WashTimes on Western Senate Races
Please don't take the Washington Times seriously, they know less about politics west of the 100th meridian than me. This article is proof positive of an east coast bias to politics, similar to the east coast bias of college football that always seems to land a Big (L)East team in the top 10. Thanks to Matt Singer for the link:
Only two Republicans face the electorate in 2006 after winning their preceding Senate contests with less than 51 percent, and both (Conrad Burns of Montana and Jim Talent of Missouri) will be running in Bush states and likely facing much weaker opposition. (emphasis mine)
Last time I checked, five Dems are itching to get into the fight with ol' Mr. Burns, and arguably, they are much stronger candidates, one of them already proven he can win a Montana-wide race.
The Washington Times seems to be stuck on the logic that if Bush won a state in 2004, that his party's Senate contender would have a good chance at winning in 2006. This is pretty simplistic logic.
Your Personal Note:
But they also seem to think that states that Bush lost will still be more than open to Republican representation. It's a Hell of a double standard.
Posted by: Matt Singer | Apr 20, 2005 3:47:17 PM
I think they may have a point about the caliber of the competition. If I remember correctly, it was Brian Schweitzer who ran against, and narrowly lost to, Conrad Burns last time. I think we can all agree that Schweitzer is an impressive and successful candidate.
Whoever gets the D nomination in Montana (I'm pulling for Daniel Kemmis) will have a harder time than Schweitzer did. I still think the seat is winnable, but it will take work, money and the continued implosion of Burns.
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Apr 20, 2005 4:03:37 PM
By that logic, I look forward to the cakewalk in taking away Olympia Snowe's seat. They must hate her in Maine, right?
Posted by: Patton Price | Apr 20, 2005 7:35:52 PM
Yeah, that analysis makes as much sense saying that Pittsburgh was a BCS powerhouse and Utah a mid major.
Posted by: Colorado Luis | Apr 21, 2005 12:32:08 PM
Bert, in hindsight, everyone says that Schweitzer was an effective candidate. At this point in 1999, people didn't think we were competitive in that race. Even on election night, after months of barnstorming by Brian, people were saying that it would have been a huge upset. The fact that Schweitzer is now thought of as a strong campaigner speaks more to his skills than to an honest comparison between him and the field in this race.
Trust me, Burns is facing real competition.
Posted by: Matt Singer | Apr 25, 2005 3:49:28 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)