Talk Elections

This is subject to change as new polls and information on candidates emerge:

()


Light blue/red: Very close election
Plain blue/red: Reasonably close
Dark blue/red: Wide margin of victory

My current prediction for the partisan breakdown of the 110th Senate: No change.

Republicans - 55
Democrats - 44
Independent - 1

()

I believe that is a gain of three for the Democrats, so:
Republicans  52
Democrats    47
Independent 1

I agree completely (except for RI).

GOP gains MN, maybe NJ
Dems gain nothing

GOP +1 or +2

good assessment, tweed.

any prediction map with a red pa is merely wishful thinking.

Or thinking based on poll numbers instead of gut instinct.

how relevant are poll numbers this far out?

dont you remember casey's past performance as a candidate?  pretty piss poor if oyu ask me.

and im by no means a santorum suppoter.

A tad more relevant than most anything else.


I'm not very familiar with that, but it's very hard to do away with a lead of this big of a margin.  It's not your thinking that Santorum could win that bothers me; it's your certainty that he will.  I don't say Casey is a lock.


Never understood why someone would predict their party to do better - it just results in disappointment.  But I appreciate that.

()

Key:
Dark Colour - Margin of Victory above 20%
Fair Colour - Margin of Victory below 20%
Light Colour - Margin of Victory below 10%

Predicted Senate
Republicans - 53 seats
Democrats - 46 seats
Independent - 1 seat

Note: Vermont is shaded as Democrat.  There was no colour for Independents.

()

Here you go, Yates. :)


Edit:  I couldn't help noticing that you have NM and WV shaded dark blue.  Do you know something we don't?

i really dont 'have' a party, alcon.  the democrats probably couldnt do any worse than the republicans have done in congress.

as for santorum, he is 1. smarter than casey, 2. a muuuuuuuuuuuuch better campaigner, 3. has a very dedicated group of supporters (look at phil).

im not 'certain' santorum will win.  if i were to bet, i would certainly put my money on him.  as ive said many times, casey is just ron klink with a famous last name.

Thank you, Joe.  I apologize.  I shaded New Mexico and West Virginia blue by error.  Please think of them as shaded dark red.

()

Vermont's red because I couldn't get it to shade green, despite multiple tries.

Thanks for stickying this, Tredrick. :D

I was planning on creating a thread like this early in the new year.  No harm in pushing it up a bit.

michigan will be within 10%

I agree except give MS to the GOP and OH and MO to the Dems.  I think Brown will win Ohio and McCaskill will beat Talent.  Dark horse Tennessee for the Dems.

You think Brown will win Ohio?!?  I'm sorry to break this to you, but that won't be happening.  The only Dem who has even a remote chance of winning is Paul Hackett, and even then, it's a slim chance.

Wikipedia is keeping a fairly useful summary of all the Senate elections next year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Senate_election%2C_2006 (near the bottom)

My realistic prediction: Democrats pick up Pennsylvania with no other changes anywhere.

I have PA as Leaning Democrat/Pick-up and that's the only one that I see changing as it is right now. If I had to guess what will happen in ten months, I'd say Chafee and Burns fall, while Kean grabs NJ.

Right now, I'm going to say only Pennsylvania changes, but a number of these are obviously in the air at present.

()

This has the following code:

Dark red/blue = probable gain
medium red/blue = certain hold
light red/blue =  probable hold
medium green = Vermont
light green= no race

Right now I see a net +4 for the Dems, but I'm basing this in part on a gut feeling that 2006 is not going to be a good year for the GOP.  Bush seems determined to enable to let the Democrats run as the party in favor of liberty and the constitution. Giving the Dems a chance to run for something instead of against the GOP will probably help them gain several of the close races. The current scandals will hurt the GOP, but by themselves they aren't enough to account for the swing I currently foresee, even if we have some convinctions and or confessions before the election, since most voters will just see the Dems as merely not having the opportunity, not as being more honest.

A net +7 is the best the Dems can hope for, while the GOP could see a net +3.

This also assumes that Chafee wins the GOP nomination, if not then the seat is a certain Democratic gain.

The main thing thing that stands out with your map is Nevada.  I would have thought John Ensign is fairly safe, especially with his current opponent (Jack Carter).  Are you predicting a new entry into the race?

I know Ensign doesn't have high negatives, but he doesn't have high positives either, and if mid-terms turn national and pro-Democratic as I think they will, those low positives leave him vulnerable in my opinion.  Jack Carter is well positioned family-wise if this race ends up turning on civil liberties and personal integrity.  Say what you will about his father's ability as President, (and I won't disagree too loudly if you do) he has a strong reputation in those two areas which as of today look likely to be key in the 2006 election.

On the other hand, if I'm wrong about where the focus of the campaign will be, we'll probably end up with a boring mid-term with a net swing of at most two seats either way.

Why are you predicting Maryland to switch in a very good Dem year?

The GOP has consolidated around a single candidate who can afford to wait to spend his money and his political capital until after the primary, so I think the bickering between all the Dems for the open seat will give the GOP the edge, especially if Mfume can make it into a primary runoff.  If Sarbanes weren't retiring it would be a certain Dem hold, but that isn't the case.

()

Senate Break Down

Republicans: 53 (-2)
Democrats: 46 (+2)
Independents: 1

As I’ve always said I think Santorum will close strong in the PA senate race but it just won’t be enough and baring a major failure on the part of the Democrats Bob Casey will be PA’s next junior Senator.

I think that after Pennsylvania there are a string of contests which will be very close even with political trends going in the Democrat’s favour next fall, open races in MD and MN while close will probably see Democrats retain those seats.

GOP incumbents in OH, MT and MO will be under huge pressure from strong Democratic challenges but the power of incumbency still counts for something and all three represent states which Bush won in 2004 and can boast strong political machines of their own. But in the end I think that one of the three might very well produce a Democratic pick-up…

In Ohio it’ll be close but I think DeWine should eek out a win over Hackett and will probably beat Brown soundly should he be the Dem candidate.

In Missouri Talent has a strong challenge to contend with but has cash and connections and is not desperately unpopular and while the national trend might see him ousted despite his best efforts I think he’ll hang on.

Montana has all the ingredients for a classic upset, scandal plagued and uninspiring incumbent a popular and energetic state Democratic Party with two credible candidates, if any of these three Republican held seats flip I think it might very well be Montana.

Another open race in Tennessee will be hotly contested and while Harold Ford would be likely to run very strongly (he’ll break 45% IMO) as things stand he is most likely to lose to who ever the GOP candidate is next fall.

Long shot races for the Dems in Nevada and Arizona will come to nothing, though I’d expect both Pederson and Carter to do ok.

A major upset might be in Mississippi where if Lott decides to step down I would expect former AG Mike Moore to win an open contest even against well connected GOP congressman Chip Pickering.                                           

()

>30% Tossup
>60% Lean
>90% Solid

Only switches are NJ and PA.  The closest races that won't switch will be MN, MO, OH, MD and TN.  I was also very tempted to list NE as a tossup since I think that will be closer than people think.  Burns will win by at least 8-10 points in MT.

I'll edit and say that Klobuchar could make it quite close in MN.  Tossup as of right now.  And NJ is also a tossup.

EDIT 2 - 12/29: I also would like to point out that with more name recognition, my boy Tester COULD end up defeating Burns; I figure he will at one point or another be ahead in the polls.  Right now, it's another tossup.

()

()

Dems pick up 7 seats and retake the Senate.  You heard it here first.
Vermont is Sanders.

Hmmm… Senators Hackett, Morrison, McCaskill, Ford, Moore and Casey.

Now that would be a mighty fine intake :)

Though I should say that both Nevada and Maine are GOP held and are, baring a disaster, going to remain so… much as I wouldn’t mind a Senator Carter to add to the above intake ;)     

Your map does suggest that 2006 is getting increasingly competive for the Dems, especially where Lott to retire and Moore to run… it all depends on getting the right candidates especially in states like Ohio and Montana, both Missouri and Pennsylvania seem to have good solid Dem challengers, the party’s position in potentially troublesome states like Florida, Minnesota and Maryland has stabilised a great deal and we now look to be favoured in all three.       


And if the stars align just right next fall, maybe… just maybe I could wake up to…

()



It might take a huge amount of good fortune for the Dems and a lot of bad luck for the GOP, it just within the bounds of possibility, in all likelihood it won’t happen… but let me dream!         

yeah, I figured I'd probably screwed up some of the colors that's why I marked the pickups.

Beautiful, optimistic map, Harry.  Thanks.  I particularly enjoyed the little yellow dots where we pick up.  Of course I'm much more pessimistic than you. 

