac of American Politics include St. Sens. Matt Connealy and Patrick Bourne.

[mndemocrat_29]

12. Nebraska

Do we have a shot here? I know that Ben Nelson served as govenor of this state recently. If the seat is open, I always think that Democrats should put forward a strong challenger. I know that if Rep. Tom Osborne ran, we'd be in trouble, but I don't think anyone else comes close to his level of popularity. It would be nice to have another Democrat in the Midwest.

[goobergunch]

13. I'm not familiar with that situation...

I just copied NE from AAP 2004.

:shrug:

[burr]

15. Arkansas, Nevada, and New York...

these will be the best states for winning the Governorships since these incumbents will not be running for re-election here in 2006. In Nevada Congresswomen Shelley Berkley would be a possible contender for Governor. In Arkansas, Attorney General Mike Beebe is viewed by some as the next Bill Clinton in that state. And in New York, Attorney General Eliot Spietzer has tackled many issues from healthcare reform to civil rights. This would make him a natural candidate for Governor in that state.

In Georgia...I have serious doubts that the Governorship can be won in 2006, unless we first win the U.S. Senate race coming up next year. If the Democrats in that state do not have the capability to win an open Senate race, how can the state party possibly defeat an incumbent Governor?

[mndemocrat_29]

17. Andy Young

I still have faith in Andy Young to take the open Georgia Senate seat. He's the best candidate we've got, and remains one of the best shots we have of winning back the Senate.

[burr]

20. keeping faith is what keeps democracy alive...

Mike Thurmond is my favorite, possible contender.

"Thurmond has been making noises about running for U.S. Senate, or Congress. So we opened 'Freedom: Georgia's Anti-Slavery Heritage, 1733 to 1865' with great trepidation."

<http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/insider/index.html>

Whoever is nominated, the Georgia Democratic party needs to fully back, or else the state Democrats will be demolished in 2006.

[burr]

37. Even idiots can make mistakes...

and Gods do have some good points...

Here is the link which I meant to post about Mike Thurmond.
<http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/insider/0803/080103.html>

[ButterflyBlood]

24. Purdue is unpopular I heard

since he sort of backpedeled on the Confederate flag

[burr]

25. flaggers have short memories...

one minute they are waving , the next they are hollering and cheering.

[coloradodem]

30. Don't forget Colorado

Prior to Bill Owens, Democrats controlled the governorship for 24 years. Owens only won his first election by 8,000 votes but he did win re-election in a landslide albeit against a sacrificial lamb of a candidate. The predominate belief here for quite sometime has been that Ken Salazar will run for Governor in 2006 since Owens is term limited. However, there is some speculation he may run for Senate next year against Campbell but I don't buy it. On the Republican side, the names mentioned are Rep. Scott McInnis and State Senate President John Andrews. I hope Andrews runs and is the nominee. He is about as far to the right as they come and has a grating personality. Salazar would wipe the floor with Andrews even in republican leaning Colorado. McInnis would be a tougher test but has never run statewide, whereas Salazar has twice.

[election_2004]

18. Doyle (D-WI) may have a tough time getting reelected...

especially if our state's budget worsens, and if a moderate Republican runs against him.

[jiacinto]

19. MD

O'Malley will run, not Cummings. Cummings can't win a statewide race in MD for a variety of reasons.

[burr]

21. Not being up on Hawaii politics...what is the story on Ben Cayatano?

Why was he so unpopular?

History has shown that the Democratic Party has served that state well.

[jiacinto]

29. well

First off, I'd like to apologize for the length of this post. If you have a particular interest in one of these seats, please feel free to skip down to that section. I'm posting this early because, to use a cliche "The early bird catches the worm." Predictionists have said that in 2006 and 2008, Democrats have a fair chance to gain a lasting majority in all branches of government.

I think that 2006 offers us many governorships that we can win.

I know this may sound like a pipe dream, since we don't control any of the branches currently, but if you look at some of these races, I think you'll agree that Democrats could have one of our largest majorities in the governorships by 2007. The 2002 wins were a start, but we need to go much farther. I'm posting this now so that we can share information, opinions on the races, and overall raise each others spirits on the chances of these races. With an energized electorate, we will win over a dozen seats in 2006, and the nation will be on its way to recovery, after the beating its received under Bush, Hastert, Cheney, and all of the Republicans governors who are destroying our states. The time for action is now.

