Here we go in with the first of our posts regarding the upcoming elections. We start with the easiest races to handicap and preview, the US Senate races. It's easy in the sense that there aren't many competitive races (compared to the House) and the high profile of the races means that there is a lot of polling and information available (unlike the Governor's races).
The current breakdown is 55 R, 44, D and 1 I in the Senate.
Of those, 40 R and 27 D is not up for election this year.
In order to win the Senate, the Democrats need to win 25 of the races this year to get the 51 seats and control.
We are going to rate them in order of a Democratic victory.
Democrat Locks:
28. MA: Kennedy (D) vs Chase
29. NY: Clinton (D) vs Spenser
30. WI: Kohl (D) vs Lorge
31. CA: Feinstein (D) vs Mountjoy
32. DE: Carper (D) vs Ting
33. NM: Bingaman (D) vs McCulloch
34. HI: Akaka (D) vs Thielen
35. ND: Conrad (D) vs Gortberg. How North Dakota, a state that votes 60% Republican in national elections, has 2 Democratic senators is a political mystery.
36. FL: Nelson (D) vs Harris. Yes, this is Katherine Harris of the 2000 Presidential Election fame.
Independent Locks:
37. VT: Sanders (I) vs Tarrant. This is Bernie Sanders, the self-delcared Socialist, who looks like will make a move from the House to the Senate.
Likely Independent:
38. CT: Lieberman (I) vs LaMont (D) vs Schlesinger (R). It is more and more likely that Joe will hold on. Lamont has faded badly over the past two months since his win in the democratic primary. If he win, we assume he will caucus with the Democrats.
Likely Democratic (not a lock, but close):
39. WV: Byrd (D) vs. Raese . The oldest man in the Senate will survive.
40. NE: Nelson(D) vs. Ricketts.
Leaning Democratic, in order of a Democratic win:
41. MN: Klouchbar (D) vs Kennedy (R). Wow. What an opportunity for the R's that has been blown. The incumbent, Mark Dayton (D) , is widely regarded as the worst senator in the nation. He retired; the R's put up a decent candidate ( a multi-term Rep) - and the weak Demo candidate is up 10-15 points in all polls. Wow.
42. MI: Stabenow (D) vs. Bouchard. It's not over yet given the sad state of Michigan, but Debbie may hang on.
43. WA: Cantwell (D) vs McGavick. A solid 8-10 point lead for the incumbent. It's not over, but...
44. MD: Cardin (D) vs. Steele . I'm not ready to rule Steele out yet, given the race factor and the boringness of Cardin as a candidate.
Toss-ups, in order of a Democratic win:
45. PA: Casey (D) vs Santorum. Santorum has come back from the dead before, but I think he's too far behind now to win. An incumbent still polling 39-43% at ths stage is in big trouble - even if his opponent is at 43-48%. The undecideds are not all going to vote for teh incumbent, are they? Espeically if he is as polarizing as Mr. Dog Sex, Rick Santorum.
46. RI: Whitehouse (D) vs Chafee. Chafee is widely considered as THE most liberal Republican; he survived a serious primary challenge this year from the conservative wing, but survived. The Chafee name means a lot in Rhode Island; will that trump the anti-Bush vote?
47. MT: Tester (D) vs Burns. Another R incumbent in trouble. Burns is old, has connections to Abramoff (the lobbyist), and is prone to gaffes. Tester is the perfect WEstern Democratic candidate - a hunter and rancher that talks plainly and seems very Perot-ish. He is the complete opposite of Pelosi and Ed Kennedy, which helps him immensely.
48. NJ: Menendez (D) vs Kean. The only D incumbent in trouble, running neck and neck with the son of a popular governor (and 9/11 co-chair), Tom Kean. THere are corruption charges swirling around the incumbent Menendez, but when has that stopped New Jersey before?
49. OH: Brown (D) vs DeWine. This is disappointing. DeWine is a good guy, has made no ethical mistakes or gaffes, and yet is being bogged down by 1) the Ohio Rep party (more later) and 2) the current anti-Bush environment. I know the polls say Brown (a NE Ohio liberal) is up 3-5, but I just can't see DeWine losing.
50. MO: McAskill(D) vs Talent. Another R incumbnent who has done nothing wrong who may also get swept in a possible wave. Ohio and Missouri are two racfes to watch - if the Republican incumbents go down and go down hard, then we have a tsunami on our hands. If one survives, then it's a moderate wave. If both survive, then the Democratic "storm" is overblown.
51. TN: Ford(D) vs Corker. A fascinating race. Will Tennessee elect a black Democratic Memphis congressman - who, incidentally, films his commercials in a church! - over a traditional Rep candidate who was beaten down in a tough primary. The key is the rednecks in Eastern Tennessee - will those people actually pull the lever for a black man who is based 400 miles away in Memphis and really has nothing in common geography-wise. I know that sounds harsh (the racial part), but that's what D's have to overcome to get a majority.
