Senate Prediction 2008

[Mr.Phips]

He was trailing Allen by 4 pts that's why he didn't run in 2006. Mark Warner will be a tough challenger, but it won't be that easy. And voters look at the top of the ticket, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, her liberal voting record will have an effect on the race. Just like John Kerry's did on the senate candidates as well.

Thats not always the case.  John Kerry hurt Dems in open seats that they were defending in deep South states that Kerry lost by at least 15 points save for Florida.  Every Democratic Senate incumbent was reelected in 2004 except for Tom Daschle.  Ken Salazar was able to win an open seat in Colorado even as Kerry was losing the state by three points.  Virginia would likely be similar if Mark Warner ran.

[Former Moderate]

As I understand it, Warner's approvals are at 62%. I don't think that spells election defeat. Although it may or maynot help out Davis. That is pretty good for your party in reelection sense. I don't see as of yet VA as a top tier opportunity for the Dems, it probably will be later, but it is a 2nd tier pickup opportunity.

Yes, but Warner is almost certainly not running for reelection, and the likely Democratic challenger is Mark Warner, with a 70% approval rating.

I don't see Mark Warner as a likely candidate for U.S. Senate at all.  I see him as a Vice Presidential or Gubernatorial candidate instead.

[Rawlings]

Marquee Races:
CO: Schaffer def. Udall 50-49
IO: Harkin def. King 51-48
LA: Kennedy def. Landrieu 53-47*
ME: Collins def. Allen 49-45
MT: Racicot def. Baucus 50.1-49.9
NE: Bruening def. Fahey 53-46
NH: Sweet def. Sununu 51-48*
OR: Smith def. Westlund 50-48
SD: Rounds def. Daschle 49-48*
VA: Davis def. Moran 51-48

Competitive Races:
AK: Stevens def. Eric Berkowitz 55-40
MN: Coleman def. Franken 52-42
NJ: Lautenberg def. Kean Jr. 54-45

I agree with everything except for Oregon.  I think Gordie is toast!

[Keystone Phil]

I agree with everything except for Oregon.  I think Gordie is toast!

"Gordie" is toast even though he faces no major opposition as of yet and Colorado is staying GOP? Ok.

[Sam Spade]

My prediction right now would be:  Dems win Colorado and New Hampshire.  That's it.

But it's way too early for making predictions right now.  We'll know more by October or so (or maybe later).

[Rob]

But it's way too early for making predictions right now.  We'll know more by October or so (or maybe later).

But will even that help? I seem to recall some posters predicting a Steele win days before the election.

[Jaggerjack]

I agree with everything except for Oregon.  I think Gordie is toast!

"Gordie" is toast even though he faces no major opposition as of yet and Colorado is staying GOP? Ok.

Don't forget the kind of person Rawlings is

[Sam Spade]

But it's way too early for making predictions right now.  We'll know more by October or so (or maybe later).

But will even that help? I seem to recall some posters predicting a Steele win days before the election.

Har de har har...

Actually, other than the Steele and Chafee predictions, I pretty much nailed every race within MOE and some of them (like Webb/Allen), the % was nailed as well. The polling didn't help on Chafee.

But that's ok.  In 2004, I screwed up Alaska and Colorado as well.  No one's perfect.  Of course, the polling didn't help on Alaska in that race either.

My history is to nail a couple of races everyone else misses and to screw up a couple of races that most everyone else gets right.  Partially b/c I take chances and listen to my gut and notwithstanding my allegiance to polls, I think surprises do occasionally happen.

I can only hope over time that my gut gets better at predicting.

[Sam Spade]

I agree with everything except for Oregon.  I think Gordie is toast!

"Gordie" is toast even though he faces no major opposition as of yet and Colorado is staying GOP? Ok.

Don't forget the kind of person Rawlings is

That doesn't make any sense.  At least until Gordie gets an opponent who is not some tier above third...