I think that in 2006, we have our best shot in years and years to take back the majority of the governorships. If we can hold onto three out of the four seats in 2003 up for election, then we've got a good shot at taking back the majority in 2004 (we've got chances in Vermont, Montana, and Utah).

UT is going to be VERY tough, if not impossible.


In 2005, we'll be defending both the seats we have up for election (New Jersey and Virginia), and both will be difficult to hang on to.

I think we hold onto them both.

However, in 2006, we will have an almost unimaginable shot at regaining not just the majority, but having a majority so large that the Republicans won't be even poised upset it for a decade, maybe longer.

Some people out there will wonder why I'm posting this so soon, but I think that it should be obvious. If we can start to learn who the best candidates are as a whole for 2006, we can start to learn about these candidates, keep these candidates in the forefront of our minds and when these candidates do announce their candidacy, we'll all know about them and be able to campaign and contribute for/to them right away. If we can know the best candidates now, we can keep them in our minds and start preaching their praises in the next four years, and as the Republicans who currently hold the seats, we can urge inform what great candidates could be holding these seats.

Here is a list of seats (divided into categories) that I think will be in definite play in 2006. All of the seats are currently held by Republicans. Currently, I'm worried about recruiting candidates for races. I hope to post a thread on candidates who may face difficult reelection in 2005 and 2006 in a later thread.

Really Liberal States That Have Republican Governors:

(All of these states are far too liberal to have Republican governors and when we finally elect a Democrat, that individual will have no trouble winning elections here)

Connecticut-Gov. John Rowland, who won in 2002 because he faced a weak challenger, I believe can't run in 2006 (correct me if I'm wrong). Sen. Chris Dodd is considering a run in 2006. Though I'd much rather have Dodd in the Senate, he'd make a terrific governor. Another candidate from the Democrats could be Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal. Connecticut is overwhelming Democratic and would elect a Democrat to office, if we can put up a candidate of any caliber.

If Rowland isn't the candidate I think that this seat flips easily.


Hawaii-Probably the most liberal state in the Union (rivalling only Massachusetts, who ironically is also on this list), Hawaii elected a Republican in the wake of Ben Cayatano's unpopularity. I can see Ed Case or Matt Matsanuga running for this seat, though both will also consider Senate runs in 2006. For. Lt. Gov. Mazie Hirono, who barely lost to Hirono in 2002 would also be a fair candidate, but she really needs to prove that she could beat her this time around. Hawaii deserves a Democratic governor. This should be an easy pickup if we run an even halfways plausible candidate.

I don't know how Lingle is doing as Governor. That will be the key as to how she does in 2006.


Maryland-Archconservative Bob Erhlich is far too right for a state that's as liberal as Maryland. This state should embrace a Democrat in 2006, especially with Sarbanes or an open seat on the other half of the ticket. I'd really like to see Rep. Elijah Cummings run here. I don't think that Kathleen Kennedy Townsend should run against Ehrlich again. If she runs for anything, it should be for the Senate. Gov. Glendening brought down the ticket in 2002, and this should return to our column in 2006.

KKT will never run for anything major again for a while. Unless she wins a very local office first and works her way up her career is very much over in MD politics. I think that Martin O'Malley, the mayor of Baltimore, is going to be the candidate that will inspire a lot of people.

Massachusetts-All right. I'd like to know why one of the most liberal states in the country consistently is resided over by Republicans (William Weld, Paul Celucci, Jane Swift, and now Mitt Romney). Romney is a potential candidate for president in 2008, and if we defeat him now, we'd be rid of him as a candidate (Romney would in fact make a fairly good candidate, which is why eliminating him in 2006 would be so important). Ten Democrats sit in the House from Massachusetts. Which one should run here?


Get a candidate that will unite the party and Romney's out.

New York-Gov. Pataki won't run in 2006 (I'm betting he's either up to a presidential race in 2008 or planning on challenging Hillary). Either way, we need this seat. We hold the top spots in California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. New York is the fifth of the five electoral rich, fairly liberal states that Democrats consistently need to rewin elections. Having a Democratic governor's going to help in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Illinois in 2004 and will help if Arianna Huffington or Dianne Feinstein are governor. Sen. Chuck Schumer, along with Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer are considering the race. This should be considered a must for Democrats in 2006. Considering its size and importance to our party, any popular Democratic governor of New York would automatically be shortlisted in a presidential race, so electing a Democrat here is important.

