The number one question the GOP needs to be able to answer is:

Why would things be different if the GOP were put back into the majority?

And the follow up question to whatever the answer is would be:

Why didn't you do that while the GOP was in the majority?

When they can answer those questions convincingly, then they can start looking at how they put that majority together. It will be much easier to put the majority back together when you have those two answers than trying to do it without answering those questions.

Recognize that for the foreseeable future we will be faced with a bias press that will put their thumb on the scale. You need to be able to look the voter right in the eye and convince them directly to get around that bias.

Alex--as JJ used to say over at poli, elections matter. Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, and the rest of the Dems who won last night will now vote on at least 2 and maybe up to 5 SCOTUS nominess in the next 6 years...

New Jersey a toss-up? Please. We've been fooled with that one too many times now. Paint the Garden State blue and stop wasting our money and effort there.

Not only that, but with Lautenberg retiring, one of the non-corrupt Dem congressmen there (there are a few I promise) will run and win easily.

"Kerry will probably retire to run for President, so a House Democrat will take the seat"

I'm sorry but can I have some of what you are smoking (or what Kerry is smoking if he does this as it will be far far better stuff).

We all know Kerry is an idiot and a moron but I doubt Kerry would win Mass in the dem primary much less any other state.

You forgot to add Oregon. Smith will be very vulnerable in 08' after the disaster Repubs suffered in Salem Tuesday.

In regards to Kerry he will have that seat in MA. for as long as he wants it. It is a democratic state that will never vote a republican into the senate. If he runs he wins big.
The question is does he still want to be a senator or does he keep deluding himself that America wants to elect him president. My guess is he runs and Barney Frank becomes the first gay senator!

Gov. Mike Huckabee could run for Senate in Arkansas and he would win. However, Governor Huckabee is an executive...not a legislator. He is a doer. Not just a talker. He will run for president and he will make a very, very strong run at the nomination. Should he be the nominee, the GOP can count on him not only carrying his home state of Arkansas, but also keeping the critically important southern voting bloc together--without which the GOP would have lost the last two presidential elections. Romney can't do that. Giuliani can't do that. Pataki can't do that. Nobody can do that execept Huckabee. He can do so because he has the ability to unite the various factions of the GOP and to attract moderates and independents in large numbers. He also has the ability to attract vast numbers of crossover support from Democrats--as evidenced in Arkansas-- unseen since the days of the "Reagan Democrats." Mike Huckabee is not just electable, he is the ONLY GOP candidate who can win the White House in 2008.
BSR

Jeremy

I didnt say that he would lose a Senate seat in Mass. I said that if he ran as dem presidential nominee I dont think he would carry Mass in the dem primaries.

But hey if they are stupid enough to run him and give him the nomination I say let them have at it.

Hell we can offer Joe Lieberman the VP slot just to spite Kerry and piss off a lot of dems on top of it. And with the way Lieberman got treated by Gore he may just take us up on the offer.

FYI --

In Montana Baucus is popular and probably cannot be beat until he makes a huge mistake. He even does okay among republicans. Racicot was very popular years ago but seems to have lost some of his appeal lately with local voters.

Charles

One other thing...

If you have told most people two years ago that the Democrats would take back the Senate and the House, they would have likely been shocked. Two years can be an eternity in politics...

Charles

Yeah, Racicot needed to step up last time around if he wanted to run. Didn't he say he didn't want to go to DC, then turn around and take a job there? Another great potential gone to the dogs . . .

Maybe Rudy gives Huckabee the Veep slot.

I think Tenn won't be as solid republican as you think if Ford runs again....also I would argue that Minnesota is a toss-up

JB is very wrong...NJ is not completely 'blue'
if it were, it would have voted in Sen. Menendez overwhelmingly. Menendez won by 7-8 points over Kean. 53 to 46. That's not a landslide for a 'blue' state. Not only that, at least 4 of the house reps are Republican...Ferguson, LoBiondo, Garrett, Smith. Southern NJ is quite red. I think one of the 4 I mention is from the very northern part of Jersey. Or maybe there is 5 Republican house reps. The point is - many areas of Jersey is Republican.

and the bulk that is left call themselves "independent" - which is only a wimpish answer meaning "I don't really know how I stand with regards ideology yet, because I don't want to be bothered to think it all through."

But if there are lots of independents in NJ - the Republicans need to reach out to them.

