Are the Democrats certain to tighten their hold on the Senate in 08?

[Kevin]

Are the Democrats certain to tighten their hold on the Senate in 08?


I think they are, I think Sununu is a goner and as we all know Dole,Smith and Coleman are in danger although this race leans Republican if Franken wins the Dem primary. However the Democrats also have a couple of seats at risk, Maybe South Dakota if Johnson retires or in NJ however that is very unlikely at the current time.

[Verily]

North Dakota doesn't have an election in 2008. That thread was from 2005; Conrad was reelected in 2006 with almost 70% of the vote. Dorgan is up for reelection in 2010.

At this point, the Republicans really only have a shot at Louisiana, and only if they find a decent candidate. Their current candidate list in Louisiana is sorely lacking. The Republican bench in South Dakota is surprisingly shallow for such a red state; even if Johnson retires, I see no reason why Herseth wouldn't be easily elected into the Senate.

Colorado is a lost cause for the GOP (cue Rawlings), so, unless they gain Louisiana and stop any losses elsewhere, the Republicans can't break even in 2008.

New Hampshire is probably the Democrats' next best chance of a pickup, followed by Minnesota. Personally, I doubt Franken will end up being the candidate (losing to Ciresi or some more prominent DFLer who steps in), and don't think he'd do as poorly as the Republicans here seem to believe, anyway. (Those who hate him wouldn't be voting Democrat anyway.) The Democrats only have Marchand as a confirmed candidate in New Hampshire so far, but New Hampshire has undergone a dramatic shift to the left and to the Democrats, and a mayor is not a bad choice in a small state. Maine is the only other Democratic pick-up with serious potential, and that because of a high-profile candidate.

Elsewhere we get into unlikely shifts; Oregon looked like it would an interesting race , but, so far, the Democrats have come up short on a candidate (again, it's early). If Chuck Schumer convinces one of the Democrats declared for North Carolina Governor to run for Senate instead, Liddy Dole will be in serious danger in a state that leans Democrat at the state level though is solidly Republican presidentially.

If John Warner retires, which seems possible, popular governor Kaine may run for his Senate seat. (Mark Warner is possible but unlikely.) Warner seems to be leaning towards retirement, but we don't know anything for certain, and he has a long time to make a decision.

Texas and New Jersey both have incumbents of low popularity, though one must always temper Lautenberg's low popularity with the knowledge that NJ gives everyone low approval ratings. Neither is likely to change hands. After Kean failed to break through in New Jersey last year in what was thought to be the Republicans' best chance in New Jersey for decades, it will be very difficult to convince a well-known Republican to run. In Texas, there are few Democrats left who are not either Hispanic or liberal, neither of which can win statewide despite Cornyn's unpopularity.

Oklahoma is worth a mention for Inhofe's low approval rating, I suppose, as is Massachusetts for Kerry's. If either loses, it will be in the primary, not the general.

[Kevin]

North Dakota doesn't have an election in 2008. That thread was from 2005; Conrad was reelected in 2006 with almost 70% of the vote. Dorgan is up for reelection in 2010.

Oh yeah thas right! I forgot that they did have one in 2006 and 2004 sorry my mistake I've been off recently!

[7,052,770]

As usual, people forget Mississippi, but if Cochran were to retire (good chance of that), Mike Moore would have a legitimate shot of picking up the open seat.

[Padfoot]

I'd say that the worst case scenario for Democrats at this point is no net change.  I'm guessing that the net change in seats will be between 2-5 in their favor though.

[HardRCafé]

Yes.  Just as the Republicans were certain to hold the Senate in '06.

[Mr.Phips]

I don't see how the Democrats don't gain at least one seat.  The only seat that the Republicans have a chance at is Louisiana and even there they are having trouble finding a candidate.

[TheresNoMoney]

I don't see how the Democrats don't gain at least one seat.  The only seat that the Republicans have a chance at is Louisiana and even there they are having trouble finding a candidate.

^^^^^^^^^^^

It's pretty tough to make any predictions at this point, but at the very least Colorado, New Hampshire and Minnesota are prime pickup opportunities. A few others are potential pickups but the outlook is unsure.

North Carolina is my sleeper race. I think Dole could possibly be in trouble.

[Conan]

Yes.

[SPC]

I woudn't say it's certain, but it's pretty likely:

Colorado-At this point, Udall is favored to win. However, I think it will be a tossup once the Schaffer campaign accuses him of being a Boulder liberal.

New Hampshire-This is probably a tossup. Democrats made huge gains here in 2006, but will they be able to continue that is 2008? Also, will Jeanne Shaheen run? If the answer to thos two questions are yes, then this is Lean Dem.

Maine-Definite Tossup. Two incredibly popular figures running against each other. Although polling would suggest that Collins is in for a landslide, I would sa this race is anything but safe for either candidate.

Minnesota-Overated. Fraken and Ciresi are bad candidates. Plus, Coleman is slightly popular. Does anybody remember the 2006 California gubernatorial election?

Oregon-This would have been more competitive had Defazio or Blumenhauer not dropped out. But, I suppose the remaining candidates could at least give Smith a run for his money.

Virginia-The possibility of John Warner retiring plus the possibility of Mark Warner running makes this anything but safe for the GOP. They better hope that Tom Davis is a good campaigner.

New Mexico-The only way Dems will get this seat is if the Attorneys "scandal" is still a big issue in 2008.

Nebraska-Dependant on whether or not Hagel will run. If he runs, Strong GOP. If he doesn't, Tossup.

North Carolina-Unlikely, but the Dems have a deep bench.

Louisiana-This should be a prime pick-up opportunity for the GOP, but they lack a good bench of candidates.

South Dakota-The GOP could get this seat if either Rounds runs or Johnson retires.

[Joe Biden 2020]

As usual, people forget Mississippi, but if Cochran were to retire (good chance of that), Mike Moore would have a legitimate shot of picking up the open seat.

Has Cochran mentioned anything about his plans, yet?

[Joe Biden 2020]

I would give the Democrats a 95% chance of increasing their majority and maybe a 1% chance of losing the majority.

As I've said before, Oklahoma could be a dark-horse race for the Democrats.  We have the talent, and the Oklahoma Democratic Party is strong enough to put up a very viable candidate in 2008 against Jim Inhofe and in 2010 against Tom Coburn as well as retaining the Governor's Mansion.

I give Oklahoma a 35-45% chance of switching right now.

[Blerpiez]

Looking at the matchups, it certainly seems that way.  However, you should remember that this time last year no-one other than Dem. hacks were projecting the Senate to switch hands.

[© tweed]

Yes.  Just as the Republicans were certain to hold the Senate in '06.

^

Nothing is 'certain' 17 months away.  But the Dems have a large and strong structural advantage in 2008.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I don't see how the Democrats don't gain at least one seat.  The only seat that the Republicans have a chance at is Louisiana and even there they are having trouble finding a candidate.

While it seems likely that Democrats will gain seats in 2008, it is in no way "certain."  No net change remains a strong possibility if the GOP and Dems trade Colorado for Louisiana (very possible), and there's a slight, though statistically significant chance that Republicans hold their current seats while picking up Louisiana, for a net gain of 1.  South Dakota could similarly be a GOP opportunity, provided Governor Rounds runs or Johnson retires. (Rounds is being heavily recruited, and has made trips to the White House to discuss a possible bid.)

Democrats are in terrific shape, but in politics, nothing is guaranteed.

As usual, people forget Mississippi, but if Cochran were to retire (good chance of that), Mike Moore would have a legitimate shot of picking up the open seat.

Well, you know, Mississippi is forgettable because you greatly overestimating how "legitimate" that shot is in the ever-more-red south.

As I've said before, Oklahoma could be a dark-horse race for the Democrats.  We have the talent, and the Oklahoma Democratic Party is strong enough to put up a very viable candidate in 2008 against Jim Inhofe and in 2010 against Tom Coburn as well as retaining the Governor's Mansion.

I give Oklahoma a 35-45% chance of switching right now.

Those are awful optimistic odds considering that Democrats don't even have a candidate there yet!

Nebraska-Dependant on whether or not Hagel will run. If he runs, Strong GOP. If he doesn't, Tossup.

The idea that Hagel would not be safe if he ran is funny, but the idea that Nebraska would be a toss-up if he didn't is funnier still.  If only Nebraska thought as fondly of Scott Kleeb as the kids at DailyKos do!

[SPC]

The idea that Hagel would not be safe if he ran is funny, but the idea that Nebraska would be a toss-up if he didn't is funnier still.  If only Nebraska thought as fondly of Scott Kleeb as the kids at DailyKos do!

Both Mike Fahey and Maes Exxon are considering running. They're pretty popular, so that is why it's a tossup.

[Rawlings]

Nope.

Not a guarantee at all!

Look, the most vulnerable seats are NH, OR, MN, CO, and maybe NC.

Let's take those one-by-one...

NH:  Maybe.  Despite that state's topsy-turvy political scene, it is still tough to beat incumbents.  Sununu has served that state well and that is no worse than a toss-up.

OR: Smith is polling near 50% approval and is yet to net a serious challenger.  Again, he's an incumbent.  I think he hangs on.

MN: Please.  This must be a joke.  I mean, really.

CO: I know, I know, all of us in Colorado have suddenly morphed into bunch of granola-crunching hippies as of Midnight November 1st 2004.  So, I mean, obviously this seat is going blue.

...Or is it?  This state did still vote for Bush twice--NH, MN, OR did not.  This state has a sizable GOP registration advantage--OR, NH, MN does not.  This state voted for the Senate's most conservative member--Wayne Allard--twice--NH, OR, and MN did not.  You can credibly argue that Udall and Schaffer will be in a dead heat...but to say that this is over?  Come on!  Udall is a Boulder liberal and Schaffer is a conservative.  All things considered, in a red state why would you prima facie expect the liberal to win?  That's just silly.  I know it just sounds like a conservative Republican trying to flog his state's conservative legacy. 

Colorado is like the pretty girl at the dance.  She's gonna flirt with you and lead you on.  She'll make you spend lots of money on her.  She'll pull you heartstrings.  But at the end of Election Night you know who she's goin' home with...and it's not you!

[CPT MikeyMike]

CO: I know, I know, all of us in Colorado have suddenly morphed into bunch of granola-crunching hippies as of Midnight November 1st 2004. 

That's Manitou Springs!

...Or is it?  This state did still vote for Bush twice--NH, MN, OR did not.  This state has a sizable GOP registration advantage--OR, NH, MN does not.  This state voted for the Senate's most conservative member--Wayne Allard--twice--NH, OR, and MN did not.  You can credibly argue that Udall and Schaffer will be in a dead heat...but to say that this is over?  Come on!  Udall is a Boulder liberal and Schaffer is a conservative.  All things considered, in a red state why would you prima facie expect the liberal to win?  That's just silly.  I know it just sounds like a conservative Republican trying to flog his state's conservative legacy. 

Colorado is like the pretty girl at the dance.  She's gonna flirt with you and lead you on.  She'll make you spend lots of money on her.  She'll pull you heartstrings.  But at the end of Election Night you know who she's goin' home with...and it's not you!

I've lived there for three years and it is one of the most bi-polar states politically (NH is right up there too). It all depends on how the central part of CO plays out. Colorado Springs will go to the GOP but Udall will win Boulder and Denver. Pueblo will probably go to Udall too thus the GOP will need to win outright in the central and western part of CO.

I actually think Udall is going to get a good run for his money. Right now, this is the biggest toss-up race in 2008.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

3 years ago, CO had 2 Republican Senators, a Republican governor, both branches of the legislature were Republican, and the majority of its Congressmen were Republican.

All of those have now flipped except for the 1 Senate position.

It's really not unreasonable to think that would flip too.

[Rawlings]

CO: I know, I know, all of us in Colorado have suddenly morphed into bunch of granola-crunching hippies as of Midnight November 1st 2004. 

That's Manitou Springs!

...Or is it?  This state did still vote for Bush twice--NH, MN, OR did not.  This state has a sizable GOP registration advantage--OR, NH, MN does not.  This state voted for the Senate's most conservative member--Wayne Allard--twice--NH, OR, and MN did not.  You can credibly argue that Udall and Schaffer will be in a dead heat...but to say that this is over?  Come on!  Udall is a Boulder liberal and Schaffer is a conservative.  All things considered, in a red state why would you prima facie expect the liberal to win?  That's just silly.  I know it just sounds like a conservative Republican trying to flog his state's conservative legacy. 

Colorado is like the pretty girl at the dance.  She's gonna flirt with you and lead you on.  She'll make you spend lots of money on her.  She'll pull you heartstrings.  But at the end of Election Night you know who she's goin' home with...and it's not you!

I've lived there for three years and it is one of the most bi-polar states politically (NH is right up there too). It all depends on how the central part of CO plays out. Colorado Springs will go to the GOP but Udall will win Boulder and Denver. Pueblo will probably go to Udall too thus the GOP will need to win outright in the central and western part of CO.

I actually think Udall is going to get a good run for his money. Right now, this is the biggest toss-up race in 2008.

Mike, those are all fine points.  The problem Udall has is that he is not the same sort of Democrat as Ritter and Salazar.  He is a Boulder liberal--Ritter and Salazar are centrists and natives or rural Colorado.  Ritter was able to connect with Western Slopers and conservative suburban soccer moms.  So was the rugged Salazar.  Udall just doesn't have that in him.  He is praying for another massive backlash in '08 against the GOP.  Because all things being equal, against Schaffer in a neutral year will heavily favor Schaffer.  I'm predicting 52-47 for Schaffer.  But there are already signs that Udall's campaign is going to have a rough go.

First, Udall's fundraising has been anaemic.  I think funding will be there at the end of the day--but low $$$ could be a sign of lackluster support.

Second, Udall voted for the troop funding bill--because that's simply de rigeur for election in Colorado--and has felt a major blowback from his base.  There's even talk around here of a real left liberal giving him a primary.  He runs the risk of either flip-flopping, looking like a Boulder liberal, or looking like a spineless fish wriggling around trying to get elected. 

I'm not naive enough to think that Schaffer is gonna take this in a walk.  It's going to be really tough, really close, and really anxious.  I think you'll see Schaffer open up a lead after some Udall gaffe and then close again close to election day (a lot like Kerry V. Bush in Colorado).  At the end of the day I just don't see how a liberal can clear Kerry's 47% here.  It will take one helluva makeover job to get that done.  Can Udall do it?  Sure.  Will it?  Probably not.

[TheresNoMoney]

At the end of the day I just don't see how a liberal can clear Kerry's 47% here. 

John Kerry is a fairly unlikeable guy from a state 2,000 miles away from Colorado and he still got 47%. Udall is a likeable local guy who connects with the average joe.

In addition, as a result of Bush's disastrous presidency and the unpopularity of the war, the state of Colorado has shifted left (or at the very least the centrists and independents are now voting for the Democrats instead of the Republicans).

It's not the same electorate as in 2004. Views have changed tremendously, and demographic changes have also favored the Democrats. It's unfair to compare 2008 to 2004, two completely different political atmospheres.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kerry lived in Colorado until he was 2 months old, but I guess that's pretty irrelevant.

[Rawlings]

At the end of the day I just don't see how a liberal can clear Kerry's 47% here. 

John Kerry is a fairly unlikeable guy from a state 2,000 miles away from Colorado and he still got 47%. Udall is a likeable local guy who connects with the average joe.

In addition, as a result of Bush's disastrous presidency and the unpopularity of the war, the state of Colorado has shifted left (or at the very least the centrists and independents are now voting for the Democrats instead of the Republicans).

It's not the same electorate as in 2004. Views have changed tremendously, and demographic changes have also favored the Democrats. It's unfair to compare 2008 to 2004, two completely different political atmospheres.

If anything, demographics are pushing Colorado right.  But any demographic changes between 2004 and 2008 are slight anyway, so whomever these changes will ultimately benefit is of no consquence in '08. 

If you look at birth rates and which counties are growing and shrinking, you notice that the two bastions of liberal thought in Colorado--Boulder and Denver Counties--have a combined -1% population growth as older liberals die without many younger liberals replacing them.  While the suburban counties and Colorado Springs--all very conservative--are having a baby bonanaza with many new younger families moving in.  El Paso, Douglas, and Arapahoe Counties have something like a combined 30% growth rate between 2000 and 2004.

Check out this link...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?ex=1260162000&en=ebdde83f03fe6d2e&ei=5090

Anyway, there are no serious ideological shifts going on--it's mostly reflective of pragmatic politics and the way the war is going.  It is totally inappropriate to surmise that Colorado or even the nation has moved left just two years after proclaiming the death of the left after the values voter revolt in 2004.  It was premature then to suggest that the left was toast and it is waaaaay premature now to think that conservatism--which polls suggest is what the plurality of Coloradans subscribe to--is on the wane.  The GOP may be in a rough spot--the ideology is not.

Finally, as I said above, I don't think that there will be the same sort of GOP slaughter we saw in 2006, but it's possible.  If that happens I would give Udall a one or two point edge.  But, again, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (which, they often are not) Schaffer starts off with at least a 5-point advantage.  A bad campaign could sqander that and a toxic national climate could too.  But you lefties have to realize that Bush isn't running the our POTUS candidate will be a lot more palatable and a lot less polarizing.  I don't think it will be the best of GOP years--but it won't be as bad as '06.  Given that, I think Schaffer can credibly be the favorite.

[7,052,770]

As usual, people forget Mississippi, but if Cochran were to retire (good chance of that), Mike Moore would have a legitimate shot of picking up the open seat.

Has Cochran mentioned anything about his plans, yet?

No, he hasn't said.  Some people think he's running, some think he's going to retire.  I'm sure he won't announce either way until after the governor's race is over though.

As usual, people forget Mississippi, but if Cochran were to retire (good chance of that), Mike Moore would have a legitimate shot of picking up the open seat.

Well, you know, Mississippi is forgettable because you greatly overestimating how "legitimate" that shot is in the ever-more-red south.

Wrong.  Moore is well-known to have a good shot of winning the seat.  Of course he's likely the only Democrat that could do it.

[they don't love you like i love you]

But, again, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (which, they often are not) Schaffer starts off with at least a 5-point advantage.

Bush didn't even win Colorado by 5 points, and he won by about 2 points nationwide, meaning all things being equal it would've been even closer, like a 2-3 point victory.