Spitzer will have the best chance. And I think it will be tough and whoever has the best field plans wins this one.

Rhode Island-I suspect that the best candidate in this race would be Atty. Gen. Patrick Lynch. Carcieri will be running for reelection, and I've heard he isn't doing too well with the liberal voting block in Rhode Island. If we could nominate Lynch for governor and Pat Kennedy for Senator, we'd have a good chance in 2006 of knocking the last two statewide Republicans out of Rhode Island.

Like MA the problem here has been BAD Democratic candidates. If they can get someone who can unite the party then Carcieri's out.

In conclusion, I think that all of these races are incredibly winnable in 2006. I urge anyone who has any opinions or information about any of the above races (or the ones to be listed below) to post their information. It's vitally important that we constantly be learning about our chances and our candidates in these states. I will be severly disappointed if we don't take all of the above liberal states. The only Democrat serving as governor in New England is John Baldacci. We can win this region back.

Here are some of the states that Democrats can win. While these are all considered far more moderate than the above states (some went for Gore, some for Bush), they are all states in which there are currently situations that could lead us to a victory in 2006:

Arkansas-This state nearly went for Gore in 2000 (and we would do well to win it in 2004). It has two very popular U. S. Senators from our side, and the so-called "invincible" GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee nearly lost to Jimmie Lou Fisher in 20002. Huckabee won't run in 2006 (I believe he's term-limited). For. Rep. Asa Hutchsion has expressed interest in the race. Make no mistakes about it, Hutchison will be hard to beat. However, if we play a decent candidate, we'll win and rid Arkansas of its two top Republicans (Huckabee and Hutchison). Fisher would make a really good candidate. However, if he isn't on the 2004 ticket, I would beg all of the DU and all Democrats to plead with Gen. Wesley Clark to run in 2006 for governor. I really wished he would have won in 2002 (he'd have that one extra credential that would've launched him to the top tiers of the presidential race by now). Clark vs. Hutchison would be a marquee match that Clark would most likely win.

I think that we can win this run. Asa's brother was the only Republican to lose a Senate seat in 2002. And I think he would face the same problems the Ryans had in IL.


Florida-Gov. Jeb Bush won't run in 2006 (term-limited) and this seat is ours for the taking. Sec. Mel Martinez is currently the leading Republican, but Democrats like Rep. Robert Wexler would be poised to beat Martinez. Not having a Republican in 2006 could help the Democrats in 2008 (hopeful for a presidential reelection). Florida needs to have a Democrat by redistricting in 2010. This state is far more moderate than the House makeup makes it look like.

Buddy Dyer or Allen Boyd would be good candidates. I am moving to S. Florida and will have a better idea when I get there.

Georgia-Sonny Perdue, a racist who I believe cheated in 2002 to beat Gov. Barnes, has to be ousted. Atty. Gen. Thurbert Baker and Sec. of State Cathy Cox have both expresssed interest, and I believe either would win here. Having Andy Young as a senator would help a Democrat defeat Perdue in 2006, so I really hope Young will run.

GA is within reach if the Dems can stay unified. Cox or Baker would make great candidates.

Minnesota-Minnesotans are growing in their dislike for Tim Pawlenty. He didn't win by a majority in 2002 (we have a strong three-party movement in this state) and his corruption from within will not sit well with the non-Metro portions of Minnesota. For. Aud. Judi Dutcher is the best candidate that Minnesotans have to offer here and I think she'll run. Democrats can win here. Like Massachusetts, Minnesotan Democrats lack of power in the governor's seat remains a complete mystery. Dutcher could win this seat and she will with some support! REMOVE TIM PAWLENTY!

The Wellstone Memorial Service cost us both the Senate and Governorship. If we can run a unified party we have a chance.

Ohio-OK, I know that it seems like this state is simply too Republican for words, but I have a theory that the Great Lakes states are slowly joining the Democratic safe column that New England has been in for years. Ohio and Indiana are the sticklers, and may need to be prodded by strong candidates who upset the establishment. If we elect Joe Andrew in 2004 and a Democrat in 2006 in Ohio, we will be speeding up the Democratization of these two states. A Democrat's best bet for winning would be to link the Republican with the corrupt and awful Gov. Bob Taft. A Democrat like Sherrod Brown or Ted Strickland, or even a liberal like Marcy Kaptur could really do some damage in this race. Additionally, a truly strong race here could be enough to edge Mike DeWine out of office, giving us another Great Lakes seat in the Senate.

