Dems in 2008: 12 Pickup Opportunities in Senate?

[TheresNoMoney]

Will all twelve of theses seats be competitive in the 2008 elections?

1) Virginia
2) New Mexico
3) Colorado
4) New Hamphshire
5) Alaska
6) Oregon
7) Minnesota
Maine
9) Mississippi (Wicker-Musgrove race)
10) North Carolina
11) Texas
12) Nebraska

[Brittain33]

9) Mississippi (Wicker-Musgrove race)
12) Nebraska

So far, these are the only two races not to have had a reputable poll indicating the race is competitive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not competitive.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

1.  New Mexico
2.  Colorado
3.  Minnesota
4.  Oregon
5.  Maine
6.  New Hampshire
7.  Alaska
8.  Texas
9.  Mississippi
10.  North Carolina

[TheresNoMoney]

1) Virginia

Not competitive.

I guess I meant pickup opportunities, not competitive seats.

[Keystone Phil]

Nebraska, Texas, North Carolina, Mississippi and Virginia won't be competitive.

New Mexico, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Maine and Oregon are pretty much leaning one way as well but they have the potential to be competitive unlike the ones listed above.

[minionofmidas]

Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico - I don't expect to be particularly close.

Colorado, Alaska, Minnesota - Wait and see... Tossups. (As is Louisiana.)

Oregon, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina - Certainly can't rule em out, but don't see it.

Texas - Much as I'd love Cornyn to lose... Forget it. Noriega'll be closer than a weak candidate should normally be (both due to general climate and to Cornyn), but won't win it.

Nebraska - Probably not competitive.

[AndrewTX]

Mississippi rarely gets polled, but Musgrove will pick up the seat, since Wicker is such a bad candidate.

Saved

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

While a whole heck of a lot of these may wind up being "competitive," there is no conceivable scenario where Democrats can seriously invest in all 12 of these races.  I mean, they have a COH advantage, yeah, but it's not like an infinity-to-one cash on hand advantage.

They simply won't want to invest in a Texas longshot; Mississippi seems unlikely even with a serious investment (but dems pikked u p aseat lolololol); Kleeb is dead in the water in Nebraska against a super popular Republican governor—national Dems won't even give him a second glance; and Democrats just don't win Senate races in North Carolina during Presidential years—and most of those "wins" have come with GOP candidates a lot more polarizing than Liddy Dole.

Almost forgot: Maine still is not a serious pick-up opportunity without a significant Collins scandal.  People with those kind of personal popularity numbers just don't lose.

[Keystone Phil]

Mississippi rarely gets polled, but Musgrove will pick up the seat, since Wicker is such a bad candidate.

Saved

It's really a shame that Harry sets himself up like this. I did a similar thing four years ago (and again two years ago) and now it's infamous. He'll just have to deal with it afterwards.

[minionofmidas]

While a whole heck of a lot of these may wind up being "competitive," there is no conceivable scenario where Democrats can seriously invest in all 12 of these races.

Agreed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed.

But in all honesty, people who say "Musgrove doesn't have any chance of making this close" are setting themselves up in rather more ridiculous fashion than people who are saying "he'll actually win".

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

While a whole heck of a lot of these may wind up being "competitive," there is no conceivable scenario where Democrats can seriously invest in all 12 of these races.

Agreed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed.

But in all honesty, people who say "Musgrove doesn't have any chance of making this close" are setting themselves up in rather more ridiculous fashion than people who are saying "he'll actually win".

I don't doubt that an open seat race in Mississippi will be close, or at least much closer than we're used to seeing in the state.  (Just like I don't doubt that Massachusetts will be much closer than we're used to seeing this year, either.)  I just doubt that Democrats will be able to win a national race there statewide, regardless of the climate.

[HardRCafé]

Mississippi rarely gets polled, but Musgrove will pick up the seat, since Wicker is such a bad candidate.

There ought to be a special color avatar for people who have admitted they do not believe their own posts.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Nebraska, Texas, North Carolina, Mississippi and Virginia won't be competitive.

New Mexico, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Maine and Oregon are pretty much leaning one way as well but they have the potential to be competitive unlike the ones listed above.