[Jaggerjack]

I agree with everything except for Oregon.  I think Gordie is toast!

"Gordie" is toast even though he faces no major opposition as of yet and Colorado is staying GOP? Ok.

Don't forget the kind of person Rawlings is

That doesn't make any sense.  At least until Gordie gets an opponent who is not some tier above third...

Rawlings thinks Colorado is a Republican state like South Carolina or Utah, no matter what and he'd be willing to put anything ahead of his beloved home state going Democratic. That's what I was getting at.

[Mr.Phips]

Marquee Races:
CO: Schaffer def. Udall 50-49
IO: Harkin def. King 51-48
LA: Kennedy def. Landrieu 53-47*
ME: Collins def. Allen 49-45
MT: Racicot def. Baucus 50.1-49.9
NE: Bruening def. Fahey 53-46
NH: Sweet def. Sununu 51-48*
OR: Smith def. Westlund 50-48
SD: Rounds def. Daschle 49-48*
VA: Davis def. Moran 51-48

Competitive Races:
AK: Stevens def. Eric Berkowitz 55-40
MN: Coleman def. Franken 52-42
NJ: Lautenberg def. Kean Jr. 54-45

I agree with everything except for Oregon.  I think Gordie is toast!

The Republicans are not beating Tim Johnson or Max Baucus.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

and I think Mr.Smith will be fine...for now.

[Jaggerjack]

It's disappointing. Oregon is supposed to lean blue, and we don't even have a credible challenger to shoot down Smith!

[OC]

He was trailing Allen by 4 pts that's why he didn't run in 2006. Mark Warner will be a tough challenger, but it won't be that easy. And voters look at the top of the ticket, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, her liberal voting record will have an effect on the race. Just like John Kerry's did on the senate candidates as well.

Thats not always the case.  John Kerry hurt Dems in open seats that they were defending in deep South states that Kerry lost by at least 15 points save for Florida.  Every Democratic Senate incumbent was reelected in 2004 except for Tom Daschle.  Ken Salazar was able to win an open seat in Colorado even as Kerry was losing the state by three points.  Virginia would likely be similar if Mark Warner ran.

The difference is that Kerry lost CO by 4 pts and Bush carried VA by 9 pts.

I agree that Mark Warner is much more likely an executive not a senator.

[Rawlings]

I agree with everything except for Oregon.  I think Gordie is toast!

"Gordie" is toast even though he faces no major opposition as of yet and Colorado is staying GOP? Ok.

Don't forget the kind of person Rawlings is

That doesn't make any sense.  At least until Gordie gets an opponent who is not some tier above third...

Rawlings thinks Colorado is a Republican state like South Carolina or Utah, no matter what and he'd be willing to put anything ahead of his beloved home state going Democratic. That's what I was getting at.

Oh please, Fabian!  Colorado is much more conservative than Oregon and Smith has a lost a lot of his base in rural Oregon because of his stances on the war.  It's a miracle that Gordie even got re-elected in the first place in uber-liberal Oregon.

Colorado is an entirely different state.  It has a GOP registration advantage, is a consistently red state for POTUS, and will have Schaffer replacing the Senate's most conservative voting member (Allard).  It ain't Utah...but neither is it Oregon or your homestate.

[Aizen]

I agree with everything except for Oregon.  I think Gordie is toast!

"Gordie" is toast even though he faces no major opposition as of yet and Colorado is staying GOP? Ok.

Don't forget the kind of person Rawlings is

That doesn't make any sense.  At least until Gordie gets an opponent who is not some tier above third...

Rawlings thinks Colorado is a Republican state like South Carolina or Utah, no matter what and he'd be willing to put anything ahead of his beloved home state going Democratic. That's what I was getting at.

Oh please, Fabian!  Colorado is much more conservative than Oregon and Smith has a lost a lot of his base in rural Oregon because of his stances on the war.  It's a miracle that Gordie even got re-elected in the first place in uber-liberal Oregon.

