Nashville's Online Source for Daily News
Search Site
Electoral map may give GOP some slim hope for the fall
For Republicans, 2006 was a bad year. Democrats took control of the U.S. House and Senate as the tide turned strongly against President George W. Bush and his party. And, 2008 has been shaping up as a year when GOP fortunes could swing from bad to even worse.
While some Republican leaders in Washington have been claiming to see light at the end of the political tunnel, three straight special election losses in Illinois, Mississippi and Louisiana in House races that were considered “safe” shook even the most optimistic Republicans. They are now recognizing the size and scope of the potential disaster that may await them at the polls in November.
Ironically, the saving grace for the GOP this year may be likely Democratic Party Presidential nominee Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton’s last gasp effort to woo the remaining Democrat superdelegates to her side is the argument that she has more political clout in the swing states that loom large in November than Obama. Three states in particular — Arkansas, Kentucky and West Virginia — are cited as evidence for her claim that she can win states that Democrats have traditionally won when capturing the White House, while Obama will lose all three by large margins. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Florida are other states where her poll numbers have shown her with a greater likelihood of securing victory over John McCain.
Hillary may not convince the superdelegates, but her electoral map argument does give a glimmer of hope to the GOP in terms of staunching the political blood flow in swing House and Senate races in those states. In Kentucky, for example, polls show it highly unlikely that Obama can overcome his recent rout at the hands of Hillary and swing the state into the Democrat column in November. A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows McCain leading Obama in the Bluegrass State by 25 percentage points, 57 percent to 32 percent. That is great news for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) who is lagging behind his Democrat challenger, Bruce Lunsford, by a 49 percent to 44 percent margin. McConnell has served in the Senate since 1984, and may only survive this election if McCain wins Kentucky by a huge margin, which appears likely.
At least nine other Senate seats currently held by Republicans appear to be in jeopardy, including races in Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, North Carolina, Colorado, Virginia and Alaska. Democrats have fewer vulnerable seats up in this election cycle, so Republicans were already on the defensive before the year began. The McCain-Obama numbers in these states may well spell the difference in whether the Democrats pick up a few seats or a lot of seats.
The story on the House side is similar. Democrats have hoped to pick up some additional gains and expand their power base by picking up some seats in the South. But with McCain leading Obama by 60-32 percent in Alabama, 50-44 percent in Mississippi, and 57-32 percent in Kentucky (according to Rasmussen Reports polls released in the past week), Democrat prospects in House races in those states may fade in the coming months.
Republicans certainly don’t have anything to look forward to this November. But with Obama at the top of the Democratic Party ticket, they at least have a glimmer of hope that they will survive in enough states to simply lose a few more seats in the House and Senate rather than being completely swamped at the polls. Although absolute disaster still remains a distinct possibility.
Steve Gill is the host of a statewide radio talk show that airs in Nashville on NewsRadio 1510 am WLAC.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Technorati
Mailing list sign-up
4137 Helena Bay Ct, Hermitage
Price: $214,900
Bedrooms/Bathrooms: 3/2
797 Isaac Ct, Clarksville
Price: $190,000
Bedrooms/Bathrooms: 3/2
View More Homes
Lets hear more about Bob Barr Gill.I can't see myself pulling the lever for Juan.
Give it up Gill . You are always wrong about everything .You need to stop listening to Rush.
The Republicans can't win because they want more US soldiers to die in Bush's Iraq war.
Republicans can't win because there are none running.
Steve Gill is a shill. Nothing more nothing less. Just like Fixed News, there is noting fair and balanced in his writing. Even George Will makes an attempt at even-handedness. Scott McClellan's new book "What Happened?" shows just how far the GOP has fallen from Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. What happened to a balanced budget? What happened to personal freedom? What happened to "clean up the mess in Washington?" The old adage proves true, again. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Again, unbelievable that THE CITY PAPER would continue to run this tripe. What "special favors
Actually, this is probably the most sensible Steve Gill column I've ever read. Not that that is saying a whole lot.I'm glad to hear Mitch McConnell is in trouble, he's a joke, and a bad one at that.I think that what Gill's basically hinting at will likely be true- John McCain will have a largely Democratic Congress to work with.There's one of those typical right-side emails going around blaming the Democratic Congress for things being worse in 2008 than in 2006. But bad policy takes time to do it's damage. Especially with the mortgage crisis, which is a direct result of rubber-stamped Bush policy. Bush unsuccessfully pressured Congress to give more allowances to predatory lenders as recently as a year and a half ago. Things are bad in 2008 because of seven plus years of corrupt, lazy, incompetent and misguided leadership.
