« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Can the Republicans get to 60 Senate Seats?

By: tooncesthecat (Diary)  |  May 16th, 2011 at 11:50 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Herb Kohl’s decision not to seek re-election to the U.S. Senate is another significant blow to the Democrats, coming as a surprise to even Patty Murray, chair of the DSCC.  With 23 seats up for grabs compared to 10 Republican seats, it has long been noted that the Republicans should be able to take control of the Senate in 2012.  But, with decisions not to run by Webb in Virginia, Conrad in North Dakota, Bingaman in New Mexico, and now Kohl in Wisconsin, Republicans now clearly have a chance to gain not just the 4 seats needed to ensure control of the Senate, but the 13 seats that would give them a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority.  This would be an amazing turn around, given that it was the Democrats who found themselves in this position just 3 years ago.

In order to get to 60 Senate seats, Republicans will first have to retain control of the 10 seats they have up for election, including Brown in Massachusetts and open seats in Nevada and Arizona.  Nevada is looking better with Ensign’s resignation, but Kyle’s decision not to seek re-election places Arizona in the toss up column, particular if Gabrielle Giffords is able to recover and challenge for the seat.  Brown is actually looking better in his chance of retaining the Massachusetts seat that he won in a special election.  The other seven Republican seats are considered “safe”.

Six seats held by Democrats are clearly rated as toss ups–Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, and Virginia.  Two of these are open seats:  Kent Conrad (ND) and Jim Webb (VA) are not running again. Republicans will have to win only 4 of these to get to a Senate majority, but all six, if they expect to have a chance of getting to 60 seats.  

In addition to these 6 seats, Republicans would have to win seven additional seats currently held by the Democrats.  Republicans should be competitive in the following states where incumbent Democrats would hold a slight advantage:  Florida (Nelson), Michigan (Stabenow), Pennsylvania (Casey), and New Jersey (Menendez).  Republicans have won the governorships in all 4 of these states in the last election cycle. Finally, decisions by Lieberman in Connecticutt, Bingaman in New Mexico, as well as Kohl in Wisconsin have placed these 3 seats that should have been likely Democrat holds into the competitive category. 

Keep in mind also that in 2010, Senate seats in California, Washington, Delaware West Virginia and even New York were also considered up for grabs, and seats from these states are up again in 2012.  It is hard to predict at this point which additional seats might be in play.  Clearly, however, Republicans should be targetting, recruiting top-tier candidates and raising funds to contest for the 13 seats necessary to get to a 60-seat Senate majority.  Only attempting to gain a simple majority in the Senate would be setting Republican sights too low.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Change Jar Conservative

    Especially since it seems that the Tea Party has gone to sleep on us (see wisconsin judges election for details).

    But we can hope ….

    We will need it to get a balanced budget ammendment.

    • Kyle-MI

      It is just that the other side has finally woken up. They found an issue that energizes their base and gets sympathy from some of the independents. Even so, we still won the judicial fight. We will get a much better feeling of what the WI political condition is with the recall elections.

  • Finrod

    Given how inept they were with 55 seats in 2005-2006 I’d be surprised if they could do much more with 60. Anything that we’d want to invoke cloture on would likely see Kirk and the Maine sisters abandoning us.

    • bk

      55 or so would be nice to avoid typical RINO nay votes. If Obama gets re-elected it would all become a big stalemate on legislation, but the key would be the ability to block the worst of his judicial appointments. If Obama loses, then certainly the GOP would have maintained the House and the only question is whether a Senate GOP majority in the 50s is willing to put up with Democrats blocking appointments of the new Republican President.

    • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

      to repeal Obamacare, pass a balanced budget amendment and make the Bush tax cuts permanent. And Mitch McConnell has done a much better job of holding the caucus together than in 1005 – 2006. In addition, with at least 17 new Senators added to the new Senators elected in 2010, the Republican caucus will be significantly more conservative than it is today. If nothing else, we won’t have to put up with Harry Reid’s obstructionism. 51 votes won’t cut it. Democrats will be able to block everything and force compromise.

      • 6eorge Jetson

        ;)

    • rightwingmom52

      And if that happens, that Collins might think twice before straying too far from the party?

      • Kyle-MI

        she gets replaced by a Dem. And if that happens Collins can threaten a party switch. Let’s face it, Maine is a lost cause to conservatives. Snowe and Collins are the best the GOP can do for that state. Even so, at some point they will be gone and Dems will gain those seats.

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    and maybe Orrin Hatch could be replaced by more Conservative tea party Republican Senators. Hatch is trying desparately to make amends, and I personally hope he survives. But Lugar and Snowe seem defiant. Replacements for Kyle, Ensign, and Kaye Bailey Hutchinson will also be more conservative, less willing to compromise than those 3 have been.

    • rightwingmom52

      Although I’ve been angry enough to say throw all the bums out a few times myself, we need to keep a handful around who know how things work. I’ve made the case for re-electing my senator, Jeff Sessions, more than once upon hearing that argument.

  • renny

    and Reps. have 10.

    If the same dynamics work in 2012 (little o just lost 2 more Gallup points and I doubt the “plan” to re-invigorate his “ground” game for 2012 from 2008 will work–for one thing, all those college kids who double registered and voted all over the US are trapped unemployed in their parents’ basements), surely stats are on the right side.

