Rothenberg: Democrats could pad Senate Majority to 60 seats by 2010

[wyldwolf]

Democrats probably don't have to worry about losing their Senate majority in 2008, but that doesn't mean next year's elections aren't crucial for them.

A strong '08 could put the party in sight of a 60-seat majority in 2010, and that filibuster-proof majority would change the rules of the game on Capitol Hill.

Last year, Democrats won a stunning 24 of 33 races, which means over the next two Senate cycles they will need to win another 36 seats, out of the 67 that will be up, to give them the magic number of 60. Given the small Democratic classes next year (12) and in 2010 (15), and the fact that Republicans will be defending a total of 40 seats over the two cycles, it's certainly possible that Democrats can net nine seats to get to 60.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/for_democrats_time_to_pad_sena.html

[TlalocW]

1. 60 would be great

But any number that marginalizes Lieberman is all I ask for.

TlalocW

[Kolesar]

2. Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman seems certain to draw a serious challenger--or Al Franken

Ok, that was a bit snarky. Al is pretty good a messaging. Compared to other non-office holders, he would be better than Ohio's 2nd rate Senatorial hopeful Jerry Springer.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. You know what Al has going for him?

He's a real Minnesota boy. He's "Minnesota Nice". He can speak to hot dish suppers, Lutefisk Festivals and ice fishermen.

That is not small taters.

[Kolesar]

7. good answer

But still--kosher lutefisk?

[saltpoint]

4. A 60-seat majority in the Senate? Sounds pretty good to me.

I'm in.

[Frances]

5. Believe it or not, I'm very worried that CA will lose Boxer (D)

and gain Arnold (R).

I keep hearing people, including Dems, praise Arnold here in northern CA. Arnold coasted to victory in the last election. CA is such a huge state and it's so very expensive to campaign here. Arnold has unlimited funds. I don't think the people of CA realize how important it will be to have 60 Dems. I think they'll swallow the hype from the MSM which favors Arnold. For example, when he ran in the special election, his movies were shown constantly on TV.

I REALLY hope I'm worrying for no reason, but I don't think so.

[Parisle]

6. Rothenberg makes a fair and balanced appraisal of the odds

--- But that isn't good enough. Some of us naively hoped that, based on the democratic sweep in 2006, the 60-vote senate majority could be obtained in 2008,.. beating 10 of 21 defending republicans, while maybe losing one democratic seat. Perhaps that IS asking a lot,... but the current state of popular disapproval of this administration must be turned into an all-out rout of the GOP. Anything less than 57-58 senate seats in 2008 would be a huge disappointment. It will have to be another "national" election. GOP efforts to "localize" races based on the individual candidates will have to be met with the rationale that, "Yeah, the sitting GOP'er may have criticized the president,... but he's still a republican for purposes of thwarting popular will."