2008 Senate seats

[RealGun]

All of these Senators will continue in the 110th Congress, but their seats are up for election in 2008 along with the President and VP.

Last name-First name-State-Party-Election class-Last GOA rating-Note

Stevens-Ted-AK-R-II-D-Likely retirement
Sessions-Jeff-AL-R-II-A--
Pryor-Mark-AR-D-II-D--
Allard-Wayne-CO-R-II-B--
Biden-Joseph-DE-D-II-F-Possibly running for President then defaulting on Senate seat. If he waits 4 years, he could remain a Senator, if unsuccessful in White House bid
Chambliss-Saxby-GA-R-II-A--
Harkin-Tom-IA-D-II-F--
Craig-Larry-ID-R-II-A--
Durbin-Richard-IL-D-II-F--
Roberts-Pat-KS-R-II-B--
McConnell-Mitch-KY-R-II-C--
Landrieu-Mary-LA-D-II-F--
Kerry-John-MA-D-II-(F-)-vulnerable
Collins-Susan-ME-R-II-F--
Levin-Carl-MI-D-II-F--
Coleman-Norm-MN-R-II-B--
Cochran-Thad-MS-R-II-C--
Baucus-Max-MT-D-II-D--
Dole-Elizabeth-NC-R-II-C-Possible retirement
Hagel-Chuck-NE-R-II-C--
Sununu-John-NH-R-II-B--
Lautenberg-Frank-NJ-D-II-(F-)-Possible retirement
Domenici-Pete-NM-R-II-D--
Inhofe-James-OK-R-II-A--
Smith-Gordon-OR-R-II-F--
Reed-Jack-RI-D-II-F--
Graham-Lindsey-SC-R-II-B-
Johnson-Tim-SD-D-II-D--
Alexander-Lamar-TN-R-II-A--
Cornyn-John-TX-R-II-A-possible VP running mate or Supreme Court nominee
Warner-John-VA-R-II-F-probable retirement - likely George Allen running to fill the seat
Rockefeller-John-WV-D-II-F--
Enzi-Michael-WY-R-II-A--

This is mostly just data. Make of it what you will, perhaps help assemble assessments of the status of each seat.

 

[arthurcw]

I see a Lot of R's with average or better grades that could fall to the chopping block if those R's don't go full bore conservative.

My Interpretation?
The Senate is lost for a good long while. And by lost I don't mean lost to the Dems. I mean unable to prevent bad gun bills.

Focus on the Presidency for near term goals. A REAL Conservative President can stop Congress.

Maybe in 4 years the House can be brought under control with a good Conservative president.

The Senate is the lost cause for AT LEAST 6 Maybe even 8 Years.

Anyway... that's the way I see the strategy stacking up. Will it be successful? I’m not very optimistic on that point.

 

[RealGun]

The Senate is lost for a good long while.

Come on, it would only take a two seat shift to make a GOP majority again. I guess I would agree with a concern that the latest one seat margin could get wider in the Democrats' favor, but they will have to show in short order that they really do have better answers. Biden's plan to divide Iraq may indeed prevail and become highly regarded, winning major points.

I think the voters will find out that while they wanted change, a Democrat Congress, especially Senate, was not the answer. It might take a couple Supreme Court nominee circus performances to point that out.

 

[TGT]

Unless the Democrats really screw it up like they did in 1994, I don't ever see the Republicans ever regaining both houses again. Their are new generations of Democrats being born here as Americans simply through birthright.
They don't understand our culture, nor do they care to. Add this huge influx, to the liberlas that were born and raised here, and it's easy to see that the great America I fondly remember is forever gone. Eventually, so too will be many gun rights.
The Democrats can prosper well under these conditions. Republicans cannot.



Heck, they are already talking about banning "assault weapons" in the great "Live free or die" state of NH.
Expect to see this kind of agenda on a local and federal level everywhere within a couple of years when the Democrats settle down and get to returning to their roots.

 

[RealGun]

How about focusing all that hand wringing on an actual Senate seat race?

 

[silliman89]

Unless I miscounted, there are 13 D's up for reelection and 20 R's up for reelection. Seems likely that more Republican incumbents might loose.

 

[RealGun]

Unless I miscounted, there are 13 D's up for reelection and 20 R's up for reelection. Seems likely that more Republican incumbents might loose.

That is a good use of the data. Now what to do about it. I think it would depend upon who is weak and why, just like in this last election. An incumbent is not easy to knock off. I would also look carefully at who is likely to retire, making an open race.

