Google Ads


Site Stats

October Senate Cattle Call

by: James L.

Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 3:05 PM EDT


As we enter the final stretch run of the 2008 election cycle, it's time we took the pulse of the Senate again. You know what to do: Rank the Senate races (as far down the list as you wish to go) in order of their likelihood of flipping.
James L. :: October Senate Cattle Call
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
October Senate Cattle Call | 75 comments
Top Ten
1) VA- Mark Warner
2) NM- Tom Udall
3) CO- Mark Udall
4) NH- Jeanne Shaheen
5) AK- Mark Begich
6) NC- Kay Hagan
7) OR- Jeff Merkley
8) MN- Al Franken
9) KY- Bruce Lunsford
10) GA- Jim Martin
Let me ask everyone a question.
We all want Lieberman tossed out on his ass come January.  Let him caucus in the minority with his real friends!  But what happens if we gain exactly nine seats to get to sixty including CTforLieberman party of one. Lieberman, wanting to stay in majority and keep his Chairmanship says to the leadership,

"I will make you a deal, you know if you toss me I will go to the Reps and there will be 41 votes against cloture on everything.  Respecting the new President and his parties gains, I will promise to join in with the 59 other members of this caucus to be the sixtieth cloture vote on everything from Court Appointments, economy, even on war funding although I will vote cloture only on that and than vote against ending funding."

Do we keep him or call the bluff and say F-Off?

[ Parent ]
Get rid
He will still vote for cloture on some stuff and hopefully so will other Repubs, Specter, Snowe, Collins (probably still there), Voinovich, Lugar, Murkowski, etc.
[ Parent ]
In Defense of Lieberman
The man has made a mistake by endorsing John McCain.  He's gone off the deep end and is drowning with the other hawks in Iraq.  He's got some major problems with not only Democrats, but specifically his constituents in Connecticut.  However, he's been a pretty reliable vote for the Democrats on most economic and social issues.  

I met Lieberman 15 years ago and I that he was very flaky.  I don't believe he really knows (or maybe he doesn't care) how people perceive him.  I can't tell if he really supports McCain over Obama or if he's just trying to even the score from his 2006 campaign.  I don't know...

When the pundits call McCain a maverick, I laugh.  Lieberman is really the maverick these days.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

[ Parent ]
Defense?
He was the %^$#@% vice presidential candidate for the Democratic Party in 2000! Had Gore been certified the winner in 2000, this man could be our nominee right now! Democrats agreed to let him keep his seniority with the caucus AND chair the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee!

And now he's against our nominee of the Democratic Party, and appeared before the Republican National Convention. I'm sorry - he can choose to caucus with the Democrats if he chooses, but in my view he's an Independent and his seniority started in 2004, so no chairmanship for him. So whether he chooses to caucus with the Democrats or not, he'll vote for cloture and on bills where he stands, which will favor Democrats in several areas.

But in case whatsoever should he be considered for chairing a committee under a Democratic Majority in the Senate for an agenda being promoted by a President who he was ardently against. Goodbye Lieberman.

KELL

[ Parent ]
boot Joe?
I agree with a comment I read, I think on Senate Guru, a couple of months ago.  I think that the Democratic caucus should tell Lieberman that he is a real schmuck, but that he can stay in the caucus and keep his chairmanship providing he never ever votes with the Republicans on any cloture votes--the first time he does, he's gone.  

68, Dem-leaning indie, MI-8
[ Parent ]
There's a problem with that
Once the Democrats give him a chairmanship, they can't take it away from him until the next election. The Republicans are going to have a hard enough time on domestic issues keeping Senators like Voinovich, Snowe, Specter, Lugar, and (unfortunately) Collins. And if Lieberman really wants to get re-elected in 2012, then he can't be seen as blocking the initiatives of a Democratic president and a Democratic congress.

Which leads me to my proposition, Lieberman goes along with the Democrats, and they, graciously, allow him to keep his senate seat.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
Wouldn't Leiberman have to pander to Dems
even if they DO kick him out of the caucus?  He won't win in Connecticut as a Republican, and he probably won't win again as an Independent.  I think his only shot is to try and realign himself as much as possible with the Democrats, and hope that by the time 2012 rolls around, there will be enough positive association in voters' more recent memory to help him persevere.
If the Dems kick him out of the caucus, he's probably toast no matter what... but he'll have to beef up his liberal credentials if he wants to salvage that sliver of a chance of reelection, and that means helping on Democratic cloture votes regardless of his caucus status.
[ Parent ]
A litmus test
I want to avoid becoming another version of the Republican party.  The Republicans blackball their other members once they deviate from the herd.

Don't get me wrong--I don't care for what Lieberman did either.  However, in the big scheme of things, his actions supporting McCain for President has done NOT A THING for McCain.  The worst thing Lieberman has done is to extend this war, which is what I'm having problems with Lieberman on...

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

[ Parent ]
Well, this isn't really a litmus test
We're not punishing him for deviating from our own views on issues (like the Republicans attempted to do with Arlen Spector in 2004 or to Lincoln Chafee in 2006). He, calling himself a Democrat, campaigned on behalf of the Republican nominee for president, whether or not his actions helped McCain or not is really beside the point in this instance. Now, I really don't like Lieberman's position on the war, but the reason I have no problem with the Democrats getting rid of Lieberman is because he's crossed the line. By endorsing John McCain, Lieberman has endorsed everything that McCain stands for (not just foreign policy issues, but on abortion rights, economic policy, Supreme Court justices, etc. he has either endorsed them or has decided they aren't all that important as issues).

