Senate Elections - 2004

[Ryan]

First of all, thanks for starting this thread Northerndog, to be honest you beat me to it by about an Hour

The reason I wanted to start the thread was to hear people's evaluation of individual senate races in 2004 like we have had for the last round of gubernatorial races.
For those who don't have enough info to work with; I recommend the evaluation on the following link;

http://www.cookpolitical.com/menu.cfm?section=senate

Needless to say it would be preferable to restrict oneself to neutral evaluations of likely election results and not to attack incumbents or challengers. Obviously if there are allegations which will definitely have an effect on the race that is an exception.

Look forward to some good old fashioned crystal ball stuff

PS. Even if you have enough info, check out the link, IT ROCKS!!!!

[Ryan]

Just because an incumbent vacates his seat does not mean that the "enemy" gains it.

What might happen in 2004 is the Dems gaining control of the House while the GOP cement their hold on the Senate.

I stress the word "might".

Well your first conclusion is obvious. In 2002 the GOP held on to ALL of their open seats
What Northerndog is getting at is that all the Dem open seats (mebbe cept Florida and thats neutral at best) are in very tough territory for the democrats and have a higher likelihood of switching than most of the other competitive races with an incumbent.

AS to the 2004 results while your Senate conclusion seems most likely I am surprised at your prediction on the house. These days even democrats are not optimistic about regaining the House. Of course if possible please post your opinion in the House races 2004 link

[Ryan]

I said might

The House should(in theory) lean Democrat while the Senate should(in theory) lean GOP.

I stress the word theory...

I don't understand in theory how the house leans Dem.

Me either As far as I'm concerned its the other way around. (Refer my discussion thread-Natural Republican majority in Congressional Districts. in the same "Congressional Elections" forum.

Perhaps Realpolik will enlighten us soon
Btw this may be better in the House 2004 discussion so we have all our info in the right place.

[Ryan]

I don't see how LBJ could have had that much control, having only been a Senator. Had he been Governor, he could have appointed political cronies to high positions, but I just can't see how a Senator could have that much power to manufacture that many votes.

Nym, by this I take it that you are the first democrat I have met who agrees that Tom DeLay does not control Texas. (after all he was not a governor there)

Actually you would be right. Neither he nor LBJ ever has controlled Texas. They did and do have a huge amount of respect and influence predicated upon their national status and ability to deliver for Texas.

However do any of you really believe either a Republican or Democrat candidate in the 1960's had to personally control a state party machinery to get it to fix elections for him???

I do believe there was "fixing" in Texas and Illinois and it had less to do with Kennedy or Johnson's personal power than with the vested interest of state parties to see their man in the White House.

[Ryan]

...But did he? There is no evidence for it at all.

Nixon rigged an entire election, overthrew a democratically elected government in Chile, is responsible for the Khmer Rouge, bugged the DNC and prolonged the Vietnam War.

Amoungst other things.

Well he also perhaps prevented a third world war by thawing relations with Russia and China, was responsible for enacting many vital social reforms including rights for women and minorities etc etc

I'm not denying that his Presidency (my least favorite GOP tenure in the white house) was disgraceful in many respects but it is historically incorrect to demonize Nixon alone. I do believe he really cared about the country but had the same fallacies that many politicians of his age did.

[Ryan]

As to whether Nixon conceded the election for the good of the country; well it may have been one reason but also he was very unlikely to actually see the results changed and a long recount process could have affected his future political aspirations.

PS He was unlikely to see the results changed not because they were correct but because without the vast media presence and accountability that exists today; the recounts would have been fixed as well

[Ryan]

Hey I just realized that this is in the Senate 2004 thread and I've been merrily posting here as well.
May I request that if this discussion is continued it be done on a different thread. I'm not trying to be a net nanny here. The reason I ask this is:-
A) It could lose the inputs of members who might want to participate in this discussion but not know that it is on.

B) It unnecessarily inconveniences others who might look at this thread as a resource on the 2004 elections and would have to wade through dozens of irrelevant posts to get to the useful data.

Of course I know I myself may have not completely followed this advice but a digression or two is inevitable in any dynamic discussion. Its only when a completely different trend of discussion begins that I think it should be moved to a new thread.

Thanks,
Ryan.

[Ryan]

I've taken the liberty of creating a new discussion thread in the "history" folder. I trust no one minds.

I've also posted all the discussion posts till now over there but its a major mess since there were too many to do one by one. I would be grateful if everyone could post a summary of their views there. Then I will delete those two behemoth posts.

Also after that if everyone could please get around to deleting their posts on above topic from this discussion thread, it would be much appreciated.
I will myself do so in a day or two

Cheers,
Ryan.

[Ryan]

I couldnt agree more JNB, especially about the difference in GOP organisation in Sc and La. An untold story about the South is how the only reason dems win some races is their vastly superior organizational and GOTV efforts. In la. I'm not sure the GOP's effort can even be called a viable GOTV campaign. The democrats on the other hand are GOOD, I'll give them that. especially in black areas.

Often in the south and esp. in La. you will find that practically evry voter who was willing to vote for the democrat has been pursuaded to do so. While on the other hand thousands of poorly motivated GOP voters stay home or in the case of last Senate election in La.....go Hunting!!!

[Ryan]

Ok Hi I'm new here but have posted on other forums.  The GOP will keep control of the House no problem, just too far ahead Dems need to net 13 seats plus with redistricting many prognostigators feel GOP will control HOuse till 20010 at least.

LOL 20010?? even I dont think they will hold it that long

Btw welcome to the forum, nice to have you aboard

[Ryan]

ty ryan, that was meant to be 2010 and many think that GOP will hold it till then at least.  And these are not just GOP people they are people lie Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook and larry Sabato-indep analyists.

LOL I know that dude and I agree with Stu, Charlie, Larry and you