Redstate

"55 seems realistic as a upper limit to any one party's dominance"

I'm not sure this is true today. A few different recruiting decisions or retirements and the Republicans could have achieved a 60-seat majority in 2006--Nelson (FL), Cantwell, Stabenow, all the way to Byrd, Conrad, Nelson (NE). That's six senators who, in a better environment, could have been taken down, but will now probably be reelected. Even assuming a Santorum loss, that's 60 Republican senators.

I know Adam C and others have deplored this before.

...but that works both ways.  If different different things had happened, other seats would be in play and other seats would be safe.  IOW, I don't think that either party can count on everything going completely perfectly; there's always going to be a problem somewhere.

I don't know enough about the House races to say anything intelligent there, but the Senate seems to be settling down to 5 contested races and 1 blowout.  On the Republican side, PA is a loss (Santorum is doomed being down 20, we'd almost be better off if he dropped out now and we had someone new challenge for his seat) and OH and MO are up for grabs; on the Dem side, MD, NJ and MN are up for grabs.

Other races could become close but those seem to be the close ones currently.

Down 20 points today doesn't mean down 20 points on election day.  

I think I remember Kerry being up 15-20 points over Bush during the early Democratic primaries.

It looks like Santorum is in big trouble, and the polling I've seen looks like there is some risk for DeWine and (ugh) Chafee. It also looks like Harold Ford has gotten some decent support as a replacement for Bill Frist, and I don't know jack about the R's that are getting in that race- but hopefully Tennessee is "red" enough that we can hold the seat. All the other R seats look relatively safe.

On the Dem side, it looks like we conceivably have a shot at Cantwell and replacing Dayton in MN. I haven't seen Steele pulling strong #s, but I think he still has a reasonable chance. None of the other D's look like viable targets, unfortunately.

So, worst case for us, I see a loss of 4 seats, and best case, we only lose Santorum and pick up 3 D's for a net gain of 2.

The House I have a much harder time handicapping, but I will note that the CW says Rahm Emmanuel has been working overtime to recruit viable candidates, and I haven't heard any buzz on our House efforts. IMO the house districts are uncompetitive enough that we won't lose or gain too many either way, but Emmanuel is a very smart, type A workaholic, so hopefully we are not getting too complacent.

...is Maxine Waters in training. The children of my children, if they somehow wind up back in Dekalb County, will be voting against her.  No white pol will ever seriously challenge her, and no black pol wants to get kneecapped by the McKinney machine.  Why do you think Denise Majette ran screaming like a little girl for the US Senate?

If you can find me any past 2-or-more-term Senator that was down 20 points in the polls at any point a year or less before the election and went on to win, then I'd hold out some hope.  But barring a major scandal on the Dem side, I'll continue to think Santorum is doomed.

It's not uncommon for the challenger to be far ahead of the incumbent before the race gets underway.  

I can understand being alarmed by the polls, but we're almost a year from the election.  The public's enthusiasm for a challenger inevitably wanes as the challenger becomes better known, and as the incumbent defends himself.

If Santorum were 40 points down, I might be worried and consider replacing him.  But 20 points is by no means insurmountable.  I wouldn't be surprised if that 20-point lead is gone in six months.  

As Moe said, we're just zogbying.

Perhaps I misunderstood.  I suppose I disagree with the statement that Santorum is in "big trouble".  He may or may not be in big trouble.  I don't think polls are worth much at this point.

But I see your point.

it is extraordinarily uncommon thanks to low name recognition with the challenger - bet on incumbents and you will win 90 percent of the time - the reason for that is because they are almost always ahead going into the thing, in money, name recognition, and poll numbers.

Thanks, MissouriBrad.  Couldn't you just take what I said for gospel and not disagree?  Now I have to try to back up my contention, and that's no fun at all.

I think the "natural state" of the Senate is about 60R/40D.  That's because there are more "red" states than "blue" ones.  Specifically, there are about 25 solid Republican states.  There are about 15 solid Democratic states.  And there are roughly 10 toss-ups.  If the 25 elected Rs, the 15 Ds, and the 10 split, it would be 60/40.  However, the Senate is never in its "natural state" as it was created to change slower than the country.

