Senate Elections - 2004

[DarthKosh]

Is John Edwards running for re-election or will he use his new popularity for somthing maybe governor.  

Edwards is not popular in NC that is why he is running for president.

[agcatter]

Yeah, I was kind of wondering where the "new popularity" line came from?

[Gustaf]

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.

What is MYDD??

[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.

What is MYDD??

He was a blogger who thought that the Dems would have 56 senates seats and the house after last election.

[12th Doctor]

Is John Edwards running for re-election or will he use his new popularity for somthing maybe governor.  

Can Edwards run for re-election in the senate if he is running for president cause i no in some states you can't?

Edwards isn't running for re-election.  He already announced it.

[jravnsbo]

well that site is a liberal leaning one and so naturally it favors the Dems.  Notsurprising, looked at it before.

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.

[jravnsbo]

He is not running but he COULD HAVE he had so desired.  But Edwards was not popular enough in either race to make it work.

Is John Edwards running for re-election or will he use his new popularity for somthing maybe governor.  

Can Edwards run for re-election in the senate if he is running for president cause i no in some states you can't?

[DarthKosh]

That is why he is running for pres.  He knew he would lose the senate seat.

He is not running but he COULD HAVE he had so desired.  But Edwards was not popular enough in either race to make it work.

Is John Edwards running for re-election or will he use his new popularity for somthing maybe governor.  

Can Edwards run for re-election in the senate if he is running for president cause i no in some states you can't?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually he would probably have won, and I think that the financial/logistical problems of running two races at the same time forced him to choose.
Boring but more realistic.

[jravnsbo]

Well in early polls he was even with Rep Burr or just slightly ahead.  Then throw in the growing war chest of Burr and Bush at the top of the ticket and the fact that Edwards is TRAILING bush in NC, and he is a goner.  

Lieberman and Benson ran at the same time, Edwards just knew he couldn't do it, esp with pressure from party to choose, with the close senate makeup.

[DarthKosh]

Actually he would probably have won, and I think that the financial/logistical problems of running two races at the same time forced him to choose.
Boring but more realistic.

Edwards has very low favorablity in NC.  So he would have a very hard time winning and he knew that.

[jravnsbo]

I see Edwards again reiterated that he would not be VP--i'll try and find article again

[jravnsbo]

found it!

Edwards Says Not Interested in Vice Presidency
Sun December 28, 2003 12:19 PM ET

 
 
 
 
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards of North Carolina said on Sunday he was "absolutely not interested" in a vice presidential slot.
Edwards, a first-term U.S. senator with fewer than five years of political experience, talked optimistically of his chances in the race to take on President Bush next year, despite low poll standings in Iowa and New Hampshire where the first nominating contests begin in January.

Asked if he would agree to run in the second slot with one of eight candidates to be the Democrats' presidential nominee, Edwards said: "I'm absolutely not interested in being vice president. No, the answer to that question is no."

Edwards, who will not seek re-election to the U.S. Senate, said in an interview from his campaign headquarters in Columbia, South Carolina, that he was not dismayed by polls that place him in the single digits in the kick-off states.

"There's no problem," he told "Fox News Sunday." "If you're me and you're here on the ground and you see what's happening, I have a lead here in South Carolina, which will be the third key primary state. In Iowa and New Hampshire, I've been moving up."

As a southerner, the early Feb. 3 contest in South Carolina is make-or-break for Edwards.

A personal injury trial lawyer before being elected to the U.S. Senate from North Carolina in his first run for political office in 1998, Edwards has sounded populist themes while campaigning in the last year.

Leading in most polls is former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who began the race as a little-known longshot but parlayed outspoken opposition to the Iraq war and blunt criticism of Bush into the lead.

Edwards is among his chief challengers, along with U.S. Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri and retired Gen. Wesley Clark, the former commander of NATO.

[© tweed]

found it!

Edwards Says Not Interested in Vice Presidency
Sun December 28, 2003 12:19 PM ET

 
 
 
 
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards of North Carolina said on Sunday he was "absolutely not interested" in a vice presidential slot.
Edwards, a first-term U.S. senator with fewer than five years of political experience, talked optimistically of his chances in the race to take on President Bush next year, despite low poll standings in Iowa and New Hampshire where the first nominating contests begin in January.