Colorado is an entirely different state.  It has a GOP registration advantage, is a consistently red state for POTUS, and will have Schaffer replacing the Senate's most conservative voting member (Allard).  It ain't Utah...but neither is it Oregon or your homestate.

1. Stop calling him Gordie. I mean, what the hell?
2. Stop flaunting the fact that Republicans has a narrow edge over Democrats in voter registration. Oklahoma has more reigstered Democrats than Republicans. Voter registration stats don't matter, it's the unaffiliated who decide.
3. Oregon and Colorado are not as far apart as you're making it seem. Yes, Oregon is obviously more liberal but Oregon didn't even go 52% for Kerry while Colorado didn't even go 52% for Bush.
4. Allard is the most conservastive senate member? What are you basing this on? Regardless, Allard is not popular in Colorado so that's nothing to be proud of.

[Rawlings]

I agree with everything except for Oregon.  I think Gordie is toast!

"Gordie" is toast even though he faces no major opposition as of yet and Colorado is staying GOP? Ok.

Don't forget the kind of person Rawlings is

That doesn't make any sense.  At least until Gordie gets an opponent who is not some tier above third...

Rawlings thinks Colorado is a Republican state like South Carolina or Utah, no matter what and he'd be willing to put anything ahead of his beloved home state going Democratic. That's what I was getting at.

Oh please, Fabian!  Colorado is much more conservative than Oregon and Smith has a lost a lot of his base in rural Oregon because of his stances on the war.  It's a miracle that Gordie even got re-elected in the first place in uber-liberal Oregon.

Colorado is an entirely different state.  It has a GOP registration advantage, is a consistently red state for POTUS, and will have Schaffer replacing the Senate's most conservative voting member (Allard).  It ain't Utah...but neither is it Oregon or your homestate.

1. Stop calling him Gordie. I mean, what the hell?
2. Stop flaunting the fact that Republicans has a narrow edge over Democrats in voter registration. Oklahoma has more reigstered Democrats than Republicans. Voter registration stats don't matter, it's the unaffiliated who decide.
3. Oregon and Colorado are not as far apart as you're making it seem. Yes, Oregon is obviously more liberal but Oregon didn't even go 52% for Kerry while Colorado didn't even go 52% for Bush.
4. Allard is the most conservastive senate member? What are you basing this on? Regardless, Allard is not popular in Colorado so that's nothing to be proud of.

1.  You're kind of a whiner.
2. You don't think registration advantages matter?  Just because it doesn't work in your favor doesn't  mean it's not important.
3. I've lived in both.  Trust me.  They are VERY different.  The GOP always comes close in Oregon but the state is too solidly blue to turn.  I think Colorado is a parallel example for the GOP.  It's like turning the Titanic around.
4. Allard was re-elected.  You may not like him, but the people of Colorado obviously do.  And, by the way, he was rated most conservative member based upon his voting record by some group about a year ago. 

[Aizen]

I agree with everything except for Oregon.  I think Gordie is toast!

"Gordie" is toast even though he faces no major opposition as of yet and Colorado is staying GOP? Ok.

Don't forget the kind of person Rawlings is

That doesn't make any sense.  At least until Gordie gets an opponent who is not some tier above third...

Rawlings thinks Colorado is a Republican state like South Carolina or Utah, no matter what and he'd be willing to put anything ahead of his beloved home state going Democratic. That's what I was getting at.

Oh please, Fabian!  Colorado is much more conservative than Oregon and Smith has a lost a lot of his base in rural Oregon because of his stances on the war.  It's a miracle that Gordie even got re-elected in the first place in uber-liberal Oregon.

Colorado is an entirely different state.  It has a GOP registration advantage, is a consistently red state for POTUS, and will have Schaffer replacing the Senate's most conservative voting member (Allard).  It ain't Utah...but neither is it Oregon or your homestate.

