Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Outlook, 2004 Elections

Posted on 11/11/2002 12:23:29 PM PST by William McKinley

Edited on 11/11/2002 3:54:34 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

While the dust has yet to settle on the 2002 elections, with a few races still not finalized and the Louisiana Senate seat held by Mary Landrieu being decided by a December runoff, it is not too early to look at the landscape for the 2004 Senate elections. Several characteristics of the landscape will favor the Republicans.

The Races


Republican Frank Murkowski won this seat in 1998 handily-- handily being quite the understatement, as he beat Democrat Joseph Sonneman by a margin over 58%. Murkowski will not be running in 2004, however, having traded in his Senate seat for the Governor's mansion. He will be appointing someone to fill his seat, and it is likely whoever gets the nod will face a stiff challenge from outgoing Alaska Governor Tony Knowles (who had won the Governorship with a similarly impressive 49% margin in 1998). Bush carried Alaska by 31%, however, and Republican Ted Stevens just won again by nearly 70%. Knowles would face an uphill battle, but he is the only hope the Democrats have. Leaning Republican if Knowles runs, otherwise Safe Republican.


Republican Richard Shelby won this seat in 1998 by a 26% margin. Fellow Republican Jeff Sessions just won the 2002 race for the other Alabama seat by nearly 19%. George Bush carried Alabama by 15%. Shelby will be 70 years old in 2004. This seat is likely to be maintained by the Republicans with little effort. Safe Republican.


This is a battle that will bear watching. Incumbent Democrat Blanche Lincoln won a solid, yet not overly so, victory in 1998, scoring 59% of the vote for a 14% margin. The other seat in Arkansas was just won by Democrat Mark Pryor, who benefitted from some personal problems for Tim Hutchinson, by a 8% margin. Arkansas went for George Bush in 2000, by just over 5%. Lincoln has to be considered the favorite in this race, although it is bound to be hotly contested. Leaning Democrat.


Senator McCain remains popular in his homestate, and will win again if he runs. Rumors abound that McCain will change parties, although with the Republican takeover of the Senate this appears to be quite unlikely. The dynamics of this race will change markedly if McCain, who will be 68 in 2004 and has been battling skin cancer for quite some time, is not a candidate. George W. Bush won Arizona by 7 points, but Arizona just elected a Democrat Governor, Janet Napolitano by a slim margin. Safe Republican with McCain, Leaning Republican without.


Barbara Boxer, bane of Conservatives, scored 55% of the vote in 1998, good enough for an 11 point victory. Her chances are bolstered by the current misfortunes of the California Republican party, which was unable to defeat rabidly unpopular Governor Gray Davis and which was unable to get George Bush within spitting distance of Al Gore; Gore won California by nearly 12 points. Strongly Leaning Democrat.


Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the popular Republican incumbent, will be 71 in 2004, and there is much speculation that he will retire. Democrats have been working hard to make Colorado more competitive; if Campbell does retire then the race will surely be closer than the 28% margin Campbell enjoyed. Fellow Republican Wayne Allard won reelection by over 5 points this past election cycle, and Bill Owens held the Governor's seat by over 20%. These margins, plus Bush's 8 point win in 2000, suggest that the Democrats still have some work to do. Safe Republican with Campbell, Strongly Leaning Republican without.


Democrat Chris Dodd handily won in 1998 with two thirds of the vote. While a Republican (John Rowland) just maintained his position as Governor of Connecticut, the state has been solidly Democrat in most regards over the past several election cycles. Safe Democrat.


Another election cycle, another opportunity for a Florida circus. Bob Graham, who will be 68 in 2004, was pretty popular when he ran in 1998. He won by a 25 point margin with 63% of the vote. However, Republicans believe that Graham is vulnerable, bolstered by the strong showing by Jeb Bush in his reelection campaign. Leaning Democrat.


Although Democrat Zell Miller won election in 2000, this seat will be up again in 2004 since that was a special election following the appointment of Miller in the aftermath of Paul Coverdell's death. Zell is very popular (58% of the vote, for a 20 point margin) but will be 72 in 2004, and if he gets frustrated with the Democrats coming leftward turn he may not run. If he does, he will win but continue to be a vote the Republicans can occasionally sway. If he doesn't run, then the seat has to be considered a strong pickup possibility for the Republicans, given the statewide triumphs they scored in 2000. Safe Democrat with Miller, Leaning Republican without.