52. VA: Webb (D) vs Allen. After all the gaffes by Allen, he still seems to have a 3-5 point lead here. I think his stature is too much in the state and he will pull through by 5 points.
Leaning Republican:
53: AZ: Kyl (R) vs. Pederson. This race seems to be tightening to 5-9 points, but Kyl should come through in this red state.
Solid R:
54. ME: Snowe (R) vs Bright
55. NV: Ensign (R) vs Carter - the son of Jimmy Carter.
56. WY: Thomas (R) vs Groutage
57. UT: Hatch (R) vs Ashdown
58. TX: Hutchison (R) vs Radnofsky
59. MS: Lott (R) vs Fleming
60: IN: Lugar (R) unopposed
So - the Democrats have to win 7 of the 8 "toss up" races in order to take the Senate. This seems dauting, but history has shown us that if there is a moderate wave, the tossup races all will fall one way. It looks like control of the Senate will be determined in the back hills of Missouri or Tennessee - if the rural voters will turn their back on the Republican party and vote in an urban Democratic candidate (a black man in TN or a white woman in MO). We will see.
9 comments:
I never liked Allen. He seemed like a boob on Meet the Press some time ago.
The Virginia rift/dichotomy continues to widen, as S VA will not only elect Allen, but pass the One Man/One Woman Marriage Amendment. The discrepancy in the vote for the amendement between Allen/Webb supporters and NOVA/SVA is staggering.
S VA is also why the roads in NOVA are congested, as the population of the area continues to increase, and nothing is being done, due to their refusal to earmark funds for improvements.
I've always considered Allen to be Cletus the Slackjawed Yokel in a suit and cowboy boots, he's carried a smug air of superiority since he was governor.
He was on Meet the Press about 6-8 months ago when his stock was high and Ben and I, who are both conservative in nature, were disgusted by his arrogance and responses. They seemed to be the generic plattudes we have become used to with some politicians (not Bush though who at least takes a stand on issues). And when he was touted as a front runner for 2008 Ben and I were so depressed about it. Is there nobody real out there on either side? Mccain has sold out and even Hilary has tried to become more mainstreem. Why doesn't anyone stick to their values and issues?
And this leads me to my next question. In SoCal, both Republicans and Democrats are useless on many important issues its hard to decide who to vote for. Republicans won't execute their strategy and the Dems don't stand for anything. The top issue for me is Immigration and Republicans and Democrats alike will not take a stand on this since they are so worried about the Hispanic voters. And this affects so many other things like traffic, hospitals closing, schools being underfunded and overcrowded, and an overworked police force. The only logical idea that has come about is to do a "political sacrifice" and vote against all incumbents. This would send a message to everyone to take the voters seriously. I don't mind having the republicans being voted out this November if it makes them step up during the next election. If they remain in control, then why would they change? But again, why would they change. After the humilating loss by the Dems in 2004, they didn't do much to change their strategy. Still no solid plan or stance on major issues. It is so depressing right now.
Laura:
First, the plesantries:
PA: Well, I think the waffling is because they are planning to oust an incumbent. Voters are just trying to make sure the devil they don't know is better than the devil they do know. It is understandable.
Ohio: It's not 2004. It really isn't. The Governor has screwed this state up - ethics violations with an approval rating of 15%. He should have resigned; he did not, and is dragging the rest of the party down with him. THis is the real reason for R probelms in Ohio.
TN: The problem the democrats will have is that they may win a majority with candidates like Ford.
Why is this a problem? They will either a) cause the D party to turn rightward, or b) change stripes and march in lockstep with Kennedy/Pelosi - but that will cause them to be a BIG BIG target in 2012.
Now, about VA.
First of all, if ANYONE professes to say that Democrats or Independents are more tolerant than Republicans, I will use Laura's last paragraph as Exhibit A as a counterpoint.
Can you make more stereotypes and backhanded comments about your fellow citizens? If you want to understand why lower-middle class workers go to the Republicans in droves, there you go.
Of course, it doesn't help when Allen makes comments like this:
"Towel-heads and rednecks -- of which I am one. If you write that word, please say that. I mean, I don't use that pejoratively, I use it defensively. Towel-heads and rednecks became the easy villains in so many movies out there."
OH WAIT A MINUTE
THAT WAS WEBB calling people towel-heads. Where are the 155 Washington Post stories now?
I don't want to make this an Allen v Webb post, as I completely agree with Derek's take on Allen - but there is an air of superiority out there of No Va voters that is very harmful to the causes they represent. And the sad thing is that those people don't understand it at all.
In a more civil tone...
the "civil war" (no pun intended) is not just limited to Virginia.
Look at these battelgroudn states.
Missouri ALWAYS has been Democratic St. Louis vs the Rural republicans.
