Talk Elections

It's actually looking pretty good for the Dems, but very precarious.

There are 11 highly competitive seats:
Dem held: GA, NC, SC, FL, LA, SD
GOP held: IL, OK, CO, AK, PA
The Dems need 2 pick-ups to gain control, unless Kerry wins and MA elects a Dem in the special election, in which case they need 1 pick-up.

Here's how I see each seat:

Dem held seats:

GA: Likely Republican, no matter the candidates.  Basically cancels out Illinois.

NC: A toss-up all the way.

SC: Lean GOP is Beasley is their nominee; Toss-up
otherwise....I'll give it to the GOP.

FL: Lean Dem if its Castor v. McCollum (or Byrd); Toss-Up if otherwise.  Since Castor and McCollum are winning their primaries, I'll give it to the Dems.

LA: My guess is lean Dem if John is their nominee, given the Dem's recent success in the state; I'll give it to the Dems.

SD: Lean Dem until a couple polls show me otherwise.

So 2 GOP pick-ups, 2 toss-ups.


Of the Republican held seats:

IL: Likely Dem; cancels out Georgia.

CO: Lean Dem; Salazar is proven statewide candidate.

OK: A toss-up, although I think the Republicans should be glad Coburn got in.

PA: Likely GOP if Spectre wins his primary, Lean Dem if Toomey wins....I'll give it to the GOP.

AK: Another toss-up.

2 Dem pick-ups, 2 Toss-ups.


Let's call the presidential race a toss-up and assume a Dem victory in MA Senate if Kerry wins.

This means the Dems need to win 3 of 4 toss-up races to win control: OK, AK, NC, President.

Of course, this all depends on the candidates, and is just guesses anyway.

ok, but if Kerry wins MA Gov Romney appoints someone to take Kerrys seat, which will be a Republican.  Then, I believe that person would be up in a special election in 2006, along with Ted Kennedy who is also up in 2006.  I could be wrong about that, but intially Romney will appoint a Republican.  Moot point anyways because Bush is going to win.

The MA State Legislature is currently working on a bill that will allow for a special election within a couple months of the presidential election.  It is likely to pass with a veto-proof majority,

And before the Republicans start complaining....remember, you guys did almost the exact same thing two years ago to keep Murkowski's seat in GOP hands.

i heard that, but i dont think it will happen.  I am sure you dont care, its simply a power grab.  So desperate for power are the Dems that they have to change the rules on appointing senators.  

\

yeah but there were no rules changed, it was just shady.  I admit that.  we deserve to lose that seat for what Murkowski did.

I seem to remember there were, and that without the rules change Knowles would have got to make the appointment (and probably would have appointed himself). But I may be confusing something...
Immediate by-elections for Senate seats were pretty common mid-century, especially in the South. (In fact, if the vacancy occurred within the first two-thirds of the term, there would be two by-electons: One straight away, the other at the "normal" date.) They are also a much better solution than the current oddity...Which doesn't mean that changing the rules like that is no power grab.

well i am not 100% sure......whatever though.  Good discussion.

Dem held seats:

GA: Likely Republican (all the strong GA Dems are circling around Governer Perdue and won't jump into the Senate race)

NC: Leans Democrat (Bowles has come over all protectionist of late).

SC: Tossup (Tennenbaum's chances are greatly improved IF Kerry's running mate is Edwards).

FL: Very confusing race... tossup by default

LA: Leans Democrat (the LA electoral system favours the Dems)

SD: Likely Democrat

Republican held seats:

IL: Likely Dem

CO: Leans Dem (unless a strong GOP candidate jumps in)

OK: tossup

PA: Depends on the GOP primary (Likely R if Specter hangs on, Leans D if Toomey wins)

AK: tossup

Specter has been the Senator from PA for a long time and has won with comfy margins and is by all accounts - even by most Toomey supporters - a stronger candidate against Hoffel.  The problem is that if Toomey was the nominee, half his potential voters (moderates in suburban Philly) will be alienated from him and the Dems will win.  How many times does a freakishly conservative candidate (Simon, Shallenberger, etc.) have to lose a race that we could have easily won with a more moderate candidate for you folks to realize that Republicans win when we match the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the voters - not just nominate candidates who are hardcore ideologues.  Thank heavens there was no primary for the California recall race otherwise you guys probably would have screwed that up too.