Ben, doesn't your map two posts above just show 6 pickups?

Is Harris is the R nominee in Florida, no way we lose it.  If it's someone else, I still wouldn't bet on it, but it'd be possible.

Yep...

Dream away, but I don't think it's gonna happen...I think we'll have to be content with something like 1-2 pickups. In fact, winnign back the senate ever looks kind of bleak, really...

If you are referring to net gains in the Senate, even that is a bit optimistic.


My opinion exactly.  Neither Democrats nor Republicans are going to make headway next year -and for that, in light of all their troubles this year, Republicans should feel grateful that they do not fare any worse. 

Realistically I agree :( I think that the Dems will probably win PA (though not by the huge margins the polls currently suggest), beyond that there are a few races with plenty of potential in the end I think the Democrats stand to pick up one of Montana, Ohio, Missouri or Tennessee but while I think Montana is well positioned for a surprise Dem win – Tennessee, Missouri and Ohio will be very tough for Dems and Ohio can be written off if Brown is the nominee.

On the brightside should Lott step down I think that Moore probably beats Pickering or who ever the GOP puts up for the seat, though it’ll be a highly competive race and a Moore win will owe far more to Moore’s own appeal and popularity than the campaigning ability or appeal of the Democratic Party.

Also on the plus side for the Dems polls suggest that both New Jersey and Minnesota will be held, while both Maryland and Florida look secure so it’s possible that the Republicans wont make any gains next fall and combined with two Democratic gains out of the contests in MT, OH, PA, TN and MO along with a possible third gain should Lott step down in MS means that net gains of somewhere in the region of 2-3 seats in the senate for Dems.               

My 'conventional'/ maximum incumbency map would have Dem +1 or +2 (Pennsylvania and maybe Rhode Island).

A "Maximum Republican" would be Rep +4 (Republicans gaining New Jersey, Maryland, West Virginia, and Minnesota while holding all incumbent seats).

A "Maximum Democrat" would be Dem +7 (Democrats gaining Pennsylvania, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Mississippi, Missouri, and Montana while holding all incumbent seats).

My "Random Gut Instinct" map would have no change - Pennsylvania, Ohio and Rhode Island going Democrat, Minnesota, Maryland, and New Jersey going Republican.

I just don't see RI flipping if Chafee is the GOP candidate no matter how tough the primary... if Lott steps down and Moore runs then the Dems have as good a shot in MS as anywhere, and certainly a better chance than in RI, beyond that I would have thought that the Dems can cobble together a win in one of TN, MO, OH or MT my bet being on MT with Morrison.

Beyond that I don’t see how the GOP wins either MN or MD both are seeing the Dems polling strongly and the trend that year would seem to be likely to favour the Dems over the GOP so I think the GOP’s best hope must be NJ and even there Martinez is polling ahead (!) 

Assuming Lott runs in MS, then I think PA is the only state which is likely (though not certain) to flip, Dems have an even chance of picking up one of MT, TN, MO or OH and if Lott does indeed retire and strong candidate such as Moore run I think that race would be wide open potentially even favouring Moore… I think that RI is probably on a par with AZ in terms of being competitive.     

Heh, you're being really pessimistic. Not getting at least one seat would be a really poor showing considering the situation. I do think Dems will get PA and I expect perhaps 2 more seats to change hands (unforeseen ones, that is). I think it will net out at 1 seat gain for the Dems, or thereabout.

I meant in terms of the partisan make-up in the Senate, which I predict will remain static -I am sure Democrats can definitely gain Pennsylvania and (less likely) Rhode Island, but Republicans will likely pick up Minnesota and (less likely) New Jersey, therefore cancelling each other's gains out.   

The likley Dem candidate leads Kennedy by 7-8 pionts in MN - if anything the contest leans towards the Dems, NJ is more worrying IMHO. 

New Jersey is the Republicans' best chance for a pickup, and even that doesn't look very likely. Minnesota is swinging back to the Democrats, and they already have one Bushbot Republican in Norm Coleman. I highly doubt they'll elect another.

My over/under for Democratic pickups is +3. Anything less than 3 net pickups would be a disappointment in my eyes.

Agreed I think its more likely to be 2 but maybe 3.

I think PA will turn into a tough fight but Casey should probably be able to win :D

At least one of OH (so long as the Dems in the state don’t nominate Brown), MO, MT or TN should flip and my money is probably on MT, Burns as a discredited incumbent, the advances of the local Dems in the state and both Morrison and perhaps Tester as capable challengers suggests it’s a contest with all the ingredients for a classic upset over an incumbent Senator.

If Lott steps down and the year is a on balance a good one for the Democrats then Mississippi should and will be a top priority with Moore probably running and offering the party its best shot for a pickup after Casey in PA.

On top of all this, time is getting might short for the GOP in FL, Harris will probably be the candidate and has surprisingly little cash with which to run her campaign and will probably go down to a fairly hefty defeat next fall [evil grin], Minnesota as you say is swing back to the Democrats with Amy Klobuchar emerging as a powerful candidate who is now racking up consistently clear leads (bigger than Cardin in MD) in a race that pundits still seem to think leans towards the GOP – on top of which Kennedy appears to not be the hugely powerful candidate we where lead to believe he would be. New Jersey and Maryland remain competive, as does MN for that matter, but as in MN the Dems have the edge and there is little evidence to suggest that they will lose it between now and next fall – not to tempt fate :(

So as I say I think as things stand the Dems should make a net gain of 2 seats but should Lott stand down there is an excellent chance that Moore will pick up a third in Mississippi – what’s more Hackett, McCaskill and Ford will all be competive in their own states though I think they’ll all face an uphill struggle to win.       

I've had Rhode Island and Pennsylvania pegged as Republican losses for a few months now.  In the past year, I've pretty much written off Nebraska, North Dakota, West Virginia, and (nominally) Florida. 

I think Burns, Talent, and DeWine will retain their seats, but none will break 55%.  I think Tennessee will also stay in the Republican column.  I've thought Minnesota would be a strong possiblity to flip to the Republicans, but now I'm not so sure.  However, despite Klobuchar's seven point lead, I still wonder if she's the kind of candidate Minnesota will ultimately go for.  They've voted for moderate Republicans (Durenburger, Boschwitz) conservative Republicans (Pawlenty, Coleman) and down home populists, namely the late Senator Wellstone.  But a female county attorney from Minneapolis?  Would she necessarily generate enthusasiam in the counties in and around Minnesota's Iron Range and Arrowhead regions? 

It's the beginning of the year, and anything could happen.  But for the moment, I think Democrats are well positioned to pick up two seats.

Wow. You are NOT going to be happy Election Night 2006, that's pretty much for sure.

Actually, I think you make a good point here-- by all historical precedent, Democrats should gain a few seats or so. Problem: it's not going to happen. Generic party polls are swinging back to even, with Dems holding an insignificant edge mostly because they aren't in power.

A lot of Democrats are acting like they still have the Big Mo, which they don't. There's a lot of time, of course, but at this point there is no way to project the situation as of November 2006.

My personal guess right now is that the GOP will take 2 Dem seats (probably NJ and MN) while Democrats knock off 2 Republicans. There could be less turnover than that... we'll see.

That's rather generous to the GOP.  Why Florida?

lol! Harris beating Nelson! she doesn't even have the money to run campaign ads right now!

As for MN, i think its becoming clearer and clearer that Kennedy is not as strong a candidate as we where lead to believe and that Amy Klobuchar at the same time is proving an unexpectedly strong candidate.

And then there’s New Jersey, which I think is probably the one best hope for a GOP pick up, but even in New Jersey national factors and the state’s strong Democratic tilt are producing polls which show Bob Menendez (on paper a very weak candidate) leading Tom Kean (in contrast a much stronger candidate on paper). So even here in what is the GOP best shot (IMHO) their chances can’t really be considered much better than evens.

Added to which there is the potential for an exceedingly competitive race in MS should Lott retire in which Mike Moore would probably enjoy a slight edge and added to which the Democrats would have credible chances in MT, OH (assuming Brown isn’t nominated), TN and MO though I’ll concede that in all these states the GOP starts out as the favourite.

So in short +3 gains for the GOP in the Senate is bordering on wishful thinking.           

I should make myself clear...I do think a net gain of at least one seat i likely, because I think Dems will take PA and beyond that we should AT LEAST be able to cancel out any GOP gains. I think it's fairly likely to stop at one seat gain, could be two with a little luck though. But not more than that. As I've stated before, it doesn't really matter since it's not gonna be enough to take back the senate anyway.

Fair enough… I must confess that for a long time I’ve been urging Dems to be cautious about Florida, while unlike many other southern states you need to do more than get the Republican vote out in order to win state-wide getting that vote out, as Harris probably will, still nets you a healthy share of the vote – but with her fundraising compared to Nelson’s and the current polls I think that what glimmer of a chance remained for a republican pickup in the sunshine state is fading fast.

Minnesota and New Jersey seem to be favouring the Dems right now but I’d agree that both will be very close in the end… PA I’d expect to go Dem but I don’t think it’ll be by a wide margin.   

Updated:

()


Light blue/red: Very close election
Plain blue/red: Reasonably close
Dark blue/red: Wide margin of victory

My current prediction for the partisan breakdown of the 110th Senate: Dems +1

Republicans - 54
Democrats - 45
Independent - 1

()

4 incumbents are defeated, and no open seats change hands.

()

Light means gain
Dark means hold

Bernie Sanders is Red, because... well, he is one.

Anyway, looks like the forces of idiocy have prevailed and we are going to weaken Chaffee in RI, which will give the Dems a way in.  Reps pick up Minn.  Santorum holds in PA.  Walter is right, Casey Junior is a piss-poor campaigner.

New Jersey is up in the air, but I have a hard time believing that Jesus could run as a Republican and get elected there.  If he did, the Democrats would just find a way to cheat us out of it at the polls, anyway.

Current list of likely to change hands:

1. Pennsylvania
2. Missouri
3. Montana
4. Minnesota
5. Ohio
6. New Jersey
7. Rhode Island

Or at least, that's my take right now. Might change though.

Dark color = safe election
Light color = close election

()

()
Dems pick up 11 seats in the Senate and about 60 in the House.

Nevada?  Aren't we feeling generous?

I'm more looking at Texas, where the Democratic challenger is polling at around 25%.

Most vulnerable:

10. Nebraska
Not actually likely to switch, but considering it's Nebraska I still put it up there.

9. Tennessee
Also not very likely, but Ford seems like a fairly good candidate. Still,considering how badly Dems have been doing in Tennessee lately I'm not expecting much.

8. Ohio
I used to have high hopes on this one but I'm losing faith. Now that DeWine is moving ahead and Hackett is looking weaker, well...defeating a fairly moderate incumbent in a somewhat Republican state was always going to be hard. The chance is still there, but it's slipping away.

7. Maryland
This is here simply because of that poll and the fact that Steele is looking so strong. The Dems really SHOULD win a race in Maryland.

6. Montana
Dems have been doing well lately in Montana, and Burns has the whole Abramoff thing around his neck. Still, this is a state that Bush won by over 20 points, so it definitely won't be easy. I'm still giving the incumbent the edge here, I'm thinking it might play out similar to Bunnings in 2004.

5. Minnesota
This looks good for the GOP on paper, but polls have been unfavourable and Minnesota's strong Kerry vote is an indication that it might be swinging back. Sort of wait-and-see on this one.

4. Missouri
Should be a tough one, but once again, polls have been looking good for Democrats. Considering how close Missouri still is in most races Democrats ought to win a race by now. This is a tossup, IMO.

3. New Jersey
I find it hard to believe that New Jersey will elect a Republican senator for the first time in 30 years after the big Corzine win, but on the other hand Kean looks good and Menendez doesn't, candidate-wise. And this is sort of the reverse of Missouri. They ought to win, just once.

2. Rhode Island
I'm still sceptical of Democrats picking up this seat, but I guess it could happen, especially if Laffey wins the nomination. If he doesn't though, I still give Chafee the edge.

1. Pennsylvania
What is there to say? I don't want the PAers over me, suffice it to say that this is the only race I consider really likely to switch, what with the large Casey lead and all.

So, my prediction of 1+ for Democrats remain.

If that map happens, I will send Harry $100.

()

>30% Tossup
>50% Slight
>70% Lean
>90% Solid

My prediction among non-solid races:
AZ:  Kyl +16
CT:  Lieberman +22 (if Weicker runs)
FL:  Nelson +11
MD:  Cardin +4
MI:  Stabenow +20
MN:  Klobuchar +3
MO:  Talent +1
MT:  Burns +8
NE:  Nelson +13
NV:  Ensign +24
NJ:  Menendez +3
OH:  DeWine +2 (Hackett); DeWine +5 (Brown)
PA:  Casey +6
RI:  Chafee +7
TN:  GOP +2
WA:  Cantwell +11

()

Vermont is red because I do not know how to color it green for Bernie Sanders.

Harry... give me the drugs.

get the check ready...

I will be more than happy to if that happens

As long as Burns and Santorum get the beating they deserve i dont really care about the other races.

I will probably have a nervous breakdown if Maryland or New Jersey votes Republican. *Whats the point in trying*

You know, NM *is* having a Senate election this year, believe it or not. :P

Maybe if Bingaman would do something once in awhile, I would have noticed ;)

If he ever does anything, send me a PM - I can't remember anything either :P

()

Key:
Light=less than 6% victory margin
Medium=6% or more victory margin
Dark=11% or more victory margin

Notes:
Vermont is colored dark red, but it should be dark green. There was no option for independents.

The Democrats will win in Virginia if and only if Mark Warner runs. Otherwise, Allen wins in a landslide.

Arizona and Tennesse are both tossups, I just colored them with the color of the party more likely to win.

Rhode Island is dark blue, but if Chafee loses the Republican primary, it becomes dark red.

Outcome:
Dems win 7 seats.

110th Congress:
51 Dem.
48 Rep.
1 Ind.

Warner has officially ruled out a Senate run, so Allen will win (unless he gets "outted" - but that's a different story.


I don't really think Arizona is a tossup.  True, Kyl isn't the most popular guy in the world but he's still popular enough to get re-elected, polling over 50%, especially with the Democrats running the next best thing to a sacrifical lamb.

I also don't think Democrats have a shot at Nevada, although once again if those outting rumors turn out to be true and it's Ensign, then...

In that case, the Republicans win Virginia too.

I think the Dems will try hard to oust Kyl. I think it will be close, but like I said, I think the Republicans are more likely to win.

In my opinion, things are looking grim for the GOP in Nevada. If Jack Carter is running, he will likely have his dad and Harry Reid campaigning for him. Jack Carter has more name recoginition than John Ensign, and if I were an average voter, I'd probably keep that in mind.

Why is Washington colored gray? Cantwell is running for re-election.

My bad, I forgot all about Cantwell. Washington is red.

Lott won't be reelected.

Based on what exactly?  As of now he is a shoo-in for re-election, and nothing I know of has come up that would suggest otherwise.

Based on the fact that Harry doesn't want him to be re-elected, as far as I can tell.

What makes you think that?

Seriously though, is there something you know that the rest of us don't? I mean, you're from Mississippi and probably know a lot more about the Senate race there than I do.

Well...yeah...

Mike Moore could knock him off.  I wouldn't bet on it, or think he even would have a 20% of doing it, but it's not outside the realm of possibilty.

I'm confused.  You think there's a 20 percent chance yet you say it will happen?

No.

He says there is a 10% chance of it happening, yet he says it will happen.

Realistically, 10% chance or less.  But I'm just going out on a limb and making a bold prediction.

Making a prediction you are 90% sure incorrect could be considered bold, I suppose.  I can think of a number of other words for it, too.

Kudos to you for being so positive. If what you say is true, then I would agree that the chance is very remote, but could happen. :)

Maybe Trent Lott will turn out to be the one who's gay. :P

()

2 New R's, 2 New D's, no change. Highly subjective, as are the rest of these. ^_^
*edit* In case it's not clear, I'm not predicting voting %s. The deep blue or red colors stand for seat change.
*edit2* I know I specified the EC #'s NOT to show up...hold on a sec*

Quick point; the incumbent Nebraska Senator is a Democrat

I'll fix that. Maybe not today, but I'll fix it. ;)

*edit* Then again, maybe I will fix it today. Thanks for pointing that out. ^_^

Revised prediction.

Firstly some general trends on which this prediction is based… 

I have no doubt that the GOP once again will display its traditional flare for campaign and we’ll see a disciplined, concerted campaign from the Republicans securing good showings in close races across the country.

Despite the GOP’s structural advantages this will be the third election where they have been in effective control of all three branches of government and there will be a “voter fatigue” factor exacerbated by the scandal (identified by many with the GOP’s congressional leadership) and this will have an impact, though perhaps it will be more marked in the House rather than the Senate.

While the GOP can be expected to conduct its campaign with drive and discipline I have no doubt that as usual the Democrats will conduct a largely directionless and ill disciplined national campaign  which will see the competive races largely decided on the basis of the strengths and weaknesses of the local campaigns. With no “theme”, “narrative”, “message” and the increasing failure of a party that seeks to hold together a collation of Michael Moore and Barbra Boxer together with Phil Bredensen and John Breaux to endorse a single national platform makes any Democratic version of ’94 or ’02 highly unlikely.             