This is a lot like Rep. Gilcrest in Maryland, sure we love that he's coming over to our side, but in exchange he is abandoning his political party, and he has to live with those consequences (I'm not saying he was wrong to do it, but that is a fact).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
Appoint Gilcrest
Rep. Gilcrest deserves a nice spot in the Obama Administration. Make sure the transition team has his name. It would be a fine bipartisan gesture, reaching across the aisles and all that good stuff.
;-)
[ Parent ]
I disagree agreeably
I feel that the Democratic party doesn't need to become the Republican party:  one strike and you are out.  The Democratic party has a big tent, and Lieberman falls inside this tent much better than he does with the GOP.

Unless I'm wrong, Lieberman is under no official obligation to endorse Obama (please correct me if I'm wrong).  If he broke an official rule, let's kick him out.  He's obviously broke an unofficial rule by endorsing McCain, but should we throw him to the curb over that?

Anyway, I appreciate the healthy dialogue concerning Lieberman because he may be crucial in January 2009 for the Democrats (and GOP).  If he leaves (removed) from the Democratic Caucus, I hope we can sway another GOP senator to switch sides.  

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

[ Parent ]
There are very few "official" rules for being in a party
And I do believe that the DNC actually striped Lieberman of his status as a super-delegate because he campaigned with the Republican nominee for president (I believe they call it, the Zell Miller rule). Let me put this another way, let's say that, hypothetically, Lincoln Chafee did not lose his re-election bid against Sheldon Whitehouse, and let's say that Chafee, as a Republican senator, decided to hell with it, I'm going to not only endorse Obama for president, I'm going to actively trash Republican nominee John McCain whenever I get the chance (as Lieberman has done). Do you think the Republicans would be playing smart politics by letting Chafee continue to caucus with them (assuming that the senate is 50-50 and he's the one which allows the Republicans to maintain control of the senate)? The answer is no, because in this instance, not only is Chafee attempting to hurt McCain, he is also attempting to hurt the Republican brand.

Also, allowing Lieberman to keep his committee chairmanship is tantamount to giving the Republicans a chair to launch hearings for the sole purpose of trashing a President Obama (on homeland security issues, Lieberman may as well be a Republican). It's bad politics to let Lieberman keep his chairmanship, on the caucus issue, I don't care all that much (though I'd rather see Lieberman expelled than not, admittedly).

By the way, I appreciate where you're coming from on this, but on most domestic issues, I'd be surprised if Lieberman has enough sway to filibuster anything if we gain enough seats, there are quite a few Republicans who are going to be vulnerable in 2010).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
Very Solid Argument
that you have made.  Trust me, I know your reservations concerning Lieberman.

My main flaw (in politics) is that I'm very loyal to guys like Lieberman.  He didn't have to caucus with us in 2007-08, but he decided to do so even when the majority of the Democrats in Congress endorsed Lamont.  If he didn't caucus with us then, Mitch McConnell would have been the Majority Leader.  

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

[ Parent ]
2007-08
IIRC, Lieberman promised to caucus with the Democrats during his 2006 election campaign.  Of course, he could have broken this promise once elected, but it's not like he caucused with us completely out of disinterested motives.
[ Parent ]
So Lieberman did not break a rule or promise
Which is my main argument.  Trust me, I don't support Lieberman's actions, and I do acknowledge that he had a good reason to caucus with the Democrats.  I do not support throwing Lieberman out because of his endorsement of McCain because he was under no technical obligation to support Obama.  

Does anyone remember Phil Gramm?  He was thrown out of the Democratic Caucus in 1982 because he funneled secretive budget information from the Dems to the GOP.  He was a mole, and he subsequently became a Republican.  He is the textbook definition of a dishonest politician.  Lieberman, on the other hand, exposed himself early in the process.

My last part of the argument would be the backlash the Dems would support from the "Reagancrats" which, for some odd reason, relate to Lieberman.  The last thing the Dems need is to make Lieberman a martyr.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

[ Parent ]
I want to thank so many of you for your thoughtful reply's
After carefully reading all of your responses I have come to the conclusion that so many excellent pro and con points were made that this will be a very tough call if the numbers fall out at 60.

My answer is F-Off Joe but with one remaining reservation.  The response that there will be plenty of R vote crossovers on domestic issues because of a tough 2010 election ahead is very true.  My remaining concern is on Judicial nominations.  I fear that if the R's can get to 40 votes they will filibuster every single progressive nominee and try to force Obama into only appointing moderate to conservative Democrats to the courts.  There is a need to balance out the damage to our judiciary caused by Bush placing so many Christian Fundamentalist judges District and Appeals and so many Corporatist judges in the federal District and Appeals Courts.  Even the Specters, Snowes and Voinoviches of the Senate can feel safe voting lockstep with the minority on cloture because this has always been a tough sell issue to the electorate unlike say votes against S-Chip.

[ Parent ]
Important to have a thoughtful dialogue
I believe that the Democratic caucus needs to debate on Lieberman's future within the caucus.  If he remains in the caucus, the Dems should decide whether Lieberman should face any conditions (aka a pledge to the Dems not to campaign on the behalf of the GOP).

Back in 2006, the Dems were excited to end the GOP rule and take back both branches of Congress, and Lieberman agreeing to caucus with the Dems allowed us to obtain control of the Senate.  Kicking Lieberman out could cause a backlash among the moderate and conservative factions of the Democratic party.  Our party has made some major advancements with the Blue Dog constituency in the House, and I'd hate to see party switching among this constituency to happen.

