2008 Senate Outlook vol. 1

[© tweed]

Safe Republican

Alabama - Jeff Sessions
Idaho - Larry Craig
Kansas - Pat Roberts
Kentucky - Mitch McConnell
Mississippi - Thad Cochran
Oklahoma - James Inhofe
South Carolina - Lindsey Graham
Tennessee - Lamar Alexander
Texas - John Cornyn
Wyoming - Mike Enzi
Wyoming - John Barasso

Likely Republican

Alaska - Ted Stevens (Conrad Burns of '08?  probably not - Stevens is an institution, Burns wasn't, although there appears to be some discontent in AK with Stevens.  Of course, even if he becomes vulnerable, it's not like anyone up there can beat him)
Georgia - Saxby Chambliss
Nebraska - Chuck Hagel / Open (a few things have to break right for the Dems to have a real chance, the most important one being that Bob Kerrey runs.  If he doesn't Dems chances deflate to <10%.  But even if he does run it's no better than 50-50)
New Mexico - Pete Domenici (that scandal has already been long forgotten it appears, but if it resurfaces it might blow up in Domenici's face, making him vulnerable)

Lean Republican

Maine - Susan Collins
North Carolina - Elizabeth Dole
Oregon - Gordon Smith

Tossup

Minnesota - Norm Coleman (tempted to put this in Lean R but didn't)
New Hampshire - John Sununu
Virginia - Open / John Warner (Republicans probably hold on if Mark doesn't run, which he won't [he may have struck a VP deal with Hillary already, if not, Gov '09] but it's worth a look)

Lean Democratic

Louisiana - Mary Landrieu (blacks got washed away but GOP doesn't have a bench)

Likely Democratic

*Colorado - Open (hard to see how Udall loses at this point)
Montana - Max Baucus (Rehberg could, in theory, make it interesting)
New Jersey - Frank Lautenberg

Solid Democratic

Arkansas - Mark Pryor
Delaware - Joe Biden
Illinois - Dick Durbin
Iowa - Tom Harkin
Massachusetts - John Kerry
Michigan - Carl Levin
Rhode Island - Jack Reed
South Dakota - Tim Johnson
West Virginia - Jay Rockefeller

-------------------------

Most likely outcome is around D+3, which makes the Senate 52 D 46 R 2 I.  I'm around 95% confident the result will be between D+1 and D+5. 

[Sam Spade]

Pretty good, though the following corrections need to be made.  None of the changes take into account "potential" retirements FYI.

South Carolina should be in Likely, but only for the possibility of a primary challenger.

I am loathe to put Saxby in Likely, mainly b/c he has correctly taken a hard right turn against the Immigration Bill, but leaving him there is ok.

I don't trust Alaska polling, henceforth my feelings are the same about Stevens.

North Carolina is on the edge between Lean and Likely.

If Al Franken or Mike Ciresi is the nominee in Minnesota, that state should be in Lean R.

Virginia is such that if Warner runs, it's Likely R, maybe even Safe.  If he doesn't, Toss-up until we know the candidates.

Louisiana is a correct call, except if the GOP gets a good candidate and that may well happen. (or it may not)

Colorado is your main flaw and should be in toss-up.  Udall is too liberal for the state to be Lean D at best (and yes I know the Udall family history).  Schraeder is not that weak of a candidate, either, just FYI.

My gut wants to say New Jersey in Safe.

South Dakota should be at least in Likely, maybe Lean, depends on what Johnson does.

All these other Safe Rs, safe Ds could move down depending on retirements or challengers.  We'll see.

[Aizen]

Colorado is a toss-up but Udall is doing a pretty good job at moving to the center while Schaffer has been saying things that makes him look like he's going even further to the right

[Sam Spade]

Another thing:  All of these opinions are subject to change based on polling and intuition. 

[© tweed]

South Carolina should be in Likely, but only for the possibility of a primary challenger.

even if Graham was defeated in a primary I doubt the Dems could find a candidate who could win.

[Conan]

Safe Republican

Alabama - Jeff Sessions
Idaho - Larry Craig
Kansas - Pat Roberts
Mississippi - Thad Cochran
Oklahoma - James Inhofe
South Carolina - Lindsey Graham
Tennessee - Lamar Alexander
Texas - John Cornyn
Wyoming - Mike Enzi
Wyoming - John Barasso

Likely Republican

Kentucky - Mitch McConnell
Alaska - Ted Stevens  (only likely republican because his corruption case can widen and Begich might be a decent challenger, otherwise, it's safe)
Georgia - Saxby Chambliss
Nebraska - Chuck Hagel (see placement with Hagel not running)
New Mexico - Pete Domenici
Oregon - Gordon Smith (Oregon Dems are cowards. Otherwise if we had Kitzhaber, DeFazio, or Blumenauer running, this would be toss-up or leans dem)
North Carolina - Elizabeth Dole, no challenger has emerged. If a credible one does, this seat will remain at least lean republican until early to mid 2008.
Virginia- John Warner (see placement for open seat)