Right now, Rs occupy blue seats in ME (2) and RI.  They have split state seats in NH (2), PA (2), OH (2), NV, CO, IA, MN, NM and OR.

Ds on the other hand have red seats in MT, ND (2), SD, NE, LA, AR (2), WV (2), FL, and IN.  The also have split state seats in MI (2), NM, MN, NV, OR, CO, IA, and WI (2).

Those are off the top of my head so I may have missed some, but in total:

Rs in blue seats: 3

Rs in swing seats: 12

Ds in red seats: 12

Ds in swing seats: 10

In other words, Ds are overall still more vulnerable than Rs in the Senate.  Our problem was that this cycle was their most vulnerable with seats in FL, ND, NE, and WV up for re-election and we didn't get our top choices in many of those states (as well as WA).  In '08, AR, LA, MT, SD, and WV will be up as well.

Thus, I think '06 is likely to leave things rather unchanged (+1 to -2 for Rs).  This is because Ds are hoping to win seats in one blue state (RI), two swing state (PA, OH) and in a bunch of red ones against incumbents (MO, MT, AZ).  I think the last time an R incumbent lost in a "red" state was Hutchinson in 2002 in AR.  It's not very commmon.  In 2004, the only incumbent to lose was Daschle who was in a mis-matched state.

Rs, unfortunately, are most optimistic about strong candidates in blue states.  Fortunately all 3 are in open seat states where they have a legitimate chance (MD, MN, NJ).  The next tier are running in red states against D incumbents such as in NE (Ricketts) and FL (Harris).  Then come the longer shots in MI, WA, WV.

All in all, it seems unlikely that Ds win more than 3 seats (there is also only 1 open R seat - TN).  And it seems unlikely Rs win more than 3 and that would be in a very good year since all three are on D territory.  Thus, I see very little change overall.

Despite being behind he still has the advantages of incumbency.  Casey would probably poll further ahead of any other competition.

Otherwise, sound points all around.

but I guess what we're saying is, it would actually be easier for things to fall so that Republicans have 60 seats than for them to fall so that Democrats have 55.

I'm not that great at predicting results anyway.  :)

in Santorum's case?

Higher name recognition? No.

Stronger fundraising base? No.

My dad likes to say that incumbents almost never lose unless there's a reason for them to lose. It's a pretty reliable standard--for example, Dems were going nuts over the possibility of picking up Wayne Allard's seat in Colorado and Conrad Burns' seat in Montana in 2002, but it just didn't happen. Why? There was no convincing reason for the voters to dump the incumbent.

With Santorum, there is.

With Santorum, there is.

Which is?

Casey will vote with Dems to filibuster Bush nominees?

Casey will vote to increase federal spending?

Casey will vote to increase taxes?

Casey will vote to increase federal regulation of all businesses?

Okay, I've been gone for a long time, but at least when I left PA, the state was pretty much evenly balanced between the rural areas and the two big liberal cities on either end of the commonwealth, which meant races tended to be competitive. And while you could pretty much count on at least a couple of left-wing radicals to win in the House, sanity would prevail for the Senate races.

Bush could have picked up a solid conservative seat in the last election if he had just not helped Arlen "no spine" Specter.

I think your guess (0 to -2) is a pretty good one. I'd probably say +1 to -1.

has a couple of things going against him that a typical Republican running in a swing state wouldn't have to contend with. He's a member of the leadership, which makes it immensely more difficult for him to deflect charges that he's tied to Bush, the radical right, whatever. He's also put himself on the chopping block with some of the positions he's taken and the language he's used to take them.

My guess is, if Santorum didn't come on quite so strong on gay mar--I mean, sodomy, and was just an average backbench non-leadership senator, even without changing a single one of his votes, he wouldn't be having nearly as much trouble.

"Higher name recognition? No.

Stronger fundraising base? No."

