Senate Elections - 2004

[jravnsbo]

I see 4 GOP pickups, maybe a clean sweep! especially if Dean is the nominee.  Plus a gain of around 7-10 seats int he House, pushing the Dems below 200.

[DarthKosh]

I see 4 GOP pickups, maybe a clean sweep! especially if Dean is the nominee.  Plus a gain of around 7-10 seats int he House, pushing the Dems below 200.

I've said it before.  Dean will be a disaster for down ticket Dems especially in the south and mountain west.
Reps will pick up at least four senate seats next year.

[jravnsbo]

I agree.  GA, NC, SC will for sure go to GOP.  Then FL with Martinez could go GOP.  That leaves LA of open seats and will be an even race, and Dems may have a primary as Johns may get challenged By AG Inyoube(sp) and maybe another.

--oh sidenote, Jindal may run for Vitter's house seat I see from New Orleans papers--

SD will make Dems spend a lot of money and time protecting that seat.  Leans to Daschle yet, but will keep him in SD and man I hope thune runs as I will work actively on his campaign.

-----

OK--sounds like Carson also may have a weak primary challenge but still one he will have to spend some cash on.  

PA- will go to Spector easily.

IL- as I said leans Dem, but with Jack Ryan GOP will have a well financed candidate.

AK- in the end Knowles will get beat as while fine in AK, a vote for him is also for Kennedy and all the opponents of ANWAR, even if Knowles is for it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In theory of the Democrat's open seats in the South, the most vunerable is SC, followed by GA then FL then NC then LA.
Theory not practice.

[DarthKosh]

In theory of the Democrat's open seats in the South, the most vunerable is SC, followed by GA then FL then NC then LA.
Theory not practice.

In practice they are all very vunerable.

[jravnsbo]

Theory is fine, but practice is what is at stake.

GOP just needs to get their nominees in GA, SC, FL.  Then it will be a lot clearer as to who will be our next Senators

Still am surprised that GA can't even get a candidate out besides an unknown state senator with no money.

[M]

Do not discount the possibility of a landslide. If Dean is the dem nominee, Bush continues to excel in the field of national security, and Dean forces the debate to remain in the national security sector, Bush could win 55%+ of the national vote and 45+ states. In that situation, almost anything is possible. The GOP may even gain enough seats to effectively block filibusters. Then the courts get very interesting....

[jravnsbo]

The Courts get interestig anyway, as the GOP may go Nucleur and just press throw the blocked judges now to GIVE THEM A VOTE!

Plus Always remember GOP has Nelson (D-NE) yet voting to let the judges come to a vote.  Every vote helps.

[jravnsbo]

Also important is that the Dems are losing  lot of seniority in senators that know how the system works, even if they would hold the seats ( which i don't see).

GOP's vulnerable seat in IL is held by a 1 termer, not a lot of seniority lost there.  Nickles is a blow though.

[M]

Not if he is replaced by a good guy, preferably (please, please, please!) by JC Watts. I think a young but very popular (not likely to be voted out barring wierdness) senator can be worth more than an older one- not as much danger of him retiring or dying, still vigorous, and has the confidence to hold to his beliefs, a la Burke.

That is why it is such an incredible achievement that the GOP replaced Strom, Jesse, Phil Gramm, and Fred Thompson so seamlessly.

[DarthKosh]

Not if he is replaced by a good guy, preferably (please, please, please!) by JC Watts. I think a young but very popular (not likely to be voted out barring wierdness) senator can be worth more than an older one- not as much danger of him retiring or dying, still vigorous, and has the confidence to hold to his beliefs, a la Burke.

That is why it is such an incredible achievement that the GOP replaced Strom, Jesse, Phil Gramm, and Fred Thompson so seamlessly.

Fred Thompson was a one termer.

[M]

I thought it was two. Regardless, he was very powerful, and he was leaving politics. The Dems misssed a perfect opportunity to seize at least one open Southern seat. As it stands now, with the national dem party so liberal they run the risk of being utterly locked out of Dixie, creating a new solid south (see thread).

[jravnsbo]

A good article on the LA Senate race


With Breaux Gone, Will the GOP Finally Take Advantage?

by Prof. Jeff Sadow
PoliticsLA.com columnist
posted December 22, 2003
read bio

The Louisiana merry-go-around never stops when it comes to politics. Just as soon as we’re over statewide elections, Sen. John Breaux’s anticipated announcement of his retirement starts a ripple effect that may be felt all over the state.

