Redstate

He was way off in most of his predictions.

Everyone should read these two posts over at National Review, it puts into context what the pundits are saying now. Also the bottom link is an excellent example of polling that yields junk. That post talks about a university of New Hampshire poll on their two congressmen. The polling shows that a majority voters in each district are more likely to vote democrat than republican this fall. The same poll also shows each Republican rep leading their democratic opponent by 20% or more. If your not familiar with UNH, its not a mecca of conservative ideas. Also, the post also talks about the VT house race to fill I- Bernie Sanders seat. Just look at Vermont with leaky leahy, Dean, Sanders. The republican is neck and neck in a very liberal state in the year of the democrat landslide. Ok, some one tell me how that makes sense, a Republican in a very liberal state running strong in a democrat wave? Also, what number are we up to on "the democrats are going to take back the house/senate"? It seems like every year since '94 they've been touting that, along with their MSM friends. They couldn't do it in '96 with Clinton at the top of the ticket and a nice but pathetic Bob Dole. Also, Clinton never got over 50% of the vote.

http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTE3NmNlMzZlNzA0MDIxNTYxMjIzNTNjMm...

http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjVmMTZjYmNhMjc0ZWQ5MTRhYzU3ZmJlMz...

The third link is to the NH and Vt house races.
http://sixers.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjE1Y2Y0MGZlNDZiZjMxZTMyNzA3Mjc...

Count as a Democrat if he caucuses with them. But, there will be 2 independents if Lieberman does win which I dont think will happen.

Good question though and I would like to know myself for sure

But I don't think an independent who caucuses with a party counts towards the number in the determination of majority status.

As long as they caucus with the Democrats, that will create the 50-50 split we had in 2000, pre-Jeffords party switch.

After the new Senators are sworn in, the Senate's first order of business is to organize itself by passing a resolution appointing the officers of the chamber and setting up the committees. In case of a 50-50 tie the VP casts the deciding vote. All that matters is how they vote on this resolution.

I had a fuzzy and obviously false memory that what mattered in the Senate was party affiliation to decide majority status, not who had the largest coalition.

They have been within the margin of error in several polls, IIRC.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

All the stars lining up and everything going right for the dysfunctional Democrat party of today. This represents an absolute worse case scenario... theoretically possible, but a lot like getting dealt a royal flush. We heard these same kind of predictions in previous election cycles, and it certainly didn't work out that way.

Part of the problem is that it is still too early... and like they always do in generic polling, Democrats will do better in early polling before anyone pays attention to the race. The election isn't even on your average voter's radar right now. Sure, there are some ads on TV, but few people are going to pay any attention until fall.

And that is why people see the danger for the GOP.

Honestly, I don't think that Tennessee is going to go to the Dems unless Corker is just awful in any upcoming debates or commits some sort of terrible faux paux.

The last numbers had Corker at 47 and Ford at 39.

The GOP tends to gain momentum going towards November although a good enforcement immigration bill would go a long ways toward helping.

To play the game well you need to know the score. In baseball if you're down 3 in the late innings, you don't play offensively for one run. If you're down 8 late, you don't replace your long reliever with your closer, because you'd rather have him fresher for tomorrow.

Knowing where we stand now in each state is important for that reason. We need to know what races need what kind of attention. We also need to know how well the races are doing that we've already given attention to.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

We're at war, that's why. Schlesinger would work to undermine the War on Terror, what with his calls for a phased withdrawl in Iraq or whatever he's calling his proposed 50% reduction by November 2007.

I know this is a Republican site, but given the events of today, I feel safe in saying that I hope Schlesinger doesn't win a single vote.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

You are willing to work to take down a Republican in a primary, but willing to support a Democrat that votes with them 90% of the time. I find that rather ironic

In 2004 I was a single issue voter. That issue was the War on Terror. Even now it has a strong pull with me. It just doesn't show up here very often because among national Republicans John McCain is one that passes as relatively weak on the war, and he's fully behind us staying the course in Iraq.

If you can show me an example where I supported in a primary a candidate weak on the war, then there'd be some irony.

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Nothing ironic about it. For starters, the winner is going to be a Democrat, Lieberman or Lamont, so there's a tactical case to be made for supporting the lesser evil.

