Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Where are we in the race(s) for the Senate?

Posted on 10/14/2002 7:14:44 AM PDT by ConservativeDude

Predictions?


TOPICS: Arkansas; Colorado; Georgia; Louisiana; Minnesota; Missouri; South Dakota; Texas; U.S. Senate
KEYWORDS: racesforthesenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 10/14/2002 7:14:44 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
Democrats - 59, Republicans - 41
2 posted on 10/14/2002 7:25:56 AM PDT by Coop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Democrats - 59, Republicans - 41

You're forgetting the Chafee switch. That'll make it Democrats - 60, Republicans - 40, giving them a filibuster-proof majority.

3 posted on 10/14/2002 7:34:20 AM PDT by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
Ooohh, and I just heard that Torricelli - in a legal and ethical manner - dropped out the NJ Senate race.

Democrats - 61, Republicans - 39

4 posted on 10/14/2002 7:35:43 AM PDT by Coop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
good heavens. i was hoping for something more uplifting.
5 posted on 10/14/2002 7:42:38 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
Wellstone, Carnahan and Johnson will lose. Hutchinson will also lose, but Republicans keep the five open seats and Allard hangs on, leaving a 51-49 Republican Senate (if my math is right).
6 posted on 10/14/2002 8:18:09 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
Those two demoRATS are going to be a bit surprised when they lose the Senate once more. Rats are LOSERS!
7 posted on 10/14/2002 8:29:15 AM PDT by Surge-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
I like this analysis better. And even with the pending Chaffee switch, that puts us back at 50 50.
8 posted on 10/14/2002 8:30:26 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
What?!? Hutch is in trouble??? Oh dear, now I'm going to have to go back to the drawing board.
9 posted on 10/14/2002 8:32:56 AM PDT by Coop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Actually Hutchinson's pulling even in the latest polls. Carnahan going under. Thune ahead of Johnson by four points. Wellstone going under. Forester doing better than expected. Sorry, you lose.
10 posted on 10/14/2002 11:18:54 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
If that's the case, then I'm not golfing with McAuliffe any more!
11 posted on 10/14/2002 11:22:53 AM PDT by Coop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
And even with the pending Chaffee switch, that puts us back at 50 50.

Chafing won't switch unless it's 50-50, in which case he will almost definitely switch.

So, in effect, a 50-50 Senate is an impossibility.

12 posted on 10/14/2002 11:44:26 AM PDT by pbranham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
Every election has its surprises...things no one saw coming.

West Virginia FReeper Jay Wolfe has been ignored by the entire political establishment in his bid to unseat liberal incumbent U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller...but they also wrote the state off in 2000 as unwinnable for Bush.

Thank God the rank and file Republicans of West Virginia didn't have the same losing attitude...if they did, Gore would be in the White House right now. (~shudder~)

Grassroots conservatives are working their hearts out across the Mountain State to get the message and the GOP vote out. We shall see if they can get it done. I for one believe it is possible.

EV

13 posted on 10/14/2002 12:35:13 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
trust me, there are a few folks across the nation who know what the grassroots movement in West Virginia has acccomplished....and some of us know full well that without little 'ole WV, Gore would be President, as you point out!

so keep up the great work and who knows, come election day, maybe the good Jay will win! regardless, your work for the years prior to the 2000 election will go down as one of the great grass roots movements in US history.
14 posted on 10/14/2002 12:53:11 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
West Virginia FReeper Jay Wolfe has been ignored by the entire political establishment in his bid to unseat liberal incumbent U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller...but they also wrote the state off in 2000 as unwinnable for Bush.

Who exactly was writing off Bush as having a chance in WV? Of the 13 state-wide polls I'm aware of that were released out of WV during 2000, Bush led in 11 of them. To my recollection, WV was considered in play all along. If there were similiar poll results for Jay Wolfe, I'm sure people wouldn't be ignoring this race.

15 posted on 10/14/2002 1:09:25 PM PDT by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
I share your optimism. Plus, we always outspend the RATS in the final several weeks, so being presently tied in a number of the House and Senate races is a good sign.

