Official Post your 2006 Senate Election Prediction Maps

[WMS]

>30% Tossup
>50% Slight
>70% Lean
>90% Solid

My prediction among non-solid races:
AZ:  Kyl +16
CT:  Lieberman +22 (if Weicker runs)
FL:  Nelson +11
MD:  Cardin +4
MI:  Stabenow +20
MN:  Klobuchar +3
MO:  Talent +1
MT:  Burns +8
NE:  Nelson +13
NV:  Ensign +24
NJ:  Menendez +3
OH:  DeWine +2 (Hackett); DeWine +5 (Brown)
PA:  Casey +6
RI:  Chafee +7
TN:  GOP +2
WA:  Cantwell +11

You know, NM *is* having a Senate election this year, believe it or not.

[WMS]

You know, NM *is* having a Senate election this year, believe it or not.

Maybe if Bingaman would do something once in awhile, I would have noticed

If he ever does anything, send me a PM - I can't remember anything either

[WMS]

2 New R's, 2 New D's, no change. Highly subjective, as are the rest of these.
*edit* In case it's not clear, I'm not predicting voting %s. The deep blue or red colors stand for seat change.
*edit2* I know I specified the EC #'s NOT to show up...hold on a sec*

[WMS]

Quick point; the incumbent Nebraska Senator is a Democrat

I'll fix that. Maybe not today, but I'll fix it.

*edit* Then again, maybe I will fix it today. Thanks for pointing that out.

[WMS]

Republicans: 56 (+1, Minnesota)
Democrats: 43 (-1)
Independents: 1

Kean will win New Jersey.

We can certainly hope.

[WMS]

Republicans: 56 (+1, Minnesota)
Democrats: 43 (-1)
Independents: 1

Kean will win New Jersey.

We can certainly hope.

Indeed its time the place got someone competent and decent to represent them… New Jersey deserves better than the triumvirate of Corzine, Menendez and Lautenberg        

At the same time though Casey will win in PA - by the skin of his teath.

Yes, New Jersey deserves better than that sorry lot

And I agree with you on PA - Casey will win but it will be closer than many expect.

I would be happy to see both Kean and Casey win.

[WMS]

And, just for laughs, more Brown-bashing from Ben:

That sounds about right, but I think OH and TN will be closer. I didn't know Goodman was running, though.

Maybe TN, but Brown is going to get crushed in OH.

Remind me to completely disregard anything this guy says about Ohio Senate races in the future, thanks.

Brown is still an asshole.

[WMS]

Senator-elect Brown is a great man.

I never understood why so many "populists" supported Hackett over Brown, when there really wasn't much difference between the two on policy (gun control is the only one I can think of, off the top of my head).

It must be style over substance- Hackett was an Iraq War veteran with rural roots, but Brown was an evil liberal from a big city. Oh, well. Brown thrashed Mikey anyway, so I'm happy.

Brown encouraged Hackett to run against DeWine, promising not to run and then, when he realized how vulnerable DeWine was, broke his word and backstabbed Hackett by running anyway. A "great man" my ass.

[WMS]

I'm sure he'll do just as well in the Senate as he did in the election. He's a smart guy.

But, still, we face the question: why do "populists"/communitarians seem to be the only ones outraged at Brown's "betrayal" of Hackett? The Kossacks were, at first, but they came around. Now it's only a few with positive social scores and negative economic scores.

You avoided my point, that personally Brown is a prick. I could answer you by saying that it's because my quadrant has ethics and yours doesn't, but that would be as silly as the points you keep making.

[WMS]

You avoided my point, that personally Brown is a prick.

I know you think that, and I know why you think that. I was asking a different question entirely: why are populists the only ones who still hold it against Brown? This has been amazingly consistent on Atlas- the only ones still attacking Brown over the Hackett affair are communitarians. Not liberals, not libertarians, not conservatives. Only populists.

I can only speak for myself, not any others. Certain actions tend to taint my view of people. I think poorly of Brown, yes, and Menendez and Lautenberg, but I also think poorly of Chambliss and Burns and Bunning. I can be quite bipartisan in who I dislike.

Here's my guess as to your question: it is perceived that Brown backstabbing Hackett was a liberal backstab of a communitarian, and feeds into the argument that liberals only tolerate communitarians in the Democratic Party and will seek to get rid of them the second they don't need them. And those of you on the left certainly act that way. Liberals are thus ecstatic that a liberal won out instead of a communitarian, while conservatives and libertarians alike would've supported DeWine over a Democrat from any quadrant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not trying to make any "point", and I'm not arguing over the Hackett affair itself. Still, for the record...

