MyDD :: November Senate Forecast

November Senate Forecast

by Chris Bowers, Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 12:04:00 PM EST

As with the October update, in an attempt to better forecast the way Senate campaigns actually work, I have dispensed with the linear ranking method and moved to a tiered ranking system. The "already competitive" tier is the only tier that will matter in the final two weeks of the campaign, as those will be the only races with a chance of switching hands (and thus the only races that will receive national funding and attention). The other two tiers feature races which have varying chances of moving into the top tier, and will thus stretch the battleground over the next fifty-one weeks. If a race is not listed, it has no chance of moving up.

If the already competitive tier features a roughly equal amount of Democratic and Republican challenges, then there will not be a significant shift in Senate seats. If one party holds and advantage of three or more challenges in the top tier (as Republicans did in 2004 and Democrats did in 2000), then there probably will be a big shift. The formula for a Democratic landslide and control of the Senate is as follows

At least six very strong Democratic challenges to Republican held seats.
A numeric Democratic advantage of at least three when it comes to very strong challenges to Senate seats held by the other party.

You can find recent money totals here. You can find polls here, here and here. Now, on with the forecast:

Already competitive (Incumbent party under 50%)
Democratic targets    Republican Targets
Pennsylvania	      Minneosta
Ohio		      Michigan
Missouri		      Maryland
Rhode Island	      Washington

Democrats hold three big advantages here. First, none of these states are red. They are all either purple (Michigan, Minnesota, Misouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania) or blue (Maryland, Rhode Island, Washington). Second, Pennsylvania is pretty much in the bag, and Ohio is very close to being in the bag. You can't say that about any of the Republican challenges.

Third, Missouri and Rhode Island look solid to stay in the already competitive category (incumbents well under 50, both facing experienced, well financed, high name ID challengers), while only Minnesota looks certain to stay in this category for Republicans (Stabenow and Cantwell are at 48-49%, just under the tipping point, and Cardin is pulling away in Maryland). The only Republican advantage is that they are challenging for two open seats, and Democrats none.

Potentially competitive (Leader is at 50-55%)
Democratic Targets    Republican Targets
Montana 		      Nebraska
Arizona 		      Florida
Tennessee

Democrats hold a clear advantage in these second tier races, and it is from here that our best chance to make big gains arise. Montana and Arizona are the two campaigns most likely to make the leap into "already competitive." Kyl and Burns are just barely above the 50% tipping point (50-51%), with strong, well-financed Democratic challengers ready to step in. By contrast, right now it is very difficult to see a way for Republicans to bring down either Nelson. Nebraska Nelson has loads of money and a consistently fantastic, 60%+ approval rating. Florida Nelson is facing that pathetic Harris, who has almost no chance of wining the race, and who will almost certainly be the Republican nominee. Tennessee might actually have a better hope of a top tier race than Florida or Nebraska.

Wait and see (races that don't exist yet)
Republican targets

New Jersey: We need candidates before we see what the situation is here
Wisconsin: Safe for Kohl (high 50's in the polls) unless Thompson enters the race, who would be competitive.
Vermont: As long as there is no Democrat in the race, Sanders will win huge (he is at around 60% in the polls). Just waiting to make certain that is the case.

Democratic targets

Nevada: A recent poll had Carter down huge to Esign. Carter still has not declared.
Virginia: Without Warner, Dems still have no candidate or polls. However, James Webb could make this race competitive
Mississippi. Lott has very little money in Q3, feels betrayed and had his home destroyed. Not sure if Dems could challenge for this seat, but if Lott retires, there might be a chance.

Current prognosis: Democratic gain of 0-2 seats
If the elections were held next week, instead of in fifty-three weeks, right now I would not forecast any significant change. However, if five races shift just five points in our favor (Arizona, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, and Washington), then we are talking about an enormous Democratic gain of four to six seats. In other words, while the situation is in equilibrium right now, the situation favors Democratic improvement more than it favors Republican improvement. Republicans are holding onto equilibrium by the skin of their teeth. While there are other paths to victory, rounding up 51 no votes on Alito would the surest way to guarantee large Democratic gains in 2006.

