Al Franken

[MarkWarner08]

I now rank this race as the eighth most likely GOP seat to flip -- behind VA, NM, NH, CO, AK, OR, and MS -- which is a far cry from the post-2002 prognostications that deemed this race the top Democratic take-over opportunity of the '08 cycle.

I don't share your relative optimism on Oregon, but otherwise this looks right. Also, noted that you apparently don't think much of Allen either.

That would be a fair inference. After the aforementioned eight, I rank Maine, North Carolina, and Kentucky as the top remaining Democratic pick-up opportunities. Kansas and Georgia are sleeper races. If Obama actually beats McCain by ten points (which I think is exceptionally unlikely), those two states will be competitive in the general, and that might be the boost needed to nudge the Senate races into the competitive category.

So, in other words, your rankings look exactly like mine, with Oregon and Mississippi flipped (and I expect that long-term you're more likely to be right).  I really argued with myself about putting MN in Likely R for many of the reasons mentioned above, but I'm choosing to play it conservative for now there.

I should add that if your theorized event occurs, it may be enough to do something about Roberts, but I really doubt it about Chambliss. (jmo - I have my reasons here)

For now, our rankings are quite similar.  I hope that's a good thing

Perhaps my lack of emotional distance from the Oregon contest is inflating my view of its competitiveness.  Of the two long-shot races, I agree that Roberts is more likely to lose than Chambliss. In the Roberts' race, the Democrats have a relatively well-funded candidate with a statewide network of supporters. The Chambliss race features a fragmented group of candidates, none of whom has the ability to self-fund against Chambliss, who is methodically adding to his burgeoning warchest.

Taking Rasmussen at face value, just call me leery of MS, where Wicker's only getting 76% of Republicans and is still tied.  That smells like a name recognition issue, which usually gets corrected as time goes on.

Therefore, I suspect OR rates higher long-term, but I know that Smith is very clever in appealing to the middle for elections, so maybe I'm wrong here.

The race that confuses me is Alaska.  I can see a lot happening here.  And I suspect I'm not the only one.

I'm also skeptical of MS, but for different reasons. If the race remains tight through October, I expect Wicker to unload on Musgrove's character. The bitter Musgrove divorce case will undermine his image as a culturally conservative Democrat.

Yes, Gordon Smith is quite savvy at hoodwinking Democrats. He's the only Senate candidate who ends his ads with a call for bipartisanship and independence. He's essentially running a caramel corn campaign. Sure, caramel corn is sweet and pleasing to people of all ages, but it has little nutritional value and it fills us up before we can munch on something of substance. It would've worked in '04, but in '08, petulant voters may reject his empty rhetoric.

Alaska is a strange one. If Kerry had lost by only ten points, Knowles would likely be a Senator today. Similarly, a solid Obama showing could propel Begich to victory.

[Sam Spade]

I now rank this race as the eighth most likely GOP seat to flip -- behind VA, NM, NH, CO, AK, OR, and MS -- which is a far cry from the post-2002 prognostications that deemed this race the top Democratic take-over opportunity of the '08 cycle.

I don't share your relative optimism on Oregon, but otherwise this looks right. Also, noted that you apparently don't think much of Allen either.

That would be a fair inference. After the aforementioned eight, I rank Maine, North Carolina, and Kentucky as the top remaining Democratic pick-up opportunities. Kansas and Georgia are sleeper races. If Obama actually beats McCain by ten points (which I think is exceptionally unlikely), those two states will be competitive in the general, and that might be the boost needed to nudge the Senate races into the competitive category.

So, in other words, your rankings look exactly like mine, with Oregon and Mississippi flipped (and I expect that long-term you're more likely to be right).  I really argued with myself about putting MN in Likely R for many of the reasons mentioned above, but I'm choosing to play it conservative for now there.

