Senate Elections - 2004

[NorthernDog]

Is anyone following the Senate races?  Looks like it will be tough for Democrats to recpature a majority of seats.  The retirement of incumbent Democrats in NC, SC, GA, and FL are going to  be hard to hang on to.  Breaux in LA seems to be demuring.  On the other hand IL and AK could flip GOP to Democrat.  There's always some surprises too.  Personally I hope Boxer is voted out - she's never been too popular in CA.
Predictions?  GOP net +2.

[DarthKosh]

Dems have major problems with open seats in the south.

[Sibboleth]

Just because an incumbent vacates his seat does not mean that the "enemy" gains it.

What might happen in 2004 is the Dems gaining control of the House while the GOP cement their hold on the Senate.

I stress the word "might".

[Beet]

Usually Congressional races are determined by turnout for the Presidential race, so I guess a lot depends on how strong Bush is?

[Ryan]

First of all, thanks for starting this thread Northerndog, to be honest you beat me to it by about an Hour

The reason I wanted to start the thread was to hear people's evaluation of individual senate races in 2004 like we have had for the last round of gubernatorial races.
For those who don't have enough info to work with; I recommend the evaluation on the following link;

http://www.cookpolitical.com/menu.cfm?section=senate

Needless to say it would be preferable to restrict oneself to neutral evaluations of likely election results and not to attack incumbents or challengers. Obviously if there are allegations which will definitely have an effect on the race that is an exception.

Look forward to some good old fashioned crystal ball stuff

PS. Even if you have enough info, check out the link, IT ROCKS!!!!

[DarthKosh]

Just because an incumbent vacates his seat does not mean that the "enemy" gains it.

What might happen in 2004 is the Dems gaining control of the House while the GOP cement their hold on the Senate.

I stress the word "might".

There is not that many house seats that are competitive for the dems to win the house.  THe trouble in the senate is that all of the retirements are in the blue states.

[Ryan]

Just because an incumbent vacates his seat does not mean that the "enemy" gains it.

What might happen in 2004 is the Dems gaining control of the House while the GOP cement their hold on the Senate.

I stress the word "might".

Well your first conclusion is obvious. In 2002 the GOP held on to ALL of their open seats
What Northerndog is getting at is that all the Dem open seats (mebbe cept Florida and thats neutral at best) are in very tough territory for the democrats and have a higher likelihood of switching than most of the other competitive races with an incumbent.

AS to the 2004 results while your Senate conclusion seems most likely I am surprised at your prediction on the house. These days even democrats are not optimistic about regaining the House. Of course if possible please post your opinion in the House races 2004 link

[Sibboleth]

I said might

The House should(in theory) lean Democrat while the Senate should(in theory) lean GOP.

I stress the word theory...

[DarthKosh]

I said might

The House should(in theory) lean Democrat while the Senate should(in theory) lean GOP.

I stress the word theory...

I don't understand in theory how the house leans Dem.

[Ryan]

I said might

The House should(in theory) lean Democrat while the Senate should(in theory) lean GOP.

I stress the word theory...

I don't understand in theory how the house leans Dem.

Me either As far as I'm concerned its the other way around. (Refer my discussion thread-Natural Republican majority in Congressional Districts. in the same "Congressional Elections" forum.

Perhaps Realpolik will enlighten us soon
Btw this may be better in the House 2004 discussion so we have all our info in the right place.

[NorthernDog]

California Rep David Drier (R) has declined to run against Barbara Boxer for the Senate next year.  He was probably the strongest candidate the GOP could have fielded.  Her seat will probably stay in the Democrat column

[zorkpolitics]

Alaska is rated a toss up by most observers, since the incumbent Murkowski was appointed to the seat by her dad.  All previous polls I've seen favored ex-Governor Knowles (D).  A local TV station has begun a series of monthly polls and the first one out shows the race is close:
Knowles 44% Murkowski 43% +/-4% see:
http://www.msnbc.com/local/ktuu/m340014.asp?0ct=-302

[rbt48]

I read in a CQ POLITICS DAILY e-mail today that Sen Breaux, D-LA, will probably decide by Dec 15 whether he'll seek reelection.  If he does retire, among possible candidates are two House members, 1st District Republican David Vitter and 7th District Democrat Chris John.

