Posted on 04/16/2005 4:54:25 AM PDT by paltz
All Crystal Ball junkies know the drill. Every election year, most Senators skate by, especially the venerable elders who well fit their states. Meanwhile, a handful of Senators are vulnerable, and those are the contests we watch like hawks. In last week's Crystal Ball email ( http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2005032401), we examined seniority and the 109th Senate, as well as the seats that are currently open and those that might open between now and 2006. This week, we've brought you the 14 seats out of the 33 up for election that appear to be moderately to very vulnerable. In alphabetical order by state, they are:
On the surface, this appears to be an impressive total: 14 of 33, with another three potential retirees (mentioned in last week's email: Dianne Feinstein, Trent Lott, and Craig Thomas), which could bring the competitive total to 17 of 33--more than half! But let's look again. All three possible, additional retirees come from states that strongly favor the current party to retain control of the seat (CA, MS, WY). New Jersey would likely elect another Democrat to replace Corzine, and Texas would probably choose another Republican to succeed Hutchison. The incumbent senators, endangered though they are in FL, MI, MT, NE, PA, and RI, are all still favored to win. (We'd bet that a couple of them will be defeated in the end, but it is too soon to know which ones.) Tennessee may well elect another Republican to succeed Bill Frist, and Maryland will likely pick another Democrat to replace Sarbanes. Governor Mark Warner is actually unlikely to challenge Senator George Allen in Virginia. And Governor John Hoeven, the only real GOP hope, has not committed to challenging Senator Kent Conrad in North Dakota.
So what is left? The Senate seat in Minnesota may be the most likely to switch parties (from D to R), though we have a long way to go before reaching any definitive conclusion. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is also vulnerable, not least because of GOP anger over a "stolen" Governor's election in 2004; however, Washington leans Democratic and the Republicans have not yet lined up an impressive candidate to carry the banner against Cantwell. Finally, there will be a few other incumbent defeats from our list (and maybe off it) that cannot be clearly projected two years out.
Does that add up to a change in party control in the U.S. Senate? It's very early, but so far the Sixth Year Itch is purely theoretical in Senate races. The Republicans could drop a couple of seats, or they could even add a couple of seats, but search as one might, it is tough to find the five net seats--six with Vice President Cheney's vote--that would need to go Democratic for the GOP to lose the Senate.
This is a snapshot at the starting gate, and maybe we'll all look back in November 2006 and have a hearty chuckle when we realize how misleading the 2005 picture of the upcoming Senate contests appeared. (Exactly such a deceptive prediction from analysts occurred in 1980, 1986, 1994, and 2000, just to mention four such years.) All we at the Crystal Ball can do is to help you keep up with the ever-shifting Senate sands, and our state-by-state analysis ( http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2006/senate) will create our benchmark for the 2006 battle for the upper chamber of Congress.
As usual, I would bet on more upsets in the House this time around, than the Senate.
If Martinez continues, as he has out of the starting gate, I think Nelson will keep his seat. Of course it it early and the Schiavo smell still lingers, as does the "talking points memo".
Time will tell.
Thanks for the post paltz.
post paltz? ... Try saying that one repeatedly and fast! ;)
The honking communist Debbie Stabenow is dead meat, provided the chicken republicans go to Detroit and stop the voter fraud. I have my doubts, though.
We're expected to believe that 99% of all eligible voters go to the ballot box in that rat city. Right.
All we need are people with an abacus and video camera to count voters as they walk thru the door. This would need to be a military operation with heavily armed precinct watchers to turn back the union goons.
She's one we have to vote out! She doesn't have a very good rep around my parts. Neither does the gov..come to think of it.
My predictions were closer than his: I had it Bush 320 EV. If Bush had carried PA, I'd be almost dead on.
Tenn isn't open...
There is a bright side to all of this.
If all 8 dem seats switch to R and all 6 rep seats stay R, we still wont be able to get up/down votes for conservative judges.
Ridiculous. George Allen will crush carpetbagger Mark Warner.
HE's who we should be looking to get rid of. As I like to say, "Chuck" is a verb. So "Chuck" Hagel in 2008.
I am not sure anything Marinez does makes a difference. It really depends if the GOP gets a good candidate against Nelson. I am not sure who the leading candidate is, although I suspect Katherine Harris is.
The ACU rates Hagel 85 lifetime against Nelson's 52. Hagel was 87 in 2004 and 100 in 2003.
By and large they play hide and seek, make believe they care by working at McDonalds for a day, showing the peons they are just like us and feel our pain. They play musical chairs with the Governorship, being the governor, then being a Senator.
Think of it. Laughton Chiles was best known for walking and plaid shirts, though there was a little stink about him hunting with a .223, or something like that.
Martinez needs to simply be like the invisable man (Bob Graham) and cast no shadow that the East coast Dimocrats can hang in effigy. ;)
Frist is not running for re-election.
"Chuck" Hagel in 08.
Ping.
It is all relative. Nelson is one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress, but I would rather have a REP like Hagle in place of Nelson. 85% is better than 52%.
Hagel is a McCain/Snowe/Collins/Specter/Chaffee Republican. When the chips are down and we need every vote, you can't count on him to be there.
If you believe that the ACU ratings have any validity, it is a mistake to lump Snowe (51%), Collins (57%), Spector (44%), and Chaffee (41% )with McCain (83%). Also, without the six senators you mentioned, the Reps would be the minority party. Despite your and my objections to their general lack of adherence to conservative principles, I would rather have them in the Senate than a Dem who would be less conservative and give the Dems control of the institution.
I have reluctantly come to the same conclusion, that thanks to party politics a rino is better than a moderate 'rat.
The place to strengthen the party is in the primaries, not taking it out on a rino in the general. For that reason I support the Club for Growth, which backs conservative candidates against rino's in GOP primaries. They have a good record for effectiveness too.
I agree with this caveat. It has to be selective and done on a case by case basis. Conservative candidates will not be elected in RI and Maine, for example. It boils down to electabillity. We don't want to unseat a Rep incumbent to pave the way for the Dems to capture the seat.
For those who call to get rid of the RINOs, I wonder if there are Dems calling for the removal of conservative Dems like Nelson or Pryor to be replaced by more liberal Dems. I think not.
Just so. I have been impressed by the Club for Growth however, as they have done their homework and supported conservative pubbies against incumbent rino's in the primaries, and who then have gone on to win their seats in Congress, for net conservative gains within the GOP caucus. They have taken out some incumbent 'rats as well. They haven't won every race, but are definitely ahead of the game.
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.