Posted on 10/21/2004 8:04:52 PM PDT by DefCon
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Senate breakdown prior to the election:
51 Republican; 48 Democrat; 1 Independent
- - - - - - - - - - - -
There are 34 senate seats up for re-election in 2004.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Prediction of Senate breakdown after the election:
(Democrats lose 4; Republicans lose 2)
53 Republican; 46 Democrat; 1 Independent
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I'd sure like to see a few more added to the list of Dems losing to Republicans:
Boxer, Murray, Schumer, and Leahy being at the top of my list.
I like the looks of this, but in the Senate the magic number is still 60.
Years of work yet to be done before judicial nominees can at least get a floor vote, and until important legislaiton can get out of committee.
The rules of the Senate are often times inconsistent with the (d)emocratic ideal of majority rule.
One election at a time, one seat at a time.
Louisiana and Florida are possibilities.
You get Daschle out of the Senate and that 60 vote rule might well go away. Especially if Hildabeast wants to run in 2008. If the dems continue to obstruct during the next 4 years she won't even make it though the first 2 weeks of the campaign.
Castor is getting killed over the Sami Al-Arian issue. I can't see this race at anything but at least a tossup. Democrats are likewise panicking over Louisiana, where Vitter is a serious threat to top 50% while his Democratic opponents trash each other and try to tie David Duke to the other.
Oklahoma is currently too close to call. It has been swinging back and forth; Carson (D) seems to have a slight advantage.
I tried to be as realistic and unbiased as possible
when I reviewed all the polling data.
-
The 3 way race in Louisiana is hard to predict,
I suspect the supporters of the democrat candidates
will gang up on Vitter in a run-off.
His numbers remain in the mid 40% range.
-
Another pickup in Florida would be a welcome addition
and it is very possible.
-
There are at least two other 'sleeper' races
(Alaska and Colorado)
that we can continue to hope for.
-
I think the 53 vs. 46 vs. 1 is believable.
If I wanted to go out on a limb,
I could dream up a 57 vs. 42 vs. 1 scenario.
I am an optimist. I think we will pick up Louisiana, Florida and South Dakota and keep Alaska. That will make it 57. Such an historic event will cause the other Democrats in Bush states who are up for re-election in 2006 play nice.
SUSA shows Coburn up by 6 tonight.
That's way more info then is actually necessary. It essentially comes this way - There are 8 competitive races. The Democrats currently hold 5, we hold 3. That gives us a natural advantage. Even if we split those contests, GOP picks up +1 seat. Here is my prediction:
FL - Martinez (R) over Castor (D)
Castor has to deal w/ the fact that she defended the terrorist professor there in Central Florida. It seems Mel grabs a slight lead, and then Castor pulls even a week later. Tougher to call than the others, but I think Martinez prevails
SD - Thune over Daschle
This race has essentially been tied for months now. Thune might have won two years ago if not for Reservation fraud, and that was w/o the President as the top of the ticket. I just have a feeling Daschle is going down.
NC - Burr (R) over Bowles (D)
I watched part of a debate between the two on CSPAN and thought Burr looked much better. He has surged in the polls from being quite a bit down to what seems like a few points up as it is. Moreover Bowles is a Clinton hack who is very plain, Burr definitely (sic?) has an advantage personality wise.
AK - Knowles (D) over Murkowski (R)
Weak candidate. Just cannot seem to gain any momentum. ANWR should put any Republican over the top. I'm hoping for a surprise.
SC - DeMint (R) over Tennenbaum (D)
He has lead all the way, the Q is a matter of how much.
OK - Coburn (R) over Carson (D)
I hear Sen. Nickles, Sen. Inhofe, JC Watts, Rep. Istook, and every other Congressman in OK has come to defense of Dr. Tom in wake of an extremely dirty campaign being run by Brad Carson. Plus Club for Growth has/is going to be running ads here, along w/ visits from Dr. Dobson.
CO - Coors (R) over Salazar (D)
The President is set to visit again this weekend. Two polls recently have shown Pete Coors w/ a slight to modest lead. Colorado has a large hispanic population that will help Salazar, but Coors is immensely popular in the state - the beer and the family. The Coors family has always been conservative - giving a lot of money to the Heritage Foundation around the time of its inception.
LA - Vitter (R) v. John or Kennedy (D)
This one won't be decided on election day, only who will be the Democratic representative. LA just has to be different then the rest of the country, and this can be treated as a democratic primary for Senate purposes. Reason for doubt - Vitter is only polling between 43 and 48. Reason for hope - Maybe that is b/c he is sandbagging and saving his money for the runoff election two weeks after the general election. Also, if you add the two Democrats #s together they still don't = Vitters. Did I mention LA politics are weird? Not enough info right now. This one could go either way.
Overall
The GOP Senatorial Committee has twice as much money going into the stretch as does the Dems. If you haven't noticed all of these states were red in 2000, w/ most of them heavily favoring the President. The polls in 2002 weren't alot of help. I remember Allard and Chambliss were supposedly about even and ended up winning by a much healthier margin. Hopefully we can employ the same winning strategy that we did two years ago.
In the best case scenario -- GOP holds OK, CO, and Alaska while picking up NC, SC, GA, FL, LA, and SD, and losing Illinois -- the GOP would be at 56.
Then there would be a chance of getting Democrats Nelson of Nebraska, Baucas of Montana, and Pryor of Arkansas to break with their party and vote to give all judicial picks an up or down vote from the full Senate. But that would still only be 59, and I'm probably being optimistic about Baucas and Pryor. I don't know where #60 would come from. Landrieu doesn't even have to make any pretense of representing the values of her state for then next 3 years, nor will Lincoln in Ark for the next 5 yrs. You'd think that the other 3 Dakota liberals could be cowed into place but it hasn't happened yet, so I don't see why it should in the future. Isn't there a former Gov or something willing to take on Conrad or Dorgan in ND? They should lobby Bayh of Indiana hard seeing as how that guy has to know his moderation on abortion makes him unacceptable on the national Dem ticket.
And of course the GOP must retain 51 seats so as to quell the temptation for Chaffee of RI to pull a Jeffords.
If they lose Alaska then the villain would be Gov Murkowski who apparently was unable to find a competent replacment who was also not related to him. What was he thinking?
I can realistically see 53.
I can optimistically see 56.
Unfortunately quite a few of them are RINOs.
-
After we get through the next 2 weeks,
I guess I will start looking at who is vulnerable in 2006.
The terms of those who were elected in 2000 will be expiring then.
I hope to live to see a 60 seat majority,
just to see if once that scenario is reached,
if any of them have the guts to actually make a change.
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.