I do notice that Gill's poll numbers are all from historically Red states that would go Republican if Bozo the Clown was running for President on the Republican ticket (and essentially he was in 2000 and 2004). The article would have been more interesting with numbers from states like Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
we can see it all now when McMain pick his vice make believe runing mate, They are only two good choices, McCain can take Joe Liberman if all McCain wants is the Jewish voters. But that would really kill the conservative voters. Next is who could he have in the White House if he get elected [which he will not be ] who could feel his shoes but under no circumstance would they impeach McCain for they're hate of this man of being president. This might mean McCain come out with a draft for Cheney. It really will not make no difference as the republican party will be unelectable this fall
Picking Cheney as VP would certainly make McCain unelectable. Compared to Cheney, Bush is popular. But McCain's likely to pick someone that helps him win, like Charlie Crist or as you mentioned Joe Lieberman. Joe would do it so he could become the answer to a trivia question.If McCain picked someone like Huckabee, and hopefully he's not that stupid, I would campaign for Obama. Obama needs to pick someone like Bill Richardson who will add a good resume to the ticket.
John McCain will select Tim Pawlenty. McCain gains little from Lieberman. He is ponderous, dull, & pompous, and having two candidates who blindly have followed Bush-Dick off the Iraqi cliff will not increase McCain’s slim chances this fall.Barack Obama has only two reasonable choices for vice-president: Hillary Clinton or Bill Richardson. Clinton is the better choice. She has been running for that slot for almost a month. She has a killer instinct, and she would slice up McCain spotty record, leaving Obama to stick to the high road. Bill Richardson would be an excellent secretary of state. In addition, once John Paul Stevens retires from the Supreme court, in 2009, Obama could nominate Clinton to replace him, and nominate Richardson to replace Clinton. It is a win-win-win. (Of course, I would love to see Anita Hill on the Supreme Court. That would be sweet justice.)TfT, when I referred to this column as tripe, I was mostly thinking of Gill imbecilic, biased view of counting the electoral college votes for this fall. The numbers in Pennsylvania & Ohio do not hurt Obama. Further, the Democrats now run Ohio, so there will be none of 2004’s Republican chicanery. Finally, Kentucky wouldn’t vote for Obama anyway. Those voters are, by & large, no brighter than ours in Tennessee, and Tennessee will support, against its better interests, McCain.Obama will win these states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, new Jersey, new Mexico, new York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, & Wisconsin. That adds up to 276 electoral votes. Note that this list concedes West Virginia & Ohio to McCain. Both of those states are in play, along with Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Arkansas, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, & New Jersey. If the Democratic party can show the voters in these states that McCain is almost totally a third term of Bush-Dick, that voting for McCain means supporting the disaster of the last eight years, then November could be a rout. Obama & the Democrats’ only difficulties are their own spinelessness & disorganization & the mainstream media’s love affair w/ McCain.Anyway, keep my list. You read it here first.
MJB, the self-avowed socialist, who prefers progressive as a euphemism: With your insights, perhaps you could apply for a political "analyst," or commentator position at one of the NBC networks. They are openly behind the nomination and election of Senator Obama, and their crews are obviously biased. All of the major--soon to be minor--networks are in the tank for the senator from Illinois, but NBC is the most open about it. (How you EVER determined that the mainstream media were in favor of Senator McCain destroys your credibility, but that won't matter with them.)Just think, if NBC has an opening for yet another President Bush & Vice President Cheney hater, you would be a shoo-in. Perhaps a California, or New York bureau opening exists. Maybe you could see if Mr. D'Argent would like to accompany you. What a team! One could say something vitriolic about the current administration, and the other would nod agreement. Then the nodder could make some fallacious statement about how the great Senator Obama, and his Marxist policies are going to cure our ills, and then the other could nod. (If you could work it so Mr. D'Argent could use all of the expletives allowed, it probably would make each broadcast a banner one for him.)As an added bonus, you would both escape the "dimwits" of Tennessee, and our Bluegrass neighbors.One word of caution: You might want to keep that Anita Hill as a Supreme Court Justice under wraps for awhile. Even NBC has limits--Hm, on second thought, it is doubtful that they do. So have at it. Bon voyage; don't hurry back.P.S. If they reject you, there is always CNN as a possible fallback.
Thanks, Kat. Entertaining but w/out much substance. As for the mainstream media's love for & for John McCain, it's been well-established. for just one example: Over the last eight years, the only politician who came on MEET THE PRESS to discuss issues (not simply his/her campaign) & WASN'T joined by a representative of the opposing party was John McCain. MEET THE PRESS thought of him--and still thinks of him--as a "maverick" who "speaks his own mind outside of his party". What bushwah.As for socialism, I have said before that w/out socialism, you couldn't get to work. We all built the highways just so YOU could drive to work. You badmouth something upon which you rely, just like the two-year-old denying reality right & left.You whine & shriek about "socialism!" as if it were something bad, yet you count on it & can't point out any problems with it, and by the way, I've never called myself a socialist nor a progressive.