We have our reasons to want to kick Lieberman out--that I will defend.  I just want us to have a transparent plan to handle true "mavericks" like Lieberman.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

[ Parent ]
Ranking as of today
(1) Virginia
(2) New Mexico
(3) Colorado
(4) New Hampshire
(5) Alaska
(6) North Carolina
(7) Oregon
(8) Minnesota
(9) Mississippi
(10) Kentucky
(11) Georgia
(12) Texas
(13) Louisiana

All other seats are safe...at this time.  I think the Dems will definitely pick up (1)-(3), probably pick up (4)-(6), and has at least a 50-50 chance of picking up (7)-(9).

I will go on a limb (not really a limb, but more like reality) that Maine will not be contested.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

October Senate
1.  Virginia
2.  New Mexico
3.  Colorado
4.  New Hampshire
5.  Alaska
6.  North Carolina
7.  Oregon
8.  Minnesota
9.  Mississippi-B
10. Kentucky
11. Georgia
12. Maine
13. Texas
14. Oklahoma
15. Nebraska
One Month
Locks
1. VA
2. NM
Looking Good
3. NH
4. CO
5. AK
6. OR
7. NC
Could Go Either Way
8. MN
So Close
9. KY
10. MS
Yet So Far
11. GA
12. LA

All others are out of contention minus a real game-changer.

My first shot at this...
1) Virginia
2) New Mexico
3) Colorado
4) North Carolina
5) Alaska
6) New Hampshire
7) Oregon
8) Minnesota (Though possibly to I)
9) Mississippi
10) Kentucky
11) Maine
12) Georgia
13) Texas
14) Louisiana
15) South Carolina
16) Oklahoma
17) Nebraska
18) New Jersey
19) Kansas
20) Idaho

All others are "inconceivable"


28, Unenrolled, MA-08

My Guess
1. VA
2. NM
3. NH
4. CO
5. AK
6. NC
7. OR
8. MN
9. MS
10. KY
11. GA
12. ME
13. LA
13. TX
14. NJ
15. SC
16. NE
17. OK
18. ID
19. KS
20. TN
In order of liklihood of flipping
Likely to Solid D:
1. VA - Open
2. NM - Open

Leans D to Likely D:
3. CO - Open
4. NH - Sununu
5. AK - Stevens

Slight D Edge:
6. NC - Dole
7. OR - Smith

Tossup:
8. MN - Coleman

Slight R Edge:
9. MS - Wicker
10. KY - McConnell

Leans R to Likely R:
11. GA - Chambliss
12. ME - Collins

Dem Seat - Leans D to Likely D:
13. LA - Landrieu

Outlook - Dem gain between 7-9 seats

senate
1. VA [Warner]
2. NM [T. Udall]
3. NH [Shaheen]
4. CO [M. Udall]
5. AK [Begich]
6. NC [Hagan]
7. OR [Merkley]
9. MN [Franken-- really hopin for this one]
10. MS [Musgrove]
11. KY [Lunsford]
12. GA [Martin]
13. ME [Allen]
14. OK [Rice}
15. TX {Noriega]
16. NE [Kleeb]
17. SC [Conley]

25. gay jewish male. amherst, ma
oh no
you forgot to put an 8 in there
[ Parent ]
Pleace holder?
you forgot to put an 8 in there

Probably a placeholder for some currently safe, unnamed republican who is going to make a last minute gaffe.  There seems to be one every cycle.

[ Parent ]
My first try at this
1. Virginia
2. New Mexico
3. Colorado
4. New Hampshire
5. Alaska
6. Oregon
7. North Carolina
8. Minnesota
9. Mississippi-B
10. Kentucky
11. Georgia
12. Louisiana
13. Maine
Senate Rank
1. VA
2. NM
3. NC
4. CO
5. OR
6. NH
7. AK
8. MN
9. KY
10. GA
Whoops!
Missed MS.  Put it 9, just ahead of KY.
[ Parent ]
All Democrats safe
1. Virginia
2. New Mexico
3. Colorado
4. New Hampshire
5. Alaska
6. Oregon
7. North Carolina

I expect to win all these.

8.  Minnesota
9.  Mississippi

Too close to call.

10. Kentucky
11. Georgia

GOP ahead but not by much.

12. Maine
13. Texas

Repubs favored but could tighten.

14. Idaho
15. Nebraska
16. South Carolina
17. Oklahoma
18. Kansas

Not impossible but very unlikely.

 

It's All Coming into Focus...
1. Virginia
2. New Mexico
3. Colorado
4. Alaska
5. New Hampshire
6. Oregon
7. North Carolina
8. Minnesota
9. Mississippi-B
10.Kentucky
11.Georgia
12.Louisiana
13.Maine

1-2 are locked; 3-5 are pretty good (disappointment if we lose any of those); 6-7 lean to DEMs; 8-9 lean to GOP; 10-13 are likely to stay incumbent Senator (considered not even listing 11-13 and just having KY).

Outcome is a 7-8 seat DEM gain depending on 6-9 basically.