When an incumbent can get over 80% of the vote, it is pretty safe to say that he has a lock on the seat if he runs. Democrat Daniel Inouye is a Hawaii institution, but will be 80 in 2004 and may decide to call it a career. Hawaii just elected a Republican Governor but is still a markedly Democrat state (Gore won by 18 points). Safe Democrat with Inouye, Strongly Leaning Democrat without.


Charles Grassley will be targetted by the Democrats considering that in the other Senate seat's race, the supposedly vulnerable Democrat Tom Harkin won by 10 points. However, Grassley didn't even sweat last time around, with well over two thirds of the vote and over 37 points of margin over his challenger. Considering that Gore barely carried Iowa, the Democrats are unlikely to topple the 71 year old Grassley, although it should be noted that both Harkin and Democrat Governor Vilsack carried healthy majorities in 2002. Strongly Leaning Republican.


Incumbent Mike Crapo should have little difficulty securing another term for the Republicans. He received over 70% of the vote in 1998 in this Republican stronghold. Safe Republican.


Probably the most vulnerable Republican Senator, Peter Fitzgerald won by under 3% of the vote in 1998 in a state which has been moving consistently towards the Democrats; in a night of Republican triumphs nationwide, Illinois went overwhelmingly towards the Democrats. Leaning Democrat.


Evan Bayh's name was thrown about as a potential 2000 running mate for Al Gore, and he had won comfortably in this Republican state (65% of the vote). The Republicans are likely to be more aggressive going after this seat in 2004, sensing that some of his votes while the Democrats were in the majority will give them ammunition. Given that Bush trounced Gore by 15% in 2000, it is likely this race will be considerably closer than in 1998, although Bayh still must be considered the favorite. Leaning Democrat.


Republican Sam Brownback drew over two thirds of the vote in 1998 in this strong Republican state. The Democrats did not even field a candidate for the other seat here against Pat Roberts, who had received less support in 1996 than Brownback did in 1998. Safe Republican.


One of the closest races in 1998 was the battle for this seat, which Republican Jim Bunning won by less than a percent. However, this time he will be running as an incumbent, and President Bush is very popular in Kentucky, which has been trending Republican in recent elections. Strongly Leaning Republican.


Democrat John Breaux is much more popular in the bayou than the endangered Mary Landrieu. While the Republicans will challenge, he will be less vulnerable to Bush's popularity due to the fact that he was strongly considered for a cabinet seat in the administration. This is Republican turf, but Breaux has found safe haven in the landscape anyway. Strongly Leaning Democrat.


Democrat Barbara Mikulski faced token opposition in 1998, and received over 70% of the vote in this strong Democrat state. Mikulski, 68 in 2004, will face more of a challenge this time in the wake of Kennedy-Townsend's defeat for Maryland Governor, but that would still be a longshot. Safe Democrat.


Missouri has been a battleground state for several elections, and the Democrats will make a run at knocking off Republican incumbent Kit Bond, who received less than 55% when he captured this seat in 1998 (a 9 point margin). However, Bond is considered to be a popular incumbent, and is likely to hold his position. Leaning Republican.

North Carolina

In the strange world of politics there can be some brain twisting paradoxes. Democrat John Edwards may be both one of the favorites to be the Democrat Presidential candidate in 2004, and one of the most vulnerable Senate incumbents. North Carolina is a battleground state with a Republican tint; the Democrats felt they could pick off Jesse Helms' seat but lost to Dole by double digits, and Gore fell to Bush by 13 points here. Edwards is not overly popular for an incumbent, and won by only 4 points in 1998 with barely 52% of the vote. If the Republicans can find a strong candidate here, this is a winnable seat for them. Leaning Democrat.

North Dakota

Democrat Byron Dorgan was not seriously challenged in 1998, and gathered nearly two thirds of the vote. Considering that Bush carried North Dakota by 28 points, the Republicans will be searching high and low for a worthy candidate to run. They may be able to make it a race, but it would definitely be an uphill battle. Strongly Leaning Democrat (and would be considered safe if not for how handily Bush won ND).

New Hampshire

While for a long time it appeared that the Republicans might lose one of their two New Hampshire Senate seats in 2002, John Sununu beat a very popular Democrat. As popular in New Hampshire as Sununu is, he is not as popular as the man who holds the other Senate seat, Judd Gregg. Gregg won over 70% of the vote in 1998, and should be able to beat whatever Democrat challenger comes his way. Strongly Leaning Republican.