1. Stop calling him Gordie. I mean, what the hell?
2. Stop flaunting the fact that Republicans has a narrow edge over Democrats in voter registration. Oklahoma has more reigstered Democrats than Republicans. Voter registration stats don't matter, it's the unaffiliated who decide.
3. Oregon and Colorado are not as far apart as you're making it seem. Yes, Oregon is obviously more liberal but Oregon didn't even go 52% for Kerry while Colorado didn't even go 52% for Bush.
4. Allard is the most conservastive senate member? What are you basing this on? Regardless, Allard is not popular in Colorado so that's nothing to be proud of.

1.  You're kind of a whiner.
2. You don't think registration advantages matter?  Just because it doesn't work in your favor doesn't  mean it's not important.
3. I've lived in both.  Trust me.  They are VERY different.  The GOP always comes close in Oregon but the state is too solidly blue to turn.  I think Colorado is a parallel example for the GOP.  It's like turning the Titanic around.
4. Allard was re-elected.  You may not like him, but the people of Colorado obviously do.  And, by the way, he was rated most conservative member based upon his voting record by some group about a year ago. 

Stop being an idiot and pay attention. Oklahoma. Has. More. Registered. Democrats. Than. Republicans. That. State. Is. Not. Going. Democrat. Anytime. Soon. Your. Argument. Sucks.


The people of Colorado like Allard? I'm sorry, but you leave me no choice. I'm going to once again have to use facts on you. Allard has a 44% approval rating as of the last SUSA tracker. Allard won in 2002 for two reasons. Strickland ran a lousy campaign but more importantly, 2002 was a GREAT year for Republicans. 2008 is not going to be 2002 and Colorado Democrats have made undeniable, significant strides since 2002.

[Big DaddyTX]

New Hampshire, and Colorado are two states that will go Democrat in 2008,  the only thing that Schaffer will do is keep Udall from getting 60% of the vote.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Rawlings kind of sounds like the Republican equivalent to Colorado to me on Minnesota.

Although despite my obvious biases, his arguments mostly boil down to "Colorado is conservative, end of story", while mine were pointing out how very deeply flawed the points about Minnesota "trending Republican" were.

[Rawlings]

Rawlings kind of sounds like the Republican equivalent to Colorado to me on Minnesota.

Although despite my obvious biases, his arguments mostly boil down to "Colorado is conservative, end of story", while mine were pointing out how very deeply flawed the points about Minnesota "trending Republican" were.

No.  I've given plenty of reasons.  I think the Democratic bench is obviously empty in Colorado.  The Democrats trotted out two wonderful, centrist candidates for Senate and governor and they both won against weak opponents. I don't see how that's exactly a "blude tide."

Listen, Salazar is a lot like Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Ritter is a pro-life, ex-missionary.  Those two are tailor-made for Colorado.

Also, how can you underestimate the impact of funding for the Democrats?  They bought the election last year!  Tim Gill and Pat Stryker realized that the people of Colorado wouldn't vote for their gay rights agenda and so they tried to buy it through the state government.  Last year Coloradans unexpectedly voted against gay civil unions (hardly the grist for a left-moving state, yes?).  Gill and Stryker thought they could buy that vote too (they outspent Focus on the Family 5:1).  When you give Colorado the vote, we don't vote liberal.

Finally, what I see is a wealthier, more centrist Democratic Party in Colorado that is capitalizing on Republican silliness here and in Washington.  What I don't see is any movement to the left.  Colorado voted for a pro-life, pro-business governor at the same time it voted against gay unions and for traditinoal marriage.  That's just what Colorado does.

