Senate Elections - 2004

[DarthKosh]

Daley certainly commited fraud in 1960... however the GOP machine in the rest of the State was doing exactly the same thing.

Call it quits

LBJ had the same control in Texas that Daley had in Chicago.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Er... have you actually seen a map of the 1960 election in Illinois?

[JNB]

 Yes, the counties with the biggst population in Southren IL, St Clair county and Madison counties, across the river from St Louis, went solidly for JFK.

[Nym90]

I don't see how LBJ could have had that much control, having only been a Senator. Had he been Governor, he could have appointed political cronies to high positions, but I just can't see how a Senator could have that much power to manufacture that many votes. Even if only 46,000 were manufactured, that's 1 out of every 50 statewide, and I doubt the fraud could have been spread exactly evenly statewide.
Then, rbt, you use the standard conspiracy theory argument of saying that the evidence that makes the conspiracy less likely (the fact that the vote margin was relatively confortable) is deliberately manufactured by the conspiracy itself as cover. Obviously, once a conspiracy has been established in one's mind, that line of logic can be used to refute any evidence...
It gets to be pretty convoluted when you are saying that not only did Johnson steal the election, but he stole it by a large enough margin so as to deflect suspiscion.
Nixon should have demanded a recount if the election was stolen. The reason he didn't challenge the election in court is because he knew he wouldn't win. He didn't even challenge Illinois, much less Texas.

[DarthKosh]

I don't see how LBJ could have had that much control, having only been a Senator. Had he been Governor, he could have appointed political cronies to high positions, but I just can't see how a Senator could have that much power to manufacture that many votes. Even if only 46,000 were manufactured, that's 1 out of every 50 statewide, and I doubt the fraud could have been spread exactly evenly statewide.
Then, rbt, you use the standard conspiracy theory argument of saying that the evidence that makes the conspiracy less likely (the fact that the vote margin was relatively confortable) is deliberately manufactured by the conspiracy itself as cover. Obviously, once a conspiracy has been established in one's mind, that line of logic can be used to refute any evidence...
It gets to be pretty convoluted when you are saying that not only did Johnson steal the election, but he stole it by a large enough margin so as to deflect suspiscion.
Nixon should have demanded a recount if the election was stolen. The reason he didn't challenge the election in court is because he knew he wouldn't win. He didn't even challenge Illinois, much less Texas.

LBJ was the power broker in Texas and he was the only one.  Nixon didn't challege it because he thought it would be bad for the country not because he thought he would loose.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Darth... you belive Richard Nixon?

[DarthKosh]

Darth... you belive Richard Nixon?

Over LBJ yes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've heard of people being partizan but...

[DarthKosh]

I've heard of people being partizan but...

Back when LBJ was alive he was a king in Texas and if he wanted the race fixed in Texas it would have been.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...But did he? There is no evidence for it at all.

Nixon rigged an entire election, overthrew a democratically elected government in Chile, is responsible for the Khmer Rouge, bugged the DNC and prolonged the Vietnam War.

Amoungst other things.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Returning to the topic of next years Senate elections...

According to recent opinion polls(ie; not my predictions) :

NY: Dem
CT: Dem
PA: Rep
MD: Dem
OH: Rep
KY: Toss Up
NC: Dem
SC: Dem
GA: Dem
FL: Toss Up
MO: Rep
IL: Rep
WI: Dem
ND: Dem
SD: Dem
CO: Rep
NV: Dem
CA: Dem
WA: Dem

[Ryan]

I don't see how LBJ could have had that much control, having only been a Senator. Had he been Governor, he could have appointed political cronies to high positions, but I just can't see how a Senator could have that much power to manufacture that many votes.

Nym, by this I take it that you are the first democrat I have met who agrees that Tom DeLay does not control Texas. (after all he was not a governor there)

Actually you would be right. Neither he nor LBJ ever has controlled Texas. They did and do have a huge amount of respect and influence predicated upon their national status and ability to deliver for Texas.

However do any of you really believe either a Republican or Democrat candidate in the 1960's had to personally control a state party machinery to get it to fix elections for him???

I do believe there was "fixing" in Texas and Illinois and it had less to do with Kennedy or Johnson's personal power than with the vested interest of state parties to see their man in the White House.

[Ryan]

...But did he? There is no evidence for it at all.

Nixon rigged an entire election, overthrew a democratically elected government in Chile, is responsible for the Khmer Rouge, bugged the DNC and prolonged the Vietnam War.

Amoungst other things.

Well he also perhaps prevented a third world war by thawing relations with Russia and China, was responsible for enacting many vital social reforms including rights for women and minorities etc etc

I'm not denying that his Presidency (my least favorite GOP tenure in the white house) was disgraceful in many respects but it is historically incorrect to demonize Nixon alone. I do believe he really cared about the country but had the same fallacies that many politicians of his age did.

[Ryan]

As to whether Nixon conceded the election for the good of the country; well it may have been one reason but also he was very unlikely to actually see the results changed and a long recount process could have affected his future political aspirations.

PS He was unlikely to see the results changed not because they were correct but because without the vast media presence and accountability that exists today; the recounts would have been fixed as well

[Ryan]

Hey I just realized that this is in the Senate 2004 thread and I've been merrily posting here as well.
May I request that if this discussion is continued it be done on a different thread. I'm not trying to be a net nanny here. The reason I ask this is:-
A) It could lose the inputs of members who might want to participate in this discussion but not know that it is on.

B) It unnecessarily inconveniences others who might look at this thread as a resource on the 2004 elections and would have to wade through dozens of irrelevant posts to get to the useful data.

Of course I know I myself may have not completely followed this advice but a digression or two is inevitable in any dynamic discussion. Its only when a completely different trend of discussion begins that I think it should be moved to a new thread.

Thanks,
Ryan.

[Ryan]

I've taken the liberty of creating a new discussion thread in the "history" folder. I trust no one minds.

I've also posted all the discussion posts till now over there but its a major mess since there were too many to do one by one. I would be grateful if everyone could post a summary of their views there. Then I will delete those two behemoth posts.

Also after that if everyone could please get around to deleting their posts on above topic from this discussion thread, it would be much appreciated.
I will myself do so in a day or two

Cheers,
Ryan.

[JNB]

  IN SC, the only polls taken were from a Democratic pollster. The fact the likely Democratic canidate is a left of center female who is pro choice and anti gun will make the 04 election a uphill climb no matter who she runs against. When the GOP nominee is decided and gets better known, possibly Rep. DeMint, he will unless he runs a horrible campaign pull ahead. In NC, a similar situation, the GOP canidate is not too well known yet. Probably NC Democratic canidate, Bowles, being in the Clinton white house, wont even have the trade issue working for him because of Clintons unabashed support for NAFTA and GATT.

  In GA, the Democrats yet to even have any real canidate enter the race yet. As for KY being a toss-up, based on what? Any Democratic canidate for the KY senate seat will have to face a well funded, non scandal tarred incumbent.  

   When trying to asses a political situaion, one has to get rid of all of the noise and spin and looking at the voting behavior of the varios states. In SC, Inez Tennebaum who is the probably Democratic nominiee is probably similar to LA Sen. Landreau, but there is a world of different between SC and LA, namely the GOP of SC is a powerhouse organisation down to the precinct level than knows how to turn votes out if need be. The 2002 election was a excellent example. The LA GOP outside of a few suburban parish' still is not a viable organisation.

[Ryan]

I couldnt agree more JNB, especially about the difference in GOP organisation in Sc and La. An untold story about the South is how the only reason dems win some races is their vastly superior organizational and GOTV efforts. In la. I'm not sure the GOP's effort can even be called a viable GOTV campaign. The democrats on the other hand are GOOD, I'll give them that. especially in black areas.

Often in the south and esp. in La. you will find that practically evry voter who was willing to vote for the democrat has been pursuaded to do so. While on the other hand thousands of poorly motivated GOP voters stay home or in the case of last Senate election in La.....go Hunting!!!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To repeat they are NOT my predictions but they ARE what the polls are currently showing.
Whether they are accurate or not is VERY different.

[JNB]

  In the Southren states, I will say that the GOP VA, SC, TX and FL has a better ground organisation than the Democrats do, not to mention better financial resources to get out their votes. In TN, AL, MS, NC and GA, the parties in terms of organisation are more or less at parity, with the GOP in TN being hurt by a unpopular former gov that raised taxes and badly alienated the GOP base, while NC the Dems have been greatly helped by the former 4 term Democratic gov who almost single handley let the Dems there remain viable.

  In LA and AR, it seems the GOP has gained little ground since the 70s and is not viable on any level exxcept the presidential level.

[M]

Lamar Alexander raised taxes> Or is that someone else?

If Thune runs, Daschle is definitely vulnerable. I'll be satisfied if the just get the srch-traitor Pattie Murray, to whom Bin Laden id a humanitarian friend of the people and America is an imperialist demon.

[DarthKosh]

Lamar Alexander raised taxes> Or is that someone else?

If Thune runs, Daschle is definitely vulnerable. I'll be satisfied if the just get the srch-traitor Pattie Murray, to whom Bin Laden id a humanitarian friend of the people and America is an imperialist demon.

Bin Laden? or the Bin laden doll?

[M]

Read this and weep.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/100835_murray20.shtml

[jravnsbo]

Ok Hi I'm new here but have posted on other forums.  The GOP will keep control of the House no problem, just too far ahead Dems need to net 13 seats plus with redistricting many prognostigators feel GOP will control HOuse till 20010 at least.

Ok yes this forum is very relevant then.  I see GOP definately keeping control of the chamber.  Dems need to net 2 seats or at least 1 and win presidency.

DEms are just too vulnerable int he SOuth with so many open seats.  I see GA and SC definately going to GOP and likely NC.  FL and LA are a lot moe competitive and tossups depending on a lot of factors.  I do think LA will be open as Breaux hinted strong on "This Wekk" he would retire and announce it by Dec 15 either way.

GOP vulnerable seats have improved significantly.  They were thought to be vulnerable in KY ( gone with GOP surge and Patton scandal); PA b/c of Spector's primary challenge, but it looks like Spector is comfortable.  That leaves OK, which will be competitive but you have to give the GOP an edge b/c of Bush ont he ticket and traditional OK GOP leanings.  I think IL definately favors Dems and will most likely cancel out GA.  AK is a tossup, as Knowles has never run in a Prez election year, but Murkowski name isn't that great with Gov Murkowski and appointing his daughter.  Appoints anyone else and GOP wins easy.

DEms have potential soft targets in SD if Thune runs, WI-straight up as Feingold doesn't take money; Lincoln , Dorgan and Reid could all be vulnerable but GOP doesn't have any strong candidates yet.

Boxer could be interesting with the right candidate and Arnold helping out.

In any event I see GOP picking up seats, making 2006 even harder for DEms.  

[Paul]

As long as the GOP runs decent campaigns in SC and GA, these should be pick-ups.  NC could be a smidge trickier.  FL would probably be a toss-up.  The GOP might be able to present challenges to Daschele or Lincoln (BTW: isn't the current 3rd term governor of Arkansas, Huckabee, running for the Senate?  Anybody have a feeling for his popularity?)
The Dems will probably pick up Illinois easily, and could take AK.  I really don't see a Dem pick-up in Oklahoma, especially if the Republican could strongly ally himself with Bush and cast his opponent as an enemy of Bush's policies.
Reid won't be vulnerable.  He's already raised a lot of money for re-election, and won't be facing a strong opponent.