Like Rumsfeld turning 80, some of these folks are really getting up there.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

RealGun, thanks for putting that data together. That will make my starting point for the 2008 Senate thread that much easier. All we have to do is watch how these guys vote on guns and pick the vulnerable antis out for a little special attention while protecting our own vulnerable guys.

I think we could be very well off in the Senate by 2008 if we play our cards right. From a pro-RKBA perspective, we only lost one seat. The biggest problem is we lost control of the committees. Getting the Republicans in the majority again will solve the committee problem and if we can replace a few marginal Senators like Tim Johnson or Sue Collins, then we would be on our way to a filibuster-proof pro-gun majority.

I think Kerry and Lautenberg are also areas where, while we might not get a good pro-RKBA candidate, we are likely to get someone who is at least marginally better.

 

[Steve 48]

I personally think the liberals will hang themselves. They are full of themselves right now and like before, will go after things that people do not want to part with and it will swing back right. Even Howard Dean said that gun control was a loosing issue but you know Chuck , Frank and the Brady bunch just can't help themselves. Lets give them some rope!!! Steve 48

 

[anotherKevin]

Here's a rational analysis of the new senate, that's an interesting read:

countertop chronicles

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here's a rational analysis of the new senate, that's an interesting read

I'd argue the rational part. Let me give a few examples of problems I find in his analysis:

He lists Claire McCaskill as a pro-gun Republican when she is neither Republican nor pro-gun. The only "pro-gun" group that endorsed her was the astro-turf AHSA group. Here are some past quotes from McCaskill

" It’s startling to realize this concept (right-to-carry) came within three votes of passing in the Missouri Senate. Imagine the carnage that could have been wrought by would-be Dirty Harrys…”

“voters understand guns are not the answer for safety.”

He also lists Russ Feingold as pro-gun. This would be the same Russ Feingold that voted for Ted Kennedy's ammo ban amendment in 2004. The one where Teddy proposed to ban .30-30 because he claimed it could pierce armor-plated limousines.

Just those two obvious errors change his Senate breakdown from 50-50 to 48-50. The situation is actually not even that rosy as many of his classifications are optimistic at best. Some of those Senators will change their vote in a heart beat if they don't feel any heat from their constituents.

 

[countertop]

OK Barthelomew,

you got me on McCaskil. I typed in over 100 names amongst a ton of other information this morning and had 1 typo on a party affiliation.

so kill me.

We really don't know where McCaskil is going to fall, and from most of what I've read and heard on her, she is pro gun. Maybe, maybe not.


As for Russ Feingold - as far as I know, until Jim Webb's election he was the only Dem I was aware of who recongized the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental right. Thats good enough for me (Ted Kennedy's bill would likely pass the strict scrutiny test if it wasn't 100% deceptive - I don't expect Feingold to know off hand that Teddy is lying through his teeth - though he should - and would think thats instead requiresd more education for Russ).

Heck, I'd even be willing to change both to anti gun. Doesn't discount my underlying contention that nothing worth worrying about happens.

You say the worst case scenario is 48-50 (which state is no longer in the Union????)

I say that entirely proves my point. Nothing happens.

 

[countertop]

For that matter - the article you linked to certainly doesn't say she's anti gun.

Sure, AHSA is a fraud (and I say that as the person who originally pointed out the Ted Kennedy connection for all the world to know), but they supported her for a valid sportsmands related reason. If she was for "reasonable gun control" don't you think the article would also have mentioned that?

Like I said, maybe maybe not, but I excuse me if I find your detailed analysis on the matter less than compelling.

In any case, this is a much more compelling attack on her

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

you got me on McCaskil

I'm not trying to "get" you. I just don't agree with your reasoning. Did you notice the McCaskill quotes? Those don't sound pro-gun to me and a blessing from a Democrat/Brady front organization doesn't encourage me either.

Let's look at AHSA's (the group that supported her) positions.

AHSA supports legislative efforts to regulate .50 caliber BMG sniper rifles in the same manner as machine guns are regulated under the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

AHSA supports requiring all transfers of firearms at gun shows to be subject to all federal, state and local laws and regulations currently applicable to federally licensed firearm dealers including the conducting of the instant background check on purchasers.

They also have some very slick language explaining how they support the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act and then they go on to explain that gun manufacturers should only be sued in certain circumstances. If you don't speak legalese, it is easy to miss the fact that they are basically gutting the very act they claim to support with that qualification.