Match the money or take away the Democrats' centrism and you have what you had in the early part of the decade: GOP dominance.  And, frankly, that's the dynamic shaping up in 2008.  Mark Udall is not a Salazar or a Ritter.  He is considerably to the left of those two and his is considerably to the left of the state, generally.  And Bob Schaffer is doing fine with fundraising and there will be more than enough money pouring into the state--for both sides.  When you put a conservative up against a liberal in Colorado, (Kerry/Bush, Strickland/Allard x 2, Owens/Schoettler, etc), the conservative wins every time.  I'm only expecting the status quo in expecting Schaffer to win.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

yes, but the status quo is clearly changing. The state legislature are pretty strong democrats and suburban Denver voted for a liberal candidate.  Don't make me show you that map again-

[Smash255]

Rawlings kind of sounds like the Republican equivalent to Colorado to me on Minnesota.

Although despite my obvious biases, his arguments mostly boil down to "Colorado is conservative, end of story", while mine were pointing out how very deeply flawed the points about Minnesota "trending Republican" were.

No.  I've given plenty of reasons.  I think the Democratic bench is obviously empty in Colorado.  The Democrats trotted out two wonderful, centrist candidates for Senate and governor and they both won against weak opponents. I don't see how that's exactly a "blude tide."

Listen, Salazar is a lot like Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Ritter is a pro-life, ex-missionary.  Those two are tailor-made for Colorado.

Also, how can you underestimate the impact of funding for the Democrats?  They bought the election last year!  Tim Gill and Pat Stryker realized that the people of Colorado wouldn't vote for their gay rights agenda and so they tried to buy it through the state government.  Last year Coloradans unexpectedly voted against gay civil unions (hardly the grist for a left-moving state, yes?).  Gill and Stryker thought they could buy that vote too (they outspent Focus on the Family 5:1).  When you give Colorado the vote, we don't vote liberal.

Finally, what I see is a wealthier, more centrist Democratic Party in Colorado that is capitalizing on Republican silliness here and in Washington.  What I don't see is any movement to the left.  Colorado voted for a pro-life, pro-business governor at the same time it voted against gay unions and for traditinoal marriage.  That's just what Colorado does.

Match the money or take away the Democrats' centrism and you have what you had in the early part of the decade: GOP dominance.  And, frankly, that's the dynamic shaping up in 2008.  Mark Udall is not a Salazar or a Ritter.  He is considerably to the left of those two and his is considerably to the left of the state, generally.  And Bob Schaffer is doing fine with fundraising and there will be more than enough money pouring into the state--for both sides.  When you put a conservative up against a liberal in Colorado, (Kerry/Bush, Strickland/Allard x 2, Owens/Schoettler, etc), the conservative wins every time.  I'm only expecting the status quo in expecting Schaffer to win.

1.  ken Slazar is actually pro choice. 
2.  Bill Ritter is not conservative, he is moderate
3.  CO was only 2 points more GOP than the national average in 04, compared to 10 points more GOP than nationally in 96.  Its trending hard towards the Dems
4.  The only state which the same sex marriage ban had less support than Colorado was Arizona, a state with a much stronger ban
5.  Udall is a liberal, and granted more left than the state as a whole.  Schaffer is easily to the right of the state as a whole.  They have elected other conservatives, but again the state is more liberal now, and they also dislike those conservatives, Allard has poor numbers Bush has brutal numbers
6  Based off average $$ a week raised Udall raised more than Schaffer (about $6,000 more a week) however the biggie is he has about $2 million more in the bank.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

4.  The only state which the same sex marriage ban had less support than Colorado was Arizona, a state with a much stronger ban

Oregon, South Dakota...

[InsaneTrollLogic]

4.  The only state which the same sex marriage ban had less support than Colorado was Arizona, a state with a much stronger ban

Oregon, South Dakota...

1. South Dakota's ban was just bizzare....
2. and actually' Oregon's one was worded just the same and got .5%(55.5 to 56) more than in Colorado. That's right. Oregon hates fags more than Colorado.

That would be a funny thing- If Fred Phelps ran a anti-gay marriage campaign called "X state Hates Fags"- like "Colorado Hates Fags" or "Ohio Hates Fags" and if Eminem (before his reconciliation with Elton Jon) held rallies where he raped about hating fags.