The Mayor of Columbus would be a good candidate here.

The Other Seats:

I'm not going to delve to far into these seats, mainly because I don't know much about these races (IF ANYONE ELSE KNOWS OF ANY DEMOCRATS THAT ARE CONSIDERING THESE RACES, PLEASE TELL!!!!) However, I'm not going to dismiss them. In 2002, we won seats in traditionally Republican Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Kansas, and I'm still holding out that we'll win a seat in Utah in 2004. Therefore, any of the following could be considered a race in 2006, with the right candidate (I put candidates I know would have a lot of potential in parentheses behind the states):

WY has been Democratic in Gubernatorial races since 1974 with the exception of Geringer's wins in 1994 and in 1998. Democrats can win that office for some reason. Oklahoma will be tough, as will KS.

Alabama

Too early
Alaska (Fran Ulmer)

Out of reach
Colorado (Ken Salazar, though I hold out hope for a Senate run)

Salaazar will be Governor or Senator some day.

Idaho
Nebraska

We won't win those.

Nevada (This could be open, and therefore would be a free-for-all)
South Carolina (Inez Tenenbaum, though I'd much rather have her run for the Senate)

NV is winnable if the LV mayor runs. SC is out of reach unless Sanford really screws up.

South Dakota
Texas

Both aren't going to go Dem.

If we could pick up just one or two of these seats (especially Nevada or Colorado, the closest these states get to be being moderate), that would be a great acclompishment.

In conclusion, I thank any one who posts here. I know we are all interested in winning the majority of these seats listed here (something I TRULY believe we can do. This is not a wild goose chase, I think we can hold at least 35 governor's seats by the times the 2006 election seats are called), especially the people who live in the above seats. Thank you for your time.

[burr]

31. Why has Mark Taylor's name not been brought up?

He is the Lt. Governor, and logically is the best suited candidate to take on Perdue in 2006.

However, being someone who has worked on state and congressional campaigns, I honestly do not feel that the state Democratic Party can beat an incumbent Governor unless it first proves it can win an open Senate seat. Like you I hate Perdue's guts, there is nothing I hate more than backstabbing PARTY SWITCHERS! But don't you agree that winning back power happens step by step, not in one big sweep?

I find it frustrating that the Georgia Democratic Party treats candidate recruitment for the Congressional and U.S. Senate races as a joke, but still expects to be taken seriously in another two years.

[mndemocrat_29]

36. RI and MA

I completely agree that we haven't had the best candidates run in MA and RI. The biggest problem is finding which candidates would be best. In MA, a Kennedy would be the obvious choice, yet offhand I can't think of any that would be ready to take the run. Joe Kennedy should run for an office again someday, but not for something as potentially competitive as this seat. The best shot would be one of the congressmen, probably Marty Meehan. Massachusetts 2006 could be a potentially big race nationally. There are rumors that Ted Kennedy will retire, which would leave an open race here. Additionally, if John Kerry is elected to the White House, Mitt Romney's replacement (probably For. Gov. Paul Celucci) will be running to complete Kerry's full term. Shannon O'Brien and Joe Kennedy could easily be the two candidates for those Senate races, and with people out supporting Democrats in the Senate races, Marty Meehan could unite those already voting Democrats behind him and win the election.

RI-I think that the best candidate would have to be Atty. Gen. Patrick Lynch for governor. He's poised to hit it big someday, I think that this would be the best opportunity for him. Additionally, I think that Democrats should really try and take out Lincoln Chafee in 2006. I know many people on these boards who don't mind Chafee because he's so moderate, but the fact remains that Chafee's seat could be much more reliably Democratic and we do have a terrific candidate that could attract national attention in Rep. Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy and Reed would be a great pair of senators.

[Alex146]

43. I'm from NY

and IMO the republicans are going out the door in '06.
Pataki has run the state into a shit hole, and people are starting to notice. He vetoed a budget that would provide more money for schools and health care, and his budget raises taxes.

Alex

[mndemocrat_29]

44. Pataki vs. Hillary

I've heard a lot about a Pataki vs. Clinton matchup in 2006. He and Rudy are the only plausible candidates in 2006, so if Pataki is throwing away his chances, then either we'll have a safe senate seat or a safe gubernatorial bid.