State of the Senate right now

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It's actually looking pretty good for the Dems, but very precarious.

There are 11 highly competitive seats:
Dem held: GA, NC, SC, FL, LA, SD
GOP held: IL, OK, CO, AK, PA
The Dems need 2 pick-ups to gain control, unless Kerry wins and MA elects a Dem in the special election, in which case they need 1 pick-up.

Here's how I see each seat:

Dem held seats:

GA: Likely Republican, no matter the candidates.  Basically cancels out Illinois.

NC: A toss-up all the way.

SC: Lean GOP is Beasley is their nominee; Toss-up
otherwise....I'll give it to the GOP.

FL: Lean Dem if its Castor v. McCollum (or Byrd); Toss-Up if otherwise.  Since Castor and McCollum are winning their primaries, I'll give it to the Dems.

LA: My guess is lean Dem if John is their nominee, given the Dem's recent success in the state; I'll give it to the Dems.

SD: Lean Dem until a couple polls show me otherwise.

So 2 GOP pick-ups, 2 toss-ups.


Of the Republican held seats:

IL: Likely Dem; cancels out Georgia.

CO: Lean Dem; Salazar is proven statewide candidate.

OK: A toss-up, although I think the Republicans should be glad Coburn got in.

PA: Likely GOP if Spectre wins his primary, Lean Dem if Toomey wins....I'll give it to the GOP.

AK: Another toss-up.

2 Dem pick-ups, 2 Toss-ups.


Let's call the presidential race a toss-up and assume a Dem victory in MA Senate if Kerry wins.

This means the Dems need to win 3 of 4 toss-up races to win control: OK, AK, NC, President.

Of course, this all depends on the candidates, and is just guesses anyway.

[Rococo4]

ok, but if Kerry wins MA Gov Romney appoints someone to take Kerrys seat, which will be a Republican.  Then, I believe that person would be up in a special election in 2006, along with Ted Kennedy who is also up in 2006.  I could be wrong about that, but intially Romney will appoint a Republican.  Moot point anyways because Bush is going to win.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

ok, but if Kerry wins MA Gov Romney appoints someone to take Kerrys seat, which will be a Republican.  Then, I believe that person would be up in a special election in 2006, along with Ted Kennedy who is also up in 2006.  I could be wrong about that, but intially Romney will appoint a Republican.  Moot point anyways because Bush is going to win.

The MA State Legislature is currently working on a bill that will allow for a special election within a couple months of the presidential election.  It is likely to pass with a veto-proof majority,

[The Duke]

I disagree on PA's Senate race.  No conservative will vote Specter.  If he is the nominee, half his potential voters will be alienated from the GOP Senate candidate and the Dems will win.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

ok, but if Kerry wins MA Gov Romney appoints someone to take Kerrys seat, which will be a Republican.  Then, I believe that person would be up in a special election in 2006, along with Ted Kennedy who is also up in 2006.  I could be wrong about that, but intially Romney will appoint a Republican.  Moot point anyways because Bush is going to win.

The MA State Legislature is currently working on a bill that will allow for a special election within a couple months of the presidential election.  It is likely to pass with a veto-proof majority,

And before the Republicans start complaining....remember, you guys did almost the exact same thing two years ago to keep Murkowski's seat in GOP hands.

[Rococo4]

ok, but if Kerry wins MA Gov Romney appoints someone to take Kerrys seat, which will be a Republican.  Then, I believe that person would be up in a special election in 2006, along with Ted Kennedy who is also up in 2006.  I could be wrong about that, but intially Romney will appoint a Republican.  Moot point anyways because Bush is going to win.

The MA State Legislature is currently working on a bill that will allow for a special election within a couple months of the presidential election.  It is likely to pass with a veto-proof majority,

i heard that, but i dont think it will happen.  I am sure you dont care, its simply a power grab.  So desperate for power are the Dems that they have to change the rules on appointing senators.  

[Rococo4]

ok, but if Kerry wins MA Gov Romney appoints someone to take Kerrys seat, which will be a Republican.  Then, I believe that person would be up in a special election in 2006, along with Ted Kennedy who is also up in 2006.  I could be wrong about that, but intially Romney will appoint a Republican.  Moot point anyways because Bush is going to win.

The MA State Legislature is currently working on a bill that will allow for a special election within a couple months of the presidential election.  It is likely to pass with a veto-proof majority,

And before the Republicans start complaining....remember, you guys did almost the exact same thing two years ago to keep Murkowski's seat in GOP hands.

\

yeah but there were no rules changed, it was just shady.  I admit that.  we deserve to lose that seat for what Murkowski did.

[Vasall des Midas]

I seem to remember there were, and that without the rules change Knowles would have got to make the appointment (and probably would have appointed himself). But I may be confusing something...
Immediate by-elections for Senate seats were pretty common mid-century, especially in the South. (In fact, if the vacancy occurred within the first two-thirds of the term, there would be two by-electons: One straight away, the other at the "normal" date.) They are also a much better solution than the current oddity...Which doesn't mean that changing the rules like that is no power grab.

[Rococo4]

well i am not 100% sure......whatever though.  Good discussion.

[Sibboleth]

Dem held seats:

GA: Likely Republican (all the strong GA Dems are circling around Governer Perdue and won't jump into the Senate race)

NC: Leans Democrat (Bowles has come over all protectionist of late).

SC: Tossup (Tennenbaum's chances are greatly improved IF Kerry's running mate is Edwards).

FL: Very confusing race... tossup by default

LA: Leans Democrat (the LA electoral system favours the Dems)

SD: Likely Democrat

Republican held seats:

IL: Likely Dem

CO: Leans Dem (unless a strong GOP candidate jumps in)

OK: tossup

PA: Depends on the GOP primary (Likely R if Specter hangs on, Leans D if Toomey wins)

AK: tossup

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Specter has been the Senator from PA for a long time and has won with comfy margins and is by all accounts - even by most Toomey supporters - a stronger candidate against Hoffel.  The problem is that if Toomey was the nominee, half his potential voters (moderates in suburban Philly) will be alienated from him and the Dems will win.  How many times does a freakishly conservative candidate (Simon, Shallenberger, etc.) have to lose a race that we could have easily won with a more moderate candidate for you folks to realize that Republicans win when we match the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the voters - not just nominate candidates who are hardcore ideologues.  Thank heavens there was no primary for the California recall race otherwise you guys probably would have screwed that up too.

I disagree on PA's Senate race.  No conservative will vote Specter.  If he is the nominee, half his potential voters will be alienated from the GOP Senate candidate and the Dems will win.

[The Duke]

I'd rather lose to Hoeffel than win with Specter.  Do some research on Specter's activities on judicial nominations over the years.  Then ponder this.

Orrin hatch, the chairman of the judiciary committee, is term limited by Senate rules from serving in that post beyond 2006.  Guess who is next in line for the job?  Arlen Specter.  Specter will give us Souters and Stevensons when Bush has to appoint replacements for Supreme Court judges.

Specter is no mere moderate.  he was labeled by National Review as the worst Republican Senator.  Worse than Lincoln Chafee, who opposed tax cts and the Iraq War.  Specter is a true RINO.

[Vasall des Midas]

Ponder this: If the Reps lose control of the Senate, which becomes a lot more likely if Specter loses the primary, you get a Judicial chairman Pat Leahy. You prefer him to Specter? Eh?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Well there you have it - you'd rather have a Democrat in the Senate than a Republican who is so "liberal" that he's been endorsed by the NRA, President Bush, Dick Cheney, and "lefties" like Rick Santorum.

I'll take Specter's Souter over Hoffel's Ginsberg any day.  I'd take either one over Toomey's Roy Moore.

My priority here is REPUBLICANS WINNING.  If we all had the same priority, we could do a lot more good for America.

I'd rather lose to Hoeffel than win with Specter.  Do some research on Specter's activities on judicial nominations over the years.  Then ponder this.

Orrin hatch, the chairman of the judiciary committee, is term limited by Senate rules from serving in that post beyond 2006.  Guess who is next in line for the job?  Arlen Specter.  Specter will give us Souters and Stevensons when Bush has to appoint replacements for Supreme Court judges.

Specter is no mere moderate.  he was labeled by National Review as the worst Republican Senator.  Worse than Lincoln Chafee, who opposed tax cts and the Iraq War.  Specter is a true RINO.

[The Duke]

I've already said, I think Toomey will win and is a better candidate than Specter.

I also think the Republicans are the favorites in Colorado, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Florida if they nominate Mel Martinez.  All these states went to bush in 2000.

We also have a shot in Illinois, South Dakota, and Nevada.

I have no expectations of losing the Seante, with or without the Pennsylvania seat.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Kansas went pretty heavily for Bush in 2000.  Now they've got a Democrat Governor cause we nominated someone that was too conservative for KANSAS   But I guess that was still a victory for you, eh?

At least you are supporting Mel in Florida, though I wish Mark Foley would have stayed in the race.

I agree we have a shot in IL if we play our cards right, but NV is hopeless after all our first, second, third, fourth, and fifth tier candidates dropped out.

I've already said, I think Toomey will win and is a better candidate than Specter.

I also think the Republicans are the favorites in Colorado, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Florida if they nominate Mel Martinez.  All these states went to bush in 2000.

We also have a shot in Illinois and Nevada.

I have no expectations of losing the Seante, with or without the Pennsylvania seat.

[Sibboleth]

Kansas went pretty heavily for Bush in 2000.  Now they've got a Democrat Governor cause we nominated someone that was too conservative for KANSAS  

Now that's funny!

[The Duke]

The Republican Party should not be one big team where we slap each other on the butt after a three yard gain.

We are a movemnet, and we are trying to change the country.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The #1 job of the Republican Party is to elect Republicans.  Period.

If you aren't helping to elect Republicans, you're electing Democrats.

I have no interest in butt-slapping... but I think your interest in back-stabbing is rather unhealthy.

The Republican Party should not be one big team where we slap each other on the butt after a three yard gain.

We are a movemnet, and we are trying to cange the country.

[The Duke]

Back stabbing?  Arlen Specter led the move to reject the Bork nomination!  He has voted against key Bush judicial nominees!  That is backstabbing.  When I see Republicans vote for hight axes, abortion on demand, and cuts to defense spending, we might as well have Democrats.  The outcome would be the same and at least it would be an honest outcome.

And the #1 job is not to elect Republicans, it is to make the country more conservative in the long run.  If another Barry Goldwater leads to another Ronald Reagan, it is more than worth it to lose one Senate seat in Pennsylvania.

I would take a Zell Miller Demcorat over a Chris Shays republican any day of the week.

[MarkDel]

I disagree on PA's Senate race.  No conservative will vote Specter.  If he is the nominee, half his potential voters will be alienated from the GOP Senate candidate and the Dems will win.

John,

1. This analysis is not only wrong, but has been proven wrong in Specter's previous victories.

2. I will never, ever understand why my fellow right wingers hate Specter so much...I used to work on Capitol Hill and I can tell you that you will never meet a better human being than this guy.

[MarkDel]

Back stabbing?  Arlen Specter led the move to reject the Bork nomination!  He has voted against key Bush judicial nominees!  That is backstabbing.  When I see Republicans vote for hight axes, abortion on demand, and cuts to defense spending, we might as well have Democrats.  The outcome would be the same and at least it would be an honest outcome.

And the #1 job is not to elect Republicans, it is to make the country more conservative in the long run.  If another Barry Goldwater leads to another Ronald Reagan, it is more than worth it to lose one Senate seat in Pennsylvania.

I would take a Zell Miller Demcorat over a Chris Shays republican any day of the week.

Specter was wrong about Bork, but that was 17 years ago, and he more than redeemed himself during the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings.

[The Duke]

MarkDel,

When he destroyed Bork it was not an election year (1987), he had just been re-elected.  When he helped Thomas, it was an election year for him (1992).  He always gives us just enough to keep him around in the primaries, then gives us 5 years of garbage until he's up for re-election again.

As for my analysis of who the stronger candidate is, I don't think I've been proven wrong at all.  Specter has been able to win when he has had conservatives with him.  You cannot guarantee that they will be there in November this time because Specter has never faced a meaningful primary challenge before.  We know that Toomey can win though since Santorum wins, and I think Toomey is more moderate than Santorum.

As for the guy's personality, I have never before heard anyone say anything nice about Specter the man.  His nickname among staffers is "Snarlin Arlen", and he known for being a jerk.  Maybe this meanness is a new phenomenon now that he is senior Senator, and he was different back when you were a staffer.

[MarkDel]

MarkDel,

When he destroyed Bork it was not an election year (1987), he had just been re-elected.  When he helped Thomas, it was an election year for him (1992).  He always gives us just enough to keep him around in the primaries, then gives us 5 years of garbage until he's up for re-election again.

As for my analysis of who the stronger candidate is, I don't think I've been proven wrong at all.  Specter has been able to win when he has had conservatives with him.  You cannot guarantee that they will be there in November this time because Specter has never faced a meaningful primary challenge before.  We know that Toomey can win though since Santorum wins, and I think Toomey is more moderate than Santorum.

As for the guy's personality, I have never before heard anyone say anything nice about Specter the man.  His nickname among staffers is "Snarlin Arlen", and he known for being a jerk.  Maybe this meanness is a new phenomenon now that he is senior Senator, and he was different back when you were a staffer.

John,

Nope, I know Specter's Chief of Staff very well. Known him for 20 years. The reason Specter comes off as "pissed off" all the time is because he's personally a very paranoid guy who is not at all comfortable with the Washington, DC style of smling to your face and then ripping you behind your back. The guy is incredibly nice behind closed doors.

As for Toomey, I like him as well, but he will be at best a 50/50 shot in the general election while Specter is a guaranteed winner. I can't believe that Conservatives in PA would be dumb enough to abandon Specter and let a Democrat be elected...

[The Duke]

Because Arlen acts just like a Democrat, so what's the difference?

Here is a quote form national Review's Tim Carney:


"Arlen Specter is about as a good a fiscal conservative as George W. Bush was a Yale student. Over the last decade, Specter's score with the National Taxpayers' Union averages between a C and a C-minus.

While he eventually got on board with the 2001 cuts, he did everything in his power to shrink them — and he had some success. Bush started with a package to reduce Americans' tax burden by $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. What we got was $1.3 trillion.

Specter was one of five Republicans to vote for a class-warfare amendment almost wiping out the tax cuts at the top of the scale and expanding the breaks at the bottom. He was one of six Republicans who voted to preserve the death tax. On a handful of other liberal amendments, he joined his big-tax brethren."


With friends like these...