If Fitzgerald is the most endangered Republican, meet Harry Reid, the Democrat with the largest bullseye on his chest. Reid won in 1998 by only 459 votes, barely over a tenth of a percent. Bush won the state by 4%, and the Republicans held the Governor's slot with a strong showing in 2002. Leaning Republican.

New York

Republicans have faced uphill climbs in New York in recent years. Despite this, Democrat Chuck Schumer may be vulnerable. He did not break 55% in 1998, winning the seat by less than 10%. He still is a strong favorite. That is, unless the Republicans convince Rudy Guiliani to run. At this point in time, Guiliani would have to be favored in any election against any other candidate except George Bush. Strongly Leaning Democrat without Guiliani, Strongly Leaning Republican with.


Former Governor George Voinovich may be less conservative than many Republicans, but he also has sufficient popularity to be considered a strong favorite to win in Ohio, a competitive state with Republican tendencies, much like North Carolina. He should be able to duplicate or improve on his 1998 showing of 56% of the vote. Strongly Leaning Republican.


Incumbent Republican Don Nickles garnered over two thirds of the vote in 1998, and after losing the Governor's race in 2002 the Oklahoma Republican party is unlikely to be complacent. Safe Republican.


Democrat Ron Wyden won relatively easily in 1998, and in this liberal state he appears positioned to repeat his victory. If the Republicans can convince Kevin Mannix to run, however, this could be an interesting race. Safe Democrat without Mannix, Leaning Democrat with.


Will Arlen Specter, who will be 74 in 2004, run again? If so, the inexplicably popular Scottish Law expert will hold the seat for the Republicans, who cannot be pleased with how well Democrats have been doing in recent elections. However, Governor-elect Ed Rendell won by a much smaller margin than had been predicted, despite his opponent running a horrible campaign. The Republicans have some talented (albeit moderate) candidates to run if Specter retires. Safe Republican with Specter, Leaning Republican without.

South Carolina

Rumor has it that the 80 year old Democrat incumbent Fritz Hollings will retire at the end of his term. Even if he doesn't, he will have a difficult time holding his seat in South Carolina, a state which has been trending more and more Republican each election. Hollings only secured 53% of the vote in 1998. Lindsey Graham just won an open seat in South Carolina for the Republicans by over 10 points, and George Bush carried South Carolina by 16 points. If Larry Sanders runs for the Democrats, he may start with some name recognition advantages, but this state appears ready to have two Republican Senators. Leaning Republican, regardless of what Hollings does.

South Dakota

Out of state Republicans find it difficult to believe, but Tom Daschle is popular in his home state. He won comfortably in 1998 with 63% of the vote, and his popularity (and the magic of mining for Indian Reservation votes) was enough to overcome the popularity of George Bush in this very Republican state. If Daschle runs, he will almost certainly win, even over the popular John Thune. However, it is quite possible that Daschle will decide to do something else, in which case this would be a surefire Republican pickup. Strongly Leaning Democrat with Daschle, Strongly Leaning Republican without.


With nearly two thirds of the vote in 1998, Republican Robert Bennett cruised to an easy victory in a state that the Democrats have shown no signs of life in for some time. Safe Republican.


Democrat Incumbent Patrick Leahy is despised by Republicans nationwide, but there aren't enough Republicans in Vermont to do much about it. Despite Douglass pulling an upset and giving the GOP the Governorship in Vermont, this state is clearly a Democrat stronghold, and Leahy might not even face stiff competition. Safe Democrat.


While Republicans generally face long odds on the left(wing) coast, Washington has been fairly competitive lately. Maria Cantwell won by under 2,300 votes in 2000, and Gore won Washington by only 5 points. This seat is held by Democrat Patty Murray, who took 58% of the vote for a comfortable 17 point win. If the Republicans can find a decent candidate, they can make this race a lot closer than that. Even so, Murray is the favorite. Strongly Leaning Democrat.


Russ Feingold acheived much fame with the Campaign Finance Reform bill which he co-sponsored with John McCain, and as such many consider him to be safer than he actually is. He won his seat in 1998 with only 51% of the vote (a 2 point margin) and Wisconsin is a state which has been very competitive between the parties in the last few elections. As the incumbent, he is the favorite, but given the strains that have been developing between the Democrats' Jewish and black factions, and given his soft numbers from 1998, he will face a strong challenge. Leaning Democrat.


