The Longest Seat (Fred Barnes Handicaps Senate Control)

The Weekly Standard ^ | 10/08/02 | Fred Barnes

[TonyInOhio]

THERE'S GOOD NEWS and bad news for Republicans in the New Jersey Senate race. The good news is GOP candidate Doug Forrester isn't the stiff he's been cracked up to be. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," he was feisty and disciplined. The bad news is that with the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal yesterday to interfere with the replacement of Sen. Robert Torricelli by Frank Lautenberg as the Democratic nominee, Forrester is now the underdog. And because of that, Democrats have a slightly better-than-even chance of retaining control of the Senate in the November 5 midterm election.

New Jersey's is one of eight competitive Senate races in 2002--four Democratic, four Republican--that will decide who runs the Senate. With the scandal-drenched Torricelli on the ballot and his campaign in free-fall, Forrester was favored to win, giving Republicans a leg up in netting the one seat needed to take Senate control. With Torricelli gone, it's a different story. Three polls show Lautenberg, who retired from the Senate in 2000, with a lead of 4, 6, or 11 percentage points. In any case, Lautenberg is now the favorite.

If not in New Jersey, Republicans will have to win at least one of the three other Democratic-held seats--in Minnesota, Missouri, or South Dakota. At the moment, their best chance appears to be against Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone in Minnesota. Wellstone opposes President Bush's Iraq policy, and Republican Norm Coleman has sought with some success to make that the overriding issue. Wellstone also reneged on his promise to quit after two Senate terms. Polls show the race in a dead heat but Wellstone unable to climb above 45 percent, which is bad for an incumbent.

In Missouri, former Republican congressman Jim Talent has gained on Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan, but not enough to take a lead. The race is a tossup. South Dakota, where GOP hopes of ousting Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson were high last spring and through the early summer, is now a disappointment. Representative John Thune, whom the president talked into running for the Senate, is roughly tied with Johnson. Republicans had expected him to be in the lead at this point.

The bottom line is: Republicans aren't ahead in any Democratic state. And they must protect their four vulnerable seats. Democrats aren't ahead--with a lead outside the margin of error anyway--in any of these races either. But remember, the burden is on Republicans to gain a seat. The status quo would leave Democrat Tom Daschle as Senate majority leader.

Let's start with Arkansas, where GOP Senator Tim Hutchinson, having divorced his wife and married one of his staffers, is in a tough fight for reelection. Republican operatives insist he's roughly even with Democrat Mark Pryor, son of former governor and senator David Pryor. But Democrats believe Pryor is ahead. He's proved to be clever in discussing issues--and avoiding liberal positions--during debates with Hutchinson. If he beats Hutchinson, Republicans will have to win two of the Democratic seats to take over the Senate.

It's possible, but they'll also have to hold onto their seats in New Hampshire, Colorado, and Texas. Of those, New Hampshire is the most problematic. Rep. John Sununu beat Sen. Bob Smith in the GOP primary and now faces Democratic Governor Jeanne Shaheen. Sununu matches up better against Shaheen than Smith would have, but the race remains a tossup. In Colorado, Sen. Wayne Allard has a tiny lead over Democrat Tim Strickland, but he's no cinch. When they debated on "Meet the Press" in September, Strickland was the clear winner.

Unless lightning strikes, Texas is likely to stay in Republican hands, though Democrats have an exciting, if error-prone, candidate in Ron Kirk, the black ex-mayor of Dallas. But while Republican John Cornyn, the Texas attorney general, has taken the lead, he hasn't been able to put Kirk away. Nonetheless, Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, insists this contest is all but over, with Cornyn the winner.

So far this election cycle, no trend has developed for either party. It may be that the dominance of the Iraq issue has thwarted Democrats from capitalizing on the sour economy and troubled stock market. But sometimes a tilt doesn't come until the last two or three weeks in a campaign. Sometimes it doesn't come at all. And sometimes a party can fight off a trend, as Republicans did in 1982 by gaining a Senate seat in the teeth of a deep recession. My guess is this time there won't be a partisan tilt. But if there is, it will probably help Democrats.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

[TonyInOhio]

A good analysis, but I'm a bit more confident than Fred. I think the President's strong stand on Iraq and a flood of NRSC money in these races will make the difference.

