Randomness: The Senator Michael invasion
There are at least six hot Senate campaigns where hard-charging Democratic challengers are in the hunt to pick up a seat held by a Republican today:
Michael Bond for Geo-Karis' seat
Michael Frerichs for Winkel's seat
Michael Noland for Rauschenberger's seat
Peter Gutzmer for Wendell Jones' seat
Linda Holmes for Petka's seat
Dan Kotowski for Axley's seat
Three Michaels? What is up with that?
If they all win, then they'd join Michael Jacobs in the Senate.
And if they don't form the Michael caucus to compete with the Sullivan caucus, something's wrong.
The four of them could join up with Mike Boland, Mike Bost, Michael McAuliffe, Michael Tryon, Mike Smith and of course, Speaker Madigan.
By the way, I predict a veto-proof majority in the Senate. I don't know which four seats, but I think it will be the reverse of 1994.
5 comments:
A "veto proof majority"...
Brought to you by the same crowd that gave us Judy Barr Topinka.
They don't call us "The Stupid Party" for no reason.
Dan-
With a Dem likely in the governor's mansion (or at least in the office), what does Emil need with a veto proof majority?
I wouldn't worry about Senator being added to Michael Frerichs' inflated resume anytime soon.
Cute post, though.
A veto proof majority can be a leader's worst nightmare.
Hi second anon (sorry for the posting delay): I think the big deal in 2007 will be the capital bill. Everybody is starving for capital. I think it's axiomatic that a legislative leader would rather have more seats than less, and if a party has 3/5 of the votes, it elevates the importance of that caucus both vis-a-vis the governor ("go ahead and veto the bill. We'll just override it") and certainly vis-a-vis the minority leader ("we'll craft and pass our own capital bill, thank you very much"). I think a caucus would like nothing more than to pass the magical 3/5 threshold.
Post a Comment