I should add that if your theorized event occurs, it may be enough to do something about Roberts, but I really doubt it about Chambliss. (jmo - I have my reasons here)

For now, our rankings are quite similar.  I hope that's a good thing

Perhaps my lack of emotional distance from the Oregon contest is inflating my view of its competitiveness.  Of the two long-shot races, I agree that Roberts is more likely to lose than Chambliss. In the Roberts' race, the Democrats have a relatively well-funded candidate with a statewide network of supporters. The Chambliss race features a fragmented group of candidates, none of whom has the ability to self-fund against Chambliss, who is methodically adding to his burgeoning warchest.

Taking Rasmussen at face value, just call me leery of MS, where Wicker's only getting 76% of Republicans and is still tied.  That smells like a name recognition issue, which usually gets corrected as time goes on.

Therefore, I suspect OR rates higher long-term, but I know that Smith is very clever in appealing to the middle for elections, so maybe I'm wrong here.

The race that confuses me is Alaska.  I can see a lot happening here.  And I suspect I'm not the only one.

I'm also skeptical of MS, but for different reasons. If the race remains tight through October, I expect Wicker to unload on Musgrove's character. The bitter Musgrove divorce case will undermine his image as a culturally conservative Democrat.

Yes, Gordon Smith is quite savvy at hoodwinking Democrats. He's the only Senate candidate who ends his ads with a call for bipartisanship and independence. He's essentially running a caramel corn campaign. Sure, caramel corn is sweet and pleasing to people of all ages, but it has little nutritional value and it fills us up before we can munch on something of substance. It would've worked in '04, but in '08, petulant voters may reject his empty rhetoric.

Alaska is a strange one. If Kerry had lost by only ten points, Knowles would likely be a Senator today. Similarly, a solid Obama showing could propel Begich to victory.

Maybe.  What's Begich's position on ANWR, btw?

[minionofmidas]

I now rank this race as the eighth most likely GOP seat to flip -- behind VA, NM, NH, CO, AK, OR, and MS -- which is a far cry from the post-2002 prognostications that deemed this race the top Democratic take-over opportunity of the '08 cycle.

I don't share your relative optimism on Oregon, but otherwise this looks right. Also, noted that you apparently don't think much of Allen either.

That would be a fair inference. After the aforementioned eight, I rank Maine, North Carolina, and Kentucky as the top remaining Democratic pick-up opportunities. Kansas and Georgia are sleeper races. If Obama actually beats McCain by ten points (which I think is exceptionally unlikely), those two states will be competitive in the general, and that might be the boost needed to nudge the Senate races into the competitive category.

So, in other words, your rankings look exactly like mine, with Oregon and Mississippi flipped (and I expect that long-term you're more likely to be right).  I really argued with myself about putting MN in Likely R for many of the reasons mentioned above, but I'm choosing to play it conservative for now there.

I should add that if your theorized event occurs, it may be enough to do something about Roberts, but I really doubt it about Chambliss. (jmo - I have my reasons here)

For now, our rankings are quite similar.  I hope that's a good thing

Perhaps my lack of emotional distance from the Oregon contest is inflating my view of its competitiveness.  Of the two long-shot races, I agree that Roberts is more likely to lose than Chambliss. In the Roberts' race, the Democrats have a relatively well-funded candidate with a statewide network of supporters. The Chambliss race features a fragmented group of candidates, none of whom has the ability to self-fund against Chambliss, who is methodically adding to his burgeoning warchest.

Taking Rasmussen at face value, just call me leery of MS, where Wicker's only getting 76% of Republicans and is still tied.  That smells like a name recognition issue, which usually gets corrected as time goes on.

noting that Wicker's low name rec was one of the reasons Harry cited for considering this one competitive (before we had any polls)

[MarkWarner08]

I now rank this race as the eighth most likely GOP seat to flip -- behind VA, NM, NH, CO, AK, OR, and MS -- which is a far cry from the post-2002 prognostications that deemed this race the top Democratic take-over opportunity of the '08 cycle.

I don't share your relative optimism on Oregon, but otherwise this looks right. Also, noted that you apparently don't think much of Allen either.

