News What will happen in the 2006 mid-term elections?

[Gokul43201]

What do election laws say about a situation where a Sec. of State runs for another elected position (like Governor) ?

This is happening in Ohio, and the Republican likely to win the primary is Ken Blackwell, the Sec. State notorious for the irregularities surrounding the 2004 elections. It makes a lot of Ohioan democrats nervous that he is responsible for conducting an election that determines his own fate.

 

[Astronuc]

Some analysis from the folks at NPR -
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2006/map/

Democrats' Senate Hopes May Hinge on Missouri
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5360203

All Things Considered, April 24, 2006 · If Democrats are going to get close to winning control of the Senate this November, they'll need to go beyond the three targets (Santorum, Burns, Chafee) everyone talks about. Political analysts say Missouri might be a swing state this year; first-term Republican Jim Talent looks strong but not unassailable.

Hey, I like Chafee.

 

[wasteofo2]

Currnet forecast:
PA, MO and MT go Democratic, though MO and MT by very small margins. NJ barely stays with Menendez. Maybe Dems pick up 8 net seats in the house.

Democrats are really sacking it up this year, the only race they're garunteed of is PA, and really, the should've won that by at least 15 points, and Santorum will probably end up with over 40%. MT, MO and NJ really aren't even garunteed, any or all of them could go to the Republicans. We could possibly end up with no net change, and PA and NJ just switching hands.

 

[Astronuc]

Hillary Clinton has a challenger in the NY Demcratic Primary - Jonathan Tasini. I listened to an interview yesterday morning with the regional public radio station and it was interesting. Anyway, Tasini's positions on the issues - http://www.tasinifornewyork.com/issues

Tasini made the comment that "Hillary's latest best friend is . . . Rupert Murdoch." ! He went on to indicated that Clinton is too conservative.

Should be interesting for the next few months, and certainly in November, and I can hardly wait for 2008.

 

[wasteofo2]

So now it seems that the Democrats are going to lose a seat in CT to an Independent. The guy has some crazy name like Loserman or something, I don't know much about him.

And it further seems that even if Chafee wins his primary in RI, that he'll just lose to Whitehouse in the general election.

If this guy Loserman, and Bernie Sanders of VT caucass with the Democrats, and the Democrats pick up PA and MT (which they definitely will), along with MO and RI (which seem likely), and can hold on to NJ, then the Democrats will only have a 1 seat minority in the Senate.

That's ALOT better than I think anyone would've predicted a few months ago.

And hell, Harold Ford seems to be about tied with his would-be opponents in TN in the low 40's. With some tricky campaigning and some dirty tricks, he could actually make the senate tied. Fancy fancy...

I'm going to keep updating this thread with my predictions until Nov. 7, you just watch.

 

[Astronuc]

Joseph Lieberman, popular 3-term senator and VP nominee in 2000, is in a tight race in Democratic primary for Senator. Lieberman has started to collect signatures to run as an Independent, just in case he loses the primary. The main isse between the two is the war in Iraq.

Lieberman supports the war, his opponent, Ned Lamont, is opposed to it.

Iraq War Dominates Lieberman-Lamont Debate

HARTFORD, July 6 — In their only scheduled debate, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut questioned the credibility of his challenger in the Democratic primary, Ned Lamont, while Mr. Lamont called the senator a friend of the Bush administration as the two tangled sharply over the war in Iraq on Thursday night.

In the one-hour debate Mr. Lieberman attempted to distance himself from President Bush and asserted that Mr. Lamont, a cable television executive who has built his campaign around criticizing the war in Iraq, lacks the experience and political know-how to serve in the Senate.

The sharpest exchanges came during the first 15 minutes of the debate, which was televised by C-Span, as Mr. Lieberman persistently interrupted Mr. Lamont and insisted that he had taken six different positions on American policy in Iraq. Mr. Lamont, for his part, tried to hammer home the point that Mr. Lieberman had not stood up to President Bush and had tried to play down his support for the war.

"Ned, I'm not George Bush, so why don't you stop running against him and have the courage and honesty to run against me?" Mr. Lieberman, who is seeking his fourth term in the Senate, said during his opening statement.

 

[Gokul43201]

All recent polls in CT show that while Lieberman might lose the primary to Lamont, he has an easy win if forced to run as an Independent.

So, there might be a shift of one seat from D to I in CT.

 

[Astronuc]

It would be interesting if Bernie Sanders (VT - http://bernie.org/ ) and Joe Lieberman (CT) were both Independent Senators. Just might be the beginning of a serious 3rd party.