Compared to Casey they are about equal.  But the idea of switching him with another R is different.  No other R has higher name rec or a strong fundraising base.  He may lose, but he's the best chance for Rs to win.

I thought you meant the best bet to win the race between him and Casey.

Ford's chances of being elected Senator of TN: absolutely zero.  

Here's why:

1. He's a Democrat
   
   
2. He's the most liberal member of Congress from TN.
   
   
3. He's from Memphis.  For those of you unfamiliar with TN, let me explain that one.  Memphis is the largest city in TN and has the highest taxes, worst crime, and the worst school system.  Even though I love my hometown, the rest of the state has a combination of fear and hate for Memphis that is unfortunately justified.  
   
   
4. His last name is Ford.  The Ford name in TN politics is mud.  Period.  The Ford family political machine is notoriously corrupt: his uncle was recently removed from the state senate in handcuffs for taking bribes and then his aunt "won" her brother's seat by 12 votes after the last ballot box came in hours after the rest when it was clear those votes would determine the outcome.  Jr. appears clean but he'll never escape his familiy's problems.
   
   
5. He's never really been challenged politically.  Harold's had a good life in politics because everyone has gotten out of his way.  He inherited his seat from his indicted father with little opposition.  He peddles vague rhetoric as moderate, independent thinking while toting the Democratic party line in most of his votes.  The only time he's taken a risk was when he ran for the Minority Leader's position and he got wupped bad.  

Those are just the obvious problems.  I'm sure our Republican candidate, whoever it ends up being, will find plenty more reasons why he shouldn't get a promotion.  Ford will likely face former Rep. Ed Bryant who ran an excellent campaign against Lamar Alexander for the 02 Senate seat.  Bryant was a class of '94 GOP congressman who was once a constitutional law professor at West Point.  Ford could run the best campaign of his life and still lose by 5-10 points.  

Bryant ran in the GOP primary against now Sen. Lamar Alexander who is slightly more moderate yet also a very popular former governor of TN.

PA generally tends to elect "conservative" Dems (I guess I'd really call them old-timey blue collar Dems) or RINOs. Specter and current gov. Ed Rendell are entirely typical of the breeds.

While the above analysis is correct (about the poltical/geographic distribution) the reality is that nobody wins without in some way appealing to both, which always means some kind of splitting the difference. The middle of the state (where I was born and bred) is diehard conservative, but can't float candidates by itself.

Santorum is an oddity -- he never seemed to "fit" in PA politics. It's amazing that he won at all, really. (Well, I remember him beating Harris Wofford, who was just too fruity for this state.) For once the Dems are putting up somebody reasonable against Santorum, Casey will almost certainly get the swing vote.

It's too bad. While Santorum gets a little shrill at times, I much prefer him to the Casey crew.

On the other hand, I'm upbeat about the GOPs chances generally. Long term trends are all Republican, and I predict a small gain (two seat?) for us.

doug

initially by beating a guy,if memory serves me, who was appointed to fill John Heinz (yes, that Heinz) seat when he was killed in a plane crash.  The Guy Santorum Beat (TGSB, 'cause I can't remember his name) had never held statewide elective office and was just slightly to the left of Che Gueverra.

I don't remember his last campaign, but seems like he ran against a relative no name.

From everything I know about PA politics (which ain't much), if I changed my name to Casey I'd have a pretty good shot at some elective office or another.

Harris Wofford, who was appointed by Bob Casey in 1991 and won an upset special election in the fall of that year over former Governor and U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh.  This was the race that made James Carville a national figure.

I defer to your insight as you are clearly from TN.  However, as someone

from outside the state I can say every time I have heard Ford on the talk

shows he has been fairly articulate, very respectful, polite and does not come

across as a moonbat.  He is one of the few Dems that don't shout at you when

"answering" a question.  

While I'm sure he's voted 'D' on most things (no shock there really is it?), at

least on Iraq he hasn't stooped to the level of some:  ``I don't think the party's

 position can be that we leave,'' Ford said. ``I can't support it. We leave, we

give a road map of how to defeat us.''  Perhaps its just politics, but AFAIK he

has been consistent on military issues.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out, but I personally think he is the

type of candidate that could steal a win in a red state if the Republican

candidate is not strong.  But as you correctly point out, he does have the

family bath tub ring to deal with!

