2006 Senate Seats

[Sam Spade]

Yes.

[Sam Spade]

1.  Chafee is not an idiot.  Why would he switch parties to a party without any power and lose his influence in things, since I don't see the Republicans losing control of the Senate in 2006?  How many times have you heard from Jim Jeffords since 2002?

Given that, the most likely outcome is for the White House offers him a deal to protect his seat from conservative challengers in order for key votes on certain bills (a la Specter).

Whether this happens or not remains to be seen.

2.  I would take zero stock in polls that come out nearly two years before the election.  This goes with the NY Governor's and Senate race, as well as this Florida Senate one.

[Sam Spade]

Conrad is only in real danger in Gov. Hoeven runs.

North Dakota simply isn't as anti-incumbent historically as South Dakota is.

[Sam Spade]

Senatorial races in the Dakotas are usually decided on which candidate will get the most amount of agricultural pork into the states.  Democrats have a built-in advantage on this.  Dorgan and Conrad are liked because they're nice people and because they fulfill this requirement nicely.

Still, the people of North and South Dakota are fundamentally conservative, if you make the Senate races into a national issue.  Daschle made the mistake of becoming too public of a figure and opening himself up to this line of attack. 

Thune was a good, well-liked and well-known candidate and beat him upon the judges issue (which he brought up constantly).  He also promised South Dakota that he would still bring in the agricultural pork to shore up that problem.

South Dakota is also more historically anti-incumbent and took to this in getting rid of Daschle this year (as it did McGovern previously).  The same tactic can be used in North Dakota, but it's fundamentally harder because 1. North Dakota is less anti-incumbent, 2. Dorgan or Conrad don't occupy public, national positions.

[Sam Spade]

Senatorial races in the Dakotas are usually decided on which candidate will get the most amount of agricultural pork into the states.  Democrats have a built-in advantage on this.  Dorgan and Conrad are liked because they're nice people and because they fulfill this requirement nicely.

Still, the people of North and South Dakota are fundamentally conservative, if you make the Senate races into a national issue.  Daschle made the mistake of becoming too public of a figure and opening himself up to this line of attack. 

Thune was a good, well-liked and well-known candidate and beat him upon the judges issue (which he brought up constantly).  He also promised South Dakota that he would still bring in the agricultural pork to shore up that problem.

South Dakota is also more historically anti-incumbent and took to this in getting rid of Daschle this year (as it did McGovern previously).  The same tactic can be used in North Dakota, but it's fundamentally harder because 1. North Dakota is less anti-incumbent, 2. Dorgan or Conrad don't occupy public, national positions.

Sam,

You touch upon two of the critical points I made:

First, Conrad is no longer in a position to deliver the pork as he previously was able to do, and

Second, while in previous elections the electorate was ignorant of Conrad's actions in Washington, the new media has changed this.  Moreover, there are few vunerable Democrat seats up in 2006, so the Republicans are likely to focus on two or three (Conrad, Bingaman and possibly the Washington Senate seat if the Democrats 'find' enough votes in King county to install Gregoire).

Maybe.  For Republicans, the key seats to focus on trying to turn over are Nelson in FL, Nelson in NE (if a suitable challenger can be found) and Dayton in MN.  Then I would look at the seats you mentioned.