Sanders, IIRC, is the only independent congressman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

 

[wasteofo2]

All recent polls in CT show that while Lieberman might lose the primary to Lamont, he has an easy win if forced to run as an Independent.

So, there might be a shift of one seat from D to I in CT.

Though Lieberman has said he'll remain a Democrat even if he wins the election as an Independent. Once he's in the Senate, the Democratic Party will totally let him back in.

 

[Gokul43201]

Though Lieberman has said he'll remain a Democrat even if he wins the election as an Independent. Once he's in the Senate, the Democratic Party will totally let him back in.

This is true. Besides, it's not really like Lieberman has been voting strongly in favor of core Democrat issues, so his party affiliation is not really what matters.

 

[wasteofo2]

This is true. Besides, it's not really like Lieberman has been voting strongly in favor of core Democrat issues, so his party affiliation is not really what matters.

It could matter if the Democrats get really lucky and the Senate ends up like this:
R:49
D:49
I:2

If the Democrats estrange Lieberman in this situation, he might vote for Republican leadership of the Senate.

Realistically, that won't happen this time around. But if Lieberman isn't taken back into the Democratic fold, that problem could arise in the senate elected in '08. Especially if a third Independent Senator is elected (which could happen in Maine, since they have little problem electing Independents, and Susan Collins has pledged to retire).

 

[McGyver]

Doubtful Any Real No's of Seats Will Change in Fall 06 Election

Unless the Dems can pull off a miracle 4th quarter rally, I predict the outcome of the Fall 06 elections won't produce any significant numbers of seats changed in the House or Senate. The Dems are still widely split on policy with respect to illegal immigration, budget deficit, and resolution of the Iraq situation. Plus, Democrats continue to capitalize on the enumerable mistakes by the mostly unified Republican stronghold.

The Republican's took back the House in 1994 by unifying behind their contract with America, and focusing all of their PR on the details and provisions of the contract. The Democrats will not advance their popularity until they can construct a unified plan, and focus all PR on that plan. It must be in agreement with 90 percent of the party, and at present, a 90 percent consensus does not appear possible.

 

[Skyhunter]

Though Lieberman has said he'll remain a Democrat even if he wins the election as an Independent. Once he's in the Senate, the Democratic Party will totally let him back in.

This race is interesting and could get more so after the primary.

Joe is leading but his once comfortable lead has slipped to 46-40 with a 7% margin of error. Polls still say he will win handily as an Independent in the general election.

I can understand his decision to run independently in light of the polls. It is up to the people of Connecticut to choose their representatives, regardless of what party the people are, or are not affiliated with. If the people select him then so be it. Since he says he will remain a Democrat while running independently I don't see why he would change his mind after being elected.

The polls of course are almost meaningless at this stage because a lot will happen between now and August I believe is their primary. If Lamont wins, which could very easily happen, since the most likely, likely voters favor Lamont, then all bets are off, I still give this one to the Dem's though.

 

[wasteofo2]

Unless the Dems can pull off a miracle 4th quarter rally, I predict the outcome of the Fall 06 elections won't produce any significant numbers of seats changed in the House or Senate. The Dems are still widely split on policy with respect to illegal immigration, budget deficit, and resolution of the Iraq situation. Plus, Democrats continue to capitalize on the enumerable mistakes by the mostly unified Republican stronghold.

The Republican's took back the House in 1994 by unifying behind their contract with America, and focusing all of their PR on the details and provisions of the contract. The Democrats will not advance their popularity until they can construct a unified plan, and focus all PR on that plan. It must be in agreement with 90 percent of the party, and at present, a 90 percent consensus does not appear possible.

You're just going off feel here.

If you've looked at the poll from individual races you'd see that the Democrats are pretty much garunteed 2 Senate pickups (MT, PA), and can hope to get as many as 6 (MT, PA, MO, OH, RI, TN). Furthermore, the only seats Republicans might hope to pick up (NJ and MN), are showing to be safer and safer for the Democrats there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Senate_election,_2006
Click on any particular race, and at the bottom of its page, there is a compilation of polls showing how each candidate is trending.If the Democrats had a central message, they would probably fare poorer than they will without one. A de-centralization of the Democratic party is all that will allow them to win. These candidates that are likely to pick up seats in November are not going to pick up seats because of anything magical or popular about Democrats, they're going to do it because they're convincing the voters in their state that they would personally be a better Senator than their Republican opponent.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If the Democrats had a central message, they would probably fare poorer than they will without one. A de-centralization of the Democratic party is all that will allow them to win. These candidates that are likely to pick up seats in November are not going to pick up seats because of anything magical or popular about Democrats, they're going to do it because they're convincing the voters in their state that they would personally be a better Senator than their Republican opponent

So true! In 2006, more than ever, "All politics is local". The GOP will try to smear midwestern Dems by pointing to the radicals on the coasts, and the Dems MUST counter with local issues that the voters care about.