I predict, depending upon who runs, there to be between 5-9 seats Safely Repubican, and between 3-6 seats Safely Democrat. Both parties will have between 4-7 seats Strongly Leaning their direction. The Republicans will have between 3-7 races Leaning their way, while the Democrats will have either 6 or 7 races Leaning their way. Those numbers by themselves would portend some gains by the Republicans, although a race-by-race analysis indicates that may be overstating the Republican chances.

Excluding the nine races where I suggested who runs will impact the categorization of the race to change, I have it as 5 Safe Republican seats to 3 Safe Democrat seats, 4 Strongly Leaning Republican Seats to 4 Strongly Leaning Democrat seats, and 3 Leaning Republican Seats to 6 Leaning Democrat seats. Of the nine excluded races, I have four that I have in the Republican column regardless (one of which at a minimum remains Strongly Leaning) and two that remain in the Democrat column (one of which also is a minimum of Strongly Leaning). Categorizing those six races in their most competitive position yields 5 Safe Republican seats to 3 Safe Democrat seats, 5 Strongly Leaning Republican seats to 5 Strongly Leaning Democrat seats, and 6 Leaning Republican seats to 7 Leaning Democrat seats.

The remaining three races include two that I do not see as being all that close, but which party will win depends on the decisions of two high-profile candidates; both of these races are in seats currently held by Democrats. Rudy Guiliani can win a seat away from the Democrats if he decides to run, and Tom Daschle can prevent a Republican gain by deciding to stay in the Senate. I consider both of these to be likely scenerios. Assuming both of these men to be running, then the races that I predict will not be overly competitive fall as 11 for the Republicans, 9 for the Democrats.

That leaves the remaining 14 races. Zell Miller in Georgia will likely decide one of those races. The remaining 13 will determine the fate of the Senate. The battlegrounds for 2004 have been set, and most of the swinging will likely take place in Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Nevada, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. As the Democrats need to pretty much sweep all these races in order to make any Senate gains, it looks at this juncture like the Republicans are set to gain between 3 to 7 seats; unless, of course, circumstances unforeseen markedly change the political landscape by 2004-- and in politics, the unforeseen is almost likely to occur.

TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: North Carolina; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 2004senate; edwardswatch; northcarolina; oldnorthstate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last
Obviously, these are merely my opinions.
1 posted on 11/11/2002 12:23:29 PM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
good overview and much appreciated
2 posted on 11/11/2002 12:30:46 PM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
In all probability the generally Republican state of Indiana will go very heavily for Democrat Bayh [unfortuately].
3 posted on 11/11/2002 12:39:24 PM PST by curmudgeonII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curmudgeonII; KC Burke
Thanks KC Burke, I appreciate it.

CurmudgeonII, I tend to think you are right, which is why I put it in the "Leaning" category. I tried to put races in the "Leaning" category if I believe one of two things: 1) the margin of victory is going to be less than 10% AND the person I think will win is not in the same party that the state trends, or 2) I believe that the race has enough uncertainty that I could picture it going to other way, even if I think the margin of victory might be greater than 10 points. I put Bayh into the first category here. I think he will likely win, but I think it will be within 10 points and I think the state favors Republicans.

4 posted on 11/11/2002 12:44:02 PM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Excellent analysis.

I would add only three points.

1. If Bayh runs in Indiana, move it to strongly leaning RAT. The GOP doesn't have a candidate groomed to make a strong run at him.

2. In Florida, I think there is a reasonable chance that Bob Graham will retire. If he does, this one leans GOP.

3. In North Dakota, there is talk that Ed Shafer will run. If he does, I would move this race to a toss-up.

5 posted on 11/11/2002 12:53:28 PM PST by comebacknewt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Too pessimistic on Peter Fitzgerald in Illinois. He will be re-elected.

Key races will include NC; SC; FL if Graham retires; and several others.

It's very early.
6 posted on 11/11/2002 12:53:35 PM PST by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: comebacknewt
Agreed with you on Florida and Graham.

I don't know much about Ed Shafer. Can you fill me in?

I guess I am in the minority when it comes to Bayh. I really think he has damaged himself in the past two years. I could very well be mistaken.

7 posted on 11/11/2002 12:58:54 PM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
When it comes to competitions I subscribe to the "Captain Kirk" philosophy of life. In a nutshell, there is no such thing as a no win situation. Therefore, we will hand Barbara Boxer her ass on a platter in 2K4, particularly after 2 more years of Davis taxes and Pelosi shrewing it up in congress.

