2006 Senate Seats

[CARLHAYDEN]

Republican seats seem mostly safe, Dems weakest links:

Senator Cantwell (D-WA), only won by a few 100 votes last time, but now that Dino Rossi has a statewide position, her chances of facing a semi-decent opponent are slim.

Senator Bingaman (D-NM), seems safe, but the state is trending Republican plus the two GOP Representatives (most likely to run) seem popular.

Senator Nelson (D-FL), it all depends on what mood Jeb Bush is on GOP primary filing day.

Senator Nelson (D-NE), although Gov. Johanns is now in the cabinet, I still do not believe that singles him out as a contender. Many cabinet members run for office while serving, if not Nelson will still face Rep. Osbourne.

Senator Dayton (D-MN), the guy is just an embarrasment to this country.

Senator Stabenow (D-MI), she seems safe but she barely got by last time.

Senator Clinton (D-NY), same as Florida, it all depends on what mood Giuliani is in on GOP primary filing day.

I must respectfully disagree in several particulars:

First, the one vunerable Republican seat is held by Santorun (Pennsylvania).  Depends on the Democrat nominee.

Second, the most vunerable Democrat is Conrad of North Dakota (he's way out of step with the electorate in that state).  It will be interesting to see if he changes his voting record in the next two years to one a little less extremely liberal.

Also, Bingaham (New Mexcio) is so far out in left-field that if the Republicans field a decent candidate, he's toast.

Nelson (Florida) needs to moderate his liberalism and hope that he doesn't face a first class candidate (like Jeb).

Its pretty difficult to see any other incumbent seeking reelection losing.

The fly in the ointment is retirements/deaths.  This can change things for a few seats.

Finally, it will be interesting to see if Jefford runs as a Democrat or an Independent in Vermont (or maybe doesn't seek reelection at all).  If he runs as an Independent and the Democrats nominate a non-joke candidate and the Republicans run a quality candidate (the current Governor comes to mind), they could pull it out in Vermont.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The secret that several great plains liberal Democrats had IN THE PAST was that: (1) the voters were NOT aware of the voting records (when the South Dakota voters became award of Daschle's voting record, they canned him), and (2) when they had either a Democrat President (93-00) and or a majority in their chamber (01-02) they could deliver the bacon. 

It remains to be seen if Conrad will rush to the middle in the next two years (I suspect you will see considerable movement by him in that direction, it depends how far), and if the Republicans decide to target him.

It will be particularly interesting to see if Conrad breaks with the other liberal Democrats in trying to filibuster Bush's appointments.

[CARLHAYDEN]

We will see.

I never cease to be amazed that lefties from the UK make pronouncements about American politics in the absence of facts and logic.

I pointed out the two factors which allowed him to win reelection previously no longer apply.

Both the ADA and the ACU are in agreement that Conrad is on the left of the Democrat party in the Senate, in what is a conservative Republican state.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I never cease to be amazed that lefties from the UK make pronouncements about American politics in the absence of facts and logic.

I pointed out the two factors which allowed him to win reelection previously no longer apply.

Both the ADA and the ACU are in agreement that Conrad is on the left of the Democrat party in the Senate, in what is a conservative Republican state.

I'll ignore your first remark...
North Dakota isn't really a "conservative Republican state". It votes Republican at Presidential level, this is true, but it's also got a long tradition of Progressive Populism and general bloody mindedness.

Besides, Dorgan and Pomeroy (sp? I always get this wrong) were re-elected this year.

They weren't targeted (i.e. they got a free ride).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Even targetted, they'd win.

You never provide any basis for your assertion.

Let me ask you a few questions.

1. Do you believe that North Dakota is REALLY a Democrat state that just occasionally votes Republican in Presidential elections (like say, West Virginia) and that is why you think Conrad will be reelected?

2. Do you think that North Dakota's voters are overwhelmingly to the left, and therefore they agree with Conrad's reciord?

Warning: If you try calling Conrad a "moderate" I will start posting his voting record!

3. Do you think that Conrad has the ability to provide pork for his constiuents as he did before the Republicans obtained clear control of both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency?

4. Do you think the 'new media' was just a 2004 thing and it will fade away, allowing Conrad to hide his record?

[CARLHAYDEN]

1. Hmm, populism eh.  So Republican Presidential candidates are prefered by populists since 1964?

2. I realize to YOU that Edward Kennedy is a 'moderate,' but to carry out my promise, let me begin by listing some of Conrad's votes which the voters in North Dakota won't like.

a. S.Con Res. 23 (RC 62) opposition repeal of the Death Tax.  Yeah, keeping the death tax is real popular with the family farmers in North Dakota as it will force many heirs to sell the farm to pay the taxes.

b. Malpractice Reform S. 11 (RC 264).  Oh, and yes, in your world ambulance chasers are more popular than doctors.  I suggest in reality, including North Dakota, the perspective is a little different.

c. Taxpayer Support for Abortion S. 925 (RC 267).  And sure, everyone thinks abortions are so wonderful that the taxpayers should pay for them.

3. Apparently you didn't understand my post.


From 1987-1994 the Democrats controlled BOTH houses of Congress.