Tags: Senate 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 36 Comments :: Post a Comment

Pretty much spot on ... (none / 0)

I would disagree with only two statements:

Pennsylvania and Ohio are not "in the bag." I don't see how you can ever say that 53 weeks out when you're talking about beating an incumbent. I don't care how bad they look in terms of approval or one-on-one in the polls. They're going to be loaded money-wise, and you just never know how a challenger is going to perform. Both those races are going to be close, if history is any guide whatsoever.
"Rounding up 51 no votes on Alito ..." is not a sure path to victory. Nor defeat. It just won't matter. It may have mattered if we were talking about an election a few weeks from now, but we're not. Most Americans -- especially the ones that decide close elections -- don't care that much about the Court. It's an Inside Baseball kind of thing, which is a huge shame, but it is what it is. It's our obsession, not that of anyone "normal."

by ColoDem on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 12:50:21 PM EST

Re: Pretty much spot on ... (none / 0)

Ohio seems very premature to me but I have heard that the Republicans are abandoning Santorum already. "In the bag" is still premature but it ain't that far off if they decide he is the dry white toast he appears to be.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 01:58:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"In the bag" (none / 0)

In your opinion, is it possible this might lead to complacency on the part of the Dems? Will Casey's funding dry up as well if people think he has it wrapped up?

by dfields on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:22:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "In the bag" (none / 0)

Sure, that's always a possibility. As challenger however there is more of a sense of urgency... particularly with a universally loathed opponent like Santorum.

It is one of the question we talk a little about here in New York. Spitzer seems a lock for Governor and I, amongst many others, are focusing on House and State Senate races as the places where our attention, money, and effort are best applied... but what if everyone did that? At what point does it become a tipping point and the seeming lock is now in danger?

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 03:20:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Rounding up 51 no votes on Alito ..." (none / 0)

I wonder about that. Anyone think it would further energize and solidify the wing-nut base? I suspect if this 51-defeat happened then you would see campaign ads along the line of "We need MORE god-loving/fearing Senators so that we can have a filibuster-proof 60-40 margin"

I suspect there would be more Primary challengers for "moderate" Republicans (if they vote against Alito).

I think too this Alito appointment is going to stop or at least slow-down the drop in W's poll-numbers. I believe it when they say that Bush has his base back. Is there a reason I shouldn't? Because I would love to hear it.

by dfields on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rounding up 51 no votes on Alito (none / 0)

Alito is for all the marbles. If you want to defeat the theocratic conservatives then this is the place to do it. This is their Super Bowl and it is vitally important that we defeat them here.

One... because we cannot afford to replace the swing vote O'Connor with someone that would be the most extreme right wing vote on the court. That would be disaster for the rights of citizens in this nation.

Two... because defeating the theocrats here would end their political supremecy, not only in the country but in the Republican party. Non-theocratic Republican Senators need to be convinced that this is the place to stand up and take back their party from the fundagelical ayatollahs.

If we can get Snowe, Collins, Spector, Chaffee, DeWine, and perhaps even Lugar, Hagel, and others to vote against rule changes, vote against cloture, and best of all, vote against Alito then the theocratic conservatives will be descendent from then on.

They will certainly try to gain more power. They won't go away quietly into the night but they'll be viewed as losers and will continue to lose. Best case scenario would be then primarying non-theocratic Republicans.

Bush's poll numbers may get a bump from theocrats that had previously defected but I think they are the 39% that has stayed with him and further indictments and trials and investigations will keep his numbers... and those of his supporters... down where they are now if not knock them lower.

