Democrats Look To Grab Five Senate Seats On Environment, Economy

New York Times:

NASHUA, N.H. -- The maverick voters of New Hampshire love to keep politicians guessing.

But this state, famous for its libertarian mojo, has shifted so hard toward the Democrats in recent years that no place may be more emblematic of a national political climate in which Republican incumbents like Senator John E. Sununu are battling to keep their jobs.

With Democrats gunning to expand their control of the Senate, Mr. Sununu, whose seat has been in Republican hands for 30 years, faces a grueling rematch against former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen. It is a contest in which eagerness to replace President Bush looms large and voters say the battered economy is their chief concern.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[mamacat]

If Sen. Sununu were serious about keeping his job, he should have switched to the Democratic Party, or at least become an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

By clinging to a political party that has lost its way, that has abandoned it's principals, and that doesn't understand the issues, he has thrown in with the wrong crowd. It was his choice to make, and he made it. He had plenty of time to do the right thing, and he didn't do it.

[commonsensor]

Democrats get ELECTED on the platform of environment and economy, they just never DO ANYTHING about either issue....besides complain. I'm not sure why the excitement over Dems taking GOP strongholds. I could get more excited if there were actually an opposition party running.

[WorkingNHMomof3]

An important factor to the upcoming election is that NH passed legislation this year preventing straight ticket balloting. If NH leans to McCain, this will not be the advantage that it once was in the past as voters have to cast a vote for each of their candidates, not just one vote for the party. That being said, I can't imagine anyone voting for Shaheen if they are not already an Obama supporter.

[UnbiasView]

The Dems beat the Repubs on the environment but that isn't going to get them any votes if they are against proven energy sources.

[RTIII]

While the idiots who voted for Junior twice may be mentally incompetent enough to know better, drilling for more oil now, as proposed, is NOT any answer. First, the volume of oil we're talking about is DWARFED by world-wide annual consumption (U.S. consumption is irrelevant). Second, it comes WAY too late - we'll all be on electric cars when that oil hits the market. Third, the price is artificially higher than simple supply and demand because of two factors: deregulated oil futures market, and Fear Uncertainty and Doubt created by war - and threats of MORE war - in the Persian Gulf region and between Israel and Iran.

The Rs are trying to make it SOUND like drill, drill, drill is the answer, it's a lie, especially when there are vastly more not only known reserves but dormant reserves in the US which are not being used because the price per barrel was previously (but is not any longer) too low to make a profit.

So, which is it going to be, an informed decision or an uninformed one? By the way you phrase your question, you clearly side on uninformed...
.
.

[RaraAvis17]

Oh believe me, unbias IS uninformed...

[NL207]

Not drlling for more is most definitely NOT the answer either. Even Obama changed his position on drilling recently. If the radical Dems go to the polls arguing no drilling in Nov. they will get hammered.

It's going to realistically take 30 years to convert the present energy economy into some other base. So far, the government coercion in this direction has been a total failure. Biofuels that cause food crises, electric cars that are non-competitive, misguided subsidies for useless projects, and patronage contracts to political pals have all marked big government's attempts to encourage energy reform. The only thing that will address this isssue efficiently is a free market encouraging privatre entrepeneurship.

Speaking of uninformed people, you should not throw stones at others. There is enough petroleum in North America to supply the US + Canada + Mexico at present rates of consumption for 300 years and that is a fact.


Did you hear about the new Burger being offered at McDonald's? It's called the McBarak. It flips itself.

[thepoliticalcat]

You forgot to add these choice pieces of information (discussed in detail on my blog):

1. The oil companies are booked up with existing jobs so the earliest they can start offshore drilling is in about a decade;
2. All existing deep-sea drilling rigs are booked up through the next five years or so;
3. We have outsourced shipbuilding so we can't even BUILD a rig;
4. All deep-sea drilling rigs currently under construction are also booked up through the next five years or so;
5. Even if, by some miracle, we can start drilling tomorrow, we don't have the refinery capacity to process the crude;
6. Where is the guarantee that the oil companies will sell any oil they find to America - as opposed to China which now has all our money plus our lunch, which they're eating, and our milkshake?

[MaryanneAZ]

Hence, the "shift" on Obama's part based on the Gang of 10 bipartisan Bill which supports "limited" offshore drilling. This is a definite win for Democrats if they can co-opt the only traction McCain had in this election contest. Go Dems. Go Team Obama. Yes WE Can!!!