Election 2002: GOP or Dems keep/take control of congress?

Great Debates
1

This should probably be in IMHO, but I can see potentially debatable points lurking. Mods, please move if you see fit.

Overall, the 2002 race for the House & Senate looks to be a squeaker. There are only a handful of competitive races, but the number of seats needed to turn over either the Senate (1) or House (6) is so small that any contest could make all the difference to either side.

OK, so anyone have some predictions? Please back up predictions with either a) cites to polls or trends, b) reasons why a party might have an advantage or a liability at the polls, what issues will be most important to voters this year, and why that party would get the credit or blame in the eyes of the electorate*.

( *For the purposes of the discussion, I propose we table who is to ‘blame’ (or who can take credit for) any watershed issues like the Economy, terrorism, etc. etc. What is more important is what party is best be able to use or deflect that issue at the polls.

Example: ‘The Senate Dems ruined the economy by doing X’ is outside the discussion – it can’t be settled, it’s off topic. “The Congressional GOP candidates will be blamed for ruining the economy because of X” is inside the discussion. In other words, what side will the electorate take on the matter, regardless of the ‘real’ blame be had.

I realize this is a razor thin line, but I want to keep a focus on who is best positioned at the polls, this year for this election, versus what party or candidates are ‘better’ or ‘worse’. )

Just to get things started, here’s the latest poll indicating popular voter sentiments.

The line in the story that really caught my eye was this:

This would seem to spell bad news for incumbants in general, although it’s not clear what anyone is angry about (an easy guess is the economy, but who knows?).

The other obvious eyecatcher:

Yep, it’s gonna be a squeaker. Too close to call in both the Senate and House, in my opinion, although if popular sentiment/anger about the economy becomes pivotal, I’d expect the current ruling party (GOP) to have the most trouble on the 5th, if only because they’re there to take the blame. (My cynical side would expect a Red Terrorist Alert on 11/4 if this looks to be the case. :smiley: )

OTOH, conventional wisdom has it that, especially in House and Senate elections, “all politics is local”, meaning that local issues will tend to submerge any big national issues, so the Economy or the War On Terror will have little effect on the outcome of individual races.

2

And here’s some interesting data points from Gallup.

3

Well, I guess the horserace handicappers are asleep this week. Shrug.

Mods: Please move this to IMHO, and replace the word “Election” with “Fellatio” in the thread title and OP.
:wink:

4

Well, Squegee you left us without a lot to talk about. I got a Pit thread up on a tangential subject, to the effect that the race looks so close, theres a lot of threat of an election debacle a la Florida, only bigger.

But debate poll numbers? How? Why?

5

Well, howzabout these:

  • Is Bush’s popularity important enough to tilt the congressional elections? Or are the poll numbers basically a ‘rally around the flag in times of conflict’ result, which will have little effect on the congressional races?

  • Is the War on Iraq an advantage to the GOP? (Gallup seems to say no, conventional wisdom says yes.)

  • Is the poor economy an advantage to the Dems? (Who will the voters blame?)

  • Are there even enough competitive seats in the House that a GOP->Dem turnover is even possible?

  • Will the GOP’s overwhelming money advantage translate to victory at the polls?

  • Are the poll numbers even accurate (are the right questions being asked) ?

  • What will an all-GOP or all-Dem or split congress mean for the next 2 years? Nothing? Death, Destruction & Anarchy?

  • Is this election even a squeaker, or a yawner? (Response to this thread seems to indicate the latter.)

I’d thought there were enough folks on the board who fancy themselves political analysts and pundits to get a lively enough discussion going. Apparently if the ‘good v bad’, ‘us v them’ angle is removed from a political discussion, there’s nothing left to discuss. ?

6

Open season on weird happenings in elections has just ramped up a notch with the news that Sen. Wellstone died in a plane crash.

This should out do the New Jersey race now.

7

No, *squeegee, it’s that the subject matters you’re referring to take up an entire board in themselves. More specifically, in the OP, you’re simply taking a poll. It’s hard to discuss something that’s both too broad and too petty at the same time.