Critical Mass has been reached. These boys are going down. We need to hand them as many cement anchors as we can find.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 03:29:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rounding up 51 no votes on Alito (none / 0)

Unfortunately I don't think it will take much for Bush to get back to the mid-40s. If a chunk of Republicans who previously deserted him return, he's already pretty much there. Alito will definitley help him. He will gain a few points from this nomination.

Also, it looks like DeWine will support Alito. He mentioned as much today. Politically he has to. The radical right in Ohio is vitally important to his re-election.

by Eric11 on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 11:39:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

James Webb (none / 0)

Webb wouldn't just make Virginia competitive. Webb could actually beat the crap out of George Allen. Only Warner could do better.

by JRyan on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 01:04:00 PM EST

Re: James Webb (none / 0)

Is there a number to reach James Webb and encourage him to run?

by exLogCabin on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 01:30:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: James Webb (none / 0)

I dunno. He really needs run. In fact, he should have run in the republican primary against North in '94; after all, the two are polar opposites when it comes to honor and principle. Webb would make a great senator.

by JRyan on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 01:47:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: James Webb (none / 0)

Webb: "... in my view the United States invasion of Iraq was one of the most ill-advised and reckless actions that the US government has ever taken. I make this statement not as a knee-jerk anti-war activist, but as one who still proudly defends our effort in Vietnam, and who has spent a total of five years inside the Pentagon."

Website at www.jameswebb.com--great speeches to read.

Write him at webmaster@jameswebb.com

Let's give Webb some support as he tries to make up his mind.

by Colorado Gringo on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:59:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Remember Nelson's numbers (none / 0)

when you get the urge to tell him how to do his job.

by Paul Goodman on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 01:06:00 PM EST

Ohio "In the Bag"? (none / 0)

I agree with ColoDem. It's absurd to make that claim this far out, especially when it comes to Ohio. We don't even know who the Dem nominee will be.

by ScottC on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 01:25:01 PM EST

Re: Ohio "In the Bag"? (none / 0)

Retired Marine and Iraq War Veteran Paul Hackett will definitely be the Democratic Nominee and he will destroy Dewine. Independents and Mod-R's in Ohio have a front row seat to Republican corruption. Unless something EXTREME happens, Ohio and Pennsylvania are "in the bag".

by NickC on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 03:55:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Following the Stabenow from the ground... (none / 0)

Stabenow might be able to dodge a bullit.

Keith Butler is the suspected nominee, he is a fundamentalist christian minister from an arena church. He has been consistently polling lower than Stabenow.

He is not of Michigan's breed of business chamber of commerce republicans. With a White House under indictment, and Iraq burning, I think Butler's message won't resonate.

Suppress this, mutha scratcher.

by chanupi on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 01:47:38 PM EST

Butler won't get the nomination (none / 0)

The Oakland county sheriff, Michael Bouchard is going to announce within the next couple days. He is going to get millions from Republcian donors from all over the country and will probably gain the nomination.

This is going to be a close fight, as it always is in Michigan.

by Eric11 on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 11:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

simplify? (none / 0)

is there any way you could make this a little easier to read next time? i am trying to get educated and a simple state by state - red or blue -- current vs. bowers forecast would sure be appreciated.

by aiko on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 01:48:07 PM EST

give Nevada a chance (none / 0)

Nothing has happened in Nevada yet, with Carter at 25% or so and Ensign at 60%. The partisan baselines in the state are 35% for Democrats and 45% for Republicans.

When Carter gets enough profile the polls will go to a 35-40% versus 50% for Ensign without much trouble. It's a small state, 2 million people with 2/3 of them in greater Las Vegas and most of rest around Reno. And they don't like Bush much anymore.

by killjoy on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:06:29 PM EST

Give Nevada no chance (3.00 / 1)

In fact, it cheapens threads like this when Nevada is mentioned at all. I've detailed the reasons many times.

The reason nothing has happened in Nevada is there is no race. Newsflash: Ensign's base is Las Vegas. Our only chance to win Nevada is a huge number out of Clark County and with Ensign as the GOP nominee that will never happen. There was a reason he came within 400 votes and a lengthy statewide recound of beating Harry Reid in 1998.