That would be a fair inference. After the aforementioned eight, I rank Maine, North Carolina, and Kentucky as the top remaining Democratic pick-up opportunities. Kansas and Georgia are sleeper races. If Obama actually beats McCain by ten points (which I think is exceptionally unlikely), those two states will be competitive in the general, and that might be the boost needed to nudge the Senate races into the competitive category.

So, in other words, your rankings look exactly like mine, with Oregon and Mississippi flipped (and I expect that long-term you're more likely to be right).  I really argued with myself about putting MN in Likely R for many of the reasons mentioned above, but I'm choosing to play it conservative for now there.

I should add that if your theorized event occurs, it may be enough to do something about Roberts, but I really doubt it about Chambliss. (jmo - I have my reasons here)

For now, our rankings are quite similar.  I hope that's a good thing

Perhaps my lack of emotional distance from the Oregon contest is inflating my view of its competitiveness.  Of the two long-shot races, I agree that Roberts is more likely to lose than Chambliss. In the Roberts' race, the Democrats have a relatively well-funded candidate with a statewide network of supporters. The Chambliss race features a fragmented group of candidates, none of whom has the ability to self-fund against Chambliss, who is methodically adding to his burgeoning warchest.

Taking Rasmussen at face value, just call me leery of MS, where Wicker's only getting 76% of Republicans and is still tied.  That smells like a name recognition issue, which usually gets corrected as time goes on.

Therefore, I suspect OR rates higher long-term, but I know that Smith is very clever in appealing to the middle for elections, so maybe I'm wrong here.

The race that confuses me is Alaska.  I can see a lot happening here.  And I suspect I'm not the only one.

I'm also skeptical of MS, but for different reasons. If the race remains tight through October, I expect Wicker to unload on Musgrove's character. The bitter Musgrove divorce case will undermine his image as a culturally conservative Democrat.

Yes, Gordon Smith is quite savvy at hoodwinking Democrats. He's the only Senate candidate who ends his ads with a call for bipartisanship and independence. He's essentially running a caramel corn campaign. Sure, caramel corn is sweet and pleasing to people of all ages, but it has little nutritional value and it fills us up before we can munch on something of substance. It would've worked in '04, but in '08, petulant voters may reject his empty rhetoric.

Alaska is a strange one. If Kerry had lost by only ten points, Knowles would likely be a Senator today. Similarly, a solid Obama showing could propel Begich to victory.

Maybe.  What's Begich's position on ANWR, btw?

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/435119.html His strong support of drilling will probably take this issue off the table.

[Sam Spade]

As well it should.  I wouldn't be surprised if McCain's opposition cost him at least 5% in Alaska (which is already being reflected in the polls I believe, so don't add it )

[Conan]

I'll reiterate here what I've said before. Al Franken cannot win this race. A majority of Minnesotans will not vote for a former SNL writer with no electoral experience. Besides a healthy Rolodex of Hollywood friends, Franken didn't have anything to offer as a candidate. The only way Franken can win is if Coleman loses.

Franken must run an aggressive campaign that makes the choice of Coleman so unpalatable to low information MN voters that Franken is the only option, albeit by default. Besides running a barage of negative ads blasting Coleman on Iraq and gas prices, Franken must establish a semblance of seriousness as a candidate. If he can handle himself with dignity and aplomb at the Senate debates (which is a huge if), he'll cross the basic gravitas threshold and can win this race.


I now rank this race as the eighth most likely GOP seat to flip -- behind VA, NM, NH, CO, AK, OR, and MS -- which is a far cry from the post-2002 prognostications that deemed this race the top Democratic take-over opportunity of the '08 cycle.

Please, your argument would would mean many Senators, Governors, and Congresspeople would have never been elected.  Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to Franken. What he does have is knowledge of the issues and firm positions.