But yes, to whatever extent one puts faith in polls, it’s going to be very close. All of these elections, though, will be decided mainly by local issues and the appeal to local voters of local candidates. It’s not easy to generalize from that, but we can guess based on the past, which says that people tend to vote their pocketbooks.

I’d guess that all of Bush’s war talk is being broadly dismissed, perhaps wrongly, as simple posturing to weaken Saddam, not as a real possibility of a lot of young American men getting killed. We can easily support sabre-rattling to a good purpose - all of us can - but it won’t make much difference unless we take it seriously ourselves.

So what will happen? There are few minds left to make up among those of us who always vote anyway. The casual voters, who can be swayed by late revelations or tongue slips, will decide in the last few days.

Update: Control of the Senate may depend on the aftermath of Paul Wellstone’s death in a plane crash this morning. God bless his soul.

8

Democrats do well, control both houses, new leadership in the House for both parties, new leadership in Senate for GOP, which will remain in the minority. Even my Rep friends who like and know Trent Lott think he is an idiot, but for different reasons than I do.

9

I’ve got an opinion as to what’s going to happen and why in all 34 Senate races. However, I’ll share with you only what’s going to happen with the close seats and the open ones. I won’t bother with the House races, since there are so many of them and I haven’t done enough work to gather information on those. However, here are some of my select Senate predictions:

Arkansas: One-term incumbent Republican Jim Hutchinson looks vulnerable to redneck Democrat Mark Pryor. I predict a pickup for the Democrats here.

Colorado: Democrat Tom Strickland is back for a rematch against Republican Wayne Allard, who very narrowly beat him in the 1996 Senate campaign. This will be close. Too close to call right now, in all honesty.

Georgia: Conservative Democrat Max Cleland is running against ultraconservative Republican Saxby Chambliss. I predict a second term for Cleland in a close race.

Iowa: Democrat Tom Harkin is facing a challenge from moderate Republican State Representative Greg Ganske. Ganske is gaining ground, but Harkin tends to pull through. I predict Harkin, but by a nose.

Louisiana: Mary Landrieu is doing all right in her bid for a second term, but one oddity of Louisiana politics is that if a candidate wins less than 50% of the popular vote, a runoff can occur and the top two vote-getters face each other in a special December 7 election. This is rare, but the Republicans are fielding many candidates in hopes that this will happen, counting on the fact that everyone who voted Republican once will do it again, no matter who the candidate is. Time will tell, but it’s relevant that Louisiana has never elected a Republican Senator. Ever. Runoff or no, I favor Landrieu.

Minnesota: Before Paul Wellstone’s death, I had this one pegged as a tossup, with a slight favor to Wellstone. Now I’m not sure. Sympathy might give his replacement a boost—whoever that replacement will be. I predict Walter Mondale will be called upon to serve, and he might take it. Name recognition is crucial to the Democrats here, and if the absentee ballots that have already been mailed in can’t be counted for the replacement candidate, it’s going to make all the more difference. I still think put the Democrats at a slight advantage here, but this one’s going to be a lot harder to call.

Missouri: Democrat Jean Carnahan is facing Republican Jim Talent in a special election that promises to be just as exciting as the one in 2000, when Carnahan’s late husband Mel beat John Ashcroft. This race is also attracting national attention and plenty of money and visits. I can’t call this one, either.

New Hampshire: This seat became open when Republican Senator Bob Smith lost his primary earlier this year to Representative John Sununu. The Democrats have put up Governor Jean Shaheen as their candidate. This race favors the Republicans slightly, but three recent write-in campaigns started by diehard Smith supporters could pull Sununu down.

New Jersey: Democratic Senator Bob Torricelli dropped out of the race amidst financial scandals. He was met with deadline scandals, with the Republicans charging that since Torricelli was quitting too long after the deadline, the Democrats couldn’t nominate a new candidate. The New Jersey Supreme Court said differently, and the United States Supreme Court decided not to interfere in state election business this time, so former three-term Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg stepped out of retirement and onto the Democatic ballot. He’s currently beating Republican Doug Forrester in this largely Democratic state. I predict Lautenberg.