A few years ago I met a GOP consultant who is still sick about that race. He said the Ensign campaign had plenty of money but didn't spend it wisely. They supposedly had a huge targeted mailing toward Republican registrants who don't always vote, that was scrapped at the last minute in favor of more TV buys. The consultant, looking back, says that type of mailing is just what has proven to be so effective in subsequent cycles. He's convinced, given the 400 vote loss, that Ensign would have won in '98 had the initial strategy been utilized.

That '98 race was a midterm, similar to this year. Rural (Republican leaning) Nevada historically votes in much greater percentage in midterms than Clark County. So we were at a huge disadvantage opposing Ensign this time even if a blue chip candidate had been available.

Regarding the basics of this thread, I applaud the first respondent who dismissed any notion that Ohio and Pennsylvania are in the bag. As a gambler who has wagered on politics heavily since '96, I can tell you that the betting lines on those races right now would favor us meagerly, if at all. Ohio, in fact, would have DeWine the betting line favorite.

Also, Missouri doesn't belong in the same category with a Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. The partisan index is roughly 10 points different from Missouri to those three states, based on 2004.

I like this method of dispersing races in various categories to make general assessments of pickup likelihood. But I would caution that tiny samples like 2000 in our favor and 2004 toward the GOP are hardly enough to make a declarative statement of how many you need in each subjective category to project significant pickups. It reminds me of last year, when pundits and bloggers were confidently using that 50% approval rating as suicide for an incumbent if he consistently polled below that. That was an arbitrary judgement. The failures had always been significantly below 50%. An example of someone smack at 50% or slightly below was non-existent. Well, now we have one.

The other problem regarding 2006, of course, is we already snatched 5 seats from this block in 2000. A +5 net next year, which some blind optimists are projecting, would mean +10 or nearly a 1/3 transfer in our favor in six years. Not going to happen, or even close. The conventional wisdom post 2004 was we were playing defense in senate 2006. There was a reason for that. And truth tends to revert to the beginning. We are on defense in 2006. I'll be satisfied with break even and thrilled at plus one or more.

by jagakid on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 05:27:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting objection (none / 0)

but (a) the election is a year from now, not now, and (b) I wasn't born yesterday either, and (c) those generic control-of-Congress polls are showing 42-to-32 turnout behavior in favor of Democrats, the 8-10% Unsures are all obviously moderate Republicans and leaners.

You're trying to apply gambling logics and pattern analysis on an assumption of psychological constancy, i.e. based on the past 10-15 years of continued polarization and extrapolating forward cleanly. The problem is it doesn't sufficiently account for the national evolution of power between the several factions of each Party over that time span. I.e. people deciding that some faction had done all it could or should, that there is/was no more point in voting for them.

There's also a moderation effect at the moment, i.e. the backwater areas feel less that way and the need to brake social development, for holding up the coastal elites from increasing the social disconnect, under pretense of morality is diminishing again.

I'm curious what you're referring to as 'this bloc'. 2002 and 2004 was the intensification of Red. If you're doubting that 2006 will be a pretty strong intensification of Blue, I'm in pretty Blue country and you should see the way the attitude has developed over the past year. It's like ice forming on a lake- it has no drama and there's no appeal, it's mostly a silent process, and the ice just spreads and thickens and becomes colder and harder until all of the lake is locked into its control and the resistance fatally damaged.

by killjoy on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 09:06:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting objection (none / 0)

Missouri might not be quite as purple as Minnesota, but their Republican governor and GWB have low approval ratings, and polls have shown McCaskil in a dead heat with Talent. So more red or not, the atomsphere is in Missouri at the moment is pretty purple and its going to be a very close race.

by AC4508 on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 01:07:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dems Must Filibuster (none / 0)

One of the very most important reasons, if not the most important reason, why Senate contests are so crucial in this country right now is because of how important each Senate vote is to the very issue in front of us today: a Supreme Court nomination. So much work is put into winning Senate races. It's crazy not make that work mean something on the most important issue the Senate Democratic caucus deals with. Dems need to filibuster Alito. There is no point in saving the filibuster for a rainy day. The GOP could pull the nuclear trigger at anytime anyway. If not now, when? If not this, what? There will be no better time to take Bush on than now.

---------------------------------------

Senators Reid, Durbin, Dorgan, Leahy, Schumer, Nelson, Pryor, and Landrieu,

The decisions that are made in the next five to seven days will determine the future of jurisprudence in this country for the next 30 years. Do not let Bush, Rove, and Boyden Gray tactically out maneuver you by playing Alito up in the press as a moderate thinker. The progressive half of this country and the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus must not allow a president who was installed into office by a 5 to 4 party line Supreme Court vote, to pack the U.S. Supreme Court for the next several generations with an extreme right wing ideologue at the very moment when the country is mourning (from Hurricane Katrina) the death and maiming of the very disadvantaged people who have been thrown away and abandoned by radical right-wing, government-is-always-the-problem economic policies. If Bush, Boyden Gray, Ed Meese, and other right-wing thinkers succeed in packing the Supreme Court this year with a clear Constitution-in-Exile adherent, at the very moment that no holds barred classist and racist extreme-capitalism has been shown to be an ideology that works to forsake the least among us, then something about America and what is good in humanity will indeed have been forsaken forever. Hurricane Katrina happened just a few weeks ago, and conservatives have already completely dismissed it, and moved onto to their ideological dream of taking over the Supreme Court. Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, and a small handful of other inside the Beltway ideologues do not own this entire country.

Every major opinion poll that has been released in the last six months shows that 70% of Americans think that the Democratic Party should fight Bush much more than they currently are. Bush and the GOP have been majorly bloodied by Miers, Libby, Iraq, and gas prices. As Mark Tushnet and other progressive legal scholars made clear yesterday on TV and on the internet, Alito is to the right of Scalia and Thomas. THIS NOMINATION IS the battle that will decide the future of the Supreme Court for 20 to 30 years into the future. All of the filibusters for the Appeals courts seats that took place earlier this year will mean nothing if Alito gets on the court. His seat means more than all the Appeals court seats combined. Dems must wage this fight by filibustering. Even if the GOP pulls the nuclear trigger option, Dems will still win the fight, because Alito's authenticity as a validly seated judge will always be questioned because it was done via the nuclear option. A counterfeit nuclear option justice will undermine the extreme right wing's never abating designs on important Warren Court precedents, that should remain part of the American legal system. Dems MUST FILIBUSTER. There is no point in saving the filibuster for a rainy day. The GOP could pull the nuclear trigger at anytime anyway. If not now, when? If not this, what? There will be no better time to take Bush on than now.

by JT on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:21:26 PM EST

Thanks Chris (none / 0)

As always, your analysis is appreciated. Couple comments.

First the editor comment:

In the "wait and See" catagory you switched "democratic targets" and "republican targets" from your previous usage of the phrases.

Second, I agree with comments above that it is premature to say Ohio is in the bag. With the potential for the Brown/Hackett race to be so devisive (it shouldn't but we've already seen that it is) we won't know until later whether Ohio Dems can pull themselves together enough to defeat the very beatable DeWine. It should be in the bag but we won't know for sure for awhile.

It seems to me that the Missouri and Rhode Island races are critically important. As are Montana, Arizona, Virginia, and Mississippi. Nevada depends completely on whether Jack Carter has any ability to establish himself as a serious candidate or not. Too early to tell on that.

Am I the only one that thinks Mississippi and Louisiana are two states Democrats should be challenging hard (at all levels) for Democratic advances if not take-over based on the bush/FEMA incompetence story line?