Asked if he would agree to run in the second slot with one of eight candidates to be the Democrats' presidential nominee, Edwards said: "I'm absolutely not interested in being vice president. No, the answer to that question is no."

Edwards, who will not seek re-election to the U.S. Senate, said in an interview from his campaign headquarters in Columbia, South Carolina, that he was not dismayed by polls that place him in the single digits in the kick-off states.

"There's no problem," he told "Fox News Sunday." "If you're me and you're here on the ground and you see what's happening, I have a lead here in South Carolina, which will be the third key primary state. In Iowa and New Hampshire, I've been moving up."

As a southerner, the early Feb. 3 contest in South Carolina is make-or-break for Edwards.

A personal injury trial lawyer before being elected to the U.S. Senate from North Carolina in his first run for political office in 1998, Edwards has sounded populist themes while campaigning in the last year.

Leading in most polls is former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who began the race as a little-known longshot but parlayed outspoken opposition to the Iraq war and blunt criticism of Bush into the lead.

Edwards is among his chief challengers, along with U.S. Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri and retired Gen. Wesley Clark, the former commander of NATO.

Edwards can now be considered a jerk.  Why not accept the VP slot?  He isn't running for his senate seat, what is he going to do?  Sit in his underwear and watch sportscenter reruns all day?

If he didn't want to say outright that he was interested in the VP slot, he just could have said that he doesn't know because he is focusing on his Presidenial campaign.

[jravnsbo]

well that leaves either Graham or Clark for VP for Dean.  Do you see anyone else?

[© tweed]

well that leaves either Graham or Clark for VP for Dean.  Do you see anyone else?

Clark said he doesn't want it, and I think graham really wants it.
Maybe Russ feingold.

[jravnsbo]

yes Graham wants it and Clark and Dean got into a little scuffle about it and so it would look bad if Dean offered it to him now.

Well Problem with Feingold is that he is running for reelection this year.

[© tweed]

yes Graham wants it and Clark and Dean got into a little scuffle about it and so it would look bad if Dean offered it to him now.

Well Problem with Feingold is that he is running for reelection this year.

Here is a list I made on who i want for VP:

https://uselectionatlas.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/leip/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=11&topic=68

From the old board

[jravnsbo]

2. Senator John Edwards, North Carolina.

Said he doesn't want it
--------------------

3. Senator Dianne Feinstein, California.
5. Senator Hillary Clinton, New York
6. Governor Phil Bredesen, Tennessee
9. Senator Mary Landrieu, Louisiana

Feinsteina dn Clinton are from GOP gov states and if they won GOP picks up another Senate seat.

Landrieu is actually been named in some circles, but not as much after her little temper tantrum on the senate floor during judicial debate.

Bredesen is an interesting choice and would make a southern play and a governors outsider play for Dean
---------
Running for Reelection, I see Bayh in 2008 though.

1. Senator Russ Feingold, Wisonsin.
4. Senator Evan Bayh, Indiana
--------

7. Democratic New York Gubernatorial Candidate Carl McCall

-couldn't win a NY primary and adds little to the ticket
-----

GOP, so not happening, he's ours and you can't have him

8. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani

[© tweed]

Bayh would be a strong candidate in the general.  He should run this year...but he probably wouldn't get the nomination.

[DarthKosh]

Bayh would be a strong candidate in the general.  He should run this year...but he probably wouldn't get the nomination.

He wouldn't get the nom because he is too moderate.

[© tweed]

Bayh would be a strong candidate in the general.  He should run this year...but he probably wouldn't get the nomination.

He wouldn't get the nom because he is too moderate.

Probably true.

[Nym90]

Bayh could definitely be on the ticket, he's a moderate Dem, but definitely not too far right. A DLC "New" Democrat. He'd be a good choice for someone like Dean to balance out the ticket ideologically.

[jravnsbo]

But Dean just called a number of the DLC people Republicans this past weekends.  If I was a centrist Dem I'd be P8Ssed!  Just b/c they don't agree with him in lockstep they are from the other party.  Outrageous really.

[agcatter]

The more Dean opens his mouth, the more I realize what a lousy candidate he is.  I'm not even talking about his positions on issues.  he has no tact whatsoever.  It's like this guy goes out of his way to piss everyone off.  In that respect he's actually worse than McGovern.