As I’ve said I think that in the House Republican weakness and a number of strong Democratic candidates might well produce a good haul for the Democrats, the Senate is likely to make for gloomier reading.   


No Republican incumbent is stepping down this year (save Frist) while in contrast two Democrats are and a third race (in New Jersey) could easily be characterised as an “open race” with Bob Menendez’s elevation to replace Jon Corzine last year. All three races see strong GOP candidates behind which their parties have largely united against a string of less impressive Democratic candidates.

While Steele is proving a strong candidate, Cardin is also a credible candidate for the Dems and MD’s strongly Democratic tilt is likely to mean the Democrats retain the senate seat in contrast the Democrat’s enjoy no such advantages in MN and a very close race seems likely (though I’ve given the edge to Kennedy I’d still say it’s a toss-up).

Of all the three “open” races New Jersey is perhaps the GOP’s best prospect; a strong candidate in the form of Tom Kean and a weak Democratic incumbent will probably enable the GOP to maintain and increase Kean’s early lead in the polls making a pickup IMHO very likely.         

 
Despite the fact that no Republican (save as mentioned Frist) is standing down this year there are a number of weaker incumbents in states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Rhode Island, Montana and Missouri. Of these potentially competitive races for the Democrats in RI, MT and OH have been undermined by the failure of the party to produce any particularly strong candidates and while the Dem’s prospects can’t be ruled out its likely that the Republican incumbents will be able to outspend and beat their comparatively lightweight opponents in November (though outsider chances for the Dems certainly exist in all three).


Central to Democratic hope this year is Pennsylvania, where the Party has recruited a powerful candidate in the form of State Treasurer Bob Casey the son of popular former Governor Robert Casey. Casey’s task is much tougher than the early polls might suggest his opponent, incumbent republican Rick Santorum is a prodigious fundraiser and energetic campaigner and has come from behind to win before, yet Casey is a strong candidate as well and continues to lead Santorum by anything from 10-15 points. Santorum is also hurt by the fact that he is an overtly partisan and ideological politician, with a long paper trail, in a moderate State which generally favours Democrats facing a popular moderate Democrat in the form of Casey. The race will narrow significantly as Election Day draws near but it seems unlikely that Santorum, however much some might hope, will be able to over come the gap.         
   
Beyond Pennsylvania only one other state has show consistent leads for the Democratic candidate and that has been Missouri. It seems to not be that Jim Talent is hugely unpopular but rather that he faces a challenger (in State Auditor Claire McCaskill) whom many Missouri voters seem to have taken a real liking to and seems to be running a strong concerted campaign even this far out. Talent has demonstrated a impressive ability to raise cash in the past and no doubt he will this year – however its undeniable that McCaskill and the Dems will also raise plenty of cash with which to challenge Talent. Like Minnesota this race will be close right to the end but unlike Minnesota I’d give the edge to the Dems here.       


Finally there’s Tennessee, maybe I should have dismissed the prospects for Harold Ford just as I did those of Morrison, Hackett and Brown by ranking it as a long shot, but you can’t take away from the fact that polls repeatedly show the race as close and Ford has sunk a great deal of effort and money already into the race and over a divided GOP field it maybe that this race will prove a sleeper – without a doubt the GOP will enjoy an advantage but it will likely remain a slight one and one which could vanish altogether should Ford continue to pursue the same effective and concerted campaign he is at present.


In other races, little to report really, Allen will win in Virginia though I can’t help thinking that with cash James Webb will perform surprisingly well, though its highly doubtful that he’ll even come close to winning. In Nevada if Goodman runs things could well get interesting, if its Carter expect a solid re-election for John Ensign but I wouldn’t put a credible performance past Carter. Florida no doubt (excepting a late entry by another republican) sees an impressive win for Nelson over a hapless Harris campaign.   

()

Republicans: 55 (nc)

Democrats: 44 (nc)

Independents: 1 (nc)   

()

Republicans: 56 (+1, Minnesota)
Democrats: 43 (-1)
Independents: 1

quite the pessimist, Tweed!

I'm afraid I may have to soon move MS back into the GOP column... :(


if I don't slit my wrists first...

Okay, here's my predictions.

Some highlights:

OHIO: As an Ohio resident myself, Dewine has been a fine moderate Republican Senator, he is a household name much more than any of his possible democratic opponents. Dewine will get my vote this November, and will win the election.

PENNSYLVANIA: While I feel the GOP may very well elect a Republican Governor in November, I feel that the Democrats may very will elect a Democratic Senator. I do not expect Senator Santorum to win re-election. I know some from Pennsylvania (NOT JUST PHIL), and Santorum is...somewhat of a household name, but not usually in a good way. The way I hear it is, "Hey, Rick Santorum..." and it's something negative. I think he has an unfair bad rap...and that will not lead him over the victory line this November.

MISSOURI: I believe that Jim will show his Talent this November against Claire McCaskill...Did I spell that right? I don't care because I won't be spelling that as the name of a US Senator in 2007.

FLORIDA: Personally, I think Katherine Harris is a babe, but not Senate material. Senator Nelson will beat her this November. Ever see that pic of her riding the horse...without the makeup??

MARYLAND: Atleast it's competitive...but the state is so damn liberal, I can't see Steele getting the win. Nevertheless, the GOP can still hope for the best, since November is a long ways away.

MASSACHUSETTS: Although he is more of a nut then ever, the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will re-elected Ted Kennedy again....why the hell did he name his dog Splash? Have he no moral dignity? "I'd still rather do shootin' with Dick Cheney than go drivin' with Ted Kennedy".

NEW JERSEY: Tom Kean Sr. was one of...if not the best Governor in New Jersey's history just 15-20 years ago, and his son, Tom Kean Jr...with be a great Senator come 2007.

Enough chit-chat...here's my map:::

()

I'm predicting +4 for the Democrats. That's pickups in Montana, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.

Kean will win New Jersey.

We can certainly hope. :)

That's if we are lucky, and we don't screw up too badly as we did in Ohio.  A four seat gain is the max that we can achieve -a more likely outcome is if we make a net gain of one, or maybe even two seats in the Senate. 

No

No

Yes.

NASOPOWER!

Indeed its time the place got someone competent and decent to represent them… New Jersey deserves better than the triumvirate of Corzine, Menendez and Lautenberg :P       

At the same time though Casey will win in PA - by the skin of his teath.

Updated, with 3 changes:
()

3 incumbents are defeated, and no open seats change hands.  +3D.

I'm certainly surprised that you believed Kean will win.

After all, Bush was going to win 40 states.

()
D +5

It's way, way too early to be seriously posting a prediction, but I'm going to post one anyway just to have a base prediction available, which will likely endure heavy updating as we get closer to Election Day:

()

Republicans: 53 (-2)
Democrats: 46 (+2)
Independent: 1

R -> D: Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania
D -> R: New Jersey

Percentages represent percentage received by winning candidate.

---

The last poll I saw from New Jersey put Kean ahead, but I really don't know what to think there.  I have a gut feeling that Kean has an ever-so-slight advantage, but my current prediction there should really not be taken as what I think will actually happen; I don't really have a clue there.

()

Pennsylvania (much like Iowa in my Governor's Map) is purely optimism talking. I wish to be optimistic at leats once very month or so. :)

Pennsylvania, but not Montana?

That's rather selective optimism. :P

Kean’s polling a damn site better in New Jersey than Kennedy is in Minnesota and Menendez is certainly a weaker opponent than Klobuchar seems to be proving and yet you seem to think that Kennedy will win in MN, what’s more I wouldn’t be surprised to see Kean garner a whole load more cash than Kennedy, primarily from the big GOP donors in NY and the North East who simply don’t have any other local candidates to give to.   

What Bush winning 40 states has to do with it I don’t know though.

Yes, New Jersey deserves better than that sorry lot ;)

And I agree with you on PA - Casey will win but it will be closer than many expect.

I would be happy to see both Kean and Casey win. :)

This may be the most unfathomably braindead exchange on this Forum in a while.

New Jersey is a much more Democratic state than Minnesota, in my mind.  2004, which saw Bush getting 46% in NJ, was an abberation, and the state has come back to earth.  The polling numbers are irrelevant, while Kean has a consistently small lead it's meaningless as both candidates are polling in the mid-30s. [And the newest Rasmussen poll has Menendez 39 Kean 36 actually].  By election day Menendez should win by about 2-3%.

Also, Kean may have money, but there's absolutely no way that he can outspend the NJ Democratic machine.  Past history shows us this.