[DarthKosh]

Alaska is rated a toss up by most observers, since the incumbent Murkowski was appointed to the seat by her dad.  All previous polls I've seen favored ex-Governor Knowles (D).  A local TV station has begun a series of monthly polls and the first one out shows the race is close:
Knowles 44% Murkowski 43% +/-4% see:
http://www.msnbc.com/local/ktuu/m340014.asp?0ct=-302

Bush will help Murkowski big time in her race.

[DarthKosh]

I read in a CQ POLITICS DAILY e-mail today that Sen Breaux, D-LA, will probably decide by Dec 15 whether he'll seek reelection.  If he does retire, among possible candidates are two House members, 1st District Republican David Vitter and 7th District Democrat Chris John.

It's been known for a while that if Breaux was to retire, Vitter and John was going to run.

[Nym90]

Well, Bush being at the top of the ticket would help Murkowski, but I doubt he'll make very many campaign appearances to help her out.
In fact, when was the last time any Presidential candidate campaigned in Alaska or Hawaii in the general election? There isn't much point, since neither is competitive, and they are so far away from the rest of the country.

[Demrepdan]

In fact, when was the last time any Presidential candidate campaigned in Alaska or Hawaii in the general election? There isn't much point, since neither is competitive, and they are so far away from the rest of the country.

Al Gore, during the 2000 election, vowed to visit all 50 states during his campaign. So I assume he visited Alaska and Hawaii at least once. Unless, for whatever reason, he had to go back on this promise during his campaign.

[DarthKosh]

In fact, when was the last time any Presidential candidate campaigned in Alaska or Hawaii in the general election? There isn't much point, since neither is competitive, and they are so far away from the rest of the country.

Al Gore, during the 2000 election, vowed to visit all 50 states during his campaign. So I assume he visited Alaska and Hawaii at least once. Unless, for whatever reason, he had to go back on this promise during his campaign.

Gore had a layover in Alaska.

[NorthernDog]

Is there any new news on the Oklahoma Senate race? I know that Nickels in retiring and the Democrats were promising to field a strong candidate.  Even though the state is a  GOP strong-hold (so much for Republicans being the party of the rich) the Democrats will be desperate to pick up this seat.

[rbt48]

Nixon pledged to campaign in all 50 states in 1960.  He kept his pledge and went to Alaska during the critical last week of the campaign.  He did carry Alaska, but getting those 3 electoral votes, according to some, cost him close larger states (IL, MO, MN) and with them, the Presidency.

[DarthKosh]

Nixon pledged to campaign in all 50 states in 1960.  He kept his pledge and went to Alaska during the critical last week of the campaign.  He did carry Alaska, but getting those 3 electoral votes, according to some, cost him close larger states (IL, MO, MN) and with them, the Presidency.

Voter fraud in Texas and Chicago is what caused Nixon the election.

[Nym90]

Well, there would have had to have been a lot of fraud in Texas...Kennedy won it by 2%, or about 46,000 votes. It seems highly unlikely that margin could have been produced by fraud.
Is there evidence to support the claim that Texas was stolen for Kennedy?

[rbt48]

I think the main argument about Texas in 1960 is that LBJ so thoroughly controled Texas (from county court house to the state capitol), that even if he needed 100,000 votes, his friends and followers would have manufactured them.  One must wonder why they came up with 46,258 extra votes:  perhaps just to deflect suspicion.

Illinois in 1960 is much more certain the result of fraud.  The Daley forces weren't even coy about altering results.  They held back results in early Wed morning until they saw how big a margin they needed to overcome from downstate.  Several precincts in Chicago were 100% for Kennedy--no Nixon votes, no minor party candidates, no write-ins.  Similar stories came from St Louis where the Missouri margin for Kennedy was 9,990 votes.

[Sibboleth]

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

[JNB]

 Realpolitik, wrong. Downstate IL at the time did and still as a Democratic machine in the St. Claire and Madison county suburbs of St Louis, and further south of there, untill recently, that area was dominated by Democrats(albiet of a more southren stripe). Rock Island was and still is dominated by Democrats as well. So if you have any proof of GOP fraud in 1960, please present it.