Beyond that, even if it was a a competitive race between Schlesinger and Lieberman, Schlesinger's support for an Iraq withdrawal timetable makes him unacceptable in contrast to Lieberman's support for victory in Iraq. Schlesinger may well be preferable to Lieberman on many other issues, but that pales into insignificance when America is in the middle of a war. I rarely indulge in single-issue voting, but the prospect of losing an important war is reason enough to make an exception.

I'm all for supporting a RINO who's position on Iraq may be just as defeatest as Schelisinger's when the Democratic opponent is no better. In Connecticut though, there is one Senate candidate who'll help us win the war, so I'll favor that candidate no matter what his party affiliation is.

His positions are only marginally to the right of the average Democrat. And I would put money on him being the most liberal Senator in the GOP Caucus if he won. He has taken issue with Lieberman's stance on the war - cynically assuming that he could out-liberal Joe - without realizing that a Republican is never going to get the anti-war vote.

His campaign is underwhelming - and he has been exposed as having a gambling problem - to the point of using false identities to gamble. When the convention met in May, he was it, and so no primary was called. Now it turns out he's a disaster, but it was too late to even try to bring him down in the primary. The Party in CT has openly asked him to withdraw from the race (with the intention of drafting Jack Orchulli - who ran against Dodd last cycle), but Shlessinger is refusing. Since the GOP is stuck with him unless he withdraws, it's no wonder they're getting behind Lieberman.

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. Schlessinger inspires no confidence that he will be better on any issues, and on the most important issue - security - he's positioning himself to the Left of Lieberman.

Oh, and if Joe wins as an Indy with help from Republican friends in CT, and the Democrats do manage to get to pick up seats so that Joe would be #51 for them, he will be a hot commodity. Will he be so willing to give the Democrats the plum rewards when they abandoned him before the morning newspapers were on porches on Wednesday? If Kerry and Kennedy and Dodd and others come to campaign for Lamont against him, wouldn't it seem logical that he'd at least listen to what the GOP had to say come January? Maybe a committee chair for Joe in exchange for refraining from joining the Democrats in organizing the Senate?

Lieberman will not win on 11/7. I'd say "you read it here first" but I'm sure it's plenty of other places too. If I were Schlesinger, I lay $100 on that one...

There is no support in CT for Schlesinger. Besides his weak position on GWOT and Iraq, his campaign has no exposure. The only reason he received the nomination is that 8 months ago Joe was a shoe in for the seat. In addition, Schlesinger has been accused of having a gambling problem.

I work in CT and was a lifelong resident. I believe that Joe will ultimately win by between 3% to 7%.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/07/ct_senate_gop_urges_candidate.html

The Vice President might become very visible under than scenario.

We have DIEBOLD on our side!

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

get a senator? Or did PR become a state and get one as a starter?

All this stuff of about polling is just people finding something to talk about. Its the middle of August, the people with jobs and intelligence are on vacation and doing family things, not talking to some pollster. I also think polling is becoming less reliable with people screening calls, only having cell phones, etc. I find it comical that Lamont represents a ground swell of anti republican/anti bush voters. I always assumed democrats, and hardcore lib democrats, voted in primaries, especially in a very blue state. The MSM is going nuts to get bush and using a democratic primary in the liberal northeast as a bell weather is a Chris Matthews type of move.

People need to remember how gerrymandered districts are and that the generic favorable/unfavorable views of congress are junk, just like the presidents numbers. Do I like congress right now? On how the senate dealt with immigration, ANWR, etc., no I'm not very happy. But who would I vote for, well a Republican. But being in MA were the democrat will get 65%+ of the vote if he even has an opponent (the republicans couldn't field a senate candidate against Kerry in '02) what the heck does my vote matter?

Everyone needs to remember the democrats claiming election fraud after the '04 race, since the polls showed kerry wining and since he did not, the election was rigged. The only thing that matters is Nov 06, everything else is just pollsters trying to make money and talking heads.