From 1995-2000, the Democrats controlled the Presidency.

From 2001-2002, the Democrats controlled the Senate.

The only period during which Conrad hasn't had partisan protection was 2003-2004 (he didn't face election during that period).

4. Let me repead, as you apparently did not understand my pervious posts.  Dorgan got reelected because he was NOT targeted in 2004.  If he keeps up his liberal habit, he will be targeted in 2010 (assuming he doesn't decide to retire).

Oh, and BTW, do you have any idea who John Hoeven is?

[CARLHAYDEN]

I used to live in the most right wing county in North Dakota that has a significant population. Lived there for 9 years. People like Conrad. They know he's a liberal. They don't care because they aren't political junkies. There's a reason why you don't hear about massive protests or activism on either side in ND. Because of this while most people are probably Republicans, they don't get too partisan outside of presidential elections. Democrats with good constituent services, like all 3 members of the delegation, are popular. Conrad wins easily because he is well liked, and he will win in 2006.

First, most politicans are likeable (if they weren't, they probably wouldn't be sucessful).  From what I have heard, Conrad is likeable.

Second, most people do NOT follow politics very closely and as the national media does NOT generally give much attention to Senators like Conrad, the only information in the past people had was from their local newspaper (and to a lesser degree) and televeion news.

Politicians like Conrad have cut deals with local media in their states to cover up (i.e. not publish their records) and merely publicize them when the cut a ribbon at the opening of a sewage treatment plant funded by the federal government (or some other such probject).

So, NO they do NOT know that Conrad is a liberal (although it is nice that you can admit he is, perhaps you can educate the other poster on this matter of this).

Third, the 'constituent service' which has in the past been a crucial factor in getting liberal Democrats reelected in conservative Republican areas just doesn't work well any more for the reasons I cited (i.e. they do NOT control the levers of power any more).

[CARLHAYDEN]

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).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Dream on.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Who could possibly challenge Conrad in 2006? I lived there 1998-2002 and the only person who had a chance of beating him then was former governor Ed Schafer. Unless he runs or unless current governor John Hoeven decides to run, seems like Conrad should have an easy time of it.

First, if you go back you will see that I specifically mentioned Hoeven as a likely candidate.

Second, are you denying that Conrad's ability to provide the pork in the past was a major factor in his reelection?

Third, are you assserting that the average voter in North Dakota agrees with Conrad's votes?

Fourth, could it be that the majority of the voters never really knew how Conrad was voting?

Fifth, has Conrad has a series of hapless Republican opponents in the past because he could deliver the pork?

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

Nelson of Florida is definitely vunerable IF he doesn't mend his ways (I find it fascinating that southern Democrats in the Senate cast so many hard left votes knowing their constituents disagreed), which to some extent I think he will, and IF he draws a major opponent (say Jeb Bush).

Nelson of Nebraska is fairly well attuned to the voters of Nebraska, and it will be pretty hard for any canidate to beat him.

Dayton of Minnesota is a thoughtless left-wing slimebag.  However. he's from the Minnesota. Pretty tought country for Republicans now that the DFL in that state has largely rocovered from its previous suicidal attempts.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Who could possibly challenge Conrad in 2006? I lived there 1998-2002 and the only person who had a chance of beating him then was former governor Ed Schafer. Unless he runs or unless current governor John Hoeven decides to run, seems like Conrad should have an easy time of it.

First, if you go back you will see that I specifically mentioned Hoeven as a likely candidate.

Second, are you denying that Conrad's ability to provide the pork in the past was a major factor in his reelection?

Third, are you assserting that the average voter in North Dakota agrees with Conrad's votes?

Fourth, could it be that the majority of the voters never really knew how Conrad was voting?

Fifth, has Conrad has a series of hapless Republican opponents in the past because he could deliver the pork?

First, didn't see that part about Hoeven.

I really don't think the average voter in North Dakota cares what Conrad's posititons are. As long Conrad continues to bring home the yearly farm pork, he could vote like Hilary Clinton and it wouldn't really matter. I'm not going to disagree with your beliefs that North Dakotans don't know (or care) what Conrad's votes are, because more often than not that's the case.

The only way Conrad could lose his seat is either he can't bring home the pork or someone like Hoeven can challenge Conrad on the issues while promising to bring home the bacon. For Conrad to lose his seat it will take something along the lines of Thune-Daschle, as SamSpade mentioned. I am not trying to disagree with most of what you say, I'm just saying it's going to be a tough task for anyone to knock Conrad out come '06. If the status quo holds (in terms of pork, etc) then Conrad is probabky going to win.

First, my key point was that Conrad is no longer in a position to bring home the pork!  Democrats control nothing nationally, except some circuits of the federal judiciary.

Second, in the interest of increasing the Republican edge in the Senate (to prevent filibusters), Rowe will recruit candidates in selected races (North Dakota, New Mexico and Florida) such as Hoeven.

Third, while Conrad WAS able to hide his voting record for years from the average citizen of North Dakota, with the new media, it will be a lot harder.

If you have some friends in North Dakota, ask they if they can tell you how Conrad has been voting on matters in Congress.  Odds are they will be unable to cite a single vote (that's the way Conrad likes it).