Just noticed this: Only 1 of the deep South states has a senate election this year while every Northeastern state except 1 has one. The Democrats are favored to cut into their deficit this year by at least 1 seat and could gain as many as 4 while I'm sure the Republican party would be overjoyed to just break even.

Even though the Republicans have a clear majority in the Senate, there are fewer Republican senators(16) up for reelection than Democratic ones(17). The election is 8 months out, but the Republicans really need some things to go their way just to maintain status quo. By the numbers, this year is their opportunity to open the gap and get that 60-40 majority. If the Democrats gain 3 seats this year, that would be monumental since in 2008 and 2010 combined(given the current makeup of the Senate) there will be 27 Democrats and 38 Republicans up for reelection.

How did this happen?

It's only 15 Republican seats. In addition to the 17 Democratic seats, there's Jeffords' open seat, where one IINO will be replaced with another IINO.

"slight lead"!!! - He beating Brown by nine pionts and that without running a single ad!

()

Light blue/red: Toss-up
Plain blue/red: Lean
Dark blue/red: Solid

I've called them (and I'm sticking with them), no matter how implausible some of these predictions may be

Dave

As of Today:

Strong Democrat:
Washington
Michigan
Nebraska
Maryland
Florida
Minnesota

Weak Democrat:
Pennsylvania Pick-up
Montana Pick-up

Weak Republican:
New Jersey Pick-up
Rhode Island
Missouri
Ohio

Strong Republican:
Tennessee
Virginia
Arizona

All other races are super-safe.

Id move Arizona to super safe.  Kyl is safe, period.

I wouldn't put Minnesota as strong Democrat.

()

That seems likley, though MT, MN and MO will be on a knife edge and PA will be closer than folks think (though i'd imagine - Hope - Casey will win).

How is it that people can make maps with Red, Blue, Green and Gray states? I can only get Red/Blue/Grey or Red/Blue/Green for any map with the current 50 states on it.

()

Red/Blue = Hold
Dark Red/Blue = Gain
Light Red/Blue = Weak Hold
Green = Bernie Sanders

Democrats gain 3 seats.

Missouri and NJ are the two hardest to call in my opinion; those could both end up being wrong. Though I think the Democrats will skim by in both states just because of general anti-Republican sentiment.

Two possibilities:

1. They took the map and altered it in a paint program and saved it as a file on the internet.

2. The URL for the maps created by the generator have a number of entrues of the form &XX;#;#;#  where XX is the two letter postal code for the state, the first number is color where 0=gray;1=red;2=blue;3=green, the second number is the number of EV's, and the thirs level is the decile from 3 to 9 (30% to 90%).  So if one alters the URL by hand, one can use the generator to create maps that the UI cannot.  Note also:  Gray doesn't change shade according to the decile and if the generator isn't expecting to use green for a particular year, you get gray instead, but with white numbers instead of black numbers as is usual for gray.

Thanks alot! All I had to do was change the year to 1960 in the URL and then change VT's color to 3. That was so easy!

Thanks again,
Jacob

Sorry to ask a question, probably asked many times before, but how do you generate these senate maps?  In any event, the GOP drops Pennsylvania and Montana, and picks up New Jersey, for a GOP loss of one seat.

It's quite simple, actually: go here (https://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/evcalc.php), set the winner of each state and the percentage you want, then click "Show map link" at the bottom, and finally copy and paste the text you see into the post in which you want the map to appear.  To make a state grey, just set it to "toss-up" (the T column).

As a more advanced thing to do, if you want to set Vermont to be green (for "independent"), look at the thing you copied and pasted for something that looks like this:

VT=#;#;#

where "#" is some number.

To make it green, change the first number to "3", which is the number for "independent", so it then looks like this:

VT=3;#;#

Thanks Senator for the assistance. I appreciate it.

Call me Gabu.  The Senator is a title from our fantasy election section (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=13.0), which, by the way, you may want to check out if you're so inclined. :)

()

I think we'll have the status quo, with PA and NJ switching spots.

wasn't that the reasoning some gave of why Foorester was going to beat Corzine last year??

As a candidate, Kean Jr. is approximately 100 times better than Forrester.

I just posted a long list, but then it disappeared somehow. :(

Anyway, to make a long list short, here are my updated most vulnerable:

10. Nebraska  (10)
9. Tennessee (9)
8. Ohio (8)
7. Maryland (7)

Cut-off between competitive and non-competitive

6. Minnesota (5)
5. Rhode Island (2)
4. Missouri (4)
3. Montana (6)
2. New Jersey (3)

Cut-off between "I predict as switching and not"

1. Pennsylvania (1)

()


March 2006:
Based mostly on my gut feeling.

Rhode Island:  Chafee takes an easier than expected win vs. Whitehouse,  55%-43%.

Maryland:  Cardin wins the open seat versus Steele, 54%-45%.

Pennsylvania:  While not the blow-out that it might have been, Casey still defeats Santorum, 53%-46%.

Montana:  Morrison burns Burns, 52%-46%.

Minnesota:  Klobuchar takes the open seat over Kennedy, 52%-46%.

Missouri:  McCaskill beats Talent, 52%-47%.

New Jersey:  Menendez wins by just a hair versus Kean, 50.6%-49.1%.

Nevada:  Election night surprise!!  Goodman 50.2%, Ensign 49.6%.

Other interesting races:

Tennessee:  Bryant 58%, Ford 41%.

Ohio:  DeWine 57%, Brown 42%.

Florida: Nelson 57%, Harris 39%.

Washington:  Cantwell 58%, McGavick 40%.

Nebraska:  Nelson 59%, Ricketts 41%.

Virginia:  Allen 59%, Webb 41%.

Michigan:  Stabenow 59%, Bouchard 40%.



(R)51
(D)48
(I)1

Here are my updated most vulnerable, having looked at the approval ratings:

Didn't realize Nelson was so popular gonna take him off the list. Not sure who to replace with, but I guess Stabenow. Menendez decent approval rating compared to Burns abysmal one makes me switch these races.

10. Michigan (new)
9. Tennessee (9)
8. Ohio ( 8 )
7. Maryland (7)

Cut-off between competitive and non-competitive

6. Minnesota (6)
5. Rhode Island (5)
4. Missouri (4)
3. New Jersey (2)
2. Montana (3)

Cut-off between "I predict as switching and not"

1. Pennsylvania (1)

That sounds about right, but I think OH and TN will be closer. I didn't know Goodman was running, though.

Maybe TN, but Brown is going to get crushed in OH.

I don't know about "crushed," but I think that the whole Paul Hackett debacle really hurt his chances of winning.

To be fair Brown hurt his chances of being elected on his own, he combines a very liberal voting record with a prickly persona…

A liberal could be elected in Ohio if his votes seemed coherent and he was both articulate and engaging (a-la Feingold or even Harkin) but Brown is neither articulate nor engaging and his voting record is little more than a shopping list for various liberal pressure groups and trades unions.

On top of all this DeWine was never in desperate trouble, his base might not have been happy with him but they will troop out for Blackwell in all likelihood come election day and would never countenance backing a candidate like Brown.

A maverick like Hakcett who seemed independent and coherent had a long shot, though he would probably have lost while Rep.Tim Ryan would probably have had a better chance but would still have been in a very tight race.

Brown’s votes outside of Cleveland will come thanks to Strickland being on the ballot and general dissatisfaction with the Bush and the GOP nationally and it will not be enough. DeWine will win Republican handily, ditto independents and will potentially take a significant share of Democratic voters – in the end I’d expect him to win by anything from 6-12 points over Brown.             

Interesting assessment. I guess it just depends on what your definition of "crushed" is.

I don't know if Goodman is running either; I don't know when the filing deadline is in Nevada.  Goodman has been making noise about running.  I included him only because I believe he is the most viable challenger.

This is just my feeling of where the Senate is at present.  It's not as conservative as my earlier prediction and holds a tad more to polls and extrenal circumstances with a slight emphasis on trend.

If I think one race might be moving one way or another, I'll post it.  Expect another commentary from me in a month or two:

Safe or Likely is roughly the same, it's just with safe I don't think there is any potential for anything to happen; likely means that something could happen, but probably won't.