Anything can and still may go wrong, but I have to credit the White House for getting all the forces into array beautifully for this election.

16 posted on 10/14/2002 1:15:29 PM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
This site - http://www.takebackcongress.org/twelve%20hot%20races.htm - is keeping track of the most critical races.
17 posted on 10/14/2002 4:03:59 PM PDT by BplusK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pbranham
Chafing won't switch unless it's 50-50, in which case he will almost definitely switch.

Hmmm, maybe the sniper will head to Rhode Island!

18 posted on 10/14/2002 4:51:43 PM PDT by Fledermaus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
So why did they invest less than 10 grand here? They raised over a quarter million in the state...but by the time it was over, they were even pulling signs out of here and sending them to other states. Shoot, signs were virtually the only investment they made.

The election was decided here by 4 things, ultimately: 1. Bush visited repeatedly. 2. Gore sucked, and the voters knew it. 3. The gun issue. 4. Strong grassroots work in the precincts.

Rockefeller has an 'F' from the NRA...Wolfe has an 'A'...and the 300,000 plus hunting license holders know it.

We have the best organization going the state has seen...there are counties that have never been organized down to the precinct level by the GOP that have now been organized by the Wolfe volunteers.

Besides, this is a midterm election...historically very low turnout for the Dems. 250,000 votes will in all likelihood win it for us.

The Republicans are getting energized, and working their hearts out to get out the vote---who knows?
19 posted on 10/14/2002 6:15:14 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
If there were similiar poll results for Jay Wolfe, I'm sure people wouldn't be ignoring this race.

If the Senatorial Committee wasn't afraid to spend at least some modest amount of THEIR (HA) money in WV, maybe there would be some poll results...but so far, not a stinkin dime. I'll be d*mned if I'm going to take scant resources that are winning votes and give them to a pollster to tell me what I already know.

Instead, they invest hundreds of thousands into Mike Taylor, and into campaigns that are already flush with cash. When I heard Taylor whine about how little he had received (only a million!) before his cowardly withdrawal on Hannity's show the other day, I wanted to drive to MT and strangle him (figuratively speaking, of course.)

With the $250,000 the leadership of this Party could give Wolfe with no pain or loss on their part, we could put away Rockefeller for good...I am sure of it.

One visit by the President would be helpful too.

20 posted on 10/14/2002 6:27:49 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Way to go! Must feel great to be part of such a grassroots effort. Best of luck!
21 posted on 10/14/2002 6:28:30 PM PDT by Gunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
God bless you and the other committed conservatives of West Virginia! Here's hoping you all can pull off another major upset.
22 posted on 10/14/2002 7:47:26 PM PDT by cicero's_son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
Dems 52 Repubs 48
23 posted on 10/14/2002 7:52:05 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
Repubs 52 (including Chafee); Dems 48 (including Jumpin' Jim Jeffords)
24 posted on 10/14/2002 8:55:21 PM PDT by Gunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Whats your breakdown? Who going and whos coming? I actually agree with you and was wondering.
25 posted on 10/14/2002 9:32:34 PM PDT by paul544
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
but they also wrote the state off in 2000 as unwinnable for Bush.

Negative, Ghostrider. WV was definitely in the mix as a hopeful W state.

26 posted on 10/15/2002 7:36:44 AM PDT by Coop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Yeah right.

If they thought it was winnable, they would have put some money behind it...I don't believe it.

Shoot, by your reasoning, they must think we can win this year too, then...cause they aren't putting any money here this time either. /sarcasm

;-)
27 posted on 10/15/2002 8:41:09 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
If they thought it was winnable, they would have put some money behind it...I don't believe it.

The polling throughout 2000 indicated that WV was clearly winnable by Bush. But just because it was considered potentially winnable didn't mean it was necessarily worth an investment of money. I say this for two reasons. First is that while the polling showed Bush ahead in the vast majority of WV surveys, the Democratic tradition of the state probably caused the GOP to think twice about putting money here, as opposed to targetting a more GOP-friendly state.

