Democratic senators ditch 2012 runs

[malloc]

It is a general reference to the anti-Hispanic feelings in Arizona. It refers specifically to SB 1070 but is meant as an metaphor to the hostility to Hispanics in that state. And before you start the whole "No! Just illegals!" charade, keep in mind there is a movement to deny Americans a birth certificate in that state because they were squeezed out of the wrong crotch.

Unfortunately facts stand in the way of your hypothesis. SB 1070 is hugely popular in Arizona. Even if all legal Hispanics oppose 1070, which they don't, the Republican nominee, could still win on tougher border enforcement alone. Opposing open borders and illegal immigration is a campaign winner in AZ, as has been demonstrated by the 2010 gubernatorial and state legislative elections.

The fact is that Arizonan's, even legal Arizonan's of Latin American descent, want stricter border control and an end to the tide of illegals flooding through the Tuscon corridor.

[lacarnut]

Unfortunately facts stand in the way of your hypothesis. SB 1070 is hugely popular in Arizona. Even if all legal Hispanics oppose 1070, which they don't, the Republican nominee, could still win on tougher border enforcement alone. Opposing open borders and illegal immigration is a campaign winner in AZ, as has been demonstrated by the 2010 gubernatorial and state legislative elections.

The fact is that Arizonan's, even legal Arizonan's of Latin American descent, want stricter border control and an end to the tide of illegals flooding through the Tuscon corridor.

Looks like it's Boo Hoo time for A.D.

[Odysseus]

BTW, John Ensign (R-Nevada) is reported to be retiring. The Link.

That brings the Republicans up to three, Ensign, Kay Bailey (R-Texas), and Kyl (R-Arizona).

You've got Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and now, Nevada senate seats up for grabs.

It might be a coincidence but the latest census numbers indicating a dramatic demographic shift in the American southwest may be in play. I would not assume the land of 1070 is an automatic Republican win at this point.

Arizona and Texas are highly unlikely to go to Democrats, even in a year with Democratic sweeps. If Obama loses at the top of the ticket, expect his negative coattails to have impacts down the line. Nevada is in play only because of Reid, but I don't see that seat going Democrat either.

I don't see direct popular vote for Senators being that big of a problem, just the outside the state influences and money that are donated to them.

The whole point of the senate was to have members who represented the will of their state governments and were not subject to electoral pressure. It was also one of the bits of genius of the founders, that every office holder was selected by people who were at least acquainted with him personally. That's one of the reasons for the electoral college, that a small group of electors could meet and address candidates with the concerns of their states. Senators were selected by their fellow state legislators, and they generally picked people that they respected. To put it another way, can you see Teddy Kennedy, Barack Obama or Patty Murray being selected by their legislatures to represent the interests of their states?

[fettpett]

To put it another way, can you see Teddy Kennedy, Barack Obama or Patty Murray being selected by their legislatures to represent the interests of their states?

yes....

[malloc]

Arizona and Texas are highly unlikely to go to Democrats, even in a year with Democratic sweeps. If Obama loses at the top of the ticket, expect his negative coattails to have impacts down the line. Nevada is in play only because of Reid, but I don't see that seat going Democrat either.


The whole point of the senate was to have members who represented the will of their state governments and were not subject to electoral pressure. It was also one of the bits of genius of the founders, that every office holder was selected by people who were at least acquainted with him personally. That's one of the reasons for the electoral college, that a small group of electors could meet and address candidates with the concerns of their states. Senators were selected by their fellow state legislators, and they generally picked people that they respected. To put it another way, can you see Teddy Kennedy, Barack Obama or Patty Murray being selected by their legislatures to represent the interests of their states?

I'm definitely in the "repeal the XVIIth Amendment" camp. I believe that Amendment has done more to usurp our constitutional republic than any other. It's directly to blame for the erosion of State governments, and their tenancy to constantly acquiesce to any demand the Federal government makes. That being said, I don't see that amendment being repealed in my lifetime.

[Arroyo_Doble]

Arizona and Texas are highly unlikely to go to Democrats, even in a year with Democratic sweeps.

I agree. The demographic shift will take awhile longer in those two states. Also, Texas has not gotten the 1070 fever just yet. Although there was a funny thing recently where a member of our state legislature wanted to bring down heavy fines and jail time for those hiring illegal aliens (something I agree with .... start throwing some CEO's in jail and the demand will dry up quick) but wanted to exempt those who hire undocumented labor for maids, yard care, nannies, ect.

