A Republican Senate in '02 (Gain of Two or Three Seats Likely)

Human Events ^ | 10/21/02 | John Gizzi

[apackof2]

bump, thanks

[mondonico]

I hope that's right. I'm worried however. The 'Rats are past masters at the last-minute smear and voter fraud.

[sphinx]

John Gizzi ping. I knew John slightly in a previous life, and he accosted me on the street a few days before the '94 election to predict the House sweep. (As far as I know, Human Events was the first into print with that prediction.) So he's 100% as a prognosticator in my book ....:)

[epluribus_2]

and pubs are masters at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory - banana peel flop.

[Ed_in_LA]

Too sanguine. He lists Minnesota, Colorado, and New Jersey as leaning Republican. Minnesota and N.J. are now leaning Dem (no recent polls show Coleman and Forrester leading), and Colorado is still a toss-up (Allard and Strickland tied, both stuck in the low 40's).

[Non-Sequitur]

Bookmark it. If he's right, he's a genius. But I think he's wrong on New Hampshire, Minnesota, and New Jersey. I hope he's wrong on Arkansas.

[Non-Sequitur]

Bookmark it. If he's right, he's a genius. But I think he's wrong on New Hampshire, Minnesota, and New Jersey. I hope he's wrong on Arkansas.

[ambrose]

Definitely a bunch of "wishful thinking" here... NH is still in play.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Texas, Colorado, New Jersey, Minnesota, Arkansas, South Dakota, all seem within the Democrats reach. Perception of a lack of Republican interest in America (it really is the economy) and a fixation on foreign interventionalism doesn't help the GOP.

Of course, the Democrats have ignored the economy until now and taken the losing side on the Iraq issue (this squandering valuable campaigning time.)

Maybe the big demonstrations planned by the green-peace-labor-democratic-peoples-front-movement this Saturday will make a difference one war or the other.

[Snuffington]

MINNESOTA—At first, Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone seemed to have gotten away with breaking his pledge to retire after two terms, with voters apparently accepting his excuse that serving in the Senate majority justified his running again. Polls consistently showed Wellstone (lifetime ACU rating: 4%) leading his Republican opponent, former St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman.*

But no longer. Coleman has turned out to be a better campaigner than many thought and has gained strength by repeatedly contrasting his strong support for the President on Iraq with Wellstone’s long record of anti-defense votes. Underscoring the Coleman stance have been several fund-raising visits by President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Although Minnesota’s same day registration favors the Democrats, Coleman now has the advantage. (Leaning Republican)

I'd love to believe this analysis, but on the ground here in Minnesota I'd say this is overly optimistic. I think Coleman has a good shot at winning this race, but I don't think he's the current favorite. I'd say it's leaning Democrat, but narrowly. Most polls still show a Wellstone lead, but within the margin of error.

Both candidates have just begun truly saturating television with their ads in the past week. Wellstone is pushing hard on traditional Democrat economic themes (raising the minimum wage, government funded job training, targetted tax cuts), and the environment. His negative ads toward Coleman come across as clumsy, but may be effective nonetheless.

Coleman is running a very positive campaign. Pro-business, pro-growth, pro-family (one of his most frequent ads features his teenaged daughter talking about how great her dad is - sappy but very well put together for that sort of ad). His negative ads against Wellstone are disturbingly mild (until recently he barely mentioned Wellstone breaking his pledges to only serve two terms and refusal to ever take PAC money, even though Wellstone's ads were hammering Coleman for switching parties and *gasp* proposing tax cuts for "big business"). I don't see him drawing his connection to Bush in his television ads as strongly as some of the national articles seem to believe. Perhaps he's hitting this theme more strongly outside the Minneapolis metro area.

This is simply not a race anyone ought to take for granted. The last couple of weeks will swing this one way or the other, but neither candidate will run away with it.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Under the Pelican State’s unique primary system, all candidates regardless of party appear on the same ballot November 5 and, unless one of them wins a majority, a run-off between the two top vote-getters will be held in December. Most surveys show Landrieu within striking distance of 50% against the three Republicans but, if she is forced into a run-off, all bets are off.

Interesting! Were there to be a runoff in December, and were control of the Senate in the balance then, including a Talent win over the widder Carnahan in MO . . .

Talent would take office immediately, tipping the balance to the Republicans unless Lincoln Chafee decides to bolt as he has threatened to do. But Chafee wouldn't want to bolt from a winning party to a losing one, just for a month of fame.

So if the Republicans can muster 50% among the 3 of them, Chafee would face at least the possibility that the Republicans might win the Senate in January without him. Which could give the Senate Republicans a window in November, before Chafee was willing to bolt.

[Mike Darancette]

Mike Sez: Senate GOP +3, House GOP +5

[No dems 2002]

I find your analysis interesting. I sure hope it pans out this way, and one question I have:

You say that Minnesota is now leaning GOP? Can you qualify that with polls? The most recent I've seen don't suggest that.

[KC_Conspirator]

Yeah, I agree with you. NJ and Minnesota are now leaning Republican and I expect the GOP to lose Arkansas and Colorado. With the GOP winning South Dakota and Missouri - we are back at a tie.

[Z in Oregon]

Really good breakdown.

Thank you for posting it.

Republicans rock!

[No dems 2002]

As I just said, I find your analysis interesting, though I question a few things here and there.

One of the most interesting elements of the 2002 Senate elections is that in every single southern state, except Florida, there's a Senate seat up for election. And the GOP is doing amazingly well, which suggests that they haven't lost their strength so obvious in the pres. election in 2000. This means that the dems still haven't figured out how to appeal to southerners, and I don't see them doing that anytime soon, in spite of their rants and cries about the likes of Mark Warner, etc.

Texas is a source of extreme frustration for democrats, too, with Tony Sanchez and Ron Kirk looking like goners going into the election. They've taken the approach that all the public polls are wrong, and that they are the masters of the election because of turnout. But it's hard to see how they'll pull it off, even if they did get their dream turnout numbers. The Hispanic-black coalition isn't materialising either, with a surprising percentage of Hispanics supporting Cornyn. All democrats seem to be able to say when they're faced with negative poll numbers is that turnout will be a record high. We'll soon know, but I don't think so.

Yes, the South remains a GOP bastion, which bodes very well for 2004, when our President goes up for re-election.

[ffrancone]

IT'S 14 DAYS 'TIL THE ELECTION

WHAT ARE YOU DOING TODAY TO HELP TAKE BACK THE SENATE?

YOU CAN HELP, TODAY. GO TO:

TakeBackCongress.org

A resource for conservatives who want a Republican majority in the Senate

[Weimdog]

If the Republicans do get the House and Senate, they are going to have 2 years to show the country how much better off they are with them in power.

CUT SPENDING
CUT TAXES
BALANCE THE BUDGET

If the Republicans shine, we may see the end of the Democratic party as we know it. I know, maybe wishful thinking.

[Greek]

IT'S ALL BASED ON TURNOUT; IF REPUBLICANS COULD INCREASE TURNOUT BY JUST 5% THIS YEAR, IT WOULD BE A LANDSLIDE. FREEPERS; FIND A FRIEND WHO HASN'T VOTED AND GET THEM TO THE POLLS!