KELL

Lieberman Pisses Me Right the %$@# off!
Okay, so I stand by the 7-8 seat gain, but I want Lieberman to not be counted as part of the Democratic Party, caucus, or get him near a gavel as chairman. I am happy, just as I would be if Snowe or Specter, if he votes for cloture on domestic issues, but he deserves to not chair a committee in the US Senate controlled by Democrats with him running against our party's nominee. If we take 8 seats, it's:

Democrats - 58 (57+1 including Sanders I-VT)
Republicans - 42 (43+1 including Lieberman I-CT)

KELL

[ Parent ]
I definitely dont mind
having to craft legislation and get okay'd by Snowe, Specter, or Collins before trying to get it passed.  If we dont get to 60, we better write everything with them in mind.  No need for Lieberman anywhere in this equation.  Those three are liberal enough to give us what we want.
[ Parent ]
Those three are liberal enough to give us what we want.
If only I could believe that.  Spector sounds good all the time until as Harry Reed said of him, it becomes actual time to vote.  Collins is flat out partisan, Snowe is the only one there to be reasoned with!
[ Parent ]
September Senate flips ranking
1. Virginia
2. New Mexico
3. New Hampshire
4. Colorado
5. Alaska
6. Minnesota
7. Oregon
8. North Carolina
9. Mississippi-B
10. Georgia
11. Kentucky
12. Maine
13. Louisiana
14. Nebraska
15. Oklahoma
16. Texas
17. Idaho
18. Kansas
19. New Jersey
20. South Dakota
1-2 are locks for the Dems, 3-5 are pretty comfortable pickups unless Uncle Ted pulls a whizzer and gets acquitted, 6-8 are tossups but look hopeful unless McCain pulls another rabbit out of his hat at the last minute, 9-10 are formidable but could happen if the African-American vote really comes out big, 11-12 are unlikely but could happen if we really get an Obama tsunami, 13-20 are almost certainly not going to happen.    

68, Dem-leaning indie, MI-8
Senate Call - In code
1. State for for lovers
2. Roswell
3. John Denver -
4. The Granite State
5. Nike Town
6. The Palin State
7  Tarheel State
8. Hockey Mom State
9. The Peach State
10. Bluegrass
11. Crooked Letters


Let me guess
1. Virginia
2. New Mexico
3. Colorado
4. New Hampshire
5. Oregon
6. Alaska
7. North Carolina
8. Minnesota
9. Georgia
10. Kentucky
11. Mississippi (?)
[ Parent ]
great idea! making the list in code!
my top ten, here goes:

1. 0101011001000001
2. 0100111001001101
3. 0100001101001111
4. 0100111001000011
5. 0100111001001000
6. 0100110101001110
7. 0100111101010010
8. 0100000101001011
9. 0100101101011001
10. 0100011101000001
and long shot:  0101010001011000

[ Parent ]
Where has the Senate Guru gone since September 15th?
I used to enjoy this at that site but am glad that Swing State runs it as well.  I see zero Democratic held seats belonging in the Cattle Call 30 days out.

The Republican seats at play I see in this order of flipability.

1) VA
2) NM
3) NH
4) CO
5) NC
6) OR
7) MN
8) AK
9) GA
10)KY
11)MS B
12)TX

The hopefuls that are just not catching and regrettably gone now are:

13)ME
14)OK
15)KS
16)NE
17)ID

The never was but thank you guys for trying!

18)TN
19)AL
20)MS A
21)SC
22)WY 1
23)WY 2

Top 20 w comments
1. VA - Warner (sure thing)
2. NM - T. Udall (virtually sure thing)
3. CO - M. Udall (good campaign in purple state)
4. NH - Shaheen (NH turning blue?)
5. NC - Hagen (great campaign against a wall hanging)
6. OR - Merkley (smart campaign in blue state)
7. AK - Begich (may withstand Palin effect)
8. MN - Franken (enigma, but great ad starring wife)
9. KY - Lundsford (just ruthless enough)
10. GA - Martin (state may trend purple)
11. MS - Musgrove (hard to read)
12. TX - Noriega (movin' on up?)
13. SC - Conley (sleeper out of right field)
14. ME - Allen (still possible in a wave)
15. OK - Rice (our vibes have to be adding points)
16. NE - Kleeb (personal charisma may trump ideology)
17. ID - La Rocca (hard work, enthusiasm a plus)
18. NJ - Zimmer-R (hope not, doubt it)
19. TN - Tuke (miracle needed)
20. KS - Slattery (even a miracle wouldn't do it)
 
Here goes
Likely Change of Party:

1) Virginia
2) New Mexico

Lean Change of Party:
3) Colorado
4) New Hampshire
5) Alaska
6) North Carolina
7) Oregon

Tossups:
8) Minnesota
9) Mississippi

Lean Retention:
10) Kentucky
11) Georgia
12) Maine
13) Nebraska
14) Louisiana

Likely Retention:
15) Texas
16) Oklahoma
17) Kansas
18) New Jersey
19) South Carolina
20) Idaho
21) Tennessee

All other races are safe.

here goes
1) VA- Mark Warner
2) NM- Tom Udall
3) CO- Mark Udall
4) NH- Jeanne Shaheen
5) AK- Mark Begich
6) NC- Kay Hagan
7) OR- Jeff Merkley
8) MN- Al Franken
9) KY- Bruce Lunsford
1o)Ms-B -Ronnie Musgrove
11) GA- Jim Martin

Male 21 Dem Ca's 1st  
...
1.Virginia
2. New Mexico
3. Colorado
4. New Hampshire
5. Alaska (though Palin coattails could f this up)
6. North Carolina
7. Oregon
8. Minnesota
9. Kentucky
10. Mississippi-B
11. Georgia
12. Texas

If you aren't on the list than your not going to make it.  Waiting to see what the DSCC does with the $5 million for Maine.  They should start airing some ads now and see what happens.

Excellent Point
As most of us are not even listing Maine on our cattle call, it is not even coming up in conversations in articles being published, and I haven't seen any polls as of late showing these even in single digits.

So the question as you said, what is the DSCC going to do with the $5M of purchased advertising time? Do we simply concede Maine and take the money and move it firmly into Minnesota, Mississippi-B, Georgia, or even Kentucky (that was supposed to be self-funded)?