50 + 48 is 98, + 2 = 100
49 + 49 is 98, + 2 = 100

If it's the 2 you don't understand, one technical independent is Sanders and the other is Lieberman.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what would stop Lieberman from wining the general election and "switching" parties from independant to democrat? Just because you didn't get the endosement in the primary, doesn't stop you from changing parties, or selecting one if your an Ind.

If he did win and stayed as an Ind, that would really be a thumb in the eye to the dem's even though he caucas's with them.

Why should we wait to analyze the current situation of the national election? What's the benefit?

If the current situation put us +5 instead of -5 in the Senate, putting a filibuster-proof majority within reach, would you still be saying it's too early to talk? Or are you just saying we need to close our eyes because we have weak candidates this year?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I'm just saying all the "analysis" is nothing but speculation.
And the "talk" is just that, and will affect nothing. When people go to the polls, that is what matters. In 1994, NO ONE had a clue as to what happened. The MSM was absolutely shocked and the polls didn't indicate the outcome. But, have at it. Enjoy the dialogue. Waiting wasn't the point...it was the Aug. 22nd date.

Don

You're making two false assumptions here: 1. The mainstream press reports the sum of what everyone knows. 2. Public polls that the mainstream press publishes are similar to the polls experts use.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Consider it motivation. If we don't have a 55-44-1 Senate this Congress, then we don't get Justice Alito free of a filibuster.

Just think of what happens if we lose the Senate and then Justice Stevens retires.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I would definitely be throwing a party. A +5 R from the MSM, and pollsters, in the real world would mean a +10 and Ted Kennedy out of a job. When did you see a poll that did not understate what the republicans got on election day?

Also, either way, you can't read much (if anything) into a poll in August. The MSM is calling the Nov. election for the liberals based on 140,000 votes lamont got in a democratic primary. I heard the Nov. election in CT is estimated at 1.2m voters, so lamont received 10% of that, and they are certainly the large majority of his core support. Polling now is for idiots like Chris Matthews to spout about and make assinine predictions. An August poll is like a weekend poll, the working people (who are more likely to vote republican) are not available, their on vacation, at the beach, shopping, etc.

I've seen this episode before.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

It's easy to say the Dems COULD take power, when you consider every state where they have the slightest chance and ignore every state where the Reps have a chance as if there isn't even an election there.

because if the Senate is 50-50 (which it won't be), Chaffee will be gone

I have a hard time seeing where the Dems can pull 5 seats that doesn't involve taking RI. They could win PA, OH, MO and MT. The rest of their states relies, at least to a sizeable extent, on the idea that there will be a national tide against Republicans (AZ, NV, TN, VA as in play). Is there any real chance that the stars will align to hand AZ and TN to the Dems while somehow saving Lincoln Chafee from himself?

Besides, what polls I've seen don't show Chafee much above 40 against Whitehouse. His whole campaign pitch is gone - the only thing he had going for him was "I can hold this seat for the GOP and Laffey can't." Now it looks like Whitehouse will stomp on anybody. We may as well go down in flames (if we're going down in flames in RI) with a real Republican.

VERY little chance he would not.

Also, there is a LOT OF TIME before the elections for political events to unfold.

Missouri won't be close on election day.

PA is the dems best chance. After PA, RI is the other reasonable chance for a dem pickup. The dems did us a favor by nominating extreme left candidates in MT and OH -- in the end that will be the difference in two close races. If they had nominated more moderate candidates, they could have easily added these two states to their column. So, the dems pick up 1 or 2 from the GOP.

As to the GOP, MI is not going to get quite within reach. Out of the other four possibles (WA/MN/MD/NJ), the GOP likely gets one, maybe two. I live in MD and everyone likes Steele. I think he wins unless the dems can manufacture a lot of dead voters in the city. So the GOP picks up 1, maybe 2 from the dems.

That means a net result of no change +/- one.

Sabato was really out to lunch in '04. And this in the, I lost count, time the democrats are going to take the house and senate. I put it this way, if they couldn't take the house and senate in 1996 with a popular Clinton at the top of the ticket and a very weak Dole, why would it be different now?

People aren't happy with the republicans, to a degreee, but the election isn't a thumbs up or down race, its an R or D choice. Bush has a 40% rating now, but he'd still beat the empty suit Kerry because no matter how people feel about Bush, they like him more than Kerry.