Safe Democratic
California
Delaware
Hawaii
Massachusetts
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Likely Democratic
Connecticut (guarding against Lieberman)
Florida (could move to safe before long, knowing Harris)
Michigan (I agree with Nick here actually, there is a good potential for movement on this one, most likely one to move to Lean or better.  If I see another poll with Ras. and SV, will move to lean)
Nebraska
Vermont (I)* (As close to a safe open seat we have, it'll probably go there over time)

Lean Democratic
Maryland*
Minnesota*
Pennsylvania (R)
Washington (things are stable here, this is mainly to guard against an incumbent who consistently polls under 50%, this could move to likely)

Toss Up
Missouri (R)
Montana (R)
New Jersey (D)*

Lean Republican
Ohio (R) (if I see another poll backing up Rasmussen's stats, I will change this to toss-up)
Rhode Island (lack of polls makes me stay conservative on this prediction, also that I think Chafee will win primary)
Tennessee* (I need to see who the nominee is here.)

Likely Republican
Arizona
Nevada
Virginia (most likely of the three Rep. Likelies to become closer)

Safe Republican
Indiana
Maine
Mississippi
Texas
Utah
Wyoming

Sam, have you seen the latest Nebraska poll? I think you can move Nebraska to safe. Also, I'm inclined to say the same for Nevada, possibly also Arizona and Virginia. Polls there have been chrushing.

One poll does not a move make, especially when it's Rasmussen.  I like corroboration.

Besides, this is predictive prediction; it is based more on polls than my earlier thoughts, but not entirely so.

Also, I define safe as where the opposing party or candidate has, to put it bluntly, no chance in hell of winning barring huge scandal or new development.

I don't see Nebraska that way and I don't see Nevada/Arizona/Virginia that way.

Me, I'd move Hawaii one down on account of potentially divisive primary (though maybe you've looked at Republican challengers and noticed they aren't worth sh!t - I haven't) ... Florida one up ... New Jersey one up - basically that'll go Democrat by not too small a margin unless Menendez comes out personally looking bad out of some future scandal, which seeing as he's a North Jersey Democrat is definitely possible ... Nevada one down.

I haven't looked at this list in a while, but I'll comment below with my own "revisions"

There is no Hawaii Republican in the race who's raised a dime so far, so to me that means total non-entities.  HI-02 will probably be the most interesting general election race this year there, imo.

Considering polls, on the Democratic side Florida should probably moved to Safe, along with Vermont.  If I'm being quite literal with my own scale, I should probably pull Byrd down to Likely D, not because I think he has a chance of losing, but because he might be held to 60% or under this year and the polling on that race feels very similar to Virginia.  But since I really don't care, I leave him at safe.

Because of the Mason-Dixon poll out today on Montana, I would move it to lean Democrat.

I know your feelings on New Jersey and I know the way New Jersey typically goes as elections move on, but until I see that trend consistently emerge in the polling of this race, I will leave it at where the polling indicates it's at.

In Ohio, I believe Mason-Dixon over the others, period.  The recent uni poll confirms my suspicions on this one somewhat, though I would like to see more.

You and I actually agree on Rhode Island.  It's sort of funny, when I think about it.

Tennessee is on the cusp of being moved to Likely, especially if Corker wins the primary.

I actually think Arizona may be the one out of those three to become closer now, which changes my opinion of earlier.  Polling influences this opinion here, but a lot of Arizona polling tends to be shoddy, at best, so I may be totally wrong.

I am close to agreeing with you on Nevada.

Hope that revision is helpful.  :)  I may be more thorough come July 1 or so.

I hadn't noticed your post was a month old... explains Florida. :)

()

My latests predictions...
()

Maryland...LOL

I'm moving Ohio to toss-up, just because of the Mason-Dixon/SUSA split in opinion of the race.

()

This is my gut feeling.

()

()

Connecticut and Rhode Island races depend entirely on the primary.  Obviously the Republicans can't win in Connecticut, but it could go Independent or Democratic.  Rhode Island is a dogfight with Chafee in the race and a walkover if he loses to Laffey in the primary.  Chafee really should run as a Democrat.  Hawaii also has an interesting primary with Ed Case being a little bitch but it'll go Democratic easily either way.

Changes from last time:

Minnesota from R --> D: Kennedy hasn't led in a poll yet.  If this race is just going to be generic democrat v. generic republican, which it is starting to look like, it's going to be very hard for Kennedy to win.

Montana from R --> D: Burns is clearly trailing at this instant.  He has time to catch up, but in reality, he has to be the underdog at this point.

Pennsylvania from R --> D: I decided to be sane for the hell of it.

Glad to see you've come to your senses, Boss.

I'm going to move Arizona back to Likely R.  This really has little to do with Rasmussen, but the BRC poll which said otherwise didn't look correct in terms of crosstabs or answers and without another poll saying anything concurrent for a while, I'm going back to my gut (Virginia will be much more in play than Arizona).

About Virginia, if another poll comes out saying what Rasmussen does, expect me to move it to Lean R.  Unlike any other state where an incumbent is running, what I'm stating below could happen.

Frankly, Webb could reach 45%-46% (the Kerry number), if Virginia Democrats treat Allen as if he is Bush and register anti-GOP sentiment against that (which is possible).  The last 4% is what would be a bitch to get for Webb, if it settles into a Presidential-like contest.  Potentially, this is what I see shaping up.  It would be interesting.

Just as an overall viewpoint, expect me to be more conservative on Senate races until the end, because there will be a lot of polls after Labor Day to gauge the races on.

I will be more liberal on House races, because national trends tend to impact these races more.  Also, there is simply less polling, so if a wave is growing I'd like to be on top of it, rather than rushing to correct.  :)

Sam:  wanna make some sort of wager on Arizona?  I'll wager on Pederson and you on Kyl?

I don't wager on politics unless I have seen both candidates publicly, but I'm curious as to what your terms are.

()

June 2006:

Again, this is based mostly on my gut feeling, and it has changed a bit since my predictions in March.  I still believe that negative ratings for Bush and the Republican Congress will swing several toss-up seats to Democrat, and hold the margin of victory down in a Safe Republican seats.  I'm not basing anything on certain polls, but rather on accumulation of polls and other media, and the aforementioned gut feeling.


Maryland:  Cardin wins the open seat versus Steele, 56%-43%.

Pennsylvania:  While not the blow-out that it might have been, Casey still defeats Santorum, 54%-45%.

Montana:  Tester burns Burns, 54%-44%.

Rhode Island:  After a close primary win over Laffey, Chafee loses to Whitehouse, 53%-46%.

Minnesota:  Klobuchar takes the open seat over Kennedy, 52%-46%.

Missouri:  McCaskill beats Talent, 52%-47%.

New Jersey:  Menendez wins over Kean, 51%-48%.

Ohio:  Brown edges out DeWine, 51%-49%


Other interesting races:

Arizona:  Kyl 54%, Pederson 44%

Washington:  Cantwell 55%, McGavick 43%.

Tennessee:  Corker 57%, Ford 42%.

Virginia:  Allen 58%, Webb 42%.

Nebraska:  Nelson 59%, Ricketts 41%.

Michigan:  Stabenow 59%, Bouchard 40%.

Nevada:  Ensign 60%, Carter 40%.  (I move it to safe republican, now that Goodman is not in the running.)

Florida: Nelson 64%, Harris 30%.  (Only included because it was supposed to be interesting, and is embarrasingly not.)

Connecticut:  Assuming Lieberman survives his primary challenge from Lamont, Lieberman 75%, Schlesinger 20%.  If Lamont is the Democratic nominee, and Lieberman runs as independent:  Lieberman 53%, Lamont 35%, Schlesinger 10%; but then who does Joe caucus with????  Right now, I go with Lieberman winning the primary and general.


R 50
D 49
I 1

I assume you put the wrong color in WV, Downwinder?

Dammit, I did.  Sorry, that.  WV is just so easy to forget!

How do you create these maps?

()

You can also go here and click to create your own map

https://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/SENATE/2006/pred.php

Lt B: R hold
Dk B: R gain

Lt R: D hold
Dk r: D gain

Lt G: I hold
Lt G: I gain

()

I decided to give an August 1 update to be nice.  :)  Little has changed, though.

Safe Democratic
California
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Massachusetts
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Vermont (I)*
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Likely Democratic
Connecticut (whether it's Lieberman or Lamont, it's still a Dem seat.  I'm just waiting until the primary is over to see if the Republicans attempt to put up a better candidate).
Michigan
Nebraska
Pennsylvania (D)

Lean Democratic
Maryland*
Minnesota*
Montana (R) (still waiting on more polling)
Washington

Toss Up
Missouri (R) 
New Jersey (D)*
Ohio (R)
Rhode Island (R)

Lean Republican

Likely Republican
Arizona
Nevada (one poll does not make a major move for me, unless M-D.  So, I'm leaving it here until more polling comes out)
Tennessee
Virginia

Safe Republican
Indiana
Maine
Mississippi
Texas
Utah
Wyoming

Me, bold indicates change in party (if tossup, I still project):
+= open seat

Safe Democratic
California
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Massachusetts
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Vermont (Socialist)
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Likely Democratic
Connecticut-- this could change to lean D if a rich, moderate GOP business-type replaces Schlesinger.