By the way, contrary to popular belief that the Republicans are the wealthy set while the democrats are 'the little guy' ... in fact, 'wealth' is as much democrat as republican. (ask Ted Kennedy, John Heinz Kerry, Corzine, Lautenberg, Herb Kohl, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, etc)(and many of these democrats are just
as much CORPORATE)

So what's the difference in Republican held wealth and Democrat? Republicans, overall, have been able to better balance the $ wealth with the other areas of 'wealth' that make for good living. (importance of family, they are usually the small business entrepreneur - meaning: they make their own way as in the American dream, and they overall understand the SOURCE of thier gifts and abilities and say thank you to that one on Sundays.) Republicans understand their wealth was not derived from FDR or social programs but thier own efforts with the Spirit of God within. Republicans earn their money and allow others that same satisfaction, earning and doing independently. Democrat political idealogy; wishes to use 'thier money' as a 'tool' to keep the 'weaker fellow citizens' dependent on them, for thier own political gains. ie: democrats will hand thier constituent 'dollars' rather than sharing the info on how to make it themselves.

(after all, the democrat politician surmises, if they can do it themselves, they won't need me)
They keep thier constituents dependent on them, for thier own weak esteem.

"Minnesota - Lean Republican. Tim Pawlenty beat back the Democratic tide here, and Norm Coleman should do the same in 2008. "

Minnesota is at best a tossup and most likely is a Democratic leaning state for the Senate. Pawlenty won the Gov for 2 reasons:

1. Democratic opponent Mike Hatch was a bad candidate who imploded in the end. Whether calling a reporter a "Republican whore" or not knowing what E85 was in a debate he came across as second rate.

2. Independant Party candidate Hutchinson took 6-7% of the vote and seeing as he was to the left of Hatch that was primarilly from him.

Norm Coleman won a strange victory in 2002 after Wellstone died and he will not have another event like the Wellstone Memorial to catapult him into a second term. Look for a tough race that Norm could very well lose.

Tom Davis would be a better VA Senate candidate than Frank Wolf - especially against exGov Mark Warner. Battle of the RINO and DINO, I'm afraid. So mad at Allen for throwing away the Senate seat with a lousy campaign.

Jim,

You are 100% right about Racicot. I actually worked on his campaign for governor (he is even a friend of my family!) and as governor he proved to be very popular and effective. There was even talk of him being a possible VP candidate.

As a side note, during the campaign the opposition tried to find any dirt on him and could not find anything! Back then he was seen a a very honest, straight-forward guy.

I think his work in DC has probably removed any chance of him winning in Montana. If the Republicans want to beat Baucus they will need someone who is in the state who comes across as being non-DC. Voters in Montana are very anti-DC right now.

The same could be said for Nevada. Here in Nevada a very under-funded Democrat ran against Porter and only lost by 1% Her platform was almost 100% anti-Bush/DC, plus she went door to door and spoke with thousands of voters (including myself).

Here in the west being anti-DC is currently very popular...

Alex,

On balance, this is a pretty good cold dose of reality. While it is possible to come back in two years, I believe it is a tall challenge. Minus something catastrophic, I have to think that the voters will tend to give the Dems more time than that, especially with the MSM running cover for them. There is also the matter of the Presidential race, which we'll be trying to win after holding the White House the past eight years. That's also a difficult challenge, although the one wild card is that the GOP nominee will not be an extension of the Bush Administration as long as Bush and Cheney serve out the remainder of their terms and Cheney holds fast to his position of not running. Given all this, our time in the wilderness to learn our lesson could be 4 to 8 years. I hope I'm wrong, but I have never subscribed to the idea that we could be taught a lesson by being voted out of the majority and simply reclaim it in two years.

Ken

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee will fail miserably if he runs for president, and even more so, if he runs for the U.S. Senate against Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR). At the state and local level, Arkansas is a deep blue state (Democrats have large majorities in the state House and Senate, control both U.S. Senate seats, three of four U.S. House seats, and all seven state constitutional offices as of January 2007). Gov. Huckabee is more tolerated than popular in Arkansas right now (given his fellow right-wing extremists in the state, Huckabee is not all that bad). The GOP is going to nominate Huckabee for president, but if they do they will lose all but the conservative Southern, Great Plains, and Western states (e.g. TX, GA, MS, SC, AL, UT, WY, ID, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, and AK).

I meant to say above that the GOP is NOT going to nominate Huckabee for president.

Your categorization of Minnesota as leaning republican is strange. Minnesota leans to the democrats even when they field poor candidates. Ba said it well. It is unlikely that Coleman will win in '08. A win becomes even more unlikely if the democrats run a quality candidate and there are several running.

Coleman's almost unflinching support of an incredibly unpopular President has lost him many votes here. The '06 midterms were a good indication of Coleman's chances in 08 (excluding Pawlenty, who won by a mere 18,000 votes) if he continues to do what he's been doing.