Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Elections' started by Revolt, Feb 11, 2008.
CQ's senate ratings:
Bottom line: Dems favored to pick up two, with three too close to call.
35 Senate elections in '08 including 2 special elections. GOP are defending 23 and the Dems, 12.
Bad year to be defending anything GOP.
Wikipedia (I know, I know) with a very good look.
Virginia, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Colardo look like probable/possible Democratic pick ups with ZERO GOP pick ups on the radar.
To add to Samarkand's points, the three CQ toss-ups are all now held by reeps. The dems are playing with house money.
Rothernberg report: Same news, still bad for reeps.
Assuming they go to form, it's goodbye for Lieberman from any positions of power.
The Democrats should come away with 54/55/56 seats.
Here's an interesting article on Nebraska (from Kos).
Interesting. The reeps have even put a candidate in the dem primary.
Crazy, corrupt Ted Stevens has some competition:
Honestly I think we're going to see a landslide based upon New Voter turnout (the Obama effect). It also helps that the really contested seats - Virginia, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Colorado, and to a lesser extent Minnesota and Oregon - are in battleground states, so there will be media saturation.
Same can't be said for Maine, which is why I think Collins is in good shape (that and the fact that she's actually a decent public servant).
Kleeb won't benefit from the same type of media boom, so I give him a (significantly) lesser chance than the others.
In the end I think the donks pick up six seats, and we see a 55/43/2 split.
EDIT: I have no feel for what's going to happen in Alaska, so for now I'm just going to predict that the GOP keeps control.
Holy carp. IIRC, Stevens has never won with less than 67 percent of the vote, at least in the last 30 years. So for him to be down like this is stunning.
I'll believe he's out when I see it, though.
I want a filibuster proof Democratic senate, but that would be an 11 seat gain from this year, which would be hard to achieve. So a realistic guess would be 57 seats in the Senate. And I agree that an Obama nomination would trickle down to other races.
NJ GOP Businessman announces for US Senate bid.
From Vail. WTF? Are you kidding me?
Vail's nice this time of year, good spring skiing.
True, but the best spring skiing has to be at Snowbird/Alta.
Maybe he's going after the Gerald Ford vote.
They are calling it the Mount Macaca Moment:
I've had some epic Spring trips to those ski areas. The Interconnect is sweet.
Kay Hagan just won the primary 2 weeks ago. So this poll was taken less than a week after her win. But she's up a point against Liddy Dole!!
There are a boatload of GOP incumbents who have modest, 8-15 point leads. If those break the GOP's way, in the main, the Dems will pick up a couple of seats. But if there's a wave, and most of the Dem challengers raise enough money, and they win more than their share of the close ones...the Dems have a shot at 60 seats. It wouldn't take a miracle, I don't think, just garden variety good luck.
And what's the worst possible scenario there? That the Dems get 59 and need Lieberman for 60.
I'd point out that, despite cloture rules, 60 really isn't any sort of magic number in the Senate. Senators are well known for defying their party's wishes on controversial votes.
There could be situations where a majority of 55 or 56 is enough, with people like Snowe, Collins, Voinovich, Specter, Smith, etc. crossing over on certain issues. And there would be situations where a majority of 63 isn't enough, with senators like Nelson, Pryor Landrieu, Lieberman, etc. defecting on some topics.
It goes without saying, of course, that the more senators for a party, the better. But I wouldn't look to 60 as some magical number.
That being said, I think the landscape has got, overall, worse for Republicans (though, paradoxically, two of the more contested seats seem to be in good shape).
I think that GOP prospects have improved demonstrably in MN & OR.
However, the chances of holding CO, AK & NM seem to have slipped considerably. CO and AK are slowly slipping away and NM is all but gone unless Wilson somehow wins the primary (I know she polls poorly against Udall right now, but she's also the only one of those two that can win a general).
Complicating matters is the fact that polling in TX & NC seem to show real races right now. And races like KS & NE show at least a hint of being somewhat competitive (though I think NE will end up being a blowout for the GOP and KS shouldn't get too close).
And money plays a role here--as does strategy. The DSCC has a huge fundraising edge on the NRSC and will be able to expand the playing field. One question will be whether they go after one or two "outside" races in addition to the obvious Tier 1 seats or if they try to spread the wealth in multiple states and see what happens. Also, a lot will depend on the presidential battleground--if NC and/or TX really end up in play, that changes things as well.
I believe I made a prediction a few months ago and had a small DEM gain of about 2 seats. I'd revise things now. I think VA, NH, AK, CO are definitely gone. NM is probably gone (though if Wilson gets the nomination, I honestly believe it will be competitive again). So that's a loss of 5 seats for now. Best case scenario for the GOP is Wilson somehow pulls off NM and Kennedy knocks off Landrieu in LA. That would be a loss of 3. More likely is that the GOP loses both plus some other seat (NC?) for a loss of 6. I think that's the realistic range right now: A 3 to 6 seat GOP loss.
Yeah, good point, in the short run, I probably overstated the practical effect of 60. But the psychological effect will really be something. It'll hearten Dems in reddish states to vote the liberal line. It'll dishearten GOPs in bluish states. And in the long run, it'll make candidate recruitment a real bitch. Plus, I would think that hitting 60 would help trigger a circular elephantine firing squad.
The only thing I care about is getting enough D Senators elected so that we can finally kick Lieberman to the curb. Everything else is gravy, IMO.
Well, if there are between 50-58 or 60-65 Democratic senators in the next Senate, then Lieberman will be in for a well-earned rest. The fun starts if that number finishes on 59 or 65, though the latter is practically impossible.
But MassRef has a point also that moderate Republicans will be more inclined to cross over. It is looking more likely that Lieberman will be taking advantage of the half-over price for movie matinees however during the next session.
Totally forgot about this race: http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecr...ows_Musgrove_leading_in_Miss_Senate_race.html
This definitely ranks as more vulnerable than KS & NE and, for the moment, NC & TX.
Given Musgrove's universal name ID & popularity and what recently happened in Wicker's seat, this is definitely a real race.