What sucks is that Allen would be a much better Democrat in the Senate than Lundsford or Musgrove. So I guess I'd rather have the money go to Franken or Martin.

KELL

[ Parent ]
yes but
collins is better than wicker (marginally) or mcconell.  it'd be nice if we win them all, but i'd rather get rid of mcconnell (and another mcsenator, if you know what i mean) and wicker than collins.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
We Ask, We Get Answers...
I guess the DSCC is using it's advertising time in Maine:

http://campaigndiaries.com/200...

I wish there had been a more concerted effort to go after Collins earlier and start taking her down. It appears Obama might put more into Maine (at least ME-02) given it's now a McCain focus state (after pulling out of MI), so maybe it'll be a full court press in Maine for Obama, DSCC, and Allen to try and pull this Senate race into being competitive. It's definitely after Labor Day, so Mainites should be paying attention!  

KELL

[ Parent ]
Not a ranking but...
I won't list a ranking simply because I'm working on a race, but I do wish to point out that it's true that Texas should be moving back up some lists. We just went nearly 2 months without polling which was part of the problem.

http://www.burntorangereport.c...

And of course, it's a better shot than Maine which I'm surprised is still being put on people's lists. That was gone a long time ago.  

What I said in June
A dozen or so

Safe Democratic
24) Louisiana

Likely Democratic pick-up
1) Virginia
2) New Mexico
3) Colorado
4) New Hampshire
5) Mississippi-B
6) Alaska

(OK, outrun by events. With Sen Stevens currently on trial, I'd have to admit that AK is more likely to flip than MS. But not by much. And both will flip, for sure.)

Leans Democrat pick-up
7) Oregon

Toss-up
8) Minnesota
9) North Carolina
10) Kentucky

(Today I'd promote NC and KY to Leans Democratic pick-up. Minnesota, well, damn. I like Al Franken, but that doesn't mean that I think everybody likes Al Franken. His celebrity is both his greatest asset and his greatest liability. The polling continues to be erratic. I think we win in the Democratic wave, but this is one instance where the personality just might be stronger than the wave.)

Leans Repub
11) Texas
12) Maine
13) Idaho
14) Oklahoma
15) Kansas
16) Nebraska

Likely Repub
17) Georgia

(Whoa. I was way far off about GA. Today I'd put Jim Martin and GA at about 10) Leans Democratic pick-up. Hey, Obama is gonna carry at least three ex-Confederate states, we're gonna elect four new Senators from Southern states, and pick up House seats in VA, NC, FL, LA, and TX, and possibly in SC and AL too, on top of the ones we got in LA and MS earlier this year. Who said the Repubs would be a Southern regional party? We'll wipe them out in Dixie too!)

(TX is looking much better. Rick Noriega is rising in the polls without a minute of TV ads; that says to me it's the Democratic wave lifting his boat. He has a simple course to victory: Hispanics vote for him as one of their own. Blacks vote for him while voting for Obama as one of their own. The Obama campaign gets every Anglo Democrat to the polls. The DSCC rides in like the calvary to saturate the air with negatives against Big John Cornyn the last week or two of October.)

(OK is a longshot, but a realistic longshot. The DSCC really likes Andrew Rice. If he continues to gain ground, they can come into the two medium-sized not-too-expensive media markets, Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and go heavily negative on climate change denier Inhofe.)

(Looks like KS is just not gonna take off; Slattery let his opponent get on the air first to define him as a Washington lobbyist.)

(NE has some movement, but it's getting very late.)

(ID still has Larry LaRocco as the luckiest politician in this cycle. He need not even remind us that Sen Larry Craig is not gay.)

(ME Tom Allen can't seem to land the knockout punch. Maybe Obama can do it for him. Or the DSCC with negative ads in late October. They did a job of Liddy Dole, but Sen Collins is a better, more slippery pol.)

18) Tennessee
(And TN is not completely dead after all. So I'll make Bob Tuke and TN a new 18) Likely Repub.

South Carolina
Mississippi-A
Wyoming
Alabama
Wyoming

Trying to be conservative, but I can't find much else to change. At least half of my "Leans Repub" races will be competitive by November, Toss-ups or nearly so.

In the wave election, the Democrats will sweep almost all -- but not all -- of the competitive contests, winning 10 or 12 or even 14 seats.

Seriously, that's my forecast and I'm sticking to it. This will be a transformative, map-changing election, and an utter and complete repudiation of the Repub party.

# # #  

When we do these cattle calls
I always think to myself, oooo when is Woody going to do his.  You wear your optmism on your sleeve and I'm simply too afraid to do that.  Here's a question for ya.  I definitely thought this would be a cake walk for Obama and we'd all be laughing our asses off at the Republicans.  The election is closer than we anticipated, people are apparently stupider than we thought and it doesn't look as transformative as I had once thought.

But, and here is where the question is, what was 2006 like?  I kick myself for not being a blogger back then to revel in the awesomeness of winning but also because I really have no idea what kind of build up there was to the huge wins we got.  It was obvious that a lot of seats were up for play that we could win, but everything just fell into line for us.  Are we in that same kind of mentality?  A lot of seats are ripe for our picking and while the polls dont show a huge wave (it can be argued otherwise in the Senate but not the House and EC), is it simply that polls cant accurately measure an enraged populace ready to throw out all the Republicans like the last election?