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:57:33 PM EST

Re: Thanks Chris (none / 0)

Definitely Louisiana, but we should only go after Mississippi's Senate seat if Lott retires. The sight of Lott standing on the remains of his house is such a powerful image. Lott's campaign would be able to easily convince voters that he can empathize with their losses. I definitely think that whichever democrat ran against him would have to avoid provoking the genuine emotion Lott would have when it came to Katrina.

by NickC on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 04:11:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Keep dreaming if you think (none / 0)

Harris will definetly be the GOP nominee. She is the frontrunner, no question about it. But the powers that be have other ideas. Has anybody ever crossed Rove & Co. and lived to tell about it? Polls this far out are about name id more than anything else. If you asked Democrats a few years ago if they'd rather have Joe Lieberman or John Kerry as their '04 pres. nominee, you'd be laughing your ass off at Kerry's numbers.

by zt155 on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 03:07:09 PM EST

Washington (none / 0)

I'd drop Washington down from the top tier. While Cantwell's numbers aren't spectactular she isn't exactly running against a first-tier GOP opponent.

Once again the State GOP tried to recruit a big name to take on Cantwell and failed miserably. Rossi wants to take on Gregiore in 2008, Dunn wants to retire and there isn't much of a GOP bench past that anymore.

There is some talk among the local GOP of trying to get someone else in the race for the republican primary which indicates to me that they aren't entirely satisfied with the current canidate.

Also dispite the squeaker in 2000, the fact that Cantwell defeated Gorton at all speaks well to her ablity as a campaigner.

by ces on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 03:21:51 PM EST

Re: Washington (none / 0)

You may be right, but I wouldn't underestimate McGavick, for a couple reasons. First, he's not just some rich business dude; he was former Senator Slade Gorton's Chief of Staff and, I'm told, Gorton's primary political operative. He knows his stuff. And second, Washington has been trending Democratic for several years, it has 2 Democratic senators and the outgoing (Dem) governor was incredibly unpopular. I'm told by friends up there that the "anti-incumbent" fever is running very very strong, same as most places in the country right now. Except that in Washington, it tends to work against Democrats. Add to all that the fact that Cantwell is about as warm and cuddly as a halibut, and you get the idea.

Watch this race very closely.

by ColoDem on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 03:37:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Washington (none / 0)

The problem for McGavick is that he has name recognition approaching zero. He's a placeholder there because the GOP couldn't recruit anybody known on a statewide basis... or even known outside Seattle's Chamber of Commerce. He's too socially moderate and too much from the party's corpo-crat wing to rev up the religious right or the property rights/guns/Gregoire-Sims-and-the-U.N.-stole-the-election crowd for a big turnout. His only hope is to pick off enough affluent moderates on the Eastside, and I just don't think there are enough of them to help him out.

And I don't think it's generalized 'anti-incumbent' fervor in Washington as much as it's anti-Gregoire and anti-Ron Sims fervor being stirred up on the right. There are still a lot of hard feelings (and conspiracy theories) about last year's gubernatorial election, and some of the blowback is affecting Ron Sims' bid for reelection next week (he's the King County executive, which is where the right-wingers allege all of the election discrepancies occurred). Polls show Sims neck and neck with the GOP challenger, although that's largely because there's a Green Party candidate siphoning off 7-8% from the left.

by Crazy Vaclav on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 04:45:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Washington (none / 0)

The problem with Cantwell is she seems to have gone out of her way to court the right while pissing off the left. She has voted with the Bush administration on CAFTA, bankrupty "reform", to appoint Rice and is pro-war. (Well, I think she is pro-war. She actually refuses to take a public stand one way or another. E-mails to her office on the subject go unanswered. Go to her web site and see if you can figure out where she stands. and good luck to you.) She seems to confuse a pro-choice platform with liberalism while completely ignoring all other issues. A few months ago she spent an inordinate amount of time and energy on legislation to assure that mileage estimates for new cars were more accurate. Not exactly a hot-button issue for anyone, even in the best of times. As we currently live in the worst of times, I find it enraging. McGavick may well take the seat because so many like me just plain refuse to support her at the polls. As noted above, McGavick is a "moderate" republican, and so there is very little difference between him and Cantwell. Couple the left's disillusion with Cantwell with the right's anger over Gregoire, and you might have a lost election for the Dems.