So your argument is that experience isn't a critical factor for a Senate candidate. If that were true, it's safe to say that recent history would support that assertion.  Unfortunately, it doesn't. How many of the 2006 Democratic freshman Senators had no experience in  prior elective office? The answer: one. The one exception was Jim Webb, who served in Ronald Reagan's cabinet. Meanwhile, Al Franken wrote jokes about pornography for Playboy. A look at the other Democratic candidates who unseated GOP incumbents shows a wealth of experience in elected office. Sheldon Whitehouse was Rhode Island's AG, Sherrod Brown was a seven-term Congressman, Jon Tester was the State Senate Majority Leader, Claire McCaskill was Missouri's State Auditor, and Bob Casey held a dizzying number of statewide office. All five were familiar to voters. Only Webb, who was obviously aided by George Allen's Macaca meltdown, overcame a paucity of electoral experience.

Comparing Senate candidate to Governors and Congresspeople is absurd. It's much more likely for a less experienced Congressional candidate to win because he or she isn't held to the same gravitas test that's applied to Senators.  Additionally, scale prevents self-funders, who use their cash to distract voters from their paper weight resumes. A big-spender like Vern Buchanan can buy enough airtime to win a crowded GOP House primary, and then he can flood the airwaves until election day. If he'd tried that tactic in an FL Senate race, he would've been broke by April.

Occasionally an insurgent candidate like Paul Wellstone in 1990 will break the mold. However, even in wave years, which usually lead to inexperienced challengers win in far greater than average numbers, most Senate winners have some tangible record of public service accomplishments.

Most self-funders running for the Senate lose, and the ones that win frequently have public service experience (e.g., Corker in '06).  Franken is essentially running as the rich NYC guy trying to buy a Senate seat, except he won't spend his millions. If it weren't for this political climate and the DSCC's warchest, Franken would be a joke candidate.

First bolded part:
You're argument isn't really based on experience as much as it is that you believe since he made a career of being a comedian, then people won't take him seriously.

Second bolded part (i've included those with business backrounds/self funders and no electoral experience):
Senators with no experience and mostly self funders:
Jon Corzine
Frank Lautenberg
Chuck Hagel
Herb Kohl
Mark Dayton in some respects
Bill Frist

Governors:
Mitt Romney
Mark Warner
Arnold
Haley Barbour
Brian Schweitzer
John Lynch
Craig Benson
Donald Carcieri (I believe)

These are the ones you can easily find with 3 minutes of research.

Third bold:
Most people buy the coming home argument...I haven't seen a rich NYC guy attitude coming from Franken and only recently has Coleman attacked him on that.

[MarkWarner08]

First bolded part:
You're argument isn't really based on experience as much as it is that you believe since he made a career of being a comedian, then people won't take him seriously.

Second bolded part (i've included those with business backrounds/self funders and no electoral experience):
Senators with no experience and mostly self funders:
Jon Corzine
Frank Lautenberg
Chuck Hagel
Herb Kohl
Mark Dayton in some respects
Bill Frist

Governors:
Mitt Romney
Mark Warner
Arnold
Haley Barbour
Brian Schweitzer
John Lynch
Craig Benson
Donald Carcieri (I believe)

These are the ones you can easily find with 3 minutes of research.

Third bold:
Most people buy the coming home argument...I haven't seen a rich NYC guy attitude coming from Franken and only recently has Coleman attacked him on that.

Here's a cursory glimpse of the top ten self-funders, according to opensecrets.org.
Hull, Blair (D)
(Illinois Senate)   $28,658,890
Lamont, Ned (D)
(Connecticut Senate)   $17,050,071
Ricketts, Pete (R)
(Nebraska Senate)   $12,025,597
Pederson, Jim (D)
(Arizona Senate)   $10,920,906
Tarrant, Richard E (R)
(Vermont Senate)   $7,200,000
Gallagher, Douglas (R)
(Florida Senate)   $6,586,325
Kohl, Herb (D)
(Wisconsin Senate)   $5,475,000
Corker, Bob (R)
(Tennessee Senate)   $4,669,200
Ravenel, Tom (R)
(South Carolina Senate)   $2,931,127
McGavick, Michael (R)
(Washington Senate)   $2,632,320

Two of those ten candidates won. The two winners include Kohl (who was an incumbent when he spent a combined $5,475,000 million on his last two campaigns, and Bob Corker, who ran on his record as mayor of Chattanooga. Corker was not a political novice candidate. Your assertion that politically inexperience wealthy candidates regularly win Senate seats is historically inaccurate.