Lean Republican

Maine - Susan Collins

Tossup

Minnesota - Norm Coleman (tempted to put this in Lean R but didn't)
New Hampshire - John Sununu
Virginia - Open, dem challenger is Moran, Davis is republican, this is toss-up and slight lean GOP (see open, Warner)

Lean Democratic

Louisiana - Mary Landrieu, although there is no foreseeable challenger, you never know what can happen with the demographic shift in a state that was moving away from the dems anyway
Nebraska - Open, (Only if Kerrey runs and Bruning is the GOP nom., otherwise it's likely or safe republican)

Likely Democratic

Colorado - Open, Udall
Montana - Max Baucus, no credible challenger
Virginia - Mark Warner, you know why

Solid Democratic

Arkansas - Mark Pryor
Delaware - Joe Biden
Illinois - Dick Durbin
Iowa - Tom Harkin
Massachusetts - John Kerry
New Jersey - Frank Lautenberg, GOP has no one to run
Michigan - Carl Levin
Rhode Island - Jack Reed
South Dakota - Tim Johnson, no challenger has emerged
West Virginia - Jay Rockefeller

-------------------------

As of now, I am truly convinced that we will pick up Colorado, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. If Warner runs in VA we can win there, Kerrey against Bruning in Nebraska, we can win that, and if one of the three mentioned in the Oregon race steps up, we will win there. Maine is a money race. Dole can be beat, but I doubt we will get a good challenger.

2008-
at least a net of +3 as of right now....

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Saxby anything but safe?  What could possibly be the logic behind that?

[Conan]

Saxby anything but safe?  What could possibly be the logic behind that?

There's a good bench of Dems. Marshall and Barnes can run, but I doubt either would.

[Keystone Phil]

Saxby anything but safe?  What could possibly be the logic behind that?

There's a good bench of Dems. Marshall and Barnes can run, but I doubt either would.

Why would the former Governor who was defeated for re-election five years ago by about five points be considered a strong candidate?

[Mr.Phips]

Saxby anything but safe?  What could possibly be the logic behind that?

There's a good bench of Dems. Marshall and Barnes can run, but I doubt either would.

Why would the former Governor who was defeated for re-election five years ago by about five points be considered a strong candidate?

He was very popular, he just got swept away in a bad year for his party.  Blah Blah Blah.  Jeez, Im starting to sound like you Phil. 

[Conan]

Saxby anything but safe?  What could possibly be the logic behind that?

There's a good bench of Dems. Marshall and Barnes can run, but I doubt either would.

Why would the former Governor who was defeated for re-election five years ago by about five points be considered a strong candidate?

That's really a stupid question. Anybody who knows anything about current events today, the state of the national GOP, the 2002 election, and pretty much anything about politics would know why he would be a good candidate. I never said strong but come to think of it, he would be a strong candidate. If he lost it wouldnt be more than 55-45%.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Saxby anything but safe?  What could possibly be the logic behind that?

There's a good bench of Dems. Marshall and Barnes can run, but I doubt either would.

Why would the former Governor who was defeated for re-election five years ago by about five points be considered a strong candidate?

That's really a stupid question. Anybody who knows anything about current events today, the state of the national GOP, the 2002 election, and pretty much anything about politics would know why he would be a good candidate. I never said strong but come to think of it, he would be a strong candidate. If he lost it wouldnt be more than 55-45%.

And anyone who knows Georgia knows that (non-incumbent) Dems are pretty much finished there statewide, regardless of year.  Georgia has moved several points to the GOP since 2002—and continued its rightward trend in 2006 even while other states were moving in the opposite direction.

Which is beyond the point: everyone knows Roy Barnes isn't going to run, so its absolutely ridiculous to factor that in as a possibility.

[Conan]

Saxby anything but safe?  What could possibly be the logic behind that?

There's a good bench of Dems. Marshall and Barnes can run, but I doubt either would.

Why would the former Governor who was defeated for re-election five years ago by about five points be considered a strong candidate?

That's really a stupid question. Anybody who knows anything about current events today, the state of the national GOP, the 2002 election, and pretty much anything about politics would know why he would be a good candidate. I never said strong but come to think of it, he would be a strong candidate. If he lost it wouldnt be more than 55-45%.

And anyone who knows Georgia knows that (non-incumbent) Dems are pretty much finished there statewide, regardless of year.  Georgia has moved several points to the GOP since 2002—and continued its rightward trend in 2006 even while other states were moving in the opposite direction.