[ Parent ]
Heh
There were people back in the day who thought that the House wouldn't turn and almost no one seriously thought the Democrats would take back the Senate! I think that it's just something that is typical of Democrats, we can't believe we're winning until we actually win (by the way, Obama is leading nationally by an average of 8.2 points according to Pollster.com, so I don't really see the election as being close at all).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
Not close
Most presidential elections are not close. We've had two in a row, and that makes them seem normal to some. But as you are willing to admit, there was some history before you got to voting age! (Not all posters on the blogs seem to know that.) The election in '04 was one of the closest in 100 years, since Wilson-Hughes in 1916 wasn't it? (And credit to John Kerry, and to the American people, for making it so damn close, a rare achievement.) More commonly, like '20, '24, '28, '32, '36, '40, '44, '52, '56, '64, '72, '80, '84, '88, '92, and '96, one side dominates. Landslides are more "normal" than close ones like '00 and '04.

Already Nate Silver's site suggests the makings of a landslide. We lead -- or we are within the margin that a superior ground game can capture -- in states with nearly 350 EVs. So FiveThirtyEight shows an 87% chance of Obama winning, and a 27% chance of an Obama landslide (370 EVs or more).

The economic indicators that I tuned into a few months ago pointed to a landslide because they attempted to predict the Electoral Votes based on the unemployment rate and the inflation rate leading up to the election. Well, sometimes I can predict the economy pretty well -- and other times not so well. But this year I have confidently predicted rising inflation and rising unemployment. And I could not imagine anyone making a case to expect falling inflation rates, not with gas at $4 a gallon, or for rising employment figures, ditto. These economic trends are very tough on incumbent parties.

As for '06, to their credit some bloggers were predicting a wave type election in the spring of the year. (Look back at MyDD at the time, though now the best case for this being another wave year is made at OpenLeft.) But conventional wisdom was that the Democrats would make some gains, as the party out of power usually does in the midterm elections of a President's second term, but nothing remarkable. The DCCC under Rahm Emanuel certainly did not see a wave coming.

There had been signs through the year that Democrats' prospects were improving. A certain number of Repub seats became vacant due to indictments, etc. In fact, the flow of news was almost constant in our favor (much as it has been this cycle).

But only when the Mark Foley scandal broke did the prognosticators admit to the possibility of really major gains. That was the last week of Sept. But even then, Rahm and the DCCC did not realize the breadth of the opportunity. And so it was that Larry Kissell in NC lost his bid by less than 500 votes, without ever receiving even $500 from the DCCC, among other near-misses.

This year both DCCC and the DSCC are much more ambitious, with much longer lists of targeted races. But yet again, the opportunity seems to be even larger than they are prepared to seize. The DSCC gets credit for making Kay Hagan a likely winner, and they propelled Jim Martin into a contender in GA. But I fear another V-8 moment on election Night. Oh, sorry, a dated reference to an old advert for the veggie drink: Smack forehead and exclaim something like, "Damn, I could have had a V-8!" or "Damn, we could have grabbed Tennessee!"

One trend that I'm seeing is a surge in Democratic opportunity across the South. Obama is gonna carry VA, NC, and FL. He will make a very strong run in GA and MS, too, and surprise the prognosticators in SC, LA, AR, and TX. This surge in the South is not from African Americans finally deciding to get out and vote for Obama. No, those decisions were made in January, when Obama won Iowa and the black voters realized that he actually had a chance. The current surge is white people coming home to the Democratic Party.

Well, it's nice that our Presidential candidate is such an honorable man, of excellent character and intelligence, able to transcend the ugly racial stereotypes of our Southern past. But that's not why white Southerners are turning to the Democrats.

Alas, the economy is going to hell, and anyone who is not scared simply does not understand the gravity of the situation. But most people do understand and they are scared. Understandably they turn to the party with some experience in helping people in a great depression.

Suddenly Southern white people are remembering who brought them Social Security and federally insured bank deposits and the Tennessee Valley Authority and more. So now I'm expecting this election to closely resemble Franklin Roosevelt's victory in 1932. And by the way, FDR did carry Texas.

[ Parent ]
As somebody who turned 18 just before the 2000 election,
I also tend to think of close presidential elections as the norm.  Indeed, they're all I've known since I was of high school age.  I also tend to think of Clinton's landslides as somewhat exceptional, in that Ross Perot probably helped deliver states for him that in all likelihood wouldn't have gone Blue otherwise.

So I have a question for those of you who have experienced those landslide elections from the 80's/before.  I've heard lots of talk about how Bush succeeded in making the country invariably more partisan, and I sort of bought that explanation without question.  I have a very difficult time imagining ANY politician, D or R, winning 49 states today.  Even if a John McCain/Sarah Palin sex tape is unearthed on November 1st, the Republicans will STILL likely hold Utah, Idaho, Kansas, Wyoming, Mississippi, Alabama... the list goes on.  Likewise, I can't imagine any circumstance that would deliver states like Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Illinois, etc. to the Republicans.

But maybe that's my inexperience.  So I ask you, voters who have lived through more elections than I, is Bush (and, to give credit where it's due, are Newt Gingrich and the "moral majority") a game changer for the modern American political environment?  Will a president in this era be able to get more than 60% of the popular vote, the way Nixon, LBJ, and FDR did?  Or have we progressed to an electoral state where that's impossible?  Do we need another game changer to teach us how to agree again?

[ Parent ]
Short answer
This is just another way that W has been overrated. Indeed, with the economy going over a cliff, you may see Obama carry 40 states and run 10 points ahead of McSame this year.

With any luck, the Repub Party as we have known it will be demolished under the landslide, and will have to rebuild as a different kind of party than the one that Karl Rove and George W Bush operated. That would mean a new game.