Illinois (until very recently) has always been Chicago (D) vs Downstate (R).
Ohio is always Cleveland (D) vs the rest of Ohio (cinci has mostly been an R town).
California - as recently as 1990 - was an even split between the coast and the valleys.
This geogrphic dichotomy exists in a lot of states - and explains why parties need to be very careful in choosing their statewide candidate in order to siphon off votes from the other side OR maximize votes from their side.
It looks like:
Allen is trying to maximize the votes from his side while Webb is trying to "steal" votes from the R side. It remains to be seen if Webb is too conservative enoguh for African-Americans in Richmond/Newport. Does Webb have the energy in No Va that Robb/Wilder had? I don't know.
The only thing better than a Derek v Eric argument on the meaning of the gooch is a Laura v Eric agrument on politics.
By the way, I'm still waiting for an apology.
Thanks Eric - that was a lot of fun.
I agree pretty much down the line, although I think it will end up coming down to Tennessee and at the end of the day, I just don't see Ford winning a statewide election in a southern state.
What's going to end up costing the Democrats is running against Lieberman in the primary. As a staunch liberal Democrat I was so disheartened by the concerted effort to elect a political lighweight like Lamont over a guy like Lieberman who seems to be honest, ethical and a straight shooter (which, as Derek was saying, is pretty damn rare in this day and age). To marginalize a guy like him simply for siding with President Bush on Iraq is plain silly and self-defeating . . . and borderline hypocritical since Hillary is currently the presumptive favorite to win the nomination for 2008 and she also supported the President on Iraq.
Point by point to Laura:
1) "Tolerance for me, but not for thee". What is tolerance ? Only for views you like? You CERTAINLY don't want to be tolerant to racists. That is your right, but then don't call homo-bashers intolerant without calling yourself intolerant.
2) "what type of person...". I'll tell you waht type of person that is - a person that the national democratic party has no clue about and has not understood for 20-30 years. Period. If Demo's ever solve that puzzle, then the R's may be in big trouble.
This person is:
a) white
b) goes to churce twice a month or more
c) does not believe in quotas
d) does nto accept the liberal social agenda that is constanty fed into his world through TV, schools, etc. (i.e. Will and grace)
e) makes ~$50,000 a year
I know that is incredibly general, but stats show that those people vote Republican 75-80% of the time.
3) my superioirty comment is not aimed toward voters themselves - I did not exaplin myself well, and I take the voter part back. I mean political leadership.
Ever hear of the book "what's the matter with Kansas?" It's a book by a democratic author wondering why Kansas votes R when - obviously - they make less money and should vote with the D's!
The problem is that the author has no clue as to what is important to the voter in Kansas. It's not all class status. No Virginia candidates/political ledaership - and the National Democrats - does not realize that at all.
The DLC - the moderate organization of the D party -did and got Clinton elected. The DLC has been completely marginalized by moveon.org and compnay.
4) Finally...the TN scenario. I wanted to expound on this, but ran out of time (and can't now). I meant bad for the moveon folks. I believe the election of Tester (MT), Ford (TN) and even Webb (VA) woudl move the D's rightward big time. And then the law of unintended consequences kicks in . THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL that those three would vote to pull out of Iraw. Period. They'd get killed at the polls in 6 years.
So - what will national democrats think? They take the Senate - and then what? Can't enact their agenda. A big expectation problem for them - because the candidates who got in was elected on a conservative platform.
A problem for the D party is what I meant. Sorry.
I'm rereading this thread again - and you know what? Maybe if I actually avoided typos I could be understood better on this site! Geesh, it's like the Cookie Monster typed these posts with his two large furry fingers...
Anyway, I'm harping on the tolerance issue because so many Democrats claim to be sooooo open-minded and the Republicans are the ones stuck in the dark ages.
Look at college campuses nowadays. They profess to be diverse, but there are plenty of cases where speeches by conservatives are rejected or cut short because they are "non-tolerant" according to the college.
That is the height of hypocrisy.
By the way, an unnamed source who a) reads this site and b) is a resident of Northern Virginia has stated that he agrees with me on the arrogance of the Northern Virginia voter. He does not wish to be identified, but I am allowed to use an abbreviated version of his name, such as "L. Owens" or "Leland O.". Hope I didn't give his identity away.
Regarding the values voter; I'm beginning to think that the values voter is tied to the Republicans as the black vote is tied to the Democrats. It's been 20-25 years now since the "Moral Majority" came about and tied themselves to the conservative movement.
It is a valid question to ask what that alliance has gotten either side! It is also valid to ask what the Democratic party has done for the African-American block over the last, oh, 30 years.
It may start to become "tradition" or a rite of passage - religious conservatives vote R without thinking just as African-Americans vote D instinctively. They've always done it, and the other party hasn't put together a compelling reason to switch.
Whichever party "Breaks the code" first and gets the other side will reap the benefits.
Post a Comment