As for Russ Feingold - as far as I know, until Jim Webb's election he was the only Dem I was aware of who recongized the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental right. Thats good enough for me

Saying you recognize it as a fundamental right isn't very helpful if you don't vote that way. The fact that this was good enough for you is what worries me about your analysis.

I believe I pointed out the Sue Collins bit on your website; but she is also not someone I consider middle of the road on this issue. Would she support a confiscatory ban? Probably not; but she sure didn't shirk at banning semi-autos for no good reason. That isn't middle to me. That is other side from my perspective.

You say the worst case scenario is 48-50 (which state is no longer in the Union????) I say that entirely proves my point. Nothing happens.

You are correct. That should be 48-52. As for nothing happens, I think you missed some very important procedure during the March 2004 vote. Remember how things got done in the Senate during the S.1805 debates? First came the vote for cloture (the chance to filibuster the bill). It wasn't until AFTER the vote for cloture had already passed that amendments to S.1805 were offered. At that point, it is too late to filibuster (and what was the last successful filibuster of a gun control bill by the way?) and a 48-52 vote is a losing vote.

Like I said, maybe maybe not, but I excuse me if I find your detailed analysis on the matter less than compelling.

That is certainly your prerogative.

In any case, this is a much more compelling attack on her

Yes, that much more compelling attack would be the one I pulled my quotes from in the link I posted. You'll find it in the link under "Comments" by a guy named NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation - Keane's industry group)

 

[FPrice]

Kerry-John-MA-D-II-(F-)-vulnerable

I doubt that. Despite which foot Kerry puts in his mouth there is NO Republican contender in sight who could seriously challenge him.

 

[SomeKid]

FP,

What if Romney was talked into running for Senate instead of POTUS?

While Mitt isn't exactly our best friend, he would be worlds better than John.

Imagine Guilliani and Pataki as NY Senators. Again, not our best friends, but better than Schumer and Clinton.

Maybe we can talk Arnold into knocking off Boxer too. Think about that, 4 F rated candidates replaced with what, C or D Senators, who also help keep committees on our side?

Add onto that these people that can be replaced with much better I think:

Stevens-Ted-AK-R-II-D-Likely retirement
Pryor-Mark-AR-D-II-D--
Harkin-Tom-IA-D-II-F--
Landrieu-Mary-LA-D-II-F--
Kerry-John-MA-D-II-(F-)-vulnerable
Cochran-Thad-MS-R-II-C--
Baucus-Max-MT-D-II-D--
Dole-Elizabeth-NC-R-II-C-Possible retirement
Hagel-Chuck-NE-R-II-C--
Domenici-Pete-NM-R-II-D--
Johnson-Tim-SD-D-II-D--
Warner-John-VA-R-II-F-probable retirement - likely George Allen running to fill the seat
Rockefeller-John-WV-D-II-F--

The ones in bold are ones I think we have a very good shot at. The GOP needs to field good candidates and support them strongly along with us. The question is will the GOP put forward candidates worth supporting.

I truly believe that if good candidates are fielded, those 7 can be replaced. Some quite easily. The non-bolded would take more work, but are vulnerable with great support and good people running,

 

[roscoe]

I believe Russ Feingold voted against renewing the AWB.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The NRA and Landrieu cut a deal during her first election campaign. The NRA will continue to back her until she screws them on some vital vote (which she hasn't yet done).

I believe Russ Feingold voted against renewing the AWB.

Yes, and then that same day he voted to ban .30-30 ammo and all other centerfire rifle ammo.

 

[SomeKid]

Bart,

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rat...=category&category=Gun+Issues&go.x=12&go.y=12

If someone like Jindal could be talked into running against her, I would wager the NRA would back Bobby. What do you think?

You have to scroll down, but this link also has NRA ratings on it.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BC037760

 

[countertop]

While its ludicrous that anyone would be foolish enough to believe Kennedy's armor piercing bullet schtick - I think its also disengeuous to think Feingold honestly thought he was going to ban hunting ammo as opposed to the more likely scenario that he was simply confused by the whole issue - of which he knows little (but has shown a willingness to learn about) - and fell for Kennedy's deceptive tactics.

Regarding your other concerns over filibusters:

the modern day filibuster wasn't perfected back when we needed to worry about filibustering a bad gun vote. Heck, back then you actually had to stand on the floor and keep talking to maintain the filibuster.