Breaux’s premature retirement (after all, he’ll only serve 18 years, not the 20+ we’re used to out of our senators) will shake up the state’s electoral landscape. Already on the Republican side it has prompted two politicians to come forward and offer their services at higher levels starting next year: Rep. David Vitter for Breaux’s seat, and state Rep. Steve Scalise for Vitter’s current seat.

Scalise’s path approximates that of Vitter’s when the latter took over from the resigned Bob Livingston five years back. The Metairie Republican is a solid conservative who would match up well with the district’s sentiments. However, he likely faces a challenge from recent gubernatorial runner-up Bobby Jindal. The Baton Rouge Republican has a ton of name recognition and goodwill carrying over from his recent bid, and he won a large majority in the First District area. His problem is that he is not, yet, a resident of the district. This may create political problems that might derail an otherwise sure win.

On the Democrat side, Rep. Chris John also has declared his intent to run for Breaux’s seat. But others are looking at the contest as well, including state Treasurer John Kennedy, Attorney General Richard Ieyoub, and possibly former Rep. Buddy Leach. All contested the recent governor’s race although Kennedy dropped out early to win uncontested reelection to the Treasurer’s office.

The advantage swings to the GOP if any two of these others were to run against John. Vitter looks to have a field clear of any other Republican heavyweights. But all three of John’s potential opponents have run credible statewide races, two of them winning more than once. Any two of them in would guarantee Vitter making the general election runoff.

All three present problems for John making the runoff, however. John is one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress – interest group rating scores in aggregate put him slightly left of center, almost exactly with Breaux – but he could end up facing another moderate (Kennedy) fresh off an uncontested win with campaign cash ready, a liberal (Ieyoub) with a pair of close calls to winning, one being the 1996 Senate race, the other the recent gubernatorial contest, who’s about to lose his present electoral office, and another liberal (Leach) with plenty of (his own) money to burn.

These potential candidates all have motivation to run and they could end up splintering Democrat votes enough so that John cannot make it through to face Vitter. Note also that the election’s conjunction with the presidential election also will have a major impact on the Democrat that will head to the general election contested next December.

Signs increasingly point to Vermont Gov. Howard Dean getting the Democrat nomination. As moderate Democrats continue to be won over by President George W. Bush, the Angry Left has steadily gained influence within the national Democrat Party, epitomized by former Vice President Al Gore’s endorsement of Dean. Other Democrats will opt out of their party’s nomination process and the resulting Dean nomination will create a great opportunity for the GOP to win big.

These voters also will opt out of the November election or vote for Bush. The coattail effect will extend to Louisiana, favoring Vitter and to the disadvantage of John and Kennedy. That makes it more likely that liberals such as Ieyoub or Leach would make it through to the general election, creating an almost sure win for Vitter.

GOP gains may not stop there. When John first ran for Congress in 1996, he eked out a narrow win against two strong Republicans. His district may respond poorly to the Angry Left’s candidate as the Democrat presidential nominee, giving the Republican candidates there an advantage.

So the GOP has its best chance in some time to win (finally) a U.S. Senate seat and pick up a House seat (and this doesn’t even count the expected tough competition Rep. Rodney Alexander will get from a Republican challenger, possibly the previous seat-holder John Cooksey, in what many analysts consider the most vulnerable district in the country for the Democrats). The state’s Republicans have acquired a reputation as underperforming their Southern brethren electorally. Maybe even they can win some big ones under this scenario.

[M]

In a landslide, anything is possible.

[DarthKosh]

In a landslide, anything is possible.

Everything is possible.

[DarthKosh]

Udall isn't running in Colorado.  Campbell will be re-elected easily.

[jravnsbo]

IS he running, hadn't heard that yet, got a link?

Udall is running in Colorado.  Campbell will be re-elected easily.

[DarthKosh]

Isn't running.  I think faster then I type.

IS he running, hadn't heard that yet, got a link?

Udall is running in Colorado.  Campbell will be re-elected easily.

[jravnsbo]

Good that race leans to Campbell but glad Udall is not in, to have to divert resources there , when they can be used in other places.

[zorkpolitics]

The general assumption here is the Republicans should pick up a few of the retiring Democratic seats for a net gain of 2-3 seats.
However for a fairly detailed alternative view and reality check see:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/24/215824/13
and
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/25/172540/05
In this analysis the GOP will likely lose IL and AK, while OK and CO (if Hart runs) are toss ups.  Races that could come into play are: NH, PA, KY, even UT and AL
The Democrats are likely to lose only GA, with FL as a toss-up, NC, SC, LA lean Democratic, and FL would lean Democratic if Harris runs.  SD might become competitive, if Thune runs. (No mention of WA?)
Thus this analysis gives the Democrats a good chance to take the Senate.

Senate races can run contrary to Presidential races (Bush won in 2000 but the Republicans lost 5 seats), so even a Bush victory does not imply the Republicans will retain the Senate.    I think the Senate races will turn out to be very interesting and we'll need to wait until the primaries are done and the final match-ups are known to get an accurate idea of how they are heading.  If the Presidential race is another close election, it may come down to who can raise the most money under the new rules and who best gets their message across.  Of course, if Bush (or Dean?) wins easily, it would probably affect some of the Senate races as well.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Obviously partisan (as much as any of us I guess) and very much wishful thinking -- but If I were them, I would be wishing too.

The general assumption here is the Republicans should pick up a few of the retiring Democratic seats for a net gain of 2-3 seats.
However for a fairly detailed alternative view and reality check see:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/24/215824/13
and
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/25/172540/05
In this analysis the GOP will likely lose IL and AK, while OK and CO (if Hart runs) are toss ups.  Races that could come into play are: NH, PA, KY, even UT and AL
The Democrats are likely to lose only GA, with FL as a toss-up, NC, SC, LA lean Democratic, and FL would lean Democratic if Harris runs.  SD might become competitive, if Thune runs. (No mention of WA?)
Thus this analysis gives the Democrats a good chance to take the Senate.

Senate races can run contrary to Presidential races (Bush won in 2000 but the Republicans lost 5 seats), so even a Bush victory does not imply the Republicans will retain the Senate.    I think the Senate races will turn out to be very interesting and we'll need to wait until the primaries are done and the final match-ups are known to get an accurate idea of how they are heading.  If the Presidential race is another close election, it may come down to who can raise the most money under the new rules and who best gets their message across.  Of course, if Bush (or Dean?) wins easily, it would probably affect some of the Senate races as well.

[DarthKosh]

Kos is much worse then MYDD.

Obviously partisan (as much as any of us I guess) and very much wishful thinking -- but If I were them, I would be wishing too.

The general assumption here is the Republicans should pick up a few of the retiring Democratic seats for a net gain of 2-3 seats.
However for a fairly detailed alternative view and reality check see:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/24/215824/13
and
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/25/172540/05
In this analysis the GOP will likely lose IL and AK, while OK and CO (if Hart runs) are toss ups.  Races that could come into play are: NH, PA, KY, even UT and AL
The Democrats are likely to lose only GA, with FL as a toss-up, NC, SC, LA lean Democratic, and FL would lean Democratic if Harris runs.  SD might become competitive, if Thune runs. (No mention of WA?)
Thus this analysis gives the Democrats a good chance to take the Senate.

Senate races can run contrary to Presidential races (Bush won in 2000 but the Republicans lost 5 seats), so even a Bush victory does not imply the Republicans will retain the Senate.    I think the Senate races will turn out to be very interesting and we'll need to wait until the primaries are done and the final match-ups are known to get an accurate idea of how they are heading.  If the Presidential race is another close election, it may come down to who can raise the most money under the new rules and who best gets their message across.  Of course, if Bush (or Dean?) wins easily, it would probably affect some of the Senate races as well.

[JNB]

 Dailykos is clueless in my opinion. Too many people who never leave fashionable inner city enclaves or university towns dominate the Democrats on the net.

  In SC, DailyKos did not mention that former SC Gov David Beasley, who lost his re election in 98, is 10 points ahead of Tennenbaum in a poll at 45-35, also the electorate in SC is not 60% female, it may be 52, maybe 53% female at the very most, but that 60% number is a illusion. Unless the GOP self destructs here, the GOP will pick up the SC senate seat, especially with Bush on top of the ballot.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

SC is actually more vunerable than GA...

[DarthKosh]

 Dailykos is clueless in my opinion. Too many people who never leave fashionable inner city enclaves or university towns dominate the Democrats on the net.

  In SC, DailyKos did not mention that former SC Gov David Beasley, who lost his re election in 98, is 10 points ahead of Tennenbaum in a poll at 45-35, also the electorate in SC is not 60% female, it may be 52, maybe 53% female at the very most, but that 60% number is a illusion. Unless the GOP self destructs here, the GOP will pick up the SC senate seat, especially with Bush on top of the ballot.

The only reason Tennenbaum got as many votes as she did is because she ran unopposed.