Nebraska

Pennsylvania

Lean Democratic
+Maryland-- I still don't think Mfume can win the primary. If he does, Leans GOP.

Michigan-- Bouchard has definite upside. I think DeVos wins narrowly as does Stabenow.

Washington-- by all rights, Cantwell should probably be considered a better Senator than Murray. But this is politics, and the GOP got lucky with a particularly strong candidate. Leans Dem by virtue of political environment.

Toss Up
+Minnesota-- DFL: how the mighty have fallen.

+New Jersey-- Lots of undecideds. Kean is running a smart campaign and this will go down to the wire.

Rhode Island-- going to be close.

Lean Republican
Missouri-- Polls are close, but. But Talent defeated an incumbent Dem in 2002. But he has lots of money. But Missouri is a GOP-leaning state. It'll be close, but Talent will win. 

Montana-- Rasmussen was off. It happens. Look, Burns is kind of a clown, but Tester is too liberal to unseat an incumbent Republican in Montana. He's no Schweitzer, and he couldn't do it either (now he could, but that's because he's been Governor).

Ohio-- Sherrod Brown isn't going to win. That's what it really boils down to.

Likely Republican
Arizona-- please...

+Tennessee-- the Ford that wasn't.



Safe Republican
Indiana
Maine
Mississippi
Nevada
Texas
Utah

Virginia-- dream on. Allen has more money in his couch than Webb does in his campaign coffers.

Wyoming

*********************

Overall, I don't think that many seats will change hands. The open seats probably will be split, possibly 3-1 either way but more likely 2-2. Democrats have a better shot at 3/4 than does the GOP. Democrats will take out at least 1 GOP incumbent but probably not more than 2. Burns and Chafee are the two most likely victims after Santorum.

Cantwell and Stabenow are the only 2 Dem incumbents with serious challengers. Both are currently favored but there's around a 25% chance one of them will wind up losing, Cantwell being more likely.

Updated

()

Key:

Deep Red -Democratic gains
Pink -Democratic holds

Dark Blue -Republican gains
Light Blue -Republican holds

Light Green -Independent/Third Party holds (Bernie Sanders)

()

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

In short, Republicans will end up with a 51-48-1 majority in the Senate. 

Here's my prediction

()

I have areally good feeling that the Republicans will pull it out in MD and NJ. With MI I feel Stabenow is vunerable because 1. she is not a strong canidate at all 2. She was listed as one of the most incompentent Senators in the Senate 3. The Republicans picked a good canidate.     

No chance of Michigan going Republican. Stabenow isn't the most dynamic Senator but she has voted the way her constituents would want her to vote. Bouchard is too conservative to win in any event. Add in the national Democratic tide and it won't be close.

I take it that as well as Michigan, you also haven't been paying much attention to West Virginia, Florida, North Dakota, Nebraska or New Mexico?

Those are my mistake, I forgot to make all of those excluding MI red which they will deflintley go.

Let alone about 10 or 15 states decide to randomly hold Senate elections in their off year and all vote Republican?

(And Bernie Sanders loses in Vermont).

I just got tired of coloring the off year election ones gray, and VT I included Democratic because doesn't Sanders caucus with the Democrats.   

Why the hell do you think Byrd will lose?

OK now that I updated your map are you serious about Michigan?  Weak candidate does not mean defeat.  Polls show her doing quite well and Granholm isn;t doing that badly so she can't drag her down.

()

2007 Senate Lineup: 51 R/47 D/2 I

You apparently don't have much confidence in Lamont's chances of winning the general election vis-a-vis Lieberman, do you?

Lieberman is clearly the favorite to win.  That's not to say Lamont can't win; Lieberman was a favorite to win the primary too.

Funny, I used to give Tweed so much crap for being so overtly pessimistic (good thing that he's gotten over that though, maybe it was seeing that Bush's numbers are not going up) and now he has an identical map to mine (except with some percentage differences)

oh and re: Indiana, as Lugar doesn't even have a Dem opponent there's no way he's getting below 70% and even below 80% is very unlikely.

Lieberman has said he won't be "I-CT" he will be "D-CT".  It'll be red and leave it at that.

We still need to distinguish between him and Lamont winning in some way.

Maybe.  I was more commenting on Tweed's senate breakdown saying there would be 2 Independents.

Also, Lieberman is going to continue his current fall in the polls.  i just can't see him winning.

August 15 changes to my list:

The odd one:

I see CT as a Toss-up between D and I/D.  R has no chance.

Rest:

Michigan: Likely D to Lean D
Nevada: Likely R to Safe R
Pennsylvania: Likely D to Lean D (ya, I expect to get some laughs about this.  I still Santorum's going to lose, just perhaps by not as much)
Ohio: Toss-up to Lean D

Comments:
I might move Minnesota to Likely D if I see another poll (independent and not Star-Tribune) validate Rasmussen's last number.

I am suspicious about Montana.  The only poll that has showed the race outside MOE is the poll one month ago from Raz that is quite different than his most recent one.  Rest assured, the next M-D poll will determine whether I can the race Toss-up or Lean D.

I am unsure about Rhode Island.  Only Rasmussen has polled there recently, and I am leery to make moves on Senate races based on one poll.

I'm putting Connecticut in Lean I/D.  If Lieberman keeps pulling this number of Republicans, he's going to be hard to beat.

Moving Virginia to Lean R.

Tell me if you think I'm nuts.
 
()
()

https://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/SENATE/2006/pred.php?action=indpred&id=1358


Comments (from prediction page)

I predicted New Jersey and Nevada switching because there is always the possibilty for surprises.

Most of all these predictions are really guesses, but based on the rasmussmen polls.

Yeah, I think you're nuts. Nevada ain't gonna switch, Ensign is leading by a lot in most polls.

Since Lieberman says that he is a Democrat I will take him at his word.
Connecticut therefore will be Democrat whoever wins. For the purposes of this prediction Connecticut is 'red' and who wins is irrelevant (but only as far as the predicting the outcome).

I was going by rasmussen which had Ensign at 46% back on 8/7 which is of course a very old poll. If there is a more recent one I would be interested to know. I admit that it is a long shot, but as I said, expect some surprises. If there are no surprises, than in itself would be a surprise.
The poll had Ensign's opponent at 39%, a 7% difference.

Two most recent polls: Mason-Dixon at 10th of August giving ENsign a 21%lead, 54 to 33 and Survery USA a couple of weeks ago ,also saying a 21% lead (56 to 35). Ensign has constantly been ahead by double digits in all polls save for that one Rasmussen poll.

OK, but I think I'll stay with my predictions as is.  Although in my confidence map I pretty much conceded that anything can happen. If I start changing my predictions now I will risk even greater failure.
Call me nuts, but then I am what I eat.

Check out mine. :)

Also crazy. :P

Mine is a possibilty the way the polls have been running as of late.

check out how this site's analysis has changed over time

from 8-12:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Maps/Aug12.html

to the present

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

()

October 2, 2006:

Montana:  Tester 56%, Burns 43%.

Minnesota:  Klobuchar 55% Kennedy 43%.

Pennsylvania:  Casey 54% Santorum 45%.

Ohio:  Brown 54% DeWine 44%

Maryland:  Cardin 54% Steele 44%

Washington:  Cantwell 54% McGavick 43%

Rhode Island:  Whitehouse 53% Chafee 46%.

Tennessee:  Ford 53% Corker 45%

New Jersey:  Kean 52% Menendez 47%

Virginia:  Webb 50% Allen 49%

Missouri:  McCaskill 49% Talent 48%

Connecticut: Lamont 48% Lieberman 46%


R 50
D 49
I 1

()

I miss Ultra Liberal's predictions!

My official October prediction. Victory percentages might be a teensy bit off. Pretend that Vermont is green.

()

DEM + 7

()

D 49 R 49 I 1 Likud 1

Can we leave the Lukid stuff out?  I'm sorry i just don't see it as approriate or to be revelant.... For one thing, Democratic nominee Lamont is very much pro-israel. Second, there is a reason that Lieberman will be re-elected..... and it isn't because he is a politician from Israel....

()

Arizona:  Kyl 55, Pederson 45
Connecticut:  Lieberman 49, Lamont 44
Maryland:  Cardin 54, Steele 46
Michigan:  Stabenow 56, Bouchard 44
Minnesota:  Klobuchar 54, Kennedy 46
Missouri:  Talent 50, McCaskill 50 (GOP win)
Montana:  Tester 52, Burns 43
New Jersey:  Menendez 51, Kean 48
Ohio:  Brown 53, DeWine 47
Pennsylvania:  Casey 53, Santorum 46
Rhode Island:  Whitehouse 52, Chafee 48
Tennessee:  Ford 52, Corker 48
Virginia:  Allen 51, Webb 47
Washington:  Cantwell 55, McGavick 45

My updated predictions...
()

()

50 R 48 D 1 Friend of the Workers 1 Likud

good one!