Hoover

Sorry I missed your post a #2. I reread and found it excellent. I feel a little uneasy when "new media" gives this level of praise to one of the high priests of the " MSM fauxtogophy" crowd.

As far as I know they have runoffs in Louisiana, so the winning Democrat is assured of having a shot even if the Republican gets a plurality in the 6-way split.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

remember the relief (and surprise) in 04 when David Vitter avoided the runoff by pulling a clear majority at (I think) 51%

I imagine the Jefferson situation is basically analogous to the McKinney situation, except for the unusual rules in Louisiana allowing open general elections followed by runoffs where noone wins a majority (HOWEVER, if Johnson is running again and still somehow manages to grab pole position in the field of Dems, the Republican might have a chance)

.

sadly, it looks like there are enough people willing to buy it.

We'll see how the senate seats settle out, it's not very easy to beat a sitting senator, and the republican senate candidate have a lot more cash than their opponents. All the polling now is unreliable, its the summer. After labor day when the money starts flowing and the ads start to define candidates and set the playing field, then you'll have some info. We're junkies for this stuff, most of my friends that vote don't follow anything until near the election.

With regards to the judges, the gang of 14 agreement was only for this session, it ends at the end of the year. The deal was possible because of the imcompetent leadership of Frist, he allowed McCain the power instead of smacking him down. In any event, you won't see a Souter again. The democrats can pull the obstruction on the appeals court and district courts judges since their are so many and really off the radar for every day people. SCOTUS is much different, you don't see the hearing for DC circuit appeals judges but both Roberts, Alito, Thomas, etc were all national TV. The leftist groups people for the american way, leadership on civil rights, NOW, etc were seething with both Roberts and Alito and other than the pathetic Kerry, Kennedy and some other blowhards did nothing. Because they did nothing, they got their ass's chewed by PFAW founder Norman Lear, ditto with the other groups. They were smart enough to know that they had nothing and would be villified if they tried to block either of them. Nominate another Alito or Roberts and there is nothing in the world they can do, even if the senate is 52-48.

Well, even if we didnt' get another Souter, an O'Connor or Kennedy would be almost as bad, especially with regards to Culture War issues. I think hopes that Roberts could sway Kennedy back to the side that takes the actual Constitution into account when making decisions will be dashed.

You're right that the Left/Dems take a bigger risk in obstructing Sup Court nominations because of their high-profile status. I think our side easily wins with the public in a debate over the proper role of judges...when it is willing to fight it out, and not limit their rhetoric to the standard soundbites about not wanting 'activist judges' who will 'make law from the bench.' I don't think our side gives enough concrete examples of the countless judicial outrages, nor do we do enough to educate the public about the perverse and never-intended combination of judicial supremacy and and an activist court. But then again, that is hard to do with a soundbite-driven media that is hostile to our side in the first place.

But anyway, yes, I agree the Left/Dems take a risk in letting their loons try and destroy judges who will come across to most Americans as very mainstream. But unlike Roberts and Alito, the next pick could truly give the Court a genuine conservative majority. The wacko-left base will be all over the Dem senators to block anyone to the right of an O'Connor, and I think that if things go badly for the GOP this Nov (with multiple losses in red states), then other red state Dem senators will feel emboldened that they can safely buck the views of their state's voters. And who knows, maybe they'd be right; would obstructing Sup Court nominees be enough alone for voters to oust Pryor, Lincoln, Dorgan, Conrad, Baucus, Nelson of Florida, Reid, Bayh, et al?

The only Democrats to vote for Alito were Byrd, Conrad, Johnson and Nelson. Johnson is up in 2008 and remembers Tommy Daschle, so he'll think twice. Nelson (NE) and Byrd would vote for confirmation.

Of the ones you mentioned (Pryor, Lincoln, Dorgan, Conrad, Baucus, Nelson of Florida, Reid, Bayh)Pryor and Lincoln toe the line, Dorgan is under union control, Reid has to deal with NOW, NARAL, People for the liberal way, etc, so he'll never vote in favor and Bayh THINKS he can be president and needs the wacko pass in the primary.