[William McKinley]

Make Sure Free Republic Is Here For The Next Generation Of Freepers!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Coop]

I think one reason Fred's a bit pessimistic is the dismal stock market performance of the past howevermany weeks. The GOP really needs the DJIA to gain at least a few hundred points over the next four weeks.

Polls show the race in a dead heat but Wellstone unable to climb above 45 percent, which is bad for an incumbent.

Unless that incumbent is Gray Davis, in which case he's invincible! < / sarcasm >

[jmaroneps37]

You know, it really doesn't make much difference which one of our "goods friends" from the weak-ly standard it is. You just can't trust this bunch. Hey freddie you listed the polls backwards. Why freddie? The polls have been: a ccAdvertising poll done from 4 to 7:30PM Wednesday Oct 2, which showed Forrester doing 53% ( with 4 minor candidates doing at least a total of 2%, Lautenberg could be doing just 45%)This was from a sample of 2993 people more than six times the sample size of any other poll to boot, - 62.5% were women - bad news for frankie. The next poll was from a rat pollster and it showed lautenberg +11. Three days later the first new poll showed the spread at 6 and; the second poll showed it at 4 with a 4.3% +/- margin. Now the honest way to report this race is that it is a deadheat at worst and that Forrester could statistically be up. Unless you favor the rat media method of reporting that says if a rat is down within the margin, it's a tie but; if a Republican is down by the margin, he is down.
I know that your boss lil billy is proud of you freddie but; all you've done is make a nice try. Maybe you should stop drinking from Mara's coffee cup.

[comebacknewt]

I think we lose Arkansas and everything else stays as is.

A net loss of one for us in the Senate. Sure hope I am wrong, but I just don't see a groundswell of support for our candidates out there in the close races.

[MHT]

If only Raciot had stayed on to fight the good fight for the Montana senate seat.......

[mwl1]

I am more optimistic... perhaps irrationally so. We hold all the open seats and sweep SD, MO, and MN... only lose AR... net 51-48-1. Turns out we should have hit Cleland harder - he wins only by an eyelash.

[Wphile]

My prior prediction was we would hold our seats and pick up 4 (SD,MO,MN and NJ). I have to now take NJ off that list. Forrester could still win but I'm not betting on it. I still think we will win in SD, MO, and MN. Not sure about Arkansas but I guess I'm still cautiously optimistic that Hutchinson will pull it out.

The GOP has lots of money so if they run with some good ads and pour money into the close states, we can still take back the Senate.

We have to. Not taking back the Senate is not an option.

[MHGinTN]

The union orchestrated assault on shipping along the left coast is the sort of stealth work despotic democrats arrange in order to manipulate the debates, sacrificing the ecomic health and welfare of working folks in order to empower the democrat party. Never forget that the democrat gambit in NJ was clear, indisputable proof that the despotic democrat party registers ANY vote for ANY democrat candidate as a vote for the party, NOT the candidate. The union assault on the economy is a democrat strategery designed to sacrifice peoples' jobs and business in order to empower democrat scare tactics. The depicable democrat despots must be voted out, for the survival of this Republic!

[San Jacinto]

One thing that tempers my analysis is thinking back to November, 2000. At that time most of us thought Dubya would lock up 350 to 400 electoral votes. We projected our fervent desires to be rid of the 'Ratbastards in the White House to the majority of the electorate. We apparently over estimated the amount of broken glass certain people would crawl over to vote for change. We definitely underestimated the union factor and the big-city mentality in the Blue Zone States.

I think the night of November 5th will be a very long night, but in the end we should be able to judge what has changed, if anything, in voter behavior since 9/11. In the end, will the voters want to increase Dubya's power by electing more 'Pubs, or will they want to enhance checks and balances by electing more 'Rats?