8 posted on 11/11/2002 1:02:05 PM PST by Axenolith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
I like Fitzgerald in Illinois, but we'll see who the Democrats put up. The Democrats swept the state this last election, and one big resason for that was the scandals within the GOP officeholders. Some of it was the "bribes for licenses" scandals that occurred under George Ryan's watch in the Secretary of State office, but there's others as well; the State GOP Chairman had to resign his chairmanship when it was found that he was using the taxpayer-paid staff in his State House office (he was also the state's House Majority Leader) for political party work. All in all, there's likely to be a pretty big parade of GOP defendants though the courts and the jails over the next two years. Depending on how big, it could have an impact in 2004.

The one big thing going there for Fitzgerald, though, is that he's appointed the U.S. Attorneys that are chasing all this down. So he can say he's got clean hands and is doing his bit to clean up the mess. He wasn't a member of the regular GOP structure, and in fact they opposed his candidacy for the Senate. It's an example of a wealthy man funding his own campaign, and unlike most, he actually won.

The GOP would have the knives out for him, but they've got other problems now; the Democrats now hold both houses of the state legislature and the Governorship and all but one of the other State Constitutionally mandated offices.
9 posted on 11/11/2002 1:04:59 PM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonF
I like Fitzgerald too. Saying who I want to win is very different than saying who I think will win. Incumbency will help. The trend of the state will hurt. The distance he can put between himself and the corruption in the state Republicans will help. Trying to run without the support of the state party will hurt-- but obviously he has done it before.

I hope he can win, but I think if he does win it will be a competitive race, and as such it belongs in a "Leaning" designation and should be considered one of the battlegrounds. IMO.

10 posted on 11/11/2002 1:08:21 PM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
California Strategery: talk up Green Party. Bitch and moan in Birkenstock stores and Bay Area coffee houses about Boxer being a "sellout to the Oil and War Party." (If you can suggest that she's an Israeli sock puppet in a PC manner, so much the better.)
11 posted on 11/11/2002 1:11:55 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
I agree that at this point Fitzgerald should be favored, and with your "leaning Republican" label. I just wanted to share with the list some of the details about complicating factors in Illinois. Illinois seems to like having one Republican and one Democratic senator. It reflects the split between Chicago and Downstate, with the 'burbs split, but how it keeps working out that way is beyond me.
12 posted on 11/11/2002 1:12:49 PM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Ed Shafer is a popular Ex-Governor of ND. He would give Dorgan a very strong run IMHO.

Living in Indiana, my impression is that most voters here consider Bayh a moderate. As Governor, his policies were fairly moderate -- in large part because Republicans controlled the legislature in Indiana.

Since he has moved to DC, Bayh has become a reliable liberal vote. Unfortunately, most people here still have a very favorable impression of Bayh, and I don't see a GOP candidate on the horizon that can get the voters excited enough to turn him out.

13 posted on 11/11/2002 1:16:37 PM PST by comebacknewt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: comebacknewt
I agree with combacknewt regarding Bayh's chances in Indiana. The Republican's don't have anyone strong enough to run against Bayh. The Bayh family in Indiana has strong political roots. Actually, Evan Bayh's father was beaten out of office by Dan Quayle.

Evan Bayh is good at portraying himself as a moderate, though he will support the democrat cause when necessary. Indiana is generally a conservative state, so he will act bipartisan when it won't make a difference. As governor, he tried to pass a huge tax and spending hike bill. Fortunately, the Republican congress vetoed it. Bayh whined and complained saying that the state would have huge deficits. Guess what--they had a huge surplus. Not surprisingly, he ran for senate on the platform that Indiana had a big surplus, and that he didn't have to raise taxes to do it.

It will be very interesting to see if he moves more to the left as the Democrats believe it is in their best interests. Anyway, Bayh is in no danger of losing his position. Unfortunately, he has duped a lot of Hoosiers into thinking he's a moderate. However, if he is forced to move far left, things could change. But don't expect it. Hoosiers will turn a blind eye to it unless it gets really bad. Unfortunately, I'd change Indiana to a strongly leaning RAT.

14 posted on 11/11/2002 1:17:11 PM PST by trackman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Thanks for your analysis.


