Senate Elections - 2004

[DarthKosh]

Dems have major problems with open seats in the south.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DarthKosh]

Darth... you belive Richard Nixon?

Over LBJ yes.

[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.

[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?

[DarthKosh]

Five open Dem southern seats.  With Dean as their canidate, boy they are in trouble.

[DarthKosh]

Plus the Dems will now have to spend money there that they wouldn't have had to win Breux running.  

I think this is what hurts the Democrats most- they HAVE TO hold this seat because the GOP has not won a Senate seat in LA since....1860s?
All the funding that could have been poured into Florida is out the window.

The Dems are in protection mode.  Instead of going out to win seats they have to play defense.

[DarthKosh]

I see 4 GOP pickups, maybe a clean sweep! especially if Dean is the nominee.  Plus a gain of around 7-10 seats int he House, pushing the Dems below 200.

I've said it before.  Dean will be a disaster for down ticket Dems especially in the south and mountain west.
Reps will pick up at least four senate seats next year.

[DarthKosh]

In theory of the Democrat's open seats in the South, the most vunerable is SC, followed by GA then FL then NC then LA.
Theory not practice.

In practice they are all very vunerable.

[DarthKosh]

Not if he is replaced by a good guy, preferably (please, please, please!) by JC Watts. I think a young but very popular (not likely to be voted out barring wierdness) senator can be worth more than an older one- not as much danger of him retiring or dying, still vigorous, and has the confidence to hold to his beliefs, a la Burke.

That is why it is such an incredible achievement that the GOP replaced Strom, Jesse, Phil Gramm, and Fred Thompson so seamlessly.

Fred Thompson was a one termer.

[DarthKosh]

In a landslide, anything is possible.

Everything is possible.

[DarthKosh]

Udall isn't running in Colorado.  Campbell will be re-elected easily.

[DarthKosh]

Isn't running.  I think faster then I type.

IS he running, hadn't heard that yet, got a link?

Udall is running in Colorado.  Campbell will be re-elected easily.

[DarthKosh]

Kos is much worse then MYDD.

Obviously partisan (as much as any of us I guess) and very much wishful thinking -- but If I were them, I would be wishing too.

The general assumption here is the Republicans should pick up a few of the retiring Democratic seats for a net gain of 2-3 seats.
However for a fairly detailed alternative view and reality check see:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/24/215824/13
and
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/25/172540/05
In this analysis the GOP will likely lose IL and AK, while OK and CO (if Hart runs) are toss ups.  Races that could come into play are: NH, PA, KY, even UT and AL
The Democrats are likely to lose only GA, with FL as a toss-up, NC, SC, LA lean Democratic, and FL would lean Democratic if Harris runs.  SD might become competitive, if Thune runs. (No mention of WA?)
Thus this analysis gives the Democrats a good chance to take the Senate.

Senate races can run contrary to Presidential races (Bush won in 2000 but the Republicans lost 5 seats), so even a Bush victory does not imply the Republicans will retain the Senate.    I think the Senate races will turn out to be very interesting and we'll need to wait until the primaries are done and the final match-ups are known to get an accurate idea of how they are heading.  If the Presidential race is another close election, it may come down to who can raise the most money under the new rules and who best gets their message across.  Of course, if Bush (or Dean?) wins easily, it would probably affect some of the Senate races as well.

[DarthKosh]

 Dailykos is clueless in my opinion. Too many people who never leave fashionable inner city enclaves or university towns dominate the Democrats on the net.

  In SC, DailyKos did not mention that former SC Gov David Beasley, who lost his re election in 98, is 10 points ahead of Tennenbaum in a poll at 45-35, also the electorate in SC is not 60% female, it may be 52, maybe 53% female at the very most, but that 60% number is a illusion. Unless the GOP self destructs here, the GOP will pick up the SC senate seat, especially with Bush on top of the ballot.

The only reason Tennenbaum got as many votes as she did is because she ran unopposed.

[DarthKosh]

Is John Edwards running for re-election or will he use his new popularity for somthing maybe governor.  

Edwards is not popular in NC that is why he is running for president.

[DarthKosh]

Kos is much worse then MYDD.

Obviously partisan (as much as any of us I guess) and very much wishful thinking -- but If I were them, I would be wishing too.

The general assumption here is the Republicans should pick up a few of the retiring Democratic seats for a net gain of 2-3 seats.
However for a fairly detailed alternative view and reality check see:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/24/215824/13
and
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/25/172540/05
In this analysis the GOP will likely lose IL and AK, while OK and CO (if Hart runs) are toss ups.  Races that could come into play are: NH, PA, KY, even UT and AL
The Democrats are likely to lose only GA, with FL as a toss-up, NC, SC, LA lean Democratic, and FL would lean Democratic if Harris runs.  SD might become competitive, if Thune runs. (No mention of WA?)
Thus this analysis gives the Democrats a good chance to take the Senate.

Senate races can run contrary to Presidential races (Bush won in 2000 but the Republicans lost 5 seats), so even a Bush victory does not imply the Republicans will retain the Senate.    I think the Senate races will turn out to be very interesting and we'll need to wait until the primaries are done and the final match-ups are known to get an accurate idea of how they are heading.  If the Presidential race is another close election, it may come down to who can raise the most money under the new rules and who best gets their message across.  Of course, if Bush (or Dean?) wins easily, it would probably affect some of the Senate races as well.

What is MYDD??

He was a blogger who thought that the Dems would have 56 senates seats and the house after last election.

[DarthKosh]

That is why he is running for pres.  He knew he would lose the senate seat.

He is not running but he COULD HAVE he had so desired.  But Edwards was not popular enough in either race to make it work.

Is John Edwards running for re-election or will he use his new popularity for somthing maybe governor.  

Can Edwards run for re-election in the senate if he is running for president cause i no in some states you can't?