Not quite. Recall that in 2004, when Democrats were concerned about Romney filling a vacant Kerry seat, they changed the law: So, as it stands now: Practically, for right now, that means that there could be a special election that coincides with the general election only if Kennedy decides to resign during a 15-window period in June. Of course, speculation of a resignation is incredibly premature. Even if it was ultimately the decision made, unless medical issues necessitated an earlier resignation, I would think he would do it later and allow a stand-alone special election in 2009. One thing I can't find out is if a special primary election is also mandated. The fact is that the next vacancy for Senate in Massachusetts is going to be a free-for-all on the Democratic side; half of the Congressional delegation plus Joseph Kennedy and Marty Meehan will be interested. If there's a late primary (like there usually is in Massachusetts), a solid Republican candidate could over-perform in an open election.
Nope. No way. Democrats would spend everything they had to beat him and then he'd be done. Best case scenario is that he wins and then he's permanently stuck in the Senate. Romney is either VP this time (I personally hope not--I've been convinced it's a bad move for him no matter what, though I do still think, paradoxically, it's McCain's best pick); runs for President in 2012, or is done with politics. It's hard to put together a Republican "shortlist" because a lot of people are going to line up to take on Patrick in 2010 instead of the Senate seat. That being said, Charlie Baker, the CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, is always mentioned as a statewide candidate. So is US Attorney Michael Sullivan. Frank Cousins, a Sheriff, gets mentioned but he doesn't have the name ID or personal wealth to mount a strong campaign for Senate--he's likely more an LG or AG candidate next time. Andy Card would get mentioned but his ties to the Bush administration likely make him too toxic to get elected in Massachusetts. It's not out of the realm of possibility for Gov. Cellucci or (less likely because he lives in NY, yet more popular) Gov. Weld to take a stab at it. Short of those two, Wayne Budd is probably the ideal candidate for an open seat but, at age 67, he would probably pass. I think Baker has his eyes on challenging Patrick so, if he can be convinced, Sullivan might be the most likely candidate. Other than those two, and the names I mentioned above, it's a short bench. But like I said, if the Republicans can coalesce around one name very early, the Democrats can be beaten, because there will definitely be a multi-candidate primary.
Udall widening the gap in Colorado: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/05/21/udall_opens_lead_in_colorado_senate_race.html
On Larry King this evening, Jesse Ventura said that he is seriously thinking of running for the Senate as an independent in Minnesota.
Awesome idea - everyone would be waiting for him to pull a Bully Brooks moment. I forget - what was the Body's favorite move?
True enough. But he still won a plurality of votes in a three-way statewide race (one, of course, that included Coleman), so he has somewhat of a natural base. Even if his popularity has dipped considerably, he would be a player in the race. I don't think he could win, but he could certainly affect the outcome.
I'm moving to Minnesota at the beginning of July, so I'm very interested in the politics there. I'm not a big fan of Ventura or Franken. What to do?
I should have mentioned that I don't like Coleman either. But I thought that would have been obvious since I'm so liberal. I'm not completely opposed to Republicans: they just have to be extremely moderate. I like Amy Klobuchar, of course.
Then it looks like you choice will be probably Franken (still has a primary to win against a professor I think) Coleman, maybe Ventura or a third party type.
Franken has become such a joke, almost a parody of himself, that he seems more like a goofball than a substantial politician. Am I being unfair? How is his campaign going? I know he has the back tax problem.
Al Franken's a smart cookie; you could do a lot worse. Rush & O'Falafel hate him so that must mean something.
A GOP poll in NC has Dole up 2 against Kay Hagan. What's going to hurt the GOPs in this cycle is that they've got very, very few stone-cold locks. In another cycle, against an unknown like Hagan, Dole could spend September in other states, campaigning for other GOP candidates. This time around, almost every GOP running for the Senate, and many, many running for the House, are going to be forced to take care of their own business. And that'll apply to money, too. The Dems are going to outspend the GOPs in every race, everywhere, that they choose to.
Mitch McConnel trails.... very early, but that the Senate Minority leader is in a tight race speaks volumes about the world of hurt that could be awaiting the Reeps this fall.. From that same article
In the short term, and long term, the presidential race is gonna be The Big Story on election night. But if the Dems pick up ~8 Senate seats and ~30 House seats, both possible, the medium term Big Story will be the collapse of the congressional Republican party as we know it. They'll be at ~42 Senate seats, with a bad map again for 2010, and about 100 behind in the House. They'd be forced to completely revamp their ideology, their strategy, and their messaging. From 2000 through 2004, the Republicans had an amazing, impressive streak in close races, especially in the Senate. What happened in 2006 was that the Dems won the close races. If they "split" the 50-50 Senate races this time, it'll be a good year for the Dems. If the Dems win more than their share, it'll be historic.
If you're "so liberal," then you should not be voting for any Republicans. By voting for a moderate one, you give power to the party as a whole which is much more conservative.