[ Parent ]
Cattle Callf
1. Virginia (Open)
2. New Mexico (Open)
3. New Hampshire (Sununu)
4. Colorado (Open)
5. North Carolina (Dole)
6. Alaska (Stevens)
7. Oregon (Smith)
8. Minnesota (Coleman)
9. Mississippi-B (Wicker)
10. Kentucky (McConnell)
11. Georgia (Chambliss)
12. Maine (Collins)
13. Louisiana (Landrieu)
14. Kansas (Roberts)
15. Texas (Cornyn)
16. Oklahoma (Inhofe)
17. Idaho (Open)
18. New Jersey (Lautenberg)
19. Nebraska (Open)
20. South Carolina (Graham)

Of course, Virginia and New Mexico are as close to sure things as you can get in politics. New Hampshire, Colorado and North Carolina are likely Democratic at this point. Alaska and Oregon are leaning Democratic. Minnesota and Mississippi-B are toss-ups. Kentucky may be the true shocker upset of the cycle. I'd love to see Mitch McConnell lose to our fourth tier candidate in this state (No offense to Bruce Lunsford. He is definitely better than having a Bob Conley and shows the importance of always fielding legitimate contenders in Senate races, but I'd much rather have Ben Chandler or Daniel Mongiardo running).  

Why not flip Specter?
Rather than deal with Joe Lieberman, the Dems should try to flip Arlen Specter.  He's just as liberal on most domestic issues as Lieberman is, and he's more socially liberal than Bob Casey.  From a practical perspective, Specter might be willing to make the switch.  At this point he's more popular among PA Dems than he is in the GOP, and he'll have a hell of a time getting renominated in 2010 (at age 80) against Pat Toomey or some other such person.  The Democrats could basically offer him guaranteed reelection in 2010 and a committee chairmanship for the rest of his Senate tenure.  I'd strongly consider it if I were him.
Why?
When we'll easily be able to knock him out in 2010 for someone FAR better. Specter has made comments about converting Joe, no way he gets converted.
[ Parent ]
Specter won't flip
I suspect he's in his last term and knows it, but I still doubt he'd change parties.  Specter is more socially liberal than Casey, but I wouldn't say more than Lieberman.  As you say, I also believe Specter would not survive a republican primary if he runs again.  But I don't think he'd survive a democratic primary if he switched parties either.  Either way he's screwed.

Honesty, if Lieberman would vote the same way he currently does but keep his mouth shut and not bash the party publicly so much I could tolerate him.  He's pretty solid on social issues and to a lesser extent economic issues.

[ Parent ]
October Cattle Call
The reason I created an account on SSP was to partake in the August cattle call.  It's hard to believe that was only two months ago!  Here's my list...
Likely pickup:
1) Virginia
2) New Mexico
3) Colorado
Lean pickup:
4) New Hampshire
5) Alaska
Tossup/Narrow Lean pickup:
6) North Carolina
7) Oregon
8) Minnesota
Tossup/Narrow Lean retention:
9) Kentucky
10) Mississippi*
Likely retention:
11) Georgia
I doubt it:
12) Maine
13) Louisiana
14) Nebraska
15) Texas
16) Idaho
17) Oklahoma

At this point, I'll be surprised if we only get 7 seats!

Woo hoo!
"At this point, I'll be surprised if we only get 7 seats!"

I agree, and I love it. I hope we can get the Republicans so depressed that they don't even bother voting.  

[ Parent ]
I'd be suprised if we
only get 8. I think 9 or 10 is very possible.
[ Parent ]
Well, watch out
the Republicans might rally at a Battle of the Bulge moment at -9 seats, where they make a vain but nevertheless substantial effort to try to turn the tide.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
October Cattle Call
Safe Flip...

1.) Virginia.
2.) New Mexico
3.) Colorado

Leans Flip...

4.) New Hampshire
5.) Alaska - Could have been likely retention had Stevens got his case against him thrown out
6.) North Carolina

Toss-Up...

7.) Oregon
8.) Minnesota

Lean retention...

9.) Kentucky
10.) Mississippi

Likely retention...

11.) Georgia
12.) Maine

Could go in a wave...

13.) South Carolina
14.) Texas
15.) Oklahoma
16.) Idaho
17.) Nebraska

Louisiana would be in a bit of danger if the Republicans had enough money to fight here, but they don't.

Overall I think the Democrats will win 7 - 8 seats, but they could win as many as 12.  

North Carolina
It seems like everyone agrees on 1 and 2 and who's going to be in the top 9.  But I'd like to disagree with what most of you are saying.  

Namely:
#3  North Carolina

(and then shift everyone else down)

Even the McCain folks are writing off Dole.  And the wind is at Hagen's back now.

On the other hand, in CO and NH things are tightening.

Just my 2 cents.

Good observation
Kay Hagan sure seems to be surging. And Sununu still has a mountain of cash to spend in NH. So the rank order has probably changed a good bit. But the rank order means less and less. We will take a dozen seats or more, so how will we know who where was #3 to flip?

I can't imagine a Repub winning NH with Wall Street in meltdown. Too many thrifty Yankees up there have been socking away their retirement savings in the 401(k) plans. Now they are having to think about trying to get one of those much-sought-after greeter jobs, to stand in the door at Wal-Mart and smile at their old friends coming in. Colorado likewise, the polling may be confused, like the voters, because of the barrage of ads, appearances, and phone calls from canvassers, but it will NOT be electing a Repub this year.