 

[wasteofo2]

So true! In 2006, more than ever, "All politics is local". The GOP will try to smear midwestern Dems by pointing to the radicals on the coasts, and the Dems MUST counter with local issues that the voters care about.

Yep yep.

However, despite that thing about decentralization, there seems to be one thing that Democrats are united on that is tremendously popular with people everywhere: raising the minimum wage.

Many states are having ballot initiatives on raising the Minimum Wage, including Montana, Missouri, and Ohio, so that'll help the Dems in their Senate races there. Plus, out of the 435 house races, a few close ones could be tipped by these initiatives.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Here is a thing the GOP dominated legislature has contributed to the 2006 election in Wisconsin. An initiative on forbidding Gay Marriage. The idea is that this will appeal to right wing voters and bring them out in numbers, hopefully sufficient to counter the democratic uptick (and GOP downtick)expected from Bush's and Congress' unpopularity.

But polls are showing Wisconsinites are almost equally divided on the issue, so the tactic may backfire: produce a further Dem uptick from people turning out to counter the expected GOP vote on the GM issue.

 

[Astronuc]

Laws are supposed to 'ensure' freedom, not restrict or eliminate, or otherwise diminish it.

 

[Skyhunter]

Laws are supposed to 'ensure' freedom, not restrict or eliminate, or otherwise diminish it.

Simple truths are powerful and reassuring.

I don't think the gay bashing will work in an off year election. Raising the minimum wage is certainly a way to get the working poor motivated to come to the polls. A low turnout hurts Republicans more than Democrats because their is still an angry opposition to Bush and his rubber stamp Congress.

Pombo is behind in the polls right now 46%-42%, to his 2004 opponent that he beat 61%-39% in 2004.

Real conservatives are dissatisfied with Bush and Congress for expanding the size of the government, the deficit, and the debt. People in general are not very happy right now, those that oppose the Republicans are motivated to vote, while those who favor the Republicans are not particularly motivated to maintain the status quo.

I see a real possibility of the Republicans losing both Houses of Congress.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think that Dem's and progressive organizations should start targeting Kyl in Arizona. Anyone this dishonest does not belong in government.

Fake conversation included in brief to Supreme Court

In February 2006, Kyl and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) cited a conversation regarding the Detainee Treatment Act in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. The conversation, however, had never actually taken place. Rather, it was inserted into the official Congressional Record after the debate had concluded. In July 2006, the Supreme Court noted the unspoken conversation in it’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Justice John Paul Stevens remarked, "Those statements appear to have been inserted in the Congressional Record after the Senate debate." On July 6, 2006, Kyl defended his actions, arguing that legislators frequently insert material into the record following a debate. [1] (http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=69183 )

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jon_Kyl

Not that there is any problem with inserting written statements into the record after oral floor debate.

But Bender said it’s serious business to base a court brief on the illusion that the Senate debate was live.

“Just putting a statement in is not serious, because that doesn’t manufacture anything that didn’t happen — it’s just your statement. But here you’re trying to make your views more persuasive than they should be by suggesting that you stated them on the floor and the other side heard them and seemed to agree with your point on what the meaning was,” he said.

I think they have crossed a line here. And BTW so did the SC.

 

[wasteofo2]

Kyl is ahead in the polls by 20%, give or take.

The Dems have more realistic goals to be focusing on.

 

[Skyhunter]

Kyl is ahead in the polls by 20%, give or take.

The Dems have more realistic goals to be focusing on.

Here is a graph of polls taken by SurveyUSA.

http://wactivist.com/images/62.gif

You may be correct that since Kyl has a majority in the polls he is not vulnerable. but the trend has been that his lead is dropping. If the Dem's are going to take the Senate, they need another seat somewhere. I think Kyle might be vulnerable.

If not Arizona, where do you think they might pick up a 5th seat?