I love how Harry was like the only person to accurately predict the outcome of Virginia before October. But then again, he also had Democrats taking Mississippi and Texas, so I guess his prediction can be attributed to luck :P

Boss Tweed.

And, just for laughs, more Brown-bashing from Ben:


Remind me to completely disregard anything this guy says about Ohio Senate races in the future, thanks. :P

Brown is still an asshole. :P

Senator-elect Brown is a great man.

I never understood why so many "populists" supported Hackett over Brown, when there really wasn't much difference between the two on policy (gun control is the only one I can think of, off the top of my head).

It must be style over substance- Hackett was an Iraq War veteran with rural roots, but Brown was an evil liberal from a big city. Oh, well. Brown thrashed Mikey anyway, so I'm happy. :)

Brown encouraged Hackett to run against DeWine, promising not to run and then, when he realized how vulnerable DeWine was, broke his word and backstabbed Hackett by running anyway. A "great man" my ass.

I'm sure he'll do just as well in the Senate as he did in the election. He's a smart guy.

But, still, we face the question: why do "populists"/communitarians seem to be the only ones outraged at Brown's "betrayal" of Hackett? The Kossacks were, at first, but they came around. Now it's only a few with positive social scores and negative economic scores.

You avoided my point, that personally Brown is a prick. :P I could answer you by saying that it's because my quadrant has ethics and yours doesn't, but that would be as silly as the points you keep making. ;)

I know you think that, and I know why you think that. I was asking a different question entirely: why are populists the only ones who still hold it against Brown? This has been amazingly consistent on Atlas- the only ones still attacking Brown over the Hackett affair are communitarians. Not liberals, not libertarians, not conservatives. Only populists.


I'm not trying to make any "point", and I'm not arguing over the Hackett affair itself. Still, for the record...

To be completely honest, I don't care about it one way or the other. I may disagree with his tactics in that instance, but I think he'll be an awesome Senator regardless. Apparently, communitarians are so holy that they can never forgive him that, and no longer care about his positions on the issues. :P

I can only speak for myself, not any others. Certain actions tend to taint my view of people. I think poorly of Brown, yes, and Menendez and Lautenberg, but I also think poorly of Chambliss and Burns and Bunning. I can be quite bipartisan in who I dislike. :P

Here's my guess as to your question: it is perceived that Brown backstabbing Hackett was a liberal backstab of a communitarian, and feeds into the argument that liberals only tolerate communitarians in the Democratic Party and will seek to get rid of them the second they don't need them. And those of you on the left certainly act that way. Liberals are thus ecstatic that a liberal won out instead of a communitarian, while conservatives and libertarians alike would've supported DeWine over a Democrat from any quadrant.


In my case, I admit I prefer candidates closer to the center than to the extremes. However, that is not enough to get me to dislike a politician - I don't dislike Whitehouse in RI, for example. It takes other factors for that to happen. And yes, communitarians are the Holy Ones. You may bow and give us homage. :P

I don't like Brown at all, and I'm not a communitarian.

Well there you have it. :)

Thanks for the response, WMS- I was genuinely interested, not just baiting you. This is pretty much what I was thinking, although it still doesn't make perfect sense (like I said, Brown and Hackett weren't that different on most issues...).


I wouldn't expect a conservative to care much for Brown.

Well, I decided to give you a real reply and not be a smart-ass. :P And I bolded a word up there for ya. :P

Also...this little thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=43125.0) gives some good background on why communitarians might be suspicious. ;)

I wasn't saying that your dislike of Brown doesn't make sense (I know why you hate him, and it isn't necessarily because of his political beliefs)- I was referring to communitarians in general. Image really does matter. Sad, but true.


This is a fascinating article, but I don't entirely agree with it. I see no reason why the old-school communitarians ("lunch-pail Democrats") shouldn't be able to coexist with the social liberals and doves that McGovern brought in. What will unite them? Economic populism. Hell, for US Senate in Pennsylvania, I supported some joker who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and opposes embryonic stem-cell research (albeit with serious misgivings :P).

I'd also note that while liberals may be intolerant of communitarian Dems, they often have the same attitude toward us. They should recognize that they are now a distinct minority in the party, and admit that social liberalism has netted impressive gains for the party across the Northeast and West Coast.

Well, I wanted Ryan to run myself. ;) But noooo...


Ah, but what the article pointed out was that it was the lefties who decided to end coexistence (something I think they've been paying a price for for decades now :P ). ;)

Actually, that is not quite true. (source: 9-23-2006 National Journal, sorry, paid site so no direct link) Among (before this election, anyway) Democratic voters (not registered Democrats) were mostly two groups, 60% "the socially and economically" disadvantaged, and 40% "upscale Democrats" (who are via PEW only 19%** of all registered voters) who wield highly disproportionate influence in the party (i.e., pro-abortion or bust on judicial nominees). This puts the Dems at a bit of a disadvantage* usually (2006 was a very big anti-Republican backlash year - whether it changed the underlying orientation isn't certain until 2008 :P ) because those two groups are not enough to win majorities.

*For another take on the Democrats' need to shift the underlying partisan leaning of the country, go here (http://www.fairvote.org/) and, when the site is working, click on Ten Stories About Election '06. The examination of Dean's 50-State Strategy is the most salient part.

The strength of social liberals is also overstated by redistricting and the bloc voting of a great many non-social liberals amongst minority communities. If the Democratic party insists on remaining staunchly social liberal and doesn't agree to more of a social moderate position (note I am not suggesting they become social conservative) they risk losing the blue-collar votes that were responsible for their victory this year.
Or to put it another way, as a whole the Democratic Party members are moderate-with-a-liberal-wing, whereas the Democratic Party leadership is liberal-with-a-moderate-wing.

**And I'll bring up another point, how I see the balance of the four ideological quadrants amongst the American voters. I will compare my estimate with what Michael Barone did in the 1982 Alamanac of American Politics, since it turns out I am not the first to have done this.
Ideology - My % - Barone's %
Communitarian/Populist: 30% - 30%
Libertarian: 25% - 25%
Conservative: 25% - 35% (note: Barone, in his Retrospective 20 years later, said he overestimated this)
Liberal: 20% - 10% (note: Barone also said he underestimated this)

If the liberals don't realize that in a two-party FPTP system the Democratic Party needs to be a coalition and instead insist on dominant rule...you won't establish a lasting majority. I am waiting to see how pragmatic the Democratic leadership is going to be after 12 years in the wilderness. ;)

You actually think I'm a conservative or just throwing in rethoric? I'm a proud liberal. :P

I always thought of you as a moderate-conservative who only identified with the US Democrats because the GOP is so batshit crazy. :P Also, your worst disagreements of late have been with liberal "hacks."

I don't know much about your ideology, to be honest.

That is because there are more liberal hacks than conservative ones and because of THAT there are plenty of people to take care of the latter without me having to worry about it. I'm not at all conservative, I'm liberal, but probably on the right of the liberals.

I'm basically slightly left of centre on social issues and slightly right of centre on economic issues (though I'm not really centrist on every single issue - I'm far right when it comes to school vouchers and free trade, for instance). But if you look at my endorsements I endorsed mostly Democratic candidates for both senate and guberntorial elections.

And all that didn't mean jack sh!t.

()

eh, I just ran across this.

Let's face it though, if there wasn't so much "SANTORUM IS A CAMPAIGNING GOD AND THE KING OF LATE COMEBACKS, THERE IS NO WAY HE CAN LOSE TO POPULIST MORON CASEY" type crap posted, we wouldn't have so much material to bump.

Anyway, this is just something to note about Walter's predictions.

Why did so many people have MN as either a GOP pickup or a narrow Democrat win?

Polling was close in late 2005 and early 2006. Klobuchar didn't start gaining a huge lead until the spring.

Why did many people call Washington close

Assuming it's because Dino Rossi was nearly elected Governor in 2004.

lol

This aged well.

Eeh, what can I say?  In December 2005, DeWine (an inoffensive moderate) was still leading in the most recent poll, and things were only just starting to shape up to be a wave mid-term.

Gregoire had just gone to a recount in 2004 and only won by 129 votes that year. Seattle didn't have as many people back then and Republicans could still break 40% in King County. So alot of people figured it would be closer.

Nice gravedig.