"2008, when 22 of 34 open Senate seats will belong to Republicans, could make '06 look like picnic"

[Bluebear]

George Bush is having to deal not just with a resurgent Democratic party but also with increasingly panicky Republicans fearful of the impact of Iraq on their re-election prospects. While there has been much comment on the divisions among Democrats on how to respond to Mr Bush's troop "surge" - described by some wags as a "dribble" - the Republicans are also flailing, caught between their loyalty to the president and their instinct for self-preservation.

As Republicans weigh their options, yet another poll shows the strength of public opinion against a deepening US military commitment, which Mr Bush will no doubt reaffirm in his state of the union address next week.

A Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll shows three-fifth of those surveyed opposing the decision to send more troops to Iraq, and about half of the country wanting Congress to block the deployment.

Jacob Weisberg at Slate spells out the stark choice for those Republicans facing tough re-election battles in 2008. "Should you happen to be a moderate, from the Northeast, or facing a tough re-election campaign in 2008, the imperative is clear: Abandon ship! As even his bitter-enders acknowledge, Bush's Iraq policy just cost the GOP control of Congress. And the 2008 election, when 22 of the 34 open Senate seats will belong to Republicans, could make 2006 look like a picnic.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2007/01/18/republicans_in_disarray_over_iraq.html

[Boxturtle]

1. I'm sure the Republicans will have the voting machines

"fixed" for 2008.

[Bluebear]

2. They don't dare, with these kind of disapproval numbers! nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Are you aware that there was GREATER suspicion of fraud

in 06 than 04? They tried to cheat, but underestimated how much to cheat by. They won't make that mistake again.

[Orsino]

7. The question is: will America sit in silence...

...after an even greater discrepancy between the "results" and the polls?

[malaise]

9. When the mood terms

You won't find people to cheat for you. The Rethugs are weak now and will be even weaker come 2008. They will be wiped out. Note: I predicted that Dems would take both houses.

Sp.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. yep. they learned from 2006 that it doesn't pay to play too close

to the margins.

Better to have a decisive victory that nobody believes in but cannot prove crooked, than a narrow defeat that tried to preserve the fiction of honesty.

[glitch]

5. Completely agree with your prognosis.

I think we are watching them give up the fiction now.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Well in Ohio they're no longer allowed to touch them

Since there's a Dem Governor and Dem SoS. I'm concerned about Florida, though.

[Double T]

6. When it comes to elections, there is NOTHING WORSE.........

than a desperate political RW neocon. Election equipment fraud will be rampant UNLESS 'WE' start putting tremendous pressure on Congress to ensure it does NOT and can NOT happen; verified paper trails are an ABSOLUTE MUST HAVE.

[happyslug]

8. Map of States with Senators up for Re-Election in 2008

http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-senate-elections-2008

[Kookaburra]

13. Liddy Dole

I hope we say a good riddance to that waste of oxygen. Good grief -- what a joke she's been.

[Rosemary2205]

16. We don't have a chance in hell of gaining in Georgia.

Even the Democrats here are closet Republicans.

[fishwax]

17. I see a lot of vulnerable red there

Dems have won major statewide elections recently in several of those red states: Oregon, Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Minnesota, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, Kansas, Tennessee, off the top of my head, but maybe more.

We have to defend some fairly conservative states, too, but there is reason for optimism even in those races:

--Montana (Baucus won easily last time around, and the state recently elected another democratic senator and a democratic governor)

--SD (I wonder if Tim Johnson's health will keep him from running again?)

--Arkansas (Mark Pryor was the only dem to defeat a republican incumbent in '02, and we won the governorship in '06)

--Louisiana (I assume this seat might be the hardest to defend, since Landrieu's elections have always been close, and the speculation seems to be that post-Katrina demographic shifts will help republicans :shrug:)

[Pab Sungenis]

18. We can realistically win three of those

and will probably lose one (Landrieu). We'll solidify our control, but won't make too many inroads.

[rocktivity]

10. Hopefully, Howard Dean has already stared work on a 34-state strategy

Let's find some Dems who can run against those Senators! And let's make sure that there's only ONE way a Republican can avoid being tarred with "the Bush Brush": by voting for his impeachment.

:headbang:
rocknation

[kentuck]

11. And they already have their first issue...

The Repubs blocked "ethics reform" because they wanted a line-item veto. A friggin' line item veto!

[WI_DEM]

12. I would say our most vulnerable Senator is Landreau of LA

[rocktivity]

14. But very few of the the Repub victories HAVE been decisive

They've relied on creating the illusion that it's "too close to call," then managing to squeak through by a recount-proof margin. Double T (post #6) is right--the only way head them off at the pass is with the Dem congress regulating/de-privatizing the voting machines and/or requiring paper ballots.

:headbang:
rocknation

[fishwax]

15. a filibuster-proof majority and a democratic president in 2008

:woohoo:

[mmonk]

19. We could end the republican party for many decades

by revealing the crimes against the constitution and possibly avoid an expanding war.

[Nevernose]

20. Assuming we can keep the House... (n/t)

n/t