    However, the right, and the Reps., have got to get used to the idea that ACORN re-invented (not the power it was, but not dead yet) and the unions and MSM will use every weapon available from false registrations (but we should not get crazy over those millions little o produces as they didn’t exist in 2008 and won’t exist in 2012) to outright Black Panther billy clubs at polling booths.

    The hard-hitting investigative press just started a furor in NJ by asking Christie, for no particular reason except hype, whether the state of NJ should force schools to teach creationism or evolution. He said it was a local issue and what he thought personally was none of the reporter’s business. You sould have thought he had said he was sending the Seals to the reporter’s office for shot placed over his left eye. The horror, the horror, oh the horror.

    The left just wants TURMOIL. We should give them SUBTERFUGE and he who stirkes first strikes best.

  • Bill S

    The odds are very slim that the GOP could take 60 AND get rid of the Maine Twins, Scott Brown and have a vote to overcome a lone rebel, whoever that may be. Yeah, in 2010 the party stood fast for the most part, but I do not believe that will be a long-term certainty. For OCare, Brown won’t be an issue, but there’s no telling what kind of wavering might happen 2 years in. The longer it goes, the less enthusiastic the GOP will be with a total repeal.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    in 2014.

    All things being equal, 2010 should have been a

    • 6eorge Jetson

      nt

    • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

      The first big mistake of 2010 was not bellieving until the summer of 2010 that it was possible to gain a majority in the Senate. The number just seemed too big. And some Republicans, lincluding Karl Rove, inever really believed it was possible

      The second mistake was not nominating the best candidates in 4 states that were entirely possible to win–Nevada, Delaware, Washington, and West Virginia. (Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell and two also ran retreads.).

      The third mistake is forgetting Reagan’s rule and savaging other Republicans in blue states because they don’tt meet some test of conservative purity. The Democrats won in Pennsylvania and Virgiinia 5 years ago by running Democrat in name only candidates. Even Buckley said nominate the most conservative Republican who has a chance of winning.

      If we had gotten to 49, 50, or 51 in 2010, it would be a lot easier to get to 60 in 2012. But don’t sell out 2012 for 2014. That was the 4th mistake of 2010.

  • Spiral

    I say we should just use the nuclear option if we don’t achieve the 60 votes we need.

    What’s more important? Saving the country from socialist ruin?

    Or preserving a loophole in Senate rules created by accident by Vice President Aaron Burr?

    Also, we need to realize that the framers of the US Constitution intended for the US Senate to conduct itself on a majority basis.

    That’s why the Vice Preisident was given the tie-braking vote and its also why when powers are given to either house of Congress (US Senate or US House) it is assumed to be given to the majority of that chamber unless the Constitution says otherwise, such as a 2/3rds requirement for treaty ratification.

    We should also remember that the rules for shutting down debate in the US Senate have been changed many times, sometimes without even changing the written rules of the US Senate.

    The 60 vote cloture requiremnt has led the US into near bankruptcy. Remember how members of Congress wanted to put Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae on a shorter chain but the Democrats threatened to filibuster the idea? But then, when TARP was proposed, there were well in excess of 60 votes to shut down debate in the Senate and rubber stamp the bailouts.

    Get rid of the 60 vote requirement (using the simple majority constitutiona option) and save America.

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    Without a 60 vote cloture rule, Harry Reid’s Senate Democrats would have been as arrogant and unstoppable as Pelosi’s House Democrats.They would have been able to pass a 2012 budget with even greater increased spending. They would have been able to increase taxes on everyone making more than $105,000 a year like Clinton did. They would have been able to impose a 50% death tax on estates over $1 million. They would have passed cap-and-trade. They could have imposed a carbon tax. Do I need to say any more, because this is just the start of all the bad things that the 60 vote cloture rule keeps from happening. Just Say No to the nuclear option. This would come back to bite us at some future point.

    • Spiral

      The filibuster rule has helped the Left and hurt the Right.

      Did the filibuster prevent Social Security from being enacted?

      No.

      Did the filibuster prevent Medicare from being enacted?

      No.

      Did the filibuster prevent SCHIP (the health care program for children signed by President Clinton) from being enacted?

      No.

      Did the filibuster prevent Sonia Sotomeyer and Elena Kagan from being seated on the US Supreme Court?

      No.

      Did the filibuster prevent the 2009 Stimulus plan from being enacted?

      No.

      Did the filibuster prevent Obama-care from being enacted?

      No.

      Did the filibuster prevent the TARP bailouts and the automobile bailouts from being enacted?

      No.

      Did the filibuster prevent Miguel Estrata and Carolyn Kuhl from being seated on the US federal court of appeals?

      Yes.

      Did the filibuster prevent reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

      Yes.

      Did the filibuster prevent drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Reserve?

      Yes.

      Did the filibuster prevent Medical Liability reform from being enacted?

      Yes.

      Clearly, the filibuster has not prevented the United States’ slide towards socialism. In fact, the filibuster has made it nearly impossible to reverse the slide, since you will always have 41 Democrat US Senators unwilling to accept a reversal of America’s slide towards socialism.

      The only way to save America is to junk the filibuster.