This is an off-year election (favors Dems). There is unease about the economy (favors Dems). To overcome these trends, then the voters are going to have to specifically vote AGAINST the Dems. I am not picking up that vibe.

When all is said and done, the 'Pubs may have 52 Senate seats, but if a pro-Dem trend emerges, the the 'Rats could have 52 seats. That would be the case if the 'Pubs lose seats in AR, CO, and NH and only pick up one in MN.

[comebacknewt]

I think the issue is that the RATS turned out their voters better than we did. They did the same thing in 1998.

I am concerned again because I do not sense enthusiasm on our side, and I fear the RATS will bring out their vote by any means necessary. Sadly, I believe the dead and the illegal aliens will turn out in droves for the RATS again this November.

I am not sure that we are prepared to stop it or offset it.

[lasereye]

One thing hardly anyone seems to think very likely is Democratic control of the House, but it is a significant possibility in my view.

[MattinNJ]

According to the Dems Racicot can still enter the race at this point. Time to put in a pitch hitter.

[LaGrone]

Yeah, the DNC had their goons paying street people to vote for the Rats. Some were even caught on camera. Funny I never heard of any being prosecuted and sent to jail. Justice really is blind.

[cajunman]

Don't exclude the Louisiana Senate Race with Mary Landrieu (D). She and 3 Republicans are running. If she gets over 50% of the vote in the Nov 5 open primary, she wins. Otherwise, a runoff would take place in December.

It would get really interesting if control of the Senate would be decided by this race in December.

[San Jacinto]

It would get really interesting if control of the Senate would be decided by this race in December.

It sure would. Can you imagine the attention and money that would go into that run-off if control of the Senate rested in the balance?

[Congressman Billybob]

Barnes is behind the curve on his data. He ought to get involved in FreeRepublic. Kirk is down 20% in Texas. Take that one to the bank. Sununu has a lead in New Hampshire. Talent has moved up to a tie in Missouri.

But most importantly, the 11% down that he gives for Forrester was a Democrat quicky poll, probably done to influence the courts through the press. Two days later, Quinnipiac had Forrester down 6 points, but Quinnipiac is usually 3% high to the Democrats. Most importantly, the Star-Ledger (no friend to Republicans generally) had Forrester tied with Lautenberg, yesterday.

Everyone who's ever watched a horse race knows the meaning of the word "fade." You have money on the horse who's leading the race. But at the cluhouse turn, another horse pulls even. Your horse as just "faded." And that usually continues down the stretch to the wire. It takes a strong horse to rally at a point like that and reclaim the lead. Lautenberg is not as dead a horse as Torricelli, but he's no Silky Sullivan, either.

Given that Lautenberg is semi-senile, he will continue to fade. On his second day of campaigning he had his first "senior moment" or outright lie. Which it was depended on whether he understood Doug Forrester's challenge to debate. Lautenberg's handlers promptly denied the promised debates the next day.

If Forrester beats Lautenberg, then the entire logic of Barnes' piece stands on its head. From early on the afternoon of 5 November, when the exit polls from New Jersey are leaked onto the Internet and into our able hands, the Senate will, as of that point, belong to the Republicans.

From then on, as the polls close and the reporting rolls across the country, it is the Democrats who will need to gain on the Republicans. That is the exact opposite of Barnes' thesis.

I agree that the key to retaking the Senate is the election fate of Frank ("Is it time for lunch yet?") Lautenberg. Unlike Barnes, I see his fade. I expect Forrester to win, going away.

I still stand by my prediction in print, Republicans gain 1-3 seats and take back the Senate. See the second link, below.

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Oedipus and the Democrats"

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

[Wolfstar]

I wonder if President Bush's urgency to get a resolution on Iraq now is due at least in part to his not wanting to bet on Republican gains in November. A Dem-controlled senate with either a status quo result or an increase in their numbers will embolden them on a host of issues. Next year we begin moving into the early part of the presidential election cycle when there's no telling what an emboldened Dem senate might do. I am not as optimistic as you are, but then I have a great deal of cynicism where the U.S. electorate is concerned.