Since this is just Zogbying (i.e. guesstimations), I'm saying little change.  I ran through the 33 races last night, and I think I actually ended up with it being 55-45 (counting Sanders as a Dem).    I don't have the list in front of me, but I had Santorum as the only incumbent to  be ousted.  For the open races, I think I had MN, MD, and TN for the GOP and NJ and VT for the Dems.

PA generally tends to elect "conservative" Dems (I guess I'd really call them old-timey blue collar Dems) or RINOs. Specter and current gov. Ed Rendell are entirely typical of the breeds.

I thought Specter was the fluke. He had the good fortune to run on the Republican ticket during Reagan's first presidential campaign and rode into office of RR's coatails. After that he had the power of the incumbency behind him. I recall Heinz being a much more conservative Senator than Specter. I also recall PA tending more toward ticket splitting on the theory that the two would balance each other.  But then again that might just be my outdated perception.

I'd like to see him win, and will probably volunteer for his campaign (a first for me), but living here in the People's Republic, I doubt he'll win.

Ehrlich had the good fortune to run in a perfect storm:

1. The hyphenated democrat running against him assumed she had been coronated and therefore only had to show up for the ceremony.
   
   
2. Charges of voter fraud followed by court fraud in the Sauerbray election were still not completely forgotten, even if they never went anywhere.
   
   
3. The outgoing governor had screwed up the budget so badly anybody from his administration was in trouble from the start. They may tax a lot down here, but the state budget was previously in the black, without a lot of hassles to get it there during a given session.

I just don't see Steele having that same luck.

Also working against him is his race-party polarity. Democrats (well at least the party officials) know that the worst thing that could possibly happen to them is for a successful black Republican to be elected to US Senate from MD. If he wins the race, he has six years to establish himself with a voting record, and show that Republicans will respect you for your accomplishments, no matter what the color of your skin. He may even finally be able to demonstrate that Republican policies are more beneficial to blacks than Democratic policies. That risks breaking the Democratic "lock" on "the black vote". Shift that voting pattern only a little bit, and Dems are in serious trouble everywhere. The smears and racial slurs already thrown about in this contest show the Dems understand this and are going to pull out all the stops in this contest.

Well, of course I'm speaking somewhat in generalities. There are House districts in PA that rival anything you'll see in the Bible Belt. I grew up in an area where we treasured Democrats for their oddities and exoticism. On the other hand, I now live in Philadelphia (West Philly, actually), and this city is a straight-up African-American-led Democratic machine, with some occasional help from unions and lefty moonbats from the University.

A good example of the blue collar Democrat is in fact John Murtha, who before his recent stupidities was best known as a guy who brought the pork home to his district. Sort of a less annoying Robert Byrd. Another good example would be the nonentities cluttering up Allegheny County's elected offices.

As for "RINOs", maybe a little harsh. I was mainly thinking of Specter, I admit. (Though there are others -- I believe Barbara Hafer has actually switched parties, in fact.) Republicans here aren't really the same sort of Republicans as you see in the New England states.

Still, Republicans who are most successful here above a certain level do tend towards moderation -- consider Ridge or Thornburgh, for example. I believe even Heinz was relatively moderate, although it's been awhile since I've even thought about him so I will defer to others with more knowledge. Certainly all of these guys, though, are/were more moderate than Santorum.

Incidentally, I think both McCain and Giuliani would win PA, they're both the kind of Republicans this state goes for.

Agreed, Philly is a tough area to live in. I know some people up there who are slowly going leftist moonbatty. Odd thing is, none of them even realize it. I don't hang out with them as much as I use to, because they can't get together without the conversation turning to "somebody should really just shoot Bush. I can't believe he hasn't been impeached!" It's not like I hide that I'm a red-meat, red-state Conservative either.

Good luck fighting the good fight!