Ponder this: If the Reps lose control of the Senate, which becomes a lot more likely if Specter loses the primary, you get a Judicial chairman Pat Leahy. You prefer him to Specter? Eh?

Well there you have it - you'd rather have a Democrat in the Senate than a Republican who is so "liberal" that he's been endorsed by the NRA, President Bush, Dick Cheney, and "lefties" like Rick Santorum.

I'll take Specter's Souter over Hoffel's Ginsberg any day.  I'd take either one over Toomey's Roy Moore.

My priority here is REPUBLICANS WINNING.  If we all had the same priority, we could do a lot more good for America.

Kansas went pretty heavily for Bush in 2000.  Now they've got a Democrat Governor cause we nominated someone that was too conservative for KANSAS   But I guess that was still a victory for you, eh?

At least you are supporting Mel in Florida, though I wish Mark Foley would have stayed in the race.

I agree we have a shot in IL if we play our cards right, but NV is hopeless after all our first, second, third, fourth, and fifth tier candidates dropped out.

Now that's funny! ;D

The #1 job of the Republican Party is to elect Republicans.  Period.

If you aren't helping to elect Republicans, you're electing Democrats.

I have no interest in butt-slapping... but I think your interest in back-stabbing is rather unhealthy.

John,

1. This analysis is not only wrong, but has been proven wrong in Specter's previous victories.

2. I will never, ever understand why my fellow right wingers hate Specter so much...I used to work on Capitol Hill and I can tell you that you will never meet a better human being than this guy.

Specter was wrong about Bork, but that was 17 years ago, and he more than redeemed himself during the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings.

John,

Nope, I know Specter's Chief of Staff very well. Known him for 20 years. The reason Specter comes off as "pissed off" all the time is because he's personally a very paranoid guy who is not at all comfortable with the Washington, DC style of smling to your face and then ripping you behind your back. The guy is incredibly nice behind closed doors.

As for Toomey, I like him as well, but he will be at best a 50/50 shot in the general election while Specter is a guaranteed winner. I can't believe that Conservatives in PA would be dumb enough to abandon Specter and let a Democrat be elected...

The job of Conservatives is to make the country more conservative in the long run.  The job of folks such as myself is to make the country better in the long run.  The job of the Republican party is to make the country more Republican in the long run, because the Republican Party is comprised of far more than just the far-right.


Though I think that Campaign Finance Deform is one of the most evil things that has ever been unleashed upon our nation - and I confronted him about it at a CFR event - Chris Shays is a good Republican and should stay right where he is.  Connecticut would only replace him with a Democrat.

Right on the Mark, Mark!

This is just a special case....we are not out there backing other challengers, nor would we be.  Specter has to go. He can not be in charge of Judicary.  Thats all this is about.  I agree Specter would win the General, and Toomey would be 50/50 to win, but I also think we will hold the Senate.  A lesson needs to be shown that you cant act like a Dem then change in your election yr.  The real moderates like Snowe, Collins and Chafee at least have principles, even though I disagree with them.

We know what happens when the Republican Party decides to say, "Screw Reality, Lets Nominate an Ideologue and be a Movement"...

Its called Goldwater...and 6 states.

Go ahead and try, but don't expect us moderates to clean up your mess.

AMEN.

...and 5 of those were more to do with blatent race-baiting than anything else...

Go on! Nominate Goldwater mkII!
Pleeeeeeeaaaaaaaaase...

you guys are just plain wrong.  It is one senator and it is only a big deal because of the position he is in line to get if he wins reelection.  We have too many moderates in the party now - but no one is trying to get rid of them.  I dont see how any Republican could support Specter.  There is just a laundry list of reasons not to.  

Foley might have been the GOP's best candidate in the general, but he could not have won a GOP primary with so many Christian conservatives against him.