Which is beyond the point: everyone knows Roy Barnes isn't going to run, so its absolutely ridiculous to factor that in as a possibility.

I didnt predict a win. I predicted likely GOP. Just not safe GOP because there are candidates who can attain 45%+ I believe. None of those candidates are going to run anyway.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

If that's the standard, then South Dakota, Delaware, Tennessee, Wyoming, Kansas, Michigan, or Arkansas can't be safe whatever either.

[Keystone Phil]

Saxby anything but safe?  What could possibly be the logic behind that?

There's a good bench of Dems. Marshall and Barnes can run, but I doubt either would.

Why would the former Governor who was defeated for re-election five years ago by about five points be considered a strong candidate?

He was very popular, he just got swept away in a bad year for his party.  Blah Blah Blah.  Jeez, Im starting to sound like you Phil. 

That's really a stupid question. Anybody who knows anything about current events today, the state of the national GOP, the 2002 election, and pretty much anything about politics would know why he would be a good candidate. I never said strong but come to think of it, he would be a strong candidate. If he lost it wouldnt be more than 55-45%.

...then tell me why he's a good candidate. I know why he lost last time. I know how the GOP is now. That doesn't tell me why he'd be a good candidate though. Both of you told me why he lost, not why he'd be good in 2008.

[Conan]

Saxby anything but safe?  What could possibly be the logic behind that?

There's a good bench of Dems. Marshall and Barnes can run, but I doubt either would.

Why would the former Governor who was defeated for re-election five years ago by about five points be considered a strong candidate?

He was very popular, he just got swept away in a bad year for his party.  Blah Blah Blah.  Jeez, Im starting to sound like you Phil. 

That's really a stupid question. Anybody who knows anything about current events today, the state of the national GOP, the 2002 election, and pretty much anything about politics would know why he would be a good candidate. I never said strong but come to think of it, he would be a strong candidate. If he lost it wouldnt be more than 55-45%.

...then tell me why he's a good candidate. I know why he lost last time. I know how the GOP is now. That doesn't tell me why he'd be a good candidate though. Both of you told me why he lost, not why he'd be good in 2008.

Anybody who knows anything about current events today, the state of the national GOP, the 2002 election, and pretty much anything about politics would know why he would be a good candidate.

[Keystone Phil]

Anybody who knows anything about current events today, the state of the national GOP, the 2002 election, and pretty much anything about politics would know why he would be a good candidate.

Ok, again, the 2002 election is an excuse for why Barnes lost, not why he'd be good in 2008.

Newsflash - Just because things aren't that great now and the national GOP isn't where it once was doesn't mean they'll be losing in states that are increasingly more Republican.

Keep making weak points like "Uh, basically if you know about politics you know why he'd be totally awesome." You're only proving that you have no susbstance.

[HardRCafé]

He was very popular, he just got swept away in a bad year for his party.  Blah Blah Blah.  Jeez, Im starting to sound like you Phil. 

He was very popular outside Georgia.  In Georgia, he was so unpopular, he lost to an almost total unknown by six percent.  Even the teachers turned against him.

Have you ever been to Georgia?

[Joe Biden 2020]

If that's the standard, then South Dakota, Delaware, Tennessee, Wyoming, Kansas, Michigan, or Arkansas can't be safe whatever either.

And by some respects, using that same standard, you should include Oklahoma in that list.  Inhofe will probably win Oklahoma, but he's far from a sure bet.

[Sam Spade]

I keep meaning to put up my list for 2008, but I've been waiting on the hope better candidates for some of these races will enter.

Barnes in 2002 lost b/c of a flag StatesRights and I respect greatly, lest people forget (and an excellent Ralph Reed ground game)

PS: Inhofe is safe. A 60% approval doesn't lie (unless it's contradicted by another poll)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

If that's the standard, then South Dakota, Delaware, Tennessee, Wyoming, Kansas, Michigan, or Arkansas can't be safe whatever either.

And by some respects, using that same standard, you should include Oklahoma in that list.  Inhofe will probably win Oklahoma, but he's far from a sure bet.

And Chafee could run in Rhode Island, Bill Weld could return to run in Massachusetts, Zell Miller could run in Georgia, or whatever.  Is ANY state so partisanly inclined that they couldn't give the ideal candidate from one party a 55 - 45% loss over a lackluster candidate from the other?

[HardRCafé]

Illinois would give the ideal Republican against Durbin, the less popular senator, worse than that.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Illinois would give the ideal Republican against Durbin, the less popular senator, worse than that.

u have kno respect for alan keys

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I think 2-3 seat net gain for the Dems is probable the most accurate, adding NH, CO, and/or MN.

[Rawlings]

Colorado is likely Democrat?  Yeah.  Dream on...