Posted on 10/28/2001 12:19:32 PM PST by TheBigB
Gang, let's talk about those states with close races for the U.S. Senate next year. It's -imperative- that the GOP take back the Senate and make lil' Tommy Daschle the Minority Leader again. We do have some first-tier candidates runing, like Norm Coleman in MN, Jim Talent in MO, and John Thune in SD. Anybody in those states seen any polls on the races yet? What are the candidates doing?
And what about those other states like MT, NJ, and IL? Has anybody in Mntana heard anything else about Marc Racicot deciding to run? W. is trying to ge him to, isn't he? And What about Torricelli in New Jersey? I can't BELIEVE we can't get a top-notch candidate like Steve Forbes or Tom Kean...can we get either of those two to run? And Durbin in IL could be easily beaten by fomer Gov. Jim Edgar...wasn't there a movement to try and get Edgar to run? What's the status on that? Wherever you are, let's hear about your Senate race next year. I can say that here in Alabama, Sen Jeff. Sessions will coast to victory. :)
Not that I know anything, but I'm thinking it could go 51-49 Republican if the RNC targets its spending well. I would do ANYTHING to get Leahy out of his Judiciary chair and Biden off of Foreign Relations. I loathe them as much as I loathe Hilary-- perhaps more because of their chairmanships. </RANT OFF>
Poll shows Landrieu ahead of possible rivals
Voters also asked to rate performance
04/19/01
By Jack Wardlaw
BATON ROUGE -- U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who won her first term by a whisker in 1996, is running well ahead of three potential opponents in 2002, according to a statewide poll released Wednesday.
"These are pleasing numbers," Landrieu spokeswoman Gina Farrell said. "But it's a little early for campaign politics. She's just focusing on being a senator."
Landrieu won her Senate seat by defeating former state Rep. Woody Jenkins, R-Baton Rouge, by 5,788 votes out of 1.7 million cast, a margin of four tenths of 1 percent.
In her bid for a second term in 2002, three prominent state officials have discussed running against her: U.S. Rep. John Cooksey, R-Monroe; state Elections Commissioner Suzanne Haik Terrell, R-New Orleans; and state Sen. James David Cain, D-Dry Creek.
The survey was taken for a consortium of TV stations by Southern Media & Opinion Research of Baton Rouge, based on 700 phone calls to registered voters between March 28 and April 6. Southern Media said the poll has a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points.
Landrieu led all three prospective challengers by wide margins. Terrell ran the closest race, but Landrieu led her 54 percent to 29 percent, with the rest undecided or refusing to say. Landrieu led Cooksey 57 percent to 27 percent, and Cain 56 percent to 23 percent.
Respondents also were asked if they thought Landrieu, her potential opponents and senior Sen. John Breaux, D-La., were doing an excellent, good, not so good or poor job in office.
In Landrieu's case, 63.1 percent of voters gave her a favorable rating, excellent to good; 25.5 percent said not so good to poor. By comparison, Breaux's numbers were 68.3 percent favorable and 17.2 percent unfavorable.
Terrell, Cooksey and Cain also had more favorable than unfavorable numbers, but the key figures in their cases were the large proportion of voters who could not identify them or had no opinion about them. That could be an indication that they have room to expand their support through greater name recognition.
For Terrell, who won a statewide race in 2000, 41.8 percent of the respondents did not register a job performance opinion. For Cooksey, who never has run statewide, 63.6 percent had no opinion, and for Cain, 61.9 percent.
Terrell and Cooksey both ran well against Landrieu among Republican voters, polling about 60 percent each, but Landrieu ran well ahead of all three challengers among independent voters, as well as in most other categories. Terrell, however, made it close among white men. Landrieu led her in that category by 43 percent to 38 percent.
Cooksey said he's encouraged by the poll numbers. "The good news is that it shows that the people who know me will vote for me. . . . The bad news is that not enough people know me. If I decide to run, I'll rectify that."
Terrell said she thinks "it's flattering that so many people think I'd be a good U.S. senator when right now it's all based on speculation." She said she's particularly pleased by her job performance rating, which was 53 percent favorable and 5 percent unfavorable.
Cain said he also is encouraged by the results. "I do have statewide aspirations, and for the little money I've spent, I think those numbers look good."
Someone will bring back up how Brownroots Landrieu stole the election in 1996. Get it advertised, and let the people know. With W's popularity in the polls, he would be a great supporter of our GOP candidate, either Cooksie or Terrell.
Question for dyed-in-the-wool Republicans: exactly what would it take for you to not vote for a Republican?
They depend on conservative voters who will hold their noses and say, "At least it's not a Democrat." Enough's enough. If they're not going to defend our Constitution, screw 'em. Throw 'em out with the Democrats.
A Senate that was at least 52-48 Republican would do it for me. I'll sacrifice a RINO then, as it wouldn't affect Senate committee chairs. Let me repeat: I will do ANYTHING to get Leahy, Biden, Dorgan, Daschle, and company out of their leadership positions. If it takes a couple of wishy-washy RINOs like Specter or Snowe (or Talent, if that's what he is) to get Leahy and other obstructionists out of their positions of power, then I'll pay that price.
The federal judiciary as a whole already leans noticeably left, and because of the Senate's stall tactics, the irony is that after Bush's term is over, it could be just as ideologically tilted as the day Bush entered office.
Especially Daschle!!
I am not a "dyed in the wool Republican", but I AM a die-hard Bush supporter. These guys are doing everything they can - even at the risk of sacrificing our country - to thwart Bush. I don't think there's ever been a Congress who has refused to pass on sorely needed judicial appointments before. Not tomention what they're doing to stymie economic recovery and foreign policy bills.
If they thought Bush was wrong, they would be delighted to pass his programs and watch them fail. But they know he's right, and they can't tolerate his success, even if that means they have to watch the country suffer from their own recalcitrance.
I wouldn't be so convinced that Bush was right if I didn't see how hard they are working to thwart all of his programs. *WE* elected Bush; we should get a chance to see what that means. They were elected to work with the President and others on the Hill, and they aren't doing that.
I can't vote any of those suckers out, but I might be able to vote to put them in the minority. My vote in 2002 will be to try to get Bush's progams implemented (which is what I wanted when I voted in 2000)
It would take the Democrat party moving to the right of the Republican party. Then I'd vote Democrat.
The truth is we have a two party system. No way in ____ am I going to vote for anyone other than a Republican and thereby help the lying, cheating Dems.
I'm a very pro-life person but I've come to believe that a pro-life Democrat is of little value.
They're worthless unless Republicans are in control
I also think they're probably less pro-life than they profess, or they would change parties.
Although there are folks who will disagree with me, for a variety of reasons, I believe (absolute)Control of both Chambers is the most important goal we can work towards. Contol of the Committees is just absolutely critical,, it's the Committee Chairs who determine what is considered in committee. Certainly the Prez or Gov has the power of the bully pulpit and phenominal fund raising ability, but with a strongly diciplined government the Prez or Gov can only sign what is sent to them for a signature.
And with a comfortable margin in the Senate control of appointments is possible, too.
It is so important that we each do whatever we can to assure conservative representation in Congress and our individual State Houses.
There have to be some privately funded polls out there,,, perhaps it's to early to have them mean much.
If confronted with the decision of whether to vote for a so-called "pro-life" Democrat or a pro-abortion Republican, I'll vote for the pro-abortion Republican.
They are at least of some value in giving Republicans control and thereby controlling committees, etc.
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.