Your cite Jon Corzine, Frank Lautenberg ,Chuck Hagel , Herb Kohl, Mark Dayton, and Bill Frist as your counter-examples.Fortunately, you placed a caveat next to the Dayton comparison. Dayton had elected experience prior to running for the Senate in 2000. Cross his name off the list. Your remaining examples include Corzine, who outspent  his opponent by $54 million and still won by only 3% in a year when Gore was routing Bush in NJ. Franken could never dream of self-financing to that degree. Lautenberg won a 1982 open seat by outspending the felicitously named Millicent Fenwick;  this doesn't apply because Franken is running against a GOP incumbent who will likely outspend by several million dollars. Hagel's victory is considered a rare upset landslide, and, of course, that race was an open seat contest.  Kohl as won an open seat race by outspending his foe.

After all that research, you found but one example that applies. Bill Frist, a political novice/self-funder  won in 1994 against an incumbent. That race could be a fair parallel (2008 could be a year as lopsided as 1994), but it falls short because once again, Franken can't outspend Coleman.

Second, I think I mentioned that state dynamics differ from federal dynamics. Case in point, 2002, when Democrats picked up three Governorships while losing U.S House and Senate seats. Voters look for different qualities in Governors than they do in Senators. A wealthy novice like John Lynch can win because voters his business experience is seen as germane to leading a state. Your Governors point thus is not applicable to this argument.

Finally, just because Coleman has only now began to hammer Franken's long absence from Minnesota by no means bars him from using that charge again and again during the fall sprint to Election Day.

[Conan]

First bolded part:
You're argument isn't really based on experience as much as it is that you believe since he made a career of being a comedian, then people won't take him seriously.

Second bolded part (i've included those with business backrounds/self funders and no electoral experience):
Senators with no experience and mostly self funders:
Jon Corzine
Frank Lautenberg
Chuck Hagel
Herb Kohl
Mark Dayton in some respects
Bill Frist

Governors:
Mitt Romney
Mark Warner
Arnold
Haley Barbour
Brian Schweitzer
John Lynch
Craig Benson
Donald Carcieri (I believe)

These are the ones you can easily find with 3 minutes of research.

Third bold:
Most people buy the coming home argument...I haven't seen a rich NYC guy attitude coming from Franken and only recently has Coleman attacked him on that.

Here's a cursory glimpse of the top ten self-funders, according to opensecrets.org.
Hull, Blair (D)
(Illinois Senate)   $28,658,890
Lamont, Ned (D)
(Connecticut Senate)   $17,050,071
Ricketts, Pete (R)
(Nebraska Senate)   $12,025,597
Pederson, Jim (D)
(Arizona Senate)   $10,920,906
Tarrant, Richard E (R)
(Vermont Senate)   $7,200,000
Gallagher, Douglas (R)
(Florida Senate)   $6,586,325
Kohl, Herb (D)
(Wisconsin Senate)   $5,475,000
Corker, Bob (R)
(Tennessee Senate)   $4,669,200
Ravenel, Tom (R)
(South Carolina Senate)   $2,931,127
McGavick, Michael (R)
(Washington Senate)   $2,632,320

Two of those ten candidates won. The two winners include Kohl (who was an incumbent when he spent a combined $5,475,000 million on his last two campaigns, and Bob Corker, who ran on his record as mayor of Chattanooga. Corker was not a political novice candidate. Your assertion that politically inexperience wealthy candidates regularly win Senate seats is historically inaccurate.