MJB: The liberals that post on here are diverse in the content they seek. When substantive material is provided, one whines that depth is not desirable in this veritable "chat room." Banter is preferred. We offer a bit of levity, and are chided for lack of substance. If you wish to mount the polemic platform, please advise the level of discourse you prefer.I stand unequivocally behind by mainstream media comments. Anyone who can see through a stepladder, cannot miss the bias in favor of Senator Obama.Your ardent defense for socialism/ progressive programs, with all the force of a demonstration shouts that you are indeed what you deny.Others have questioned and exposed your convoluted "logic" that sees roads and telephone lines as socialism. The government providing for the common defense and transportation with tax dollars from a capitalistic system does not socialism make. Most of the communication systems were produced by the private sector. Limited government interference is what the capitalist seeks. True socialism, such as Senator Obama would bring us, makes us virtually wards of the state. The "Robin Hood" approach seriously erodes the work ethic, and destroys investment. Serfdom emerges. The nanny state ascends. In the final stages, no private property is allowed. Enter Marxist rule.So, you are sorely mistaken to think that I depend on socialism, and it is productive of nothing but bad, except for the few at the top.As a final note re Senator McCain, I am no enthusiastic advocate for him. He is by far the best of the three still standing, but was certainly not my choice. Being better than the other two senators requires minimal credentials. In fairness to Senator Clinton, she is exponentially better than your candidate.You know, if Senator McCain should win, weak tho he is, you might want to try European socialism. They would likely welcome your >50% taxes in Euros. Again, bon voyage.
I take your point, Kat, that you feel no need to make remarks of substance, so I will read this one, since it seems to have a bit of substance, but, from now on, since you want to purvey fluff, I shall probably ignore your remarks & reserve my reading to the remarks of those who want to discuss, not simply whine & shriek.In re socialism: Yes, when we all pay for the roads, we practice socialism. That is what it is: Everyone paying for the commonweal, so that society improves. It’s good that you can’t find a problem with such a system but you can continue to cry about it & claim that a conservative like Barack Obama is a Marxist.In re “government interference”: I am glad that you are against all the bailouts & welfare to big corporations. I am, too. All that free enterprise needs is sufficient safeguards to protect society from free enterprise’s ravenous tendencies.In re the “nanny state”: You, again, behave like the two-year-old. Do you want to buy meat that wasn’t approved by the F.D.A. do you want to work in an office w/out safety measures instituted by O.S.H.A.?No one has anything against private property. You want it; pay for it. Owning property makes you responsible for all of society. Pay your fair share & stop whining about it.I note that you support John McCain but w/out any reasons. Why do you want another four years of the disastrous & criminal Bush-Dick presidency?It amuses me how frightened you are of me that you keep begging me to leave my country. I must stay her to protect America from babies like you. As you look forward to my leaving, I look forward to your maturing & stop living off the public teat while decrying “socialism”. Alternatively, perhaps, when Obama wins, you can be truly true to your principles: You can buy an island in the south Pacific, say, and have no truck with ANYBODY.
MJB: From my cradle, and with fear and trembling, I will provide a measured response. In formal debate, it is the responsibility of the one in the affirmative to define the terms. You describe Senator Obama as conservative. That would be appropriate if he were in the old Soviet Union. Here, he is an extreme Liberal, or as he likes to define himself: Progressive. You do not seem to be on the same page with your candidate.Your concepts re socialism do not comport with basic definitions. Perhaps economics and political science were not your favorite subjects in college.However, you are not totally in error in a few of your examples. (Doubtlessly, by ceding you one small point, you can go into some sort of ritualistic victory dance with revo-lou.) The EPA, OSHA, and similar type government agencies are socialist leaning functions. They are the result of companies failing to discipline, or police themselves.Closing observations: (1) Most of those posting on this board resort to ad hominem attacks, when they are unable to answer an argument. (2) When lacking in communication skills, they use expletives. While you oft times succumb to the former, to your credit you seem to avoid the latter.Do you really consider CA and NY "leaving the country"? Just asking.
Kat, exactly where has Barack Obama defined himself as a “Progressive”? Obama is conservative as he is against progressive positions: legalization of marriage between homosexuals, universal single-payer health-care, immediate ending of the American occupation of Iraq—to name just three. Now, can you define any of your terms, rather than simply & pointlessly mention the Soviet Union?—a truly conservative society, by the way, that looked more like a huge third-world country than it ever looked like a Marxist state.If you have a definition of “socialism” that doesn’t include public paying for—and ownership of—highways, then please cite it rather than simply refer to it.I see that you like the “nanny state” when it keeps you safe (E.P.A., O.S.H.A., F.D.A.) but not when it may help the disadvantaged (public schools, low-income housing). A consistent position, I suppose, but neither mature nor thoughtful.I note, again, that you can supply no reasons to supporting a third term of the Bush-Dick administration by electing john McCain.As for the ad hominem, I employ it only when another has employed it toward me, as you did w/ your first comment 9see above). I do my best to stick to the subject & away from labels & name-calling. You, w/ this last remark, try to do the same. Thank you, but please try harder.California, New York, “leaving the country”? What’s that about?