And JohnFord...I don't think the Republicans even have a legitimate candidate in Nevada.

seems to me the FLA Senate race will be almost strictly determined by the Presidential race.....i am willing to bet there will be almost 0 people who vote Bush, but for the Dem nominee or vice versa.  This isnt all that common, but sometimes you see it, like in 2000 (Bush won in NE by alot, but Ben Nelson won a close race for Senate, there are many examples).  FLA will not be one of them.

Someone catch me... I'm about to faint.  Speechless really.

"Too many moderates"... well.. just you wait.. we're only going to get bigger and bigger and bigger...

I don't see how any Republican could support a Democrat having a better chance at winning the seat.

and i dont see how any Republican could vote for Specter over Toomey, because Toomey is actually a Republican, not just a politican with a "R" next to his name

Rococo... moderates are often better members of their respective parties than fire eaters in nice safe seats.

yes they are sometimes, actully most of the time, yes your right.  not this time.  Specter is not your average moderate.  I will just have to disagree with you all on this one.

I am sure you will love Specter if he becomes Judicary Cmte. chairman and rejects a Bush SCOTUS nomiantion because they are too conservative for him.  (assuming GWB wins again).  or appeals court judges for that matter

IF you see Specter as Judicary chairman i think you guys will realize what this is about......if it wasnt for the fact of what he is going to become in the Senate, frankly i wouldnt care if beat Toomey or not.

President Bush seems to be comfortable with him.  Vice-President Cheney seems to be comfortable with him.  Senator Santorum seems to be comfortable with him.  If they are comfortable, I'm comfortable with him.

I dont think Bush would come out against any Republican senator for reelection - you dont do that.  The most he would do is stay neutral, like he did against Bob Smith in 02 in NH.  Bush wants to win PA and he doesnt want to look too extreme, which he feels supporting Toomey would make him do

Htmldon,

you know the scary thing is, if the rightwing of the party is correct in thinking that indeed they are 70%+ of the party and that we're expendable, just the 5% swing from us leaving the GOP and--God Forbid--going to the Democrats would keep the GOP out of office for a very very very very long time.

Now what if we're 40% or 45%? or more? >P

I dont think you are getting my point.  Specter is one case by itself.  We are not trying to push out any other moderates.  

Thanks for the backup......good points about Romney, Arnold, etc.  Specter absoluetly would do more damage as Judicary Cmte. Chairman than a freshman PA Dem Senator

When is the pennslyvannia republican senate primary

So you are more supportive of Democrats than Republicans.  I see exactly where you stand.

They just keep ignoring that we are just anti-Specter...whatever.  No obvioulsy we are not for Democrats over Republicans.  We think  (know) Toomey would be a better Senator and can win, so thats why we want him to defeat Specter

I have to ask again...

Santorum was last elected in 2000, with a very weak majority (53-47 or 52-48 against a weak democrat)

That was before he opened his big mouth and started to piss off those who lived in the Southeast. Like it or not, we're the fastest growing part of the state, with some of the largest registered republican populations--if not the largest--in the state.

If George W. Bush said the same things tricky rick said in the last 2 years...he'd have no chance in hell here.

As for Toomey, he barely won against an inept candidate in the 15th. If he wins, all those Specter voters will find Hoffel a more compatible candidate.

 

And Ill have to say again - I would rather see Specter defeated than in either the primary or the general because I dont want him chairing Judicary.

Toomey would be 50/50 at best, I understand that, but it is worth the risk.  I am sure Specter will win, he always fools enough people and this yr, gets Dems to register and vote for him.

Win or lose Toomey should be congratulated by all so these Senators (of both parties) cant ignore their constiuents for 5 years then pander to them in election years and expect to be unopposed by a serious candidate.