Your cite Jon Corzine, Frank Lautenberg ,Chuck Hagel , Herb Kohl, Mark Dayton, and Bill Frist as your counter-examples.Fortunately, you placed a caveat next to the Dayton comparison. Dayton had elected experience prior to running for the Senate in 2000. Cross his name off the list. Your remaining examples include Corzine, who outspent  his opponent by $54 million and still won by only 3% in a year when Gore was routing Bush in NJ. Franken could never dream of self-financing to that degree. Lautenberg won a 1982 open seat by outspending the felicitously named Millicent Fenwick;  this doesn't apply because Franken is running against a GOP incumbent who will likely outspend by several million dollars. Hagel's victory is considered a rare upset landslide, and, of course, that race was an open seat contest.  Kohl as won an open seat race by outspending his foe.

After all that research, you found but one example that applies. Bill Frist, a political novice/self-funder  won in 1994 against an incumbent. That race could be a fair parallel (2008 could be a year as lopsided as 1994), but it falls short because once again, Franken can't outspend Coleman.

Second, I think I mentioned that state dynamics differ from federal dynamics. Case in point, 2002, when Democrats picked up three Governorships while losing U.S House and Senate seats. Voters look for different qualities in Governors than they do in Senators. A wealthy novice like John Lynch can win because voters his business experience is seen as germane to leading a state. Your Governors point thus is not applicable to this argument.

Finally, just because Coleman has only now began to hammer Franken's long absence from Minnesota by no means bars him from using that charge again and again during the fall sprint to Election Day.

My point with Dayton was that he did win a statewide elected office, but he isn't a great example anyway, you're right.

Hull, Blair (D) - Primaries aren't like general elections. We all know that.
Lamont, Ned (D) - This was by no means a normal election.
Ricketts, Pete (R) - He was going against a popular incumbent in a very democratic year.
Pederson, Jim (D) - Arizona isn't as D as MN.
Tarrant, Richard E (R) - Money can't buy a seat when your state is overwhelmingly D.
Corker, Bob (R) - I knew he was a mayor and didn't include him for that reason.

As for Hagel, Corzine, and Lautenberg...I stand by them as helpful to my argument.  I also stand by my governors point. Business experience is regarded as a plus to the senate and a governorship.  I don't believe having a former CEO on the Banking, Commerce, or Finance committees wouldn't be seen as valuable.

I still only believe your argument is based on him being a comedian. And you don't believe in his chances after the 3 polls showing him down by around 10. Before he was leading or slightly trailing....he has had bad press since around March. It's at least 4 months to the election.

People have also shown they tend not to vote based on experience, rather likability or issues.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Lautenberg won a 1982 open seat by outspending the felicitously named Millicent Fenwick;  this doesn't apply because Franken is running against a GOP incumbent who will likely outspend by several million dollars.

It should also be noted that while Lautenberg was draining his personal coffers to fill the air with mud and distortions (the way he attacked Fenwick on the Meadowlands is especially hypocritical), the gentlewomanly Fenwick stood by her pledge to reject help from PACs and the like.

From Millicent Fenwick: Her Way:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Essentially, Lautenberg overcame a massive deficit in the final days of the campaign because he drew an opponent who was too classy to fight back in the way which Lautenberg's tactics deserved.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Lautenberg complained about the Meadowlands?? LOL that man has done more to screw over the people of the Meadowlands than anyone outside of Bernadette McPherson and Paul Sarlo.  As far as Fenwick, did anyone mention he said she was too old at 72?  You know, 14 years younger than he is now

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Lautenberg complained about the Meadowlands?? LOL that man has done more to screw over the people of the Meadowlands than anyone outside of Bernadette McPherson and Paul Sarlo.  As far as Fenwick, did anyone mention he said she was too old at 72?  You know, 14 years younger than he is now

Millicent Fenwick was opposed to the development of the Meadowlands for environmental reasons, so she was totally anti-jobs.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Lautenberg complained about the Meadowlands?? LOL that man has done more to screw over the people of the Meadowlands than anyone outside of Bernadette McPherson and Paul Sarlo.  As far as Fenwick, did anyone mention he said she was too old at 72?  You know, 14 years younger than he is now

Millicent Fenwick was opposed to the development of the Meadowlands for environmental reasons, so she was totally anti-jobs.

Yet at the same time according to Lautenberg she was anti-environment