More Republican Senators are Retiring than Democratic Senators


MarginOfError
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've started to get a little tired of all the hoopla over the fact that "so many democrats are not running for re-election." So I thought I'd provide a little education about the 2010 Senate races

There are five democratic senators who are not running for re-election. There are six republican senators not running for re-election. That means more republicans are throwing in the towel than democrats. The "sinking ship" philosophy just doesn't hold water (ha ha! great pun!)

On the democrat side, the senators that are retiring are Christopher Dodd (30 years), Ted Kaufman (1 year, replaced Vice President Biden), Roland Burris (1 year, replaced President Obama), Paul Kirk (4 months, replaced Ted Kennedy), and Byron Dorgan (18 years).

On the republican side, the retiring senators are George Lemieux (6 years), Sam Brownback (14 years, replaced Senator Dole), Jim Bunning (12 years), Kit Bond (24 years), Judd Gregg (18 years), Greg Voinovich (12 years).

So, just to be clear, there are two elected democratic senators retiring compared to six elected republican senators. Three of the retiring democrats were appointed. Of those two, the seats weren't even scheduled for re-election in 2010.

If Senator McCain had won the presidential election, this year you'd see 3 democratic senators retiring compared to 6 republican senators. That's a much different picture than what people keep trying to paint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I haven't heard the conservative excitement limited to the retiring folks in the senate.

There's also Colorado Dem Gov Ritter and Mich Lt. Gov Cherry throwing in the towel.

And the Jan 19th special election in Mass, where GOP Brown very well might take another senate seat from the Dems.

More fuel for the excitement is not just the news of who is retiring, but how good GOP chances are in taking these seats over. I'm not sure, but I can assume from the total lack of media coverage, that the republican seats will be filled by other republicans.

I'm thinking the real picture, while maybe less rosy than the zeal you're seeing, is certainly more rosy than you're painting it...

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem for the Democrats is that some of their races will be very tough ones. Even Harry Reid is expected to have a tough time winning.

The Republicans who are retiring are from conservative places, so they probably will not lose any to Democrats.

I have no problem saying that seats currently held by democrats are up for grabs. But that's a lot different than saying that the democratic ship is sinking because so many senators are retiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of the ship sinking, perhaps we can use the analogy of the big bloated Dem cargo ship surrounded by half a dozen Republican fast-attack nuclear submarines?

I mean, if we really need the appropriate analogy...

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McDonalds vs Burger King....mmm given to us to appear like we have choice yet owned by the same corporate entity! And in the end they both make us fat, unhealthy and poor......Catch my drift!

Now all of a sudden, I'm hungry for a JR Whopper with cheese. Thanks a lot truly........thanks a lot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Virginia: Bob McDonnell defeated Creigh Deeds in the November.

New Jersey: Republican Christopher Christie defeated incumbent Democrat Jon S. Corzine for Governorship in January.

And now, Massachusets: Brown wins the landmark Senate race over Coakley, promising to kill off Pres. Obama's healthcare reform for good.

"Coakley, the state's attorney general, had been considered a shoo-in in heavily Democratic Massachusetts, which hadn't elected a Republican to the Senate in 38 years."

"Trailing by double digits a little more than a week ago, Brown edged ahead of Coakley, campaigning as the pickup-truck-driving candidate, capitalizing on voter frustrations, and vowing to send Obama's health care bill "back to its drawing board.""

"Brown was underfunded and unknown statewide. No Republican had won a U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts since 1972. Democrats control the state's congressional delegation. They also hold the state's governorship, along with overwhelming majorities in both houses of the state legislature."

I'm still coming down off the election-night adrenalin rush, but I gotta say that I see quite a bit of hoopla in the painted picture...

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Virginia: Bob McDonnell defeated Creigh Deeds in the November.

New Jersey: Republican Christopher Christie defeated incumbent Democrat Jon S. Corzine for Governorship in January.

And now, Massachusets: Brown wins the landmark Senate race over Coakley, promising to kill off Pres. Obama's healthcare reform for good.

"Coakley, the state's attorney general, had been considered a shoo-in in heavily Democratic Massachusetts, which hadn't elected a Republican to the Senate in 38 years."

"Trailing by double digits a little more than a week ago, Brown edged ahead of Coakley, campaigning as the pickup-truck-driving candidate, capitalizing on voter frustrations, and vowing to send Obama's health care bill "back to its drawing board.""

"Brown was underfunded and unknown statewide. No Republican had won a U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts since 1972. Democrats control the state's congressional delegation. They also hold the state's governorship, along with overwhelming majorities in both houses of the state legislature."

I'm still coming down off the election-night adrenalin rush, but I gotta say that I see quite a bit of hoopla in the painted picture...

LM

This is a good sign for conservatives. And it is a wake up call to Republicans and Democrats.

I do have concerns about what happens, after we put away the party hats and clean up the confetti from Browns win. The way I see it, Browns election could very well drop the unemployment numbers, because his vote will go against undue taxes on small business (sometimes referred too as the rich).

I don't think that a drop in unemployment would be a good thing. More like fantastic, yahoo, this is Christmas all year round, kind of thing. I know so many people who want to go back to work.

I just hope we don't fall back into complacency. We have been there and done that, and ended up with the worlds most expensive T-shirt. One of the many problems we conservatives have, is that we think it is all common sense to us, and common sense does not need repeating over and over again. So our message gets lost and viewed as antiquated, once again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've started to get a little tired of all the hoopla over the fact that "so many democrats are not running for re-election." So I thought I'd provide a little education about the 2010 Senate races

There are five democratic senators who are not running for re-election. There are six republican senators not running for re-election. That means more republicans are throwing in the towel than democrats. The "sinking ship" philosophy just doesn't hold water (ha ha! great pun!)

On the democrat side, the senators that are retiring are Christopher Dodd (30 years), Ted Kaufman (1 year, replaced Vice President Biden), Roland Burris (1 year, replaced President Obama), Paul Kirk (4 months, replaced Ted Kennedy), and Byron Dorgan (18 years).

On the republican side, the retiring senators are George Lemieux (6 years), Sam Brownback (14 years, replaced Senator Dole), Jim Bunning (12 years), Kit Bond (24 years), Judd Gregg (18 years), Greg Voinovich (12 years).

So, just to be clear, there are two elected democratic senators retiring compared to six elected republican senators. Three of the retiring democrats were appointed. Of those two, the seats weren't even scheduled for re-election in 2010.

If Senator McCain had won the presidential election, this year you'd see 3 democratic senators retiring compared to 6 republican senators. That's a much different picture than what people keep trying to paint.

Oh gotta love those right wing spin doctors!:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes you do....especially since the left wingers can't even keep their radio station on the air....goodbye boring air america...:):)

Which is a dang shame. I was becoming a big fan of Randi Rhoades. Sort of the flip side of Rush. Tons of uncharitable rants about the other side, mixed in with the occasional deep insightful monologue about why she feels the way she does.

A worthy opponent. But those who paid for the marketplace of ideas voted, and I guess we won.

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why did they try Air America?

I am not entirely certain. We have discussed this at the secret meetings. A good friend of mine, fellow liberal, once commented that after watching Rachel Maddow (sp?) she understood how it could be easy to fall into the trap of listening to people who share their ideas, but she forced herself to stop watching. I can honestly say I have never watched a whole episode of either Olberman (sp?) or Maddow (sp?). I have seen clips mostly from channel surfing.

Edit: After thinking about it for a while, I, as a liberal, find I am more interested in learning about a subject myself instead of hearing what someone else's opinion is. I tend to read more than watch TV or listen to the radio.

Edited by OmahaLDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why did they try Air America?

I might be wrong about this but I thought the idea behind it was to have a radio show voice somewhat comparable to Rush's show but a liberal voice. There were several people who tried this...I know franken did and he did not have ay ratings and others...same problem, no ratings.

Where is my favorite Liberal at, she would know...Elphaba where are you???????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be wrong about this but I thought the idea behind it was to have a radio show voice somewhat comparable to Rush's show but a liberal voice. There were several people who tried this...I know franken did and he did not have ay ratings and others...same problem, no ratings.

Where is my favorite Liberal at, she would know...Elphaba where are you???????

But liberals are not interested in having their beliefs dictated to them. They are more interested in forming their own opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not entirely certain. We have discussed this at the secret meetings. A good friend of mine, fellow liberal, once commented that after watching Rachel Maddow (sp?) she understood how it could be easy to fall into the trap of listening to people who share their ideas, but she forced herself to stop watching.

I, once again, wonder why you try to disparage any one who doesn't think like you. In your telling of the story of your liberal friend, she equates listening to people who share the same ideas, to falling into a trap. What is the trap? And did she stop listening to everyone with the same set of liberal ideas? Does she now turn off the President, when he comes on the tube?

Ask anyone who listens to talk radio, and they will admit, that they love to hear from those with the opposite point of view, in a discussion forum. Unlike the six o'clock news, that has evolved into opinion news, by selecting what is put on the air and what is not.

Seeing that we are getting all, confessy, like, I hope my fellow conservatives will not hate me for admitting, I can't make it through a full hour of Hannity's TV show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share