Seems like they have given up on her and are simply hoping the run-off election ends without further damage.
They didn’t give up - she lost resoundingly. She sold herself (or tried to) as a politician with clout in Congress - head of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee - and she couldn’t get the bill thru the Senate. The Dems couldn’t support it because Obama would have to veto it and make the Dems look even stupider than they do now.
Sure they are giving up on a lost cause, but it is going to be a tough spin to sell this as anything other than what it was - Dems trying to play politics to hang onto power, sacrificing principle for expediency, and failing at everything.
Regards,
Shodan
She hasn’t lost yet. Couldn’t they double-down on the War on Women strategy?
Let her go. We’ll get the Senate back in 2016 anyway. What’s one less DINO?
Didn’t you confidently predict that you wouldn’t lose the Senate in 2014?
Democratic… strategy? I don’t understand those two words next to each other.
You think that the Democrats will knock off FOUR Republican incumbents while defending Harry Reid in a non-wave year? Who is going to be running for President on the Dem ticket? Jesus?
Most likely Hillary, but it doesn’t matter. Democrats turn out in presidential years.
Vulnerable Reps in 2016:
Kirk-IL
Toomey-PA
Johnson- WI
Rubio- FL
Grassley-IA (If the Grim Reaper doesn’t get him first)
Portman- OH
Paul- KY
There could be more. Burr -NC got 55% in 2010 midterm, about the same as Blunt- MO. Alaska isn’t a done deal for Murkowski. And will John McCain even run again?
Rand isn’t vulnerable. Give that one up right now. Neither is Grassley should he choose to run. Rubio is also safe, due to lack of good Democratic candidates to oppose him. Rick Scott actually was vulnerable and the best the Dems could do was a former Republican. Their cupboard is bare in Florida.
Kirk, Johnson, Toomey, and Portman are your best shots, and you have to win them all while defending Reid, and since your side brilliantly decided to keep him as leader, you’ll be expending inordinate amounts of money protecting him rather than playing offense elsewhere. And you’ll be waging this battle with an unpopular President in the White HOuse and Hillary Clinton running to be his third term(or pulling a Grimes and insisting she never really liked the guy).
Now granted, I’m not saying Democrats CAN’T win the Senate back in 2016. As a matter of fact, when it was likely that the GOP would only barely win the majority, it was more likely than not. But 54 seats is a solid cushion and hard to overcome absent a wave election.
Another unknown is whether Democratic voters will actually turn out in 2016. They didn’t turn out well enough in 2000 and 2004. All we know right now is that they come out for Barack Obama. THe electorate in 2016 could look a lot more like 2004 than 2012.
The DNC has two orders for Landrieu. Get out and stay out. There’s a bus leaving Louisiana on Dec. 6, be under it. Landrieu was tossed a bone from the Senate by bringing the XL pipeline up for a vote and Landrieu couldn’t get the deal done. Oh well, maybe she can find an honest job now. hehehe.
*The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has canceled its advertising reservations for Sen. Mary Landrieu ahead of the December runoff in Louisiana.
The committee canceled all broadcast buys planned from Monday through Dec. 6 in the state’s five major media markets, three sources tracking the air war told POLITICO. That’s about $1.6 million worth of time. The DSCC is in the process of canceling an additional $275,000 in cable placements, according to buyer sources.
With control of the Senate no longer on the line, the race becomes less important for both party committees — each of which took out loans in the final weeks before Tuesday’s election.*
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/democrats-ads-mary-landrieu-112647.html#ixzz3JcjwzhHi
Actually, the Dems did turn out in 2000 and 2004, both of these elections were stolen on behalf of Bush.
If Republicans nominate Paul for president (pretty please) I understand he can’t run for Senate. Even if he runs, he may have to face Grimes who might do well if she can figure out how to answer whether she voted for herself in 2014.
I’m not familiar enough with Florida to see who they have in the stable, but I don’t think Rubio is unbeatable.
I don’t think Hillary has to convince us that she isn’t Obama’s third term. We all know that their alliance was a marriage of convenience.
Will Grassley and McCain run in 2016? Not sure but they’re both well into the middle-geezer age.
Not as well as they did in 2008 and 2012. 2008 and 2012 also featured lower than usual turnout from white working class voters, who lately are going Republican.
Most Senators up for reelection in 2016 have positive approval ratings:
I’m glad you also brought up Grimes, because Democrats will still have the same problem in 2016 that they had in 2014: how do they handle the President? Bush was still an issue in 2008, Obama will still be an issue in 2016.
He’s not unbeatable. But the strongest candidate in the Democratic stable is still Charlie Crist. Next would probably be Debbie Wasserman, who is probably too liberal for Florida. Kendrick Meek is still around, but same problem. Florida is a very winnable state for Democrats at the Presidential level, but statewide offices have been dominated by the GOP for some time.
Well, there is one guy who would beat Rubio, and Democrats have shown themselves willing to bring back very old Senators before: Bob Graham.
I know that, and you know that, but if JOhn McCain can’t convince voters he’s not George Bush, Hillary’s going to have a much bigger challenge.
Grassley is running, although you can never rule out sickness or death at his age:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/chuck-grassley-2016-7th-term-97144.html
McCain is also running and I’m pretty sure his mom is still living. He’ll live as long as Strom Thurmond:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/john-mccain-2016-senate-election-arizona-112877.html
Their strategy is to put her on an ice floe and push it out into the sea…
The Dem’s best hope for Kirk is that he retires. And he may, given his health issues.
He’s a moderate Republican, and he polls relatively well in Cook County, being from the Chicago suburbs. A Republican who does more than 20% in Cook County usually wins the state.
For the 2016 presidential election, Republicans will look for another bugaboo issue - maybe terr’ist immigrants will get enough traction to turn out their base like gay marriage did in 2004. Senate races will follow the presidential one. Dems have to counter with a positive message like Obama did and Clinton did. Still, flipping 4 seats is a tough hill to climb.
“We lost. The other side must have cheated.”
To bring you up to speed, Velocity, in 2000 the Supreme Court halted the recount in Florida which, along with an incredibly ill-designed butterfly ballot in Palm Beach and the crass unprofessional partisanship of the Secretary of State of Florida, stole the election for Bush. Slightly different in Ohio 2004 where inequitable distribution of voting machines, crooked electronic voting, and a blazingly corrupt Secretary of State stole the election for Bush.
In truth, Eisenhower was the last Republican to win the presidency fair and square.
He was also, incidentally, the last Republican president worth more than a bucket of spit and a slightly tarnished People’s Choice Award.
Interesting; so Reagan’s 44-state and 49-state landslides were tainted victories?
Yes. Reagan treasonously undermined the Carter Administration’s hostage negotiations with Iran, as explained here:
Are the Democrats of the Body, are they One with Landrieu?