[edit] http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-article-a-54677-m-61-sc-90-new_polls_kyl_leads_5042_napolitano_up_4941-i

The Zogby/WSJ survey also shows Kyl leading Democratic challenger and Phoenix-area shopping center developer Jim Pederson by a 50 percent to 42 percent margin. Kyl is a conservative Republican while Pederson is the former chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party.

From 20 points to 8 and the election cycle hasn't really even begun yet. I think Kyl is vulnerable, especially if Pederson can mount an effective campaign.

BTW isn't Pederson still running in a primary?

Pederson will be Kyl's opponent if he wins the Arizona Democratic Primary on 9/12/06.

So he is 8 points behind, and not even the nominee yet. Remember that the majority of people don't even start paying attention until September.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The voting machines will turn into giant evil robots and annihilate the galaxy

 

[wasteofo2]

Here is a graph of polls taken by SurveyUSA.

http://wactivist.com/images/62.gif

You may be correct that since Kyl has a majority in the polls he is not vulnerable. but the trend has been that his lead is dropping. If the Dem's are going to take the Senate, they need another seat somewhere. I think Kyle might be vulnerable.

If not Arizona, where do you think they might pick up a 5th seat?

[edit] http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-article-a-54677-m-61-sc-90-new_polls_kyl_leads_5042_napolitano_up_4941-i

From 20 points to 8 and the election cycle hasn't really even begun yet. I think Kyl is vulnerable, especially if Pederson can mount an effective campaign.

BTW isn't Pederson still running in a primary?
So he is 8 points behind, and not even the nominee yet. Remember that the majority of people don't even start paying attention until September.

Polls vary greatly. Wikipedia has a great bit going on the '06 election, keeping track of all the polls released on each race

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_United_States_Senate_election,_2006

The Democrats are probably not going to take back the Senate this election cycle. The reason is that they have limited funds, and cannot funnel funds into every single race out there. If they play their cards right though, they can steal 5 seats from the Republicans.

First of all, the Dems need to make sure they don't lose any seats. That means spending money on NJ and MN.

Second, the Dems need to make sure that the two most obvious chances for pickups that they have come through. MT and PA should be safe for Dems, but Santorum and Burns are both great campaigners who CAN get out of the holes they're in. Dems need to keep up ads in these states reminding the voters exactly why they shouldn't be voting for the Republicans, because if they don't, Republicans will convince people who voted for them last time that it's the same deal.

Third, the Dems should concentrate extra funds on MO, OH and RI. These three states have been trending Dem, but polls vary, and the trend isn't dramatic, and is certainly reversible within 3 months. The Dems have done a good job getting to where they are in these three seats, and if the election were held today, they would probably win each of them. But they need to keep up the ads so that Republicans aren't able to re-convince people to vote for them. It's very expensive to run ads all throughout a state.

If the Dems can do these three things well, they'll pick up 5 seats this election cycle, leaving the Republicans with just 50 seats.

There will be at least 1 Independent in the Senate come the next term, Bernie Sanders (self-declared Democratic Socialist) of Vermont. He will caucus with the Democrats. From CT, we'll either see Joe Leiberman re-elected as an Indepdnent, or Ned Lamont elected as a Democrat. Either way, the Senator from CT will caucus with the Democrats.

That's 50-50, so unless the Dems can cause a current Republican (Specter?) to pull a Jeffords and abandon their party, that will leave Republicans in control of the Senate (Cheney breaking a tie vote).

Still, a 50-50 Senate would be a remarkable accomplishment for the dems. They're ahead in a lot of races, but they need to stay focused on keeping what they've already gained. If they throw money into AZ, TN or VA, they could easily slip in Conservative states like OH, MT and MO, and end up only winning 2 or so seats in the Senate.

Tennessee, Arizona, and Virginia are states that certain individuals think are winnable. And really, if tons of money was poured into these states, they would be winnable. But to win one of these states, you'd need to use so much money that you'd jeopardize the chances of Dems winning more than one of the other seats. Is it worth it to put up a tough fight and barely win AZ, but lose MO and OH by small margins, if you could've much more easily won MO and OH by comfortable margins and accepted defeat in AZ?

 

[BobG]

A couple things are cropping up that could hurt the Republicans.

For one thing, things in Iraq are getting worse, even if Israel-Lebanon is overshadowing it right now. The prospect of reducing troops this year is out the window. Instead, troop levels will be up for a while.

About 80% of people are pretty satisfied with their options under the changes to Medicare/Medicaid. Considering a lot more than 20% will be adversely affected, that means a lot of people won't understand the impact the changes have on them until September or October.