On this site we may be too focused on politics to give the economic news the attention it deserves. Lemme say it: The economy is going to hell. Unemployment is rising rapidly. Prices are increasing rapidly. Most households are beyond broke; with the decreased value of their homes and their SUVs, many if not most are underwater,  with debts exceeding the value of their assets. The nation owes the foreigners more than we can afford to pay. Our near-term future is going to be much worse than our recent past. As these awful facts sink in on Americans, the Repubs will be punished as they deserve, losing 12 or 15 Senate seats.

[ Parent ]
One common mistake
Y'all aren't taking Ronnie Musgrove serious.  This last rasmussen poll that shows Ronnie within 2 points is not taking the massive turnout we are going to generate in to account.  It has got the point where we are working on educating illiterate older voters who have never participated, on how to vote and choose the right candidate.  The black turnout is going to be massive.  You heard that from me, on the ground in Jackson, MS.

Cotton Mouth
Good to hear
And I'm predicting that many older Southern white voters will come home to the party that led us out of the last depression, while younger white voters don't have the same degree of prejudice to overcome as the geriatrics who voted for Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, and Ronald Reagan. (How nice to list those names together, where they belong.)
[ Parent ]
From your lips to gods ears cotton mouth!
Nothing will make this Yankee happier than to see a Mississippi pickup!
We are gonna make you happy
The excitement level is pretty high.  I really think we are going to win.  There are reports of a close to 100,000 voter increase on the rolls for the year (as of a month or two ago), mostly all Dem.

Cotton Mouth
[ Parent ]
a lot of uniformity
1. Virginia
2. New Mexico
3. Colorado
4. Alaska
5. New Hampshire
6. North Carolina  
7. Oregon
8. Minnesota
9. Mississippi-B
10.Kentucky
11.Georgia
12.Maine

At this point the top 6 look likely.  I think we'll win another couple.  If we have that kind of majority we'll probably give eomone else the chairmanship and Joe is free to do whatever he wants.  Is there anyone serious who might run in 2012(Ned Lamont doesn't count)?

My New Rankings
They are getting hard to rank because they are starting to bunch together. But here goes.

1. Virginia
2. New Mexico
3. Alaska
4. North Carolina
5. Colorado
6. New Hampshire
7. Oregon
8. Minnesota
9. Mississippi
10. Kentucky

1 through 7 are more likely than not to flip.

October Senate Cattlecall
"All things just keep getting better"

1. Virginia.
2. New Mexico
3. Colorado
4. New Hampshire
5. North Carolina
6. Alaska
7. Oregon
8. Minnesota
9. Kentucky
10. Mississippi
11. Georgia
12. Louisiana
13. Maine

The big mover in my mind is Kentucky where the bailout has really hurt McConnell bad. Sen. Bunning did nothing to help his companion by running around the state calling the bailout that McConnell backed a socialist bailout.  In fact the bailout has stroked the embers of economic populism in the South in the Georgia, North Carolina and Mississippi races as well.  But the greatest impact appears to be Kentucky and Sen. McConnell and wouldn't it be sweet to avenge Daschle's 2006 loss?  If McConnell is the 60th vote for a filibister proof Supreme Court Majority all one could say is "How Sweet it is".

P.S. the early voter trends in Georgia were for a massive surge in the black turnout.  It has the GOP worried and Obama may be having a larger impact on the Southern vote than the GOP acknowledges.

"My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." -- Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

How it's gonna happen
In the driver's side...
1.) Virginia.
2.) New Mexico
3.) Colorado
4.) New Hampshire
5.) North Carolina
6.) Alaska

Getting close...
7.) Oregon

Toss-Up...
8.) Minnesota
9.) Georgia

Need some lucky breaks...
10.) Kentucky
11.) Mississippi
12.) Maine

A big wave...
13.) Nebraska
14.) Texas
15.) Oklahoma
16.) Idaho
17.) South Carolina  

October Consensus & Trends
Here are the average rankings for October based on 28 entries.  The numbers in parentheses are the changes since September and June.  NC=No Change.

1. Virginia (NC,NC)
2. New Mexico (NC,NC)
3. Colorado (+1,+1)
4. New Hampshire (-1,-1)
5. Alaska (NC,NC)
6. North Carolina (NC,+3)
7. Oregon (+1,NC)
8. Minnesota (-1,NC)
9. Kentucky (+4,+3)
10. Mississippi (-1,-4)
11. Georgia (NC,+8)
12. Maine (-2,-1)
13. Texas (+3,+1)
14. Louisiana (-2,-4)
15. Nebraska (+2,NC)
16. Oklahoma (-2,NC)
17. Idaho (-2,NC)

Kansas dropped off the list due to lack of mentions.

Kentucky's 4 spot jump was the biggest move in the past month.

I just want to thank all of you for your excellent responses
After carefully reading all of your responses I have come to the conclusion that so many excellent pro and con points were made that this will be a very tough call if the numbers fall out at 60.

My answer is F-Off Joe but with one remaining reservation.  The response that there will be plenty of R vote crossovers on domestic issues because of a tough 2010 election ahead is very true.  My remaining concern is on Judicial nominations.  I fear that if the R's can get to 40 votes they will filibuster every single progressive nominee and try to force Obama into only appointing moderate to conservative Democrats to the courts.  There is a need to balance out the damage to our judiciary caused by Bush placing so many Christian Fundamentalist judges District and Appeals and so many Corporatist judges in the federal District and Appeals Courts.  Even the Specters, Snowes and Voinoviches of the Senate can feel safe voting lockstep with the minority on cloture because this has always been a tough sell issue to the electorate unlike say votes against S-Chip.

October Senate Cattle Call | 75 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox