Mark Warner Running For Senate

[Flying Headbutt]

Politico reporting that Mark Warner will run for the US Senate seat being vacated by John Warner. That'll make it 52-48 at least. Maine and New Hampshire I suppose could make it 54-46? Colorado 55-45?

What's that about a lasting Republican majority? Or the importance of appeasing Joe Lieberman? Old news you say?

 

[slappy4428]

The quicker the Dems in the Senate can stop having to kiss Lieberman's ass, the better we'll be.

 

[HejiraHenry]

This reminds me of the Ole Miss fan trying to tell me how great his team played after it fell behind 35-7.

The Democrats have cast their lot with the losing side of history. It will take a while, of course, but they will – within my lifetime – be as hard to find as Whigs and Libertarians.

Another two years of a Dem controlled Senate and their approval rating may be down to less than 5 percent.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Losing side of what? A war of choice that most of the country sides with them on? Trying to improve life for the middle class?

What fantasy world do you live in?

 

[Ben_Hecht]

The great inside-politics story of the next few two-year election cycles will be to just what degree the GOP will be able to obfuscate their blow-big-business/screw-the-middle-class/endless-war intermediate-term agenda.

If the broad populace buys into their tapdance, we deserve everything we get.

The Constitution . . . remember it?

We had better.

 

[D-Backs Hack]

Yes, Henry, please call every GOP Congressman and tell them to run in 2008 on that message. If sure they'll turn and race to the blast fax to get it out.

Mark Warner runs, Dem pickup
If Shaheen runs in NH, Dem pickup
If Kerrey runs in Nebraska, Dem pickup

54-46 right there.

I don't like the GOP's chances in Colorado (and remember, the Dem convention is there). Collins and Coleman are going to have trouble. The most vulnerable Dem is Landrieu, and Cook and Rothenberg have even that seat as leaning D.

57-43? 58-42? It's possible.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

. . . though I have ZERO doubt that if Hil wins, she'll raise a lot of backs, and '10 will be good business for even the modern-version, knuckledragging, "aren't-the-little-people-SUCKERS?" GOP . . .

 

[zeke12]

If they go after Tim Johnson's seat -- which is their best shot at a pickup -- I think it will backfire on them.

Depends who runs, though.

I'd like to think Coleman is a dead man walking, but he is a survivor, if nothing else. Franken or Ciresi will have to take it from him.

 

[Moderator1]

That story doesn't say he's running for senate. It says many expect he'll say that but also talks about VP and Guv again. I didn't take away that senate was a done one.

 

[HejiraHenry]

What fantasy world do you live in?

The one where what happens in the next year, or even everything that has happened in the last 10 years, is just a speck on a fly's ass in The Great Scheme.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

What fantasy world do you live in?

The one where what happens in the next year, or even everything that has happened in the last 10 years, is just a speck on a fly's ass in The Great Scheme.

You mean The Great Scheme during which a collection of humorless assholes prevail?

I'll pass on that, thanks.

 

[Beaker]

What fantasy world do you live in?

The one where what happens in the next year, or even everything that has happened in the last 10 years, is just a speck on a fly's ass in The Great Scheme.

So you admit that you live in a fantasy world? Good, overcoming denial is the first step to recovery.

 

[imjustagirl2]

I heart Mark Warner.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

That story doesn't say he's running for senate. It says many expect he'll say that but also talks about VP and Guv again. I didn't take away that senate was a done one.

The mag had some reporter on TV up here saying it would be the senate.

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

Some of y'all sound about as arrogant as some of the GOPers sounded in early 2005.

I wouldn't call any races for any candidates in the bag yet. Either way.

The election is in November 2008, not September 2007.

 

[D-Backs Hack]

Some of y'all sound about as arrogant as some of the GOPers sounded in early 2005.

I wouldn't call any races for any candidates in the bag yet. Either way.

The election is in November 2008, not September 2007.

And if that's the case, you're welcome to throw my post back in my face. At least 54 D seats is my opinion -- and informed one, I believe -- but an opinion, no more or less.

Fact is, there are GOP strategists saying that a net loss of four seats is a best-case scenario. I hope that's true, but no, I won't bet the mortgage on it.

But if you're hunting for arrogance, well, start with the guy claiming that the other side is on the "wrong side of history" and will go the way of the Whigs.

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

Some of y'all sound about as arrogant as some of the GOPers sounded in early 2005.

I wouldn't call any races for any candidates in the bag yet. Either way.

The election is in November 2008, not September 2007.

And if that's the case, you're welcome to throw my post back in my face. At least 54 D seats is my opinion -- and informed one, I believe -- but an opinion, no more or less.

Fact is, there are GOP strategists saying that a net loss of four seats is a best-case scenario. I hope that's true, but no, I won't bet the mortgage on it.

But if you're hunting for arrogance, well, start with the guy claiming that the other side is on the "wrong side of history" and will go the way of the Whigs.

Fourteen months is an absolute eternity in politics. Any political strategist who is making predictions that far out doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

And when it comes to arrogance, I'm not going to start with anybody except yourself and a few of your fellow travelers, in this circumstance.

 

[Rufino]

Some of y'all sound about as arrogant as some of the GOPers sounded in early 2005.

I wouldn't call any races for any candidates in the bag yet. Either way.

The election is in November 2008, not September 2007.

And if that's the case, you're welcome to throw my post back in my face. At least 54 D seats is my opinion -- and informed one, I believe -- but an opinion, no more or less.

Fact is, there are GOP strategists saying that a net loss of four seats is a best-case scenario. I hope that's true, but no, I won't bet the mortgage on it.

But if you're hunting for arrogance, well, start with the guy claiming that the other side is on the "wrong side of history" and will go the way of the Whigs.

Fourteen months is an absolute eternity in politics.

And when it comes to arrogance, I'm not going to start with anybody except yourself and a few of your fellow travelers, in this circumstance.

Good lord, you're still doing commie schtick?

 

[zeke12]

Hey, some things are classic and timeless.

 

[Point of Order]

The Democrats have cast their lot with the losing side of history. It will take a while, of course, but they will – within my lifetime – be as hard to find as Whigs and Libertarians.

It's true. I learned it in Prof. Hondo's Poly Sci class.