You you crazy??? NC will be a battleground state between hagan and dole. Do you not look at polls?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm looking for a man who left his suitcase at the train station. Mr Briss. First name Hugh.

[HardRCafé]

You you crazy??? NC will be a battleground state between hagan and dole. Do you not look at polls?

I do, and I hear someone named Lilly is in danger.

[Brittain33]

I'm looking for a man who left his suitcase at the train station. Mr Briss. First name Hugh.

I'd rather ride with him than go whistling past the graveyard.

[Brittain33]

Democrats just don't win Senate races in North Carolina during Presidential years—and most of those "wins" have come with GOP candidates a lot more polarizing than Liddy Dole.

Has any Republican senator polled below a challenger in NC, or within 5 points, in an election year before? How were Helms-Gantt polling at this time in '96?

Historical patterns hold up until they don't, and it takes strong confidence to write off a poll showing the incumbent behind a challenger by one point several months before Election Day.

Also, I think the Obama effect on African-American turnout, so easily and wrongly hyped in other examples, is a genuine asset to Hagen when the white vote is not as polarized as it is elsewhere.

[Conan]

I don't know what to consider competitive? I'd say conservatively, it must be within 10 points margin of victory.
These are the ones I think will be within 10 points.

1) Virginia
2) New Mexico
3) Colorado
4) New Hamphshire, Shaheen will win by at least 8 but probably more.
5) Alaska
6) Oregon
7) Minnesota
Maine, possibly but I haven't seen any indication that this is getting closer.
9) Mississippi (Wicker-Musgrove race)
10) North Carolina
11) Texas I won't believe these polls until it shows at least 5 more this close spread over 1 months time.
12) Nebraska

[Brittain33]

8.) Maine, possibly but I haven't seen any indication that this is getting closer.

Rasmussen has them at Collins 52%, Allen 42%.

You still have to favor Collins strongly here, but it's a sign of life.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I think that the Democrats will pick-up Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Colorado at least - so thats D+4 taking them up to a 53-47 majority in the Senate.  However, I also expect them to have at least one, and likely more than one, gain somewhere else.  This is the wildcard.  I feel it could occur in Oregon, Minnesota, Alaska, Mississippi or even the remote (I do mean remote) possibility of North Carolina or Texas.  So I suppose I expect the Democratic Majoirty in the Senate to end up being about 55-45, but perhaps more than that - I do not think 60 seats is possible at this stage, however.

[Keystone Phil]

I think that the Democrats will pick-up Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Colorado at least - so thats D+4 taking them up to a 53-47 majority in the Senate. 

Which would actually be 55-45 considering Sanders and Lieberman siding with the Dems (assuming Lieberman is still in the Senate and still siding with the Dems ).

[Adlai Stevenson]

I think that the Democrats will pick-up Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Colorado at least - so thats D+4 taking them up to a 53-47 majority in the Senate. 

Which would actually be 55-45 considering Sanders and Lieberman siding with the Dems (assuming Lieberman is still in the Senate and still siding with the Dems ).

Well they have a 49-49 majority as such now.  So I suppose you're right, but now I'm confused!  So in fact if the Democrats gained around 6 seats (As I expect them to) they would in fact have a 57-43 majority wouldn't they?  OK I understand.  That's good LOL!

[Keystone Phil]

How about this:

If Musgrove doesn't get at least 47.5% of the vote against Wicker, I'll put whatever Phil, HRC, and Mr. "Moderate" want in my sig for a year.  And I'll make this message by sig for a while so that everyone knows.
If Musgrove loses at all, I'll put whatever they want in my sig for (1 month)*(the margin in %) months.

Also, I'll have whatever avatar they want.  I'm serious about Musgrove.

If the race turns ugly against Musgrove, like a scandal or something, then too bad for me.

I'm not out looking for that, Harry. I'm just asking you to be a bit cautious. Learn from my mistakes. Stop being so cocky about your chances.

[Sam Spade]

The only thing that I know is that this thread is bound to get bumped up sometime in October by somebody.

[7,052,770]

The only thing that I know is that this thread is bound to get bumped up sometime in October by somebody.

I pledge to bump it, no matter what, on Election Night.
In fact, I'll set a reminder in my phone to do so.