To be completely honest, I don't care about it one way or the other. I may disagree with his tactics in that instance, but I think he'll be an awesome Senator regardless. Apparently, communitarians are so holy that they can never forgive him that, and no longer care about his positions on the issues.
[/quote]

In my case, I admit I prefer candidates closer to the center than to the extremes. However, that is not enough to get me to dislike a politician - I don't dislike Whitehouse in RI, for example. It takes other factors for that to happen. And yes, communitarians are the Holy Ones. You may bow and give us homage.

[WMS]

I don't like Brown at all, and I'm not a communitarian.

Well there you have it.

[WMS]

Here's my guess as to your question: it is perceived that Brown backstabbing Hackett was a liberal backstab of a communitarian, and feeds into the argument that liberals only tolerate communitarians in the Democratic Party and will seek to get rid of them the second they don't need them. And those of you on the left certainly act that way. Liberals are thus ecstatic that a liberal won out instead of a communitarian, while conservatives and libertarians alike would've supported DeWine over a Democrat from any quadrant.

Thanks for the response, WMS- I was genuinely interested, not just baiting you. This is pretty much what I was thinking, although it still doesn't make perfect sense (like I said, Brown and Hackett weren't that different on most issues...).

Well, I decided to give you a real reply and not be a smart-ass. And I bolded a word up there for ya.

Also...this little thread gives some good background on why communitarians might be suspicious.

[WMS]

I bolded a word up there for ya.

I wasn't saying that your dislike of Brown doesn't make sense (I know why you hate him, and it isn't necessarily because of his political beliefs)- I was referring to communitarians in general. Image really does matter. Sad, but true.

Well, I wanted Ryan to run myself. But noooo...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a fascinating article, but I don't entirely agree with it. I see no reason why the old-school communitarians ("lunch-pail Democrats") shouldn't be able to coexist with the social liberals and doves that McGovern brought in. What will unite them? Economic populism. Hell, for US Senate in Pennsylvania, I supported some joker who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and opposes embryonic stem-cell research (albeit with serious misgivings ).

I'd also note that while liberals may be intolerant of communitarian Dems, they often have the same attitude toward us. They should recognize that they are now a distinct minority in the party, and admit that social liberalism has netted impressive gains for the party across the Northeast and West Coast.
[/quote]

Ah, but what the article pointed out was that it was the lefties who decided to end coexistence (something I think they've been paying a price for for decades now ).

Actually, that is not quite true. (source: 9-23-2006 National Journal, sorry, paid site so no direct link) Among (before this election, anyway) Democratic voters (not registered Democrats) were mostly two groups, 60% "the socially and economically" disadvantaged, and 40% "upscale Democrats" (who are via PEW only 19%** of all registered voters) who wield highly disproportionate influence in the party (i.e., pro-abortion or bust on judicial nominees). This puts the Dems at a bit of a disadvantage* usually (2006 was a very big anti-Republican backlash year - whether it changed the underlying orientation isn't certain until 2008 ) because those two groups are not enough to win majorities.

*For another take on the Democrats' need to shift the underlying partisan leaning of the country, go here and, when the site is working, click on Ten Stories About Election '06. The examination of Dean's 50-State Strategy is the most salient part.

The strength of social liberals is also overstated by redistricting and the bloc voting of a great many non-social liberals amongst minority communities. If the Democratic party insists on remaining staunchly social liberal and doesn't agree to more of a social moderate position (note I am not suggesting they become social conservative) they risk losing the blue-collar votes that were responsible for their victory this year.
Or to put it another way, as a whole the Democratic Party members are moderate-with-a-liberal-wing, whereas the Democratic Party leadership is liberal-with-a-moderate-wing.

**And I'll bring up another point, how I see the balance of the four ideological quadrants amongst the American voters. I will compare my estimate with what Michael Barone did in the 1982 Alamanac of American Politics, since it turns out I am not the first to have done this.
Ideology - My % - Barone's %
Communitarian/Populist: 30% - 30%
Libertarian: 25% - 25%
Conservative: 25% - 35% (note: Barone, in his Retrospective 20 years later, said he overestimated this)
Liberal: 20% - 10% (note: Barone also said he underestimated this)

If the liberals don't realize that in a two-party FPTP system the Democratic Party needs to be a coalition and instead insist on dominant rule...you won't establish a lasting majority. I am waiting to see how pragmatic the Democratic leadership is going to be after 12 years in the wilderness.