Damn funny but shows you where the Republican head is on the issue here.

If Obama loses at the top of the ticket, expect his negative coattails to have impacts down the line. Nevada is in play only because of Reid, but I don't see that seat going Democrat either.

I don't see where Obama loses. I think the slim chance the Republicans had went up in a puff of smoke in Wisconsin when Walker awakened the sleeping Labor giant and filled it with a terrible resolve. The mid-west is now out of Republican reach.

That aside, I still think the Republicans will take the Senate in 2012. But New Mexico and Nevada will be Democratic. As long as loons like Angle or that nut from Delaware aren't nominated, Arizona should be safe for Republicans.

[Odysseus]

yes....

No, think about it. When Teddy was elected to the Senate, he was a Harvard dropout who'd been caught cheating, a spoiled brat whose only claim to fame was two less embarrassing brothers. The Massachussetts legislature back then would not have bothered with him. Similarly, Obama has never impressed the people that he works with. The Illinois legislature wouldn't have selected someone whose sole distinction was the number of times that he'd voted "present" on the issues of the day. They might have sold the gig to the highest bidder, as Blago tried to do, but they wouldn't have just given it to a diletante. Patty Murray won an election as a woman in the year that Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas gave Democrats a lever to shoehorn women into office, but she's dumber than a stump, and she'd never have impressed anyone in the legislature.

Now, that's not to say that those states wouldn't have appointed liberal Democrats, but they wouldn't have been brain-dead, lazy, incompetent liberal Democrats.

I agree. The demographic shift will take awhile longer in those two states. Also, Texas has not gotten the 1070 fever just yet. Although there was a funny thing recently where a member of our state legislature wanted to bring down heavy fines and jail time for those hiring illegal aliens (something I agree with .... start throwing some CEO's in jail and the demand will dry up quick) but wanted to exempt those who hire undocumented labor for maids, yard care, nannies, ect.

Damn funny but shows you where the Republican head is on the issue here.

I don't see where Obama loses. I think the slim chance the Republicans had went up in a puff of smoke in Wisconsin when Walker awakened the sleeping Labor giant and filled it with a terrible resolve. The mid-west is now out of Republican reach.

That aside, I still think the Republicans will take the Senate in 2012. But New Mexico and Nevada will be Democratic. As long as loons like Angle or that nut from Delaware aren't nominated, Arizona should be safe for Republicans.

You're overestimating Obama's appeal. The presidential election will be a referendum on Obama and the Republican will only have to demonstrate that he isn't as clueless as a community organizer. Current polling is just name recognition, as I said. When the campaign begins in earnest, Obama and Biden will be out stumping on their record, which includes the singular most unpopular piece of legislation since Prohibition, a completely blown foreign policy and an economy that is very likely to be in the second dip of a recession. Job growth has been nonexistent under Obama, and any Republican who is smart enough to ask Reagan's famous question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" will be picking out patterns for the Oval Office come January 2013.

[Constitutionally Speaking]

They aren't. It was in the article. My point was that their motives were different. Lieberman would have been reelected, but didn't want to be in the miinority and lose his committee chairmanship, while Webb was looking at defeat. I suspect that Ben Nelson and a few others will also be making the decision to spend time with their families, or whatever the current euphemism is for running away like a scalded dog. The really interesting thing will be to see if Democrats in deeply blue states decide not to run. Akaka is one, of course, but if others who have solid reelection hopes decide to butt out, it will be a solid indicator that they expect to be in the minority and don't want to have to deal with it.

Classic case of me not reading the title. Sorry about that.

[PoliCon]

I am unsure why it is taking so long for the Senate to become Republican. It should be a solidly Republican body considering the 2 per state issue and the number of reliably Republican states in the nation.

well gee - given that only 1/3 come up for election at a time - it's kinda hard to get huge changes in who runs the senate. Add to it that most of the Democrat Senators up for election the last round were basically very safe due to who stu- I mean blue :o their states are it's amazing that the GOP made gains at all. Given that this next bunch are far more competitive - well now . . . . :) I'm looking forward to seeing some changes. :)

[PoliCon]

It is a general reference to the anti-Hispanic feelings in Arizona. It refers specifically to SB 1070 but is meant as an metaphor to the hostility to Hispanics in that state. And before you start the whole "No! Just illegals!" charade, keep in mind there is a movement to deny Americans a birth certificate in that state because they were squeezed out of the wrong crotch.

You mean because they were born to a foreign invader? Do you favor giving citizen status to the children of foreign invaders?