In response to the query about Locke: He was unbelievably ineffective, and during his administration Olympia came to a screeching halt. He came to represent ineffective government in the eyes of the electorate.

by samdinista on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 10:54:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Washington (none / 0)

I just discovered that there is a progressive alternative to Cantwell. Mark Wilson is running against Cantwell as a democrat in the primary. Great populist politician, anti-war, pro-working class. I urge all readers in Washington to check out his site, votemark.org, for more info. Let's send Cantwell the corporate bootlicker packing. She is as useless as tits on a rooster.

by samdinista on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 01:07:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Washington (none / 0)

I lived in Seattle from 91-95, but have been out of touch with the state's politics since then. Why did Locke become so unpopular?

by danielj on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 05:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We Will Win 4-5 Seats (none / 0)

Chris' prediction is based on what his view are of the races as they stand today. Yet, looking out 12 months time, I see a big Democratic win. Things are going bad and it is hard to see what is going to turn around to the Republicans advantage. The economy? With both interest rates and home heating oil expected to continute to increase, the latter increasing greatly, it is MUCH more likely that the economy will be worse 12 months out then better. Iraq? This month was the worst in casualties and in the number of attacks since January. Are things getting better? Are they going to? Sure, there is a faction in the Administration that wants to start pulling troops out next year, but as long as attacks are still this bad, the only way to paint that is to say it is a defeat.

Look, 06 is going to be at least as favorable of an environment for us as 94 was for them. In that sort of atmostphere, we probably wont lose a seat. And we will pick up the majority of the seats in Chris' first two categories.

It has been well documented recently that when the pendulum swings on Senate races, it swings hard and alot of races go all in one way. That is going to happen for us this time.

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 07:32:45 PM EST

2006 US Senate Predications (none / 0)

Democrats are favored to hold on on to Democratic Held senate Seats in
California-Fienstien-D
Connecticut-Lieberman-D
Delaware-Carper-D
Florida-Nelson-D
Hawaii-Akaka-D
Maryland-(OPEN-Sarbanes-D)-Cardin-D
Massachusetts-Kennedy-D
Michigan-Stabenow-D
Nebraska-Nelson-D
New Jersey-(OPEN-Corzine-D)-Codey,Pallone,Menende(D)
New Mexico-Bingaman-D
New York-Clinton-D
North Dakota-Conrad-D
Vermont-(OPEN-Jeffords-I)-Sanders-I
Washington-Cantwell-D
West Virginia-Byrd-D
Wisconsin-Kohl-D
plus Pick up Republican Held Seat in Pennsylvania.-Santorum(R)-Casey-D
Toss-ups are
Minnesota-OPEN-Dayton-D
Rhode Island-Chafee-R
Missouri-Talent-R
Ohio-DeWine-D

Suprise Races are MT and AZ.

0-5 seats

by CMBurns on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:46:35 PM EST

Maryland (none / 0)

Can anyone tell me why Maryland is leaning toward a GOP senator, when they are a pretty BLUE state? What is going on there?

by yitbos96bb on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 02:00:23 AM EST

Re: Maryland (none / 0)

we're not. the only reason Steele is doing so well is he's the first serious Senate candidate the Republicans have put up in a long time. also, he currently has higher name recognition than Cardin. he's not going to win.

by johnny longtorso on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 10:16:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How to take back both houses (1.00 / 1)

Run candidates that relate to the districts and states they live in. We simply DON"T DO THIS. We run Ideologs that have nothing in common with the voters in their district and turn off voters. You can't get them to listen to policy till you get them to trust you. We don't do that that is why we lose.

by orin76 on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 03:24:45 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.