My main point is that if things go badly for the GOP this Nov (which I would define with regards to the Senate as losing more than one of the vulnerable conservative incumbents), then it may not matter that a majority remains which would vote to confirm another conservative in an up or down vote, because there may not be enough for cloture.

For Alito, the cloture vote was (I think???) 72, but that is a bit misleading. With 55 GOP Senators, and a real chance to invoke the nuclear/constitutional option if the Dem members of the Gang of 14 betrayed the agreement, the Democrats really couldn't stop an up or down vote. The memories of how the GOP carried all but one close Senate race in 2004 also helped put some fear in them. But if the Dems oust Republican Senators from red states, then they will feel emboldened. How many pro-cloture-for-Alito Dems would change course for a Edith Jones or Emilio Garza nomination if the threat of the nuclear option were gone? And what about the possibly new members? Maybe a Senator Casey Jr would be reasonable, but its a sure bet that a senator Tester or Brown or McCaskill would stay true to their true leftwing colors and vote against cloture. They'd all have 4 or 5 years to try and make votes forget about it.

And again, the pressure by the kook-left would be extreme, as the next appointment could finally result in a conservative majority. How many of those Senators who voted for cloture on Alito did so in part out of good feelings about Justice Kennedy, and his ability to keep the court left on many issues?

And considering how long it has taken to get another chance to right the court, getting revenge on red state Dem senators the next time they are up would be bittersweet at best. A defeated conservative nominee would likely mean Bush gives us another O'Connor or Kennedy, who would be there for 20 or 30 years making a mockery of the Constitution.

As to Johnson in SD; yeah, I'm sure he remembers the Daschle lesson. And knowing that he too will have to face reelection in a higher-turnout presidential year will make him think even harder about obstructing. But who does the GOP have on deck in SD? Former Governor and Congressman Janklow's driving troubles ended his career, and gave us Stephanie Herseth (who will run for the next open Senate seat if she chooses not to challenge Thune in 2010, and he probably still wants to be governor at some point). Governor Rounds is popular, but I doubt he will cut short a second term to challenge Johnson. So if there is no credible challenger on the horizon, then Johnson will feel free to obstruct, and would probably do so unless he actually is a moderate, and decided to do something like actually respect the values of his constituents.

And hopefully the GOP will have someone who can recruit better than Dole in the coming cycles. Otherwise, the Pryors, Lincolns, Landrieus, Nelsons (of FL), and Salazars will feel even more emboldened. Though, to be fair to Dole, I'm sure a lot of it was out of her hands. Some top-tier candidates simply did not want to run, and there's not much you can do about that, while others probably chose not to out of what they saw as an anti-GOP year. Maybe Hoeven of ND (or his predecessor) would have challenged Conrad, and maybe Thompson would have taken on Kohl in Wisconsin had the winds been better for the GOP.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...

and heartland has it up above.

Remember after the DNC convention of Aug 04? All the pollsters, including Sabato (I think as late as Mid Oct, he said bush was done and it was over) and the MSM had Kerry in a waltz. Then Bush started to campaign and the rest is Kerry's nightmare. Howard Dean was very far ahead of everyone in IA and lost. He was toast after the scream but that was done the night of his IA loss. I think Santorum has been declared dead by the guru's in a few other elections. 12 weeks in politics is a lifetime, especially with the current events.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060809/9whisper.htm

who beat Kerry, it was the SwiftVets. If they hadn't gone after Kerry's lies about his service record and reminded people what a traitor looks like, Kerry would be President today.

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

as a MA resident. You really give Kerry far too much credit. Without the swiftvets, I remember after the election the Bush campaign basically laughing about Kerry. They knew his was a windbag and a poor candidate, not to mention arrogant. They set him up for the "I actually voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it". They knew he was going into WV (I think Charleston) and they ran a bunch of commercials in the days before the visit saying he was weak on defense and voted against funding the troops. They knew he would get a summary of what going on in WV and he did, LOL. I remember the Bush people were watching his visit live and almost fell out of their chairs, and knew right then he was going to regret that statement.

Remember, he was Mike Dukakis' Lt. Gov. The Swiftvets helped but even more than their ads, the windsurfing during the RNC and at the time of the swiftvet issue, he was viewed as elitist and out of touch.