Secondly, was the question of whether to dedicate money to a state with only 5 electoral votes. Again, the decision was probably made to focus on larger battle-ground states, rather than smaller states with a traditional Democratic edge. That's a reasonable strategy in my view. You simply can't contest every single state with the same ferocity... you have to pick and choose. The Bush people were not expecting this election to be as close as it was (note Rove's electoral vote prediction in the final week), and were it not for the late-breaking DUI story, they likely would have been correct. That would have made WV largely irrelevant in the final analysis. It is fortunate that things turned out as they did in WV.

28 posted on 10/15/2002 8:58:23 AM PDT by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: paul544
I think Hutchinson and Allard lose, and Thune wins in SD. I'm least confident in the SD pickup of those 3, so it could be 53-47.
29 posted on 10/15/2002 9:00:59 AM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
I am hoping for a big upset down in Georgia with Saxby Chambliss taking over Max Cleland's seat...Chambliss has Heisman Trophy winner Hershal Walker stumping for him - GO SAXBY!
30 posted on 10/15/2002 9:30:08 AM PDT by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
It is fortunate that things turned out as they did in WV.

Would you mind if I nominated that statement for 'Understatement of the Week'?? ;-)

31 posted on 10/15/2002 9:52:05 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
You have done nothing to undermine my main and very pressing point---that Jay Wolfe has a very credible and viable campaign going on the ground in WV in the year 2002; and that with a modest investment of already available funds by the Senatorial Committee, we can take Rockefeller right down to the wire by running radio and TV ads that exploit the feeling that's already out there in the electorate that John D. IV has been in office too long---and that it is 'time for a new Jay in West Virginia'.

If we lose this race, and perhaps the control of the U.S. Senate, by just a few points because the leadership of the GOP failed to come to our assistance, I for one am not ever going to let them live it down.

EV
32 posted on 10/15/2002 10:10:44 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I think the point is that there are at least 12 races that are more likely to result in a Rep victory that also need funding. Given how much money is being poured into the Caputo race, it's obvious that the national party has not turned its back on West Virginia, only on the idea that Wolfe can win. If you can find a single poll that demonstrates Wolfe has a chance, I'd suggest you send it to Bill Frist.
33 posted on 10/15/2002 10:25:20 AM PDT by millco88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You have done nothing to undermine my main and very pressing point---that Jay Wolfe has a very credible and viable campaign going on the ground in WV in the year 2002

I apologize if you thought that was my intent. The only point I was trying to undermine was your assertion that no one gave Bush a chance to win in WV.

34 posted on 10/15/2002 10:38:07 AM PDT by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: millco88
I think the point is that there are at least 12 races that are more likely to result in a Rep victory that also need funding...

What, like the million they pumped into the idiot Mike Taylor's campaign in MT? Give me a break. Most all of those other races are flush with cash. If they can't win in those mainly small states with the millions they have already received, they deserve to lose. All we're asking for is a measly $250,000.

Given how much money is being poured into the Caputo race, it's obvious that the national party has not turned its back on West Virginia, only on the idea that Wolfe can win.

They have treated Jay Wolfe with disdain and contempt from Day One, frankly...and acted as if Ms. Capito was at the top of the ticket, which she's not. It's insulting...to Jay Wolfe, but to the Republicans of WV as well.

Another point: the funds that the Congresswoman is receiving are coming from Congressional Committee funds, not the Senatorial Committee. Apples and oranges.

If you can find a single poll that demonstrates Wolfe has a chance, I'd suggest you send it to Bill Frist.

If you can find a single poll period, I suggest you send it to me.

We are using every penny we can muster to equip our troops in the field...troops that are winning tons of votes every day. If you think we're going to use those scant resources to pay some pollster to tell us that we already know, you're nuts.

I've gone round and round this mulberry bush for months, and I've actually just about given up on the leadership of the GOP. They seemingly couldn't care less about the rank and file who are fighting the battle out in the precincts...the very people who gave them the Oval Office.

35 posted on 10/15/2002 10:49:30 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
I apologize if you thought that was my intent.

No apology needed. I have no doubt that you will be as happy as anyone when and if Jay Wolfe wins.

The only point I was trying to undermine was your assertion that no one gave Bush a chance to win in WV.

Actually, there was someone who believed WV could be won--Coddy Johnson, President Bush's godson and prominent member of the White House political team.

He took some solid steps late in the game to help out the troops here....and for that he deserves our eternal gratitude.

36 posted on 10/15/2002 11:22:59 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
I predict 51-49 for the GOP.

In my opinion, it's easier for us to pick up seats than it is for the dems. To lose one seat would be pretty good considering the history of off year elecetions for the president's party. It'll be a good picture of his strength and popularity.

If it ends at 50-50, Chaffe will jump. I think he'll stay if it goes to 51+ for the GOP.
37 posted on 10/15/2002 2:59:04 PM PDT by AlGone2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
I thought I would use this thread to highlight something I heard Dick Morris say on the Sean Hannity show today...

Morris and Hannity were running down the tight Senate races when Morris said that he thought Allard (from CO) would lose, in part to his "incumbent under 50%" theory and that he termed Colorado as a "progressive" state with elected officials like "liberal Democrat Senator, Ben Knighthorse Campbell." It's sloppy commentary like this that give voters the wrong impression.

Colorado is hardly a "progressive" state. Over the last decade, the gap in voter registration has increased in favor of Republicans, GOP Governor Owens is about to be re-elected by a landslide, our congressional delegation, after this election, will likely consist of 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats.

In addition, Sen. Campbell (formerly a conservative Democrat) switched parties some six years ago and is a solid Republican.

Yes, the CO senate race will be closer than we would like but Allard will win and by a biggermargin than most pundits are predicting.

For those looking for a good national perspective on this year's races, the best place person to pay attention to is Michael Barone. No one knows local politics than him.




38 posted on 10/15/2002 3:03:03 PM PDT by BoomerBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlGone2001
If it ends at 50-50, Chaffe will jump. I think he'll stay if it goes to 51+ for the GOP.

The peculiar thing about this is that as long as the GOP is in the minority, he'll be a Republican. So it's like he's choosing to be in the minority. You would think he'd jump even if the Dems retain the majority.

39 posted on 10/15/2002 3:12:47 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Do you not believe the latest Zogby poll showing Wellstone 46% to 37% for Coleman? I'm trying hard to be optimistic.
40 posted on 10/15/2002 6:42:52 PM PDT by ncweaver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ncweaver
Something just doesn't seem right about these Zogby polls. One week it's one extreme and then the next week it is the complete opposite. Stay optimistic but not so much to not vote. :o)
41 posted on 10/15/2002 8:23:23 PM PDT by Txslady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Coop
The third-party skinny in the Senate races:

Remember Al Gore's surge over the prior weekend? A big chunk of that was people who were going to vote for Nader "holding their nose" and voting for Gore. This is a recurrent phenomenon with third-party candidates. (The opposite happens in the rare case when the third-party candidate has a real chance of winning, e.g., Ventura in Minnesota four years ago.)

This is why Colorado is in better shape than it looks. The LP candidate in that race is currently registering 4-6 percent (usually these respondents lumped into "undecided"). This is why Allard and Strickland are both "stuck" in the mid-40s, and why Allard in particular is below 50. Typically, in close elections, disaffected conservatives "come home" to the Republican candidate. A 2-3 point shift from the LP candidate to Allard at the last minute should push him over the top.

A similar thing is going on in NH, with both an LP candidate and a write-in campaign for Bob Smith. Sununu should likewise benefit from a last minute "surge" of people switching from voting with their heart to voting with their brain.

As for Georgia, bear in mind that Max Cleland was only elected six years ago by a vote of 49 to 48 to 3. I don't see the LP candidate doing as well this year as last. True, Cleland is now the incumbant, and there's some advantage to that. But, there are reasons to believe Cleland has not endeared himself with the voters of the state. He is trying to confuse "swing voters" into believing he is a conservative Democrat (like Zell Miller) and that he often votes with the President. Cleland may believe the voters are are stupid in Georgia, but I don't believe they're THAT stupid.

As for Minnesota, I just don't think anybody can make a good prediction for the Senate race because of the three-man race of Governor. A lot of people will be voting, and voting specifically for an independent for Governor. The moderate Republican aligns better with independent Tim Penny, than does the left-wing Democrat Wellstone. However, all things considered, I would not venture a guess.

In Louisiana, another liberal Democrat is playing "trick or treat" with the voter, misrepresenting herself as a conservative Democrat. She is running against three Republicans in Louisiana's unique voting system, and is conceeded to finish first. The question is, will she finish ahead of 50 percent, and be thrown into a run-off. I think the momemtum would be with the Republican in a run-off IF the Republicans win control of the Senate on election day.

Regarding South Dakota and New Jersey, I don't have any third-party skinny, but I will say following: Two years ago, Corzine defeated Frank 51 to 49 percent. Why should Lautenberg be considered a heavy favorite? And, in South Dakota, Johnson has won election statewide several times, six years ago as a Senator, and prior to that as a Congressman. Thune has also won statewide election. Plus, the polls show the Congressional race as close as they show the Senate race.

To sum it all up:

Republicans slightly favored to keep CO and NH and to win MO.

Toss-up in SD and MN.

Democrats ever so slightly favored to win AR.

Democrats slightly favored to keep GA and NJ.

AND, if Landrieu is in a run-off, and the Republicans have already won control of the Senate, possible toss-up in LA.

My prediction on is a two-pointer for the Republicans.

42 posted on 10/16/2002 5:08:52 AM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BoomerBob
thanks for the inside view from CO.

I am a big fan of Gov. Owens. You may have seen Nat Rev list him as the best gov in America. He could be a real factor in '08.
43 posted on 10/16/2002 6:35:09 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ncweaver
That poll is completely nonsensical, anomalous.
44 posted on 10/16/2002 6:44:29 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Hey Hoos, how are you? I agree about Zogby - he seems all over the map.
45 posted on 10/16/2002 7:26:28 AM PDT by LisaFab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
anomalous

That's what I like about FR...my vocabulary grows everyday.

During the 2000 election, the polls drove me crazy and they are at it again. Some say Zogby's polls are so good, but how can they change so dramatically from week to week?? Most pundits are saying Wellstone's toast. Sure hope they're right. I'd better stock up on Tum's for election night.

46 posted on 10/16/2002 8:16:53 AM PDT by ncweaver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BoomerBob
I also live in Colorado and could not agree with you more!

The Repub. Governor will be reelected by between 30-40 points. The republicans are better organized than the RATS (I know that is very hard to believe). The Republicans have much better candidates top to bottom.

The race for this Senate seat 6 years ago was the same with same candidates, except it was an open seat 6 years ago. Six years ago the projections right up to the day of the election were that Strickland would win. Allard won by 5 points. Allard, as the incumbent with a Republican Governor that will win in a landslide, will win by 5-7 points.
47 posted on 10/16/2002 9:12:35 AM PDT by GoldenBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever
I agree with your assessment at this point in time. Georgia is winnable, GOP should direct more resources there.
48 posted on 10/16/2002 10:10:15 AM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Coop
coop, come on, talk to me, did you switch to the darkside,
What's up with that.
49 posted on 10/16/2002 12:46:25 PM PDT by vin-one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
I agree with you that Owens is a rising star. 2004 could present some interesting options for him. If Cheney steps down, Owens could be a long shot to fill the Veep slot. Also, Sen. Campbell may not run again, opening up a spot for him to run for Senate.

If Owens doesn't make any moves in 2004, then 2008 will certainly bring about many options. He's term limited after this gub. election so he could run for President, vice-president or Senate (against Strickland if he should win or for Allard if he steps down.)

For my money, and as a political junkie, 2008 will be one of the most intriguing U.S. elections in decades!
50 posted on 10/16/2002 12:55:51 PM PDT by BoomerBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson