Well, if there’s no far left of any political consequence, then the left-leaning moderates become the far left pretty much by default. Left-right groupings are contextual, not absolute.
Well, the senators resigning are Jeffords of Vt (Independent, votes with Dem), but he’s likely to be replaced by Saunders (Independent, votes with Dem), so that’s a wash, Dayton of Minnesota (Dem., strong Republican candidate, but Klobuchar is running well, so it’s open), Sarbanes of Maryland (Dem., strong Republican candidate, but again, close), and Frist of Tennessee (Rep., strong Democratic candidate, and again, close)
So that’s a couple of Democratic incumbents (and incumbents typically have an advantage) out of the way. The breakdown of Senate races this year is 17 seats held by Democrats, 15 by Republicans, and Jeffords. So from a practical standpoint, if we assume Saunders replaces Jeffords (and I agree that he probably will), the Democrats need to keep the two seats that are up for grabs and win six of the 15 races against Republicans to take control of the Senate. That sounds like a very tall order to me.
I’ll break down the Senate races this year. There are 33 of them; the Democrats have to gain 6 seats to take control of the U.S. Senate. There are 17 Democratic seats up, 15 GOP, and 1 independent. In case anyone is not aware the independent is Jeffords of Vermont. He was a Republican originally but switched to independent and since then has strictly voted with the Democrats on procedural matters (thus when he made his switch the breakdown was 50 Dem, 49 GOP, and he voted with the Democrats to make them the majority, prior to that it had been a 50/50 split and Cheney’s tie-breaking vote gave the GOP the majority.) So effectively speaking Jeffords is and will be regarded as a Democrat seat throughout this post, because that is what he represented when it came to the matter of control of the Senate.
Safe Senate Democrats
Bingaman – NM
Byrd – WV
Carper – DE
Clinton – NY
Conrad – ND
Feinstein – CA
Kennedy – MA
Kohl – WI
Lieberman – CT
Nelson – FL
Nelson – NE
Stabenow - MI
Total safe incumbents: 12
Other Safe Seats
Hawaii – Akaka may face a strong challenger in the primary but the seat will remain in Democratic hands even if Akaka loses the primaries.
Vermont – Retiring independent Senator Jim Jeffords is expected to be replaced by Vermont Congressman Sanders and Sanders is expected to win without any difficulty.
Total safe Democratic seats: 14
Democratic Seats in Play
Cantwell – WA (Barely won in 2000, faces strong opponent)
Menendez – NJ (Recently appointed, faces strong opponent)
Dayton – MN Retiring, seat to be contested, more will be known after primaries
Sarbanes – MD Retiring, strong candidates on both sides. Steele is strong for the GOP while Cardin is strong for the Dems. I’d put Cardin over Steele but if Mfume got the nomination I think the Dems would lose this one.
Democratic seats-in-play: 4
My predictions:
Cantwell wins reelection
Cardin wins in Maryland
Menendez loses to Thomas Kean in New Jersey (very little confidence, too many undecided to say for sure)
Minnesota way too close to call
Safe Senate Republicans
Allen – VA
Ensign – NV
Frist – TN
Hatch – UT
Hutchison – TX
Kyl – AZ
Lott – MS
Lugar – IN
Snowe – ME
Thomas – WY
Total safe GOP incumbents: 10
There’s no retiring GOP Senators
Republican Seats in Play
Burns – MT, Abramoff Scandal very bad for Burns
Lincoln Chafee – RI
DeWine – OH, (1 turm incumbent in a state turning anti-GOP)
Santorum – PA Very embattled Senator
Talent – Missouri
Republican seats in play: 5
My predictions:
Burns loses
Santorum loses
DeWine loses
Chafee wins reelection
Talent wins a close election
My guess as to the Senate composition after 2006 election is at least 52 Republicans.
My best WAG is 53-47 GOP majority.
Notice there’s really only 5 seats truly in play on the GOp side. For the Dems to win they have to win all of their in-play seats, all the GOP in-plays AND take a “safe” GOP seat.
Also I apologize to any state for which I used the wrong two-letter abbreviation, I’m sure there’s one in there somewhere.
Except, in TN, Frist is retiring. Democratic candidate is probably going to be Harold Ford, Republican candidate is probably going to be Van Hilleary. And I think that seat is up for grabs…Hilleary is the favorite, but Ford has a shot.
I also don’t think Ensign’s seat is as secure as you think, especially if Goodman gets the nomination (and can deal with the mob connections, but that doesn’t always hurt you in Nevada).
Bill Frist hasn’t officially announced his retirement to my knowledge (I may be wrong.) I was aware he said he’d not serve more than two terms, but until he officially retires and the primaries develop down there I can’t base my predictions on anything else.
Like BG said when he started this, we’re still very early considering primaries haven’t even happened yet.
All of these projections could change, Byrd could die for example or any of the safe senators could be hit with an enormous scandal that makes them unelectable.
I tend to think Ensign is pretty safe and his seat hasn’t been identified as anything other than as of yet, but again, the Dem primaries aren’t resolved there so we shall see.
I think the Dems can, if not win in either house, pull enough seats that the Pubbies will have to deal if they want to pass legislation. To do that, they have to do two things:
-
Make the election a national referendum on Bush. Bush is very unpopular, and the current Pubbies have voted in lockstep to enact the plans and programs that have made him unpopular. Shouldn’t be hard at all to tar most Pubbies with being Bushoids, because they have been. Make sure the smell of the “culture of corruption” wafts far and wide among Republicans. Make sure the Pubbies are associated with Iraq and the deficit. It’s their war, their economy, make them pay for them.
-
The Dems have to develop an effective strategy to deal with Rovian electioneering and dirty tricks. There is nothing more predictable than that, in the next election, every close election will have a number of dirty tricks and so forth in play. This business of repeatedly having their lunch stolen by Rove and then complaining about Rove’s knavery in stealing their still-unguarded lunches is getting old fast. The Dems have had plenty of time to learn what they’re dealing with. It’s time for them to deal.
The GOP already has to deal to pass legislation. They don’t have a cloture-majority in the Senate.
Worst. Idea. Ever.
Congressional elections are won at home over issues at home. To a large degree Congressman don’t lose because of things their national parties do, they can win because of them, though, but that’s mainly during a Presidential election year when a strong Presidential candidate can create political windfall as he travels around the country.
Also many Democrats that are running can’t make the “their war” argument when they themselves voted in favor of it in Congress.
To win in a congressional election (be it Senate or House) you have to appeal to voters on local issues, you don’t win by running as a national candidate in a state campaign. Successful candidates don’t do that. Olympia Snowe wouldn’t be a strong incumbent in Maine is she was running as a mainline Republican anymore than Byrd would be a strong Dem if he was running on a gun control platform in West Virginia.
Isn’t it arguable that nationalizing the elections is exactly what the Republicans did in '94? Granted, a lot of trends came to fruition at that point to help them sweep into power (notably, the beginning of the end of the realignment of the South), but the Contract with America was all about making local elections turn on national issues.
Paul Hackett dropped out of the Ohio Senate race today, leaving Rep. Sherrod Brown as the only candidate left against Mike DeWine. Hackett says he was essentially driven out of the race by Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Apparently, Schumer and Reid wanted to avoid a primary.
So they drive an Iraq war veteran that nearly defeated a Republican in a strong GOP district out of the race in favor of a candidate with a clearly defined liberal record. To me, this smacks of strategic buffoonery. If I were a Democrat, I would be annoyed by this.
So now the race is a moderate GOP incumbent against a Democrat from the Cleveland area in a GOP dominated state. I would not consider this seat in play.
That’s just something losers say, rjung. [pats shoulder]
I don’t have much to add to this thread, as there are just too many races to keep track of. But, has anyone taken Bricker’s bet that there will be no net loss of seats for the Pubs? I’m wondering why he isn’t hear drumming up “suckers” for his bet? 
And, whoever says politics isn’t about winning or losing, doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. That’s all politics is about-- gaining and maintaining power. If you want to get into the rightness or wrongness of specific policies, that can either be about ethics, economics, or some other branch of the social sciences. But poltics is about power, baby, and nothing more. Why else do we decry those who “play politics with the issues”, or use wedge issues for “political gain”.
rjung:
In theory, in a democracy, the two should be synonymous. If you’re right enough, you should be able to convince enough people to enable you to win an election.
I’ll admit that there are factors that will at times cause this ideal to not be met, but if you don’t believe in it as a general principle, what’s the point of democracy in the first place?
MilTan:
It is, but a major distinction between the GOP in '94 and getting the Dems to run against Bush: the GOP '94 nationalized congressional races on congressional issues. They avoided making it an anti-Clinton national campaign. In fact, one of their major campaigning points, a line-item veto law, was something Clinton greatly desired.
Were they anti-Clinton? Of course. But that wasn’t the rallying point of their coordinated national congressional campaign.
I still would. DeWine’s facing a primary challenge himself from Republicans who think he’s not conservative enough, and the Ohio party is hurt by Coingate and all the scandals. And Brown’s popular enough. I wouldn’t write Ohio off yet.
What the Democrats believed, whether it was for electoral reasons or ‘show value’ or what, is that they’d be better off if Hackett faced off against Jean Schmidt again in 2008, leaving the more experienced Brown to face DeWine. Hackett said he’d already promised other Democrats running in the primary that he would not run against them for that House spot, and wouldn’t go back on his word.
Damn fine break down, and I mostly agree. Here are my caveats:
Minnesota was pretty solid blue in 2004. The Dem primary is a matter of going through the steps, with Wetterling bowing out. And the Republican Kennedy is about as far right as you can go, not a good thing to be in a solidly blue state.
The VA Senate race just became interesting, with former-Reagan-Sec-of-the-Navy-turned-Democrat Webb entering the race. He has low name recognition at the moment, but considering he just entered, that’s to be expected. He has quite a resume and is an impressive candidate.
I agree that MO might be close, but with Talent already polling below 50% before the muck has even started flying, I think McCaskill might pull that one out. Also, the recent special election had dems taking 2 seats and just missing the third. Why is that impressive? Because the special elections were in 3 of the states conservative district. The republicans should have taken all three in a walk. All of them voted for Bush in 2004 by 60-70+ percent.
And lastly, TN. Frist won’t win the seat. He’s retiring. Harold Ford looks to be the dem, and Corker the Rep. It looks to be a tight one, but history shows us that lame duck election years tend to break against the party of the president. And if the scandals continue to ooze out of DC, Ford might have a chance here.
Can I get a link? I’d gladly take some of Rick’s money.
I don’t think there was a specific thread started by him. Rather, an instance or two in different threads. Try searching “Bricker + wager”, but be prepared for a lot of hits.