As I said when the Republicans were trying to change the filibuster rules during the judicial debates - be careful what you wish for. Now, I hope, they all realize how lucky they are that the filibuster is still preserved as an option.

As to the process - you can filibuster at any time. The counts are pretty darn good that they know 99% of the time how they turn out before the votes happen. Amendments offerred after cloture can lead to a new filibuster of the udnerlying bill - if someone is so inclined.

I don't know what you mean with S. 1805 - are you referring to ammendment to ban centerfile ammo that Kennedy offered???? It failed. If it didn't, there are a number of other legislative tools to use to strip it out before a vote - including a filibuster - but that proved unnecessary.

 

[countertop]

FYI - I changed Feingold to middle as a result of your concerns.

 

[antsi]

---------quote-----------
the more likely scenario that he was simply confused by the whole issue
-------------------------

Confused, my hindquarters.

Let's say you're right, and Feingold actually has an IQ of 50. Let's see how hard it would be for him to figure out:

TED KENNEDY is proposing an ammendment to a GUN-RELATED bill that would BAN something.

Anyone who is any kind of friend to the RKBA would stop right there.

Anyone who would vote for anything, knowing the simple facts in RED above, is an enemy of the second ammendment.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If someone like Jindal could be talked into running against her, I would wager the NRA would back Bobby. What do you think?

I think the NRA has a strong preference for incumbents and not upsetting the applecart. I think the best you would get out of them is no endorsement in that race and comparable grades for both candidates. Of course, that all assumes Landrieu continues to play ball on the important votes. If she gets a little froggy, the NRA would certainly back an opponent with a decent chance.

If it didn't, there are a number of other legislative tools to use to strip it out before a vote - including a filibuster - but that proved unnecessary.

I was referring to the renewal of the AWB and the McCain gunshow background check amendments that were attached to S.1805 during the floor debate on the bill. Even though the votes were there to filibuster those amendments, no attempt was made to do so. It wasn't even suggested.

My understanding is that while technically a filibuster can be offered at any time, the purpose of cloture is to limit the time the bill can be debated and as part of the cloture vote there is usually an agreement on how much time will be offered to each amendment prior to the actual cloture vote. Once that agreement is made and cloture voted, it is too late to filibuster because time will expire when the agreement says and then it is time for a vote.

Senate procedure isn't my strong point though so if you can clarify any failings on my understanding of filibuster and cloture, I would appreciate it.

 

[countertop]

Anyone who would vote for anything, knowing the simple facts in RED above, is an enemy of the second ammendment.

fair enough.

I was referring to the renewal of the AWB and the McCain gunshow background check amendments that were attached to S.1805 during the floor debate on the bill. Even though the votes were there to filibuster those amendments, no attempt was made to do so. It wasn't even suggested.

My understanding is that while technically a filibuster can be offered at any time, the purpose of cloture is to limit the time the bill can be debated and as part of the cloture vote there is usually an agreement on how much time will be offered to each amendment prior to the actual cloture vote. Once that agreement is made and cloture voted, it is too late to filibuster because time will expire when the agreement says and then it is time for a vote.

I don't recall which vote this was specifically as there were a number of them (and I was working on a host of liability bills at the time). After reviewing the votes at Thomas it looks like the Kennedy Amendment failed (as would be expected - so there is no need to filibuster it) and the McCain Gun Show ban was attached (interestingly, you didn't criticize me for putting McCain in the middle).

Regarding the filibuster of an amendment - in this context that wouldn't make any sense. If the amendment is attached, then the underlying bill can be voted down (<as it was in this case - 8-90) to be raised again at another time.

If your the party in power - and you can control the action on the floor - why would you filibuster your own bill. Thats sort of asinine. Let the vote on the amendment happen - and if you can't strip it out, then you kill the underlying bill (or pass it if your certain the bad provisions can be stripped out at conference prior to finalizing the entire bill)

The situation now is different - if there is bad legislation - we would need to defeat it or filibuster it (if we knew it was going to pass) because we had no other vehicles to control when voting occurrs.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

OK then, the question now becomes will there be a filibuster if there is a gun control bill? If so will Democrats cross party lines to filibuster a bill supported by their own party leadership?

I guess I am skeptical because I just can't find any examples of a filibuster being used to save the day for the Second Amendment - and it isn't like there weren't a few opportunities over the past century. Heck, as recently as 1994 we had plenty of opportunities.