One thing that's going to hurt Republicans in my area is the economic impact of the Iraq war. Our area is very conservative with a large part of the population working as defense contractors. A Republican should win the House election pretty handily. If the cuts to defense contracts occurs this fall, as a lot of people are expecting, a lot of rock solid supporters of the Iraq war will reconsider when their jobs are cut to meet war expenses. It's not that hard to flip to the side of the retired generals that have blasted how the war was planned and conducted. It's also not that hard to blast Republican leadership that punished our district's retiring representative for voting to admonish DeLay for ethics violations. (I'll still be shocked if a Republican doesn't win our district.)

 

[wasteofo2]

A couple things are cropping up that could hurt the Republicans.

For one thing, things in Iraq are getting worse, even if Israel-Lebanon is overshadowing it right now. The prospect of reducing troops this year is out the window. Instead, troop levels will be up for a while.

About 80% of people are pretty satisfied with their options under the changes to Medicare/Medicaid. Considering a lot more than 20% will be adversely affected, that means a lot of people won't understand the impact the changes have on them until September or October.

One thing that's going to hurt Republicans in my area is the economic impact of the Iraq war. Our area is very conservative with a large part of the population working as defense contractors. A Republican should win the House election pretty handily. If the cuts to defense contracts occurs this fall, as a lot of people are expecting, a lot of rock solid supporters of the Iraq war will reconsider when their jobs are cut to meet war expenses. It's not that hard to flip to the side of the retired generals that have blasted how the war was planned and conducted. It's also not that hard to blast Republican leadership that punished our district's retiring representative for voting to admonish DeLay for ethics violations. (I'll still be shocked if a Republican doesn't win our district.)

What congressional district do you live in? Do you have any polls on your house race?

 

[BobG]

What congressional district do you live in? Do you have any polls on your house race?

Colorado's Fifth District. Don't have polls, but http://coloradopols.com/frontPage.do does have odds. Which candidate wins the Republican nomination is the big issue since the Democratic Party has virtually no presence in the 5th District. Registering as a Democrat is basically saying you choose to have no say in who represents you in government. If Fawcett, the Democratic candidate, is receiving any money, it's probably from outside the district (he hasn't had much visibility so far, since the Republican primary would overshadow any advertising he might pay for).

With an influx of California transplants lured by the IT industry, the demographics are changing, but they haven't changed that much. Like I mentioned in the previous post, there's some disasterous things that could happen for Republicans right before the election, but it would take a perfect storm for a Democrat to take this district.

Lamborn would be the best candidate for Fawcett to face, since the differences would be pretty stark. Anderson, Rivera, and Crank (in that order) would be the worst, since the more moderate wing of the Republican party are generally split among those three.

Right now, it's turning into a three-way battle between Rivera, Lamborn, and Crank. (Too bad, since Anderson is my favorite in this race). Interesting trivia: Duncan Bremer is the brother of Paul Bremer, of Iraq fame - Duncan Bremer seems to think being Paul's brother is his biggest qualification for the job.

 

[Gokul43201]

In Ohio, DeWine is currently polling about 8-9% below Brown, with less than 20% undecided. And his (DeWine's) latest attack ad against Brown won't likely help very much either, as it's drawn criticism for (i) using video of the WTC towers (after Republicans repeatedly bashed Dems for using the same kinds of images), but more specifically, for (ii) using a cheap photoshopped animation and trying to pass it off as real footage (the ad was made by the same agency that did the Swift Boat Vets' ads), and now having to take the ad off the air.

PA, OH look like strong possibilities for a switch.

And another interesting race is the Republican primary in RI, where the far right candidate Laffey, has surged ahead in recent months and is now polling neck-to-neck with the moderate, (almost lefty looking) GOP backed Chafee.

 

[wasteofo2]

And another interesting race is the Republican primary in RI, where the far right candidate Laffey, has surged ahead in recent months and is now polling neck-to-neck with the moderate, (almost lefty looking) GOP backed Chafee.

Laffey isn't even far right, he's just a real Republican. Someone who'd have voted for the President in '04 (Chaffee did not). At first, it seemed Chaffee would win this election no matter what, but lately, the Democrat, Sheldon Whitehouse, has gained a lead in head-to-head polls with Chaffee. So even if Chaffee wins the primary, it seems he'll lose the general election by 5-10 points. If Laffey wins the primary, then Whitehouse wins by 20+ points.

 

[Gokul43201]

Does someone have handy the party-wise splits for the 67 (or so) senatorial seats not up for election this year?