I just figured it out.....you moderates want Specter to chair the Judicary Cmte. It was so simple all along, and I missed it.  You want him to make sure only pro-abortion, pro affirmative action and pro democratic ideals get on the bench.  It is a great way to stop Bush appointments.  Specter is the key to this.  We need more judges like Souter and Kennedy, right?  Specter thinks so.  I think we all know where he stands on real conservative judges, and dont give me anything about Clarence Thomas - his support of him was nothing put an election ploy and to save his job after he brought down Bork.  Sicne this will be his last term, he can support his pro  abortion opinion all he wants, he wont have answer to anyone anymore.

Of course we Dems would like Specter to be the chair. We would much prefer Leahy though.

Kick out Specter and there is a decent chance that the senate goes Democratic.  Leave him be and its hard to imagine that the dems do better than hold even.

Pick your poison. Who would you prefer as judiciary chair? Specter? or Leahy?

This is a race we Dems can't lose.  Specter, who we like. Or we get a liberal Dem senator.

Well you are making a big assumption that if Specter loses we will lose the Senate (legiatemtly this time, not on back room deals to get a defector like Jeffords).  I think we will hold the Senate anyways.  Maybe Leahy will get kicked off Judicary, like he was kicked off the intelligence cmte.  a while back for leaking classified information.  Yeah, obvioulsy dems like Specter.  Just like Republicans like Zell Miller.

You think we'd want more judges like Kennedy or Souter?

You're absolutely right.

In case you haven't figured it out, there's a reason why we're called moderates, its because we're not far right wing conservatives. I'll take a Kennedy over a Scalia anyday, and I'll take Souter over Ginsberg anytime.

The Republican Party is not a single thinking being (ala the Borg), if you wish to turn it into such, then go ahead...I'm sure there are plenty other parties who wouldn't mind the millions of moderate republicans joining them.

I am willing to take my chances that enough people wouldnt leave the party because of a Supreme Court appointee. No, the Republican party isnt a single thinking being, but when it comes down to it, there are far more people like me than Republicans who are pro-Specter / pro-Souter.

Most of the party does NOT stand ideogiacally with Specter.  We should not have to support every moderate.  We support all but one - Specter.  I dont like McCain, but I would back him in an AZ Senate Primary.

All it matters is the letter that comes after their name.

We're better off with 50 or 51 reliable conservatives in the Senate than a 55 majority with 5 or 6 RINOs.  Keeps things consistent - especially things like committee chairmanships.  

I even think we're better off purging turncoats like Specter and ending up with 49 because then we can blame Leahy and the Dems for nixing more Scalia/Thomas-type judges - turns out the base for Senatorial contests in 2006.

Yeah I agree except I hope we dont lose the Senate - just Specter loses and Jon Kyl takes over for Orrin Hatch on Judicary.

We have a majority now, but it is not a "working majority."

Amen, Bullmoose!

J.D. Ford.  What do you make of the GOP's cahnce in California given that the Gubernator is expected to campaign vigorously for our guy.

Marin definately would have been a better choice -- was she not able to raise enough money to beat Jone's name recognition or did she not hit TV - what happened?

I don't know why all of you are so up in arms about Specter. He voted with Bush 89% of the time, and Toomey voted about 93% of the time as a US Rep.

And Rococo, even though it's impossible to truly tell, I highly doubt that there are more ultra right-wing Republicans then there are moderate Republicans. Same goes for the opposite end in regards to Democrats.

of,

100% correct.  Keep in mind though that there are plenty of Toomey supporters (as I've found on other boards) that think President Bush is a RINO and a liberal.

For me, it's not about ideology.  I actually agree more with Toomey than with Specter.  But I want Specter to win because we need him to maintain the beautiful ideological diversity that exists in the big tent of the Republican Party.  If Roy Moron wants to be a Republican, Arlen Specter should get to be one too.

Of course you guys get less money back from the federal government - the reasons are two:

1) you only have two senators for 35 million people.  Tough luck there ;)

2)  you keep electing senators and representatives from the long-term minority party - the Democrats.

Yes it would be hard to tell, but I bet that more Republicans overall would prefer Toomeys voting record over Specter.  I dont really care how Specter has voted, as I have said before, I just dont want him to be in charge of the Judicary Cmte.  If he wasnt in line for that I would probably back him just to keep the seat safe.