15 posted on 11/11/2002 1:24:06 PM PST by Freebird Forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: comebacknewt
Thanks for the information about Shafer. That would be nice.
16 posted on 11/11/2002 1:24:40 PM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Freebird Forever
You are welcome.
17 posted on 11/11/2002 1:26:12 PM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Didn't they just pass a law in SD that would prevent Dash-hole from running for both President and Senate at the same time?
18 posted on 11/11/2002 1:30:46 PM PST by RetiredArmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
Yes. I believe so.
19 posted on 11/11/2002 1:31:10 PM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Southernnorthcarolina, from his perch practically on the state line, is already looking forward to the 2004 races in both Carolinas, even while continuing to enjoy the 2002 results. I am optimistic with respect to both venues, even if the Democrat incumbents seek re-election.

Unless our world looks very different 20-24 months from now, having Dubya at the top of the ticket will be a powerful boost to the Republicans all the way down the ticket in both states. Not only the U.S. Senate races in the two states, but the NC Governor's race, and the State House and State Senate races in both states. The GOP already controls the SC Senate and House, and the NC House, and is within striking distance in the NC Senate.

The vicious circle down here in the South has been broken -- the one that allowed Dems to continue to win down-ballot contests even while the GOP mopped up at the Presidential level. Until the last couple of elections, a lot of conservatives persisted in voting Democrat at the State and local levels because the Dems were likely to win, and possess the influence. And of course, the Dems kept winning because people voted for them. That sounds ludicrously obvious, but think about it. Once the GOP is perceived to have a legitimate chance to become the majority party in, say, a State legislature anywhere in the South, there is a strong momentum toward them.

But as far as the U.S. Senate races in NC and SC are concerned: I think Congressman Richard Burr of Winston-Salem will take out Edwards, who is only making Presidential noises to keep his name in front of NC voters. And Congressman Jim DeMint of Greenville will take out Senator Foghorn Leghorn, or scare him into retirement.

Things are lookin' good down here.

20 posted on 11/11/2002 1:32:36 PM PST by southernnorthcarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
But I think he could "run" for the Democrat nomination without having to resign his seat. It would just be that come November, he could not be on the ballot for both positions. If I am recalling correctly. So he could try for the nomination, and if he doesn't get it, still run for the Senate.
21 posted on 11/11/2002 1:32:43 PM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I agree Boxer could be vulnerable from her right and her left.

Davis won on LA and SF. Boxer may not have much to offer the libs -- the California economy will lag the rest of the nation and liberals, with extended 100% power, will be left holding the bag.

California Republicans have had scant success finding good statewide candidates though.

22 posted on 11/11/2002 1:34:12 PM PST by Monti Cello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
I'm not sure I like that new name you gave to the state of South Dakota, by the way. I'm not to happy with them because of the results Tuesday, but changing the state's name to Tom Daschle is harsh. :-)

Good outline, much appreciated.

23 posted on 11/11/2002 1:36:59 PM PST by southernnorthcarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

One thing I meant to add, of the battleground states identified above, the following are currently in Democrat hands: Georgia, Oregon, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Nevada, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. Nine of them. Right now, the Republicans hold 51 seats (and may have 52 after the Louisiana runoff). To me, in order to hold a filibuster, the Democrats will need the help of at least one of these. Which one is going to harm his or her re-election chances by opposing Bush on items that are popular in their states but not popular with the liberal base?
24 posted on 11/11/2002 1:41:28 PM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina; Admin Moderator
Wow, how embarrassing! LOL

Admin, is there any way you could fix that for me?

25 posted on 11/11/2002 1:42:44 PM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Wow! Thanks!
26 posted on 11/11/2002 1:45:16 PM PST by DoctorMichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Fixed. Thanks.
27 posted on 11/11/2002 1:46:47 PM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
Yoda da man.
28 posted on 11/11/2002 1:47:31 PM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
What happens if Condi Rice runs for Senate in CA as a Rep? Bush is keeping Cheney as Veep. What if that is because Condi (who is from CA) prefers being Senator to Veep?
29 posted on 11/11/2002 1:54:10 PM PST by No Truce With Kings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Gonna depend on the Iraq War and the economy

TOO early to speculate
30 posted on 11/11/2002 1:57:37 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
The seats up for contest in 2004 were last voted on in 1998, a year where Democrats bucked the trend of losing House seats in a midterm election while controlling the White House,

That's cause BOZO Clinton lost them all 4 years early in 94
31 posted on 11/11/2002 1:59:49 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monti Cello
Arnold for Gov!
32 posted on 11/11/2002 2:00:19 PM PST by RetiredArmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Way too early to make even educated predictions. Two years ago, we would have considered the seats of Wellstone, Cleland and Toricelli locks, for example. A lot can happen in the next year (and then we'll start to have a clue). All of the 'Rat strongholds can be contested with the right candidates. I expect the Bush/Rove team to come up with a good slate of candidates to run next year and ride the Bush wave to victory. No 'Rat seat is safe!
33 posted on 11/11/2002 2:04:30 PM PST by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mykdsmom; Constitution Day
You might want to ping the NC & Edwards list...
34 posted on 11/11/2002 2:05:20 PM PST by jern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Good points.

As I looked at the '02 Senate races in late 2000, I thought Gordon Smith would be our most vulnerable incumbent and Max Baucus would be the RATS' most vulnerable. As it turns out, they both won rather easily.

That said, I like the general looks of things from the GOP perspective. We have a legit shot to pick up a number of seats in '04.

35 posted on 11/11/2002 2:16:19 PM PST by comebacknewt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Great analysis. I have been looking for a thread like this for the last few days.

BTW, maybe Karl Rove is looking for some "strategerists" like you. :-)
36 posted on 11/11/2002 2:18:35 PM PST by AsYouAre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76; William McKinley
Way too early to make even educated predictions.

This is interesting, but a lot can happen in two years. Perhaps Willam will update the thread in 6, 12, 18 and 23 months.

37 posted on 11/11/2002 2:41:28 PM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: No Truce With Kings
What if that is because Condi (who is from CA) prefers being Senator to Veep?

No way. Bush's VP or National Security Advisor is a much more powerful and interesting job. I would be very surprised if she leaves the President's inner circle and her position of extremely strong influence on international policy for a very risky race for a Senate seat once won will pale in prestige to National Security Advisor.

38 posted on 11/11/2002 2:44:41 PM PST by Tennessean4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Thanks, this info will make watching the Republican's manipulation of vulnerable Dems' votes very interesting!
39 posted on 11/11/2002 2:47:23 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Outstanding analysis. Several comments:

Arizona -- McCain's more likely to retire than switch parties. 2001 would have been the logical time to switch, to position himself for the 2004 Democrat nomination. Barring unforeseen circumstances, his time has passed, which he acknowledges freely and publicly. The State has become competitive for the Democrats based on Social Security and Mexican immigration. I wouldn't assume the Republicans will win it.

Georgia -- Clearly, Miller is not going to switch parties and he's too popular to defeat at this juncture. It is questionable whether he could survive an investigation into his personal affairs, but the Bush Administration is hardly likely to lead such an effort. At one time, Miller had national aspirations before being humiliated by Clinton. He would be a natural for Transportation or Education secretary, if he felt the job was big enough to justify giving up a safe Senate seat. That's the way to win this naturally Republican seat.

Iowa -- Grassley's independence works in his favor in Iowa.

Illinois -- I agree that Fitzgerald is toast unless the Democrats run an African-American. He may be anyway. This state has a tradition of turning out incumbents, even prominent ones.

Indiana -- Bayh has national aspirations, as did his father, though one assumes he's too conventional and shrewd to give up a reasonably safe Senate seat to run.

Louisiana -- Breaux is not going to lose. If he were, he'd accept a cabinet post in a heartbeat.

North Carolina -- It's now or never for Edwards in terms of national office. It might be easier to secure the Democrat nomination for President in a year when Bush is expected to win than to win re-election to the Senate.

Nevada -- This is a true bellwether state in national elections though the Republican association with the Christian right works against it.

New York -- I think Giuliani could win a race against Schumer but the question becomes: To what end, as junior senator with a Republican in the White House when Giuliani is perceived as too liberal on social issues to win the Republican nomination? He might prefer a business career or a latter switch to the Democrat party for a run in 2008.

Pennsylvainia -- With the Vice Presidency seemingly closed to him, Tom Ridge would be a natural for this seat if Colin Powell doesn't return to private life, thereby opening State for Rumsfeld and Defense for Ridge. If Cheney were incapacitated, Ridge would be a strong candidate for Vice Presidency, right to life or no right to life, as would Rumsfeld. If Bush was trying to position a Republican to win in 2008, Ridge would get the nod. If he were looking for a wise man, a la Ford's choice of Rockefeller, it would be Rumsfeld.

South Dakota -- I think Daschle will run for President in 2004 and then run a think tank or university. The Republicans should recapture the seat if they can stop the dead and phantom voters from casting ballots at the current rate.

Washington -- Only a major terrorist incident would reverse this state's relentless drift toward the left. Currently, a Republican is only marginally more electable to statewide office here than in California. Given the tolerance of Islamists in the state and the quality of the Seattle police force, this is by no means unlikely.

The Republicans could pick up a seat in Georgia by appointing Miller to a cabinet post.

40 posted on 11/11/2002 2:56:22 PM PST by Man of the Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right
Excellent post, and good suggestion. Unload Mineta, and put Zell Miller in there, Sonny Purdue installs a GOP senator.

Other than Nevada and one or two other races, I think we are benefited in 2004 only if there are a number of long overdue retirements - FL, SC, SD, GA, in particular.
41 posted on 11/11/2002 3:02:57 PM PST by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Good work. However, even though you might think its not too early to start thinking about this, your own analysis indicates that it probably is. Much depends on who's running against who. We will know far more a year from now, but this is good information about the backdrop of the '04 elections.

Somehow, given what just happened and how things are trending now, I would think that the GOP stands to gain a little bit more than you might think. With so many seats to defend and outgunned in the campaign finances dept, right now I'm not putting any bets that the Rats can hold on to that many seats despite which states may appear to be safe or heavily leaning their way.

42 posted on 11/11/2002 3:17:30 PM PST by Citizen of the Savage Nation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Pretty nice. You missed one piece of analysis which is essential for the 2004 elections that wasn't present for the 2002 elections. Any guess?
43 posted on 11/11/2002 3:34:31 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
True, Bush running will also get out more voters, the vast majority of whom like him. This will also be a good thing. I think Nevada, ND, NC, Florida, and Indiana have to be big targets for '04. Think big, after all who had Cleland losing, 2 years ago?
44 posted on 11/11/2002 3:41:15 PM PST by Citizen of the Savage Nation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina; William McKinley
Well, you answered my question: The top of the ticket. Assuming the Iraq war goes quickly and smoothly and the economy is humming by 2004 (nothing is for certain, but both are highly likely). Then, Bush will be so popular that he is sure to sweep in a few close Senate candidates.

The question is: Who will head up the Democrats' ticket? Anyone inspiring on the horizon? Gore? Edwards? Kerry? Hillary??? With the recent losses in 2002, Edwards is an increasingly strong possibility -- he's from the South (the Dems have to stop the bleeding there and relatively unknown. Gore already has high negatives (not to mention Hillary) and Kerry has too long a track record to be portrayed as anything but an über-liberal.

The last time we were in a situation like this was for the 1992 election. The Democrat rising stars didn't want to go against the (then) popular President GHW Bush, so they got the relatively unknown but long-serving Gov. Clinton to run. With Perot added to the mix, the fix was in and the 2-against-1 campaign damaged 41 irreparably.

So, is there a long-serving Democrat governor out there who might run in 2004? Or a (perceived) right-leaning spoiler? Otherwise, it'll be a rout, up and down the ticket.

45 posted on 11/11/2002 3:48:56 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Mike Crapp=Mike Crapo (in Idaho)
46 posted on 11/11/2002 3:49:33 PM PST by For the Unborn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: comebacknewt
JEB BUSH could be the next Senator from Florida!
47 posted on 11/11/2002 4:07:25 PM PST by agincourt1415
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
It's hard to say with Condi, because she doesn't have a typical politician's aspirations. I'm sure she'd be happy to be NSA for the rest of her life, but it may be stressful and she'd want to move on after one term. If she gets tired of public life, she'll be a University president anywhere she wants to go. Count on it, she's already been provost at Stanford.

The thing is, she'll have to quit NSA to run against Boxer, who she could beat. (Boxer has the disadvantage of being a complete moron.) But Feinstein is much tougher, even though the timing there would be better. I think the higher-ups in the Republican party are whispering "VPOTUS" or "POTUS" in her ear and it depends if she wants to listen or not.

48 posted on 11/11/2002 4:19:52 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: agincourt1415
The timing's off for Jeb. He was just elected governor for the second time. (That's it, he's term-limited.) Look for him to run against Bill Nelson in 2006.
49 posted on 11/11/2002 4:25:19 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
If the economy, and the situation of jobs for native born american citizens, does not get better, it doesnt matter how things look on paper.
50 posted on 11/11/2002 4:32:14 PM PST by waterstraat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 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
Topics · Post Article

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