North Carolina: Republican Elizabeth Dole, better heeled than her opponent, Democrat Erskine Bowles, once said, “Politics is all about the money.” She’s really showing it, too. The North Carolina primary races were delayed because Utah was challenging the 2000 census, claiming that the new House district should have gone to Utah instead of North Carolina. This allowed Dole to solidify her support over token opposition, while the less-organized Democrats stayed disorganized for months longer, right up to the primary, which was held after Utah dropped its complaint. Bowles, however, is catching up to Dole’s heels. He might pull off the big upset of this cycle, though at this point, I’d say this race still favors Dole.

Oregon: One-term moderate Republican Gordon Smith is doing all right against Oregon Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury. Bradbury still has a shot, but I think Smith will win a second term.

South Carolina: The Senate’s most accomplished surviving segregationist, Republican Strom Thurmond, is vacating the seat he’s held since 1954. Conservative Republican Lindsey Graham is beating charismatic moderate Democrat Alex Sanders for this seat. I wouldn’t count Sanders out quite yet, but it looks like Graham’s going to win this one.

South Dakota: Popular one-term Democratic Senator Tim Johnson is up against popular Representative John Thune in one of the closest races in the country. This state of 700,000 citizens is one of the highly-funded races in the country. This one’s a total toss-up. The winner will be determined by a handful of votes. I just hope their voting machines work right…

Tennessee: Two-term Republican Fred Thompson has vacated this seat, which is being contested by former Republican Governor Lamar Alexander and Democratic Representative Bob Clement. It was close for a while, but I think this one’s going to Alexander.

Texas: Retiring Republican Senator Phil Gramm’s seat is being contested by former Democratic Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk and Republican State Attorney General John Cornyn. Cornyn was trailing for a while but has surpassed Kirk by a little. This race currently leans Republican, but Kirk can still pull it off, I think. This race is very much watched partly because it’s in Texas, and partly because Kirk, if elected, would be the third black Senator in history, and the only black Senator currently. Slight favor to Cornyn, but I’m not ready to call this one yet.
Those are the likely results of the Senate contests, as I see them. If anyone wants me to elaborate on the other Senate contests, I will, but the short version is that the other nineteen races are safe for the incumbents.

As to the influence of the pResident on the Senate and House races: only in the close ones does his presence make a difference, and even then, it doesn’t make a difference in each case. These races are, at the base, local, and voters vote for the candidates they like, and for the ones whom they feel will do best by their state or district. The panic about Iraq that the Bush administration is trying to drum up ultimately will have some affect, but not as much as one might think.

The real issue here is the protection of incumbents that states have sought. As we know, in most states, districts are redrawn by the current administration, and are almost always redrawn to favor the party that controls the governor’s mansion. Both parties are guilty of this indulgence; neither is worse than the other, though some instances are much more egregious than others. However, there is one state that does not do this: Iowa. Iowa’s Congressional districts are redrawn by a nonpartisan panel, and as a result, four out of five of Iowa’s districts are actually competetive races this time. (Iowa’s predominantly Republican fifth district remains safely Republican, but the only way to avoid that would be do draw the districts unfairly.) Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack receives neither cheers nor jeers for this; Iowa just happens to have a fair system. It’s notable that Arizona, whose districts have recently been redrawn by its Republican Governor Jane Dee Hull, has just adopted a measure to make it the second state to use a nonpartisan commission like Iowa does. Hopefully this is a trend and not a fluke, since that would lead to much more competitive House races all around.

In short, though, I think the Democrats will make gains in the House, though they might not take it. It’s a tough call, but they’ve been steadily gaining in the House since 1996; I think this will continue. Considering the fact that we have a Republican pResident and that the economy is in trouble, I suspect the Democrats will have an advantage in close races.