PDA

View Full Version : Interesting stuff from U.S. Senate Races


Bruce Carriker
18th July 2008, 11:14 AM (11:14)
With all the presidential stuff going on, nobody has been paying much attention to the US Senate races. Maybe that's because incumbents in the House and Senate win re-election at a better than 90% rate. But, maybe not this year. Here are some interesting races shaping up:

Alaska: Ted Stevens has been in the Senate since the US government purchased it from Russia. Okay, not really...but almost. He is the unchallenged champion of pork, delivering billions of your dollars and mine to his handful of Alaska constituents. In 1996 he won by a 65% margin. In 2002, he increased that to 67%. This year, he has only a 2% lead over his Democratic challenger, Anchorage mayor Mark Begich. That lead is within the polls' margin of error.

Colorado: Dem. Congressman Mark Udall has a ten point lead over former GOP Congressman Bob Schaeffer to succeed retiring GOP Senator Wayne Allard.

Mississippi: Trent Lott's handpicked successor, Senator Bob Wicker (appointed when Lott retired), has only a 1 point lead (within the margin of error) over Democrat Ronnie Musgrave. When Wicker was appointed to the Senate and a special election held to fill his US House seat, the Democrats won that seat. Wouldn't it be interesting if Lott's retirement produced a gain in both the House AND the Senate for the Democrats?

New Hampshire: In 2002, John Sununu defeated retiring Dem. Governor Jeanne Shaheen. This year, in a rematch, Shaheen has a double digit lead that has remained constant for most of this year.

New Mexico: GOP Senator Pete Domenici is retirng. His seat will almost sure go to Democratic Congressman Tom Udall, who has held a 20-plus point lead for sometime, a lead that continues to grow. Two incumbent GOP members of Congress gave up their House seats to run for the the GOP Senate nomination, and it appears that the Democrats may win both those House seats, as well as Domenici's Senate seat.

Oregon: Incumbent GOP Senator Gordon Smith has seen his early lead over State House Speaker Jeff Merkely disappear. In the lastest polls, they are tied. Oregon hasn't voted for a Republican Presidential candidate since 1984, Obama has a 9-point lead right now, and Smith is widely disliked (which is puzzling, because by all accounts, he's a moderate who's done a decent job).

Virginia: Former Dem. Governor Mark Warner holds a huge lead (30 points) over former GOP Governor Jim Gilmore. In two election cycles, the Virginia Senate seats will go from two highly regarded Republicans (John Warner, George Allen) to two Democrats (Mark Warner, Jim Webb). The governor is also a popular Democrat, Tim Kaine.

Lousiana: This is the only Democratic Senate seat that appears to be in any trouble. Mary Landrieu has seen her early lead over John Kennedy (no, not that John Kennedy) shrink to five points...just outside the margin of error.

Even if John McCain were to win the presidential election, it is unlikely that he will have any coattails strong enough to prevent the Democrats from widening their margins in both the House and the Senate. Although the net gain of nine seats to give the Democrats a filibuster-proof partisan majority in the Senate is very unlikely, it is not inconceivable that they could pick up six Senate seats this fall, giving them a 57-43, advantage. Then moderate Republicans like Susan Collins, Olympia Snow, and Arlen Specter could, on some issues at least, be part of a working Senate majority to finally overcome the GOP obstructionism that currently plagues that chamber of Congress.

Bruce Carriker
13th August 2008, 04:16 PM (16:16)
UPDATES:

Alaska: Ted Stevens indictment for bribery and accepting illegal campaign contributions appears to have ended his Senate career. His Democratic challgenger, Anchorage mayor Mark Begich has opened up a 13% lead since the indictment was handed down.l What an unexpected gift to the Dems from the GOP! Dem gain, net Dem +1

Colorado: Dem. Congressman Mark Udall's ten point lead over former GOP Congressman Bob Schaeffer has shrunk to 3 points in one poll and 6 points in another. Apparently this is a state where the presidential winner could actually have some coattails. Toss up.

Mississippi: Senator Bob Wicker (appointed when Lott retired), has pushed his lead over Democrat Ronnie Musgrave to nine points. GOP hold, net Dem +1.

New Hampshire: RCP average shows former Dem. Governor Jeanne Shaheen holding onto a double-digit lead over John Sununu, but the most recent polls show the race tightening. Dem Gain, net Dem +2.

New Mexico: GOP Senator Pete Domenici is retirng. Democratic Congressman Tom Udall continues to hold onto a 20-plus point lead. Dem Gain, net Dem +3.

Oregon: Incumbent GOP Senator Gordon Smith finally seems to have stemmed the surge of Dem. State House Speaker Jeff Merkely . In the latest polls, Smith is up by 12 points in one, six points in another. GOP hold, net Dem +3.

Virginia: Former Dem. Governor Mark Warner continues to hold a commanding lead over former GOP Governor Jim Gilmore, in the race to succeed retiring GOP icon John Warner. Dem Gain, net Dem +4.

Lousiana: Dem. incumbent Mary Landrieu still clings to a five point lead over John Kennedy (no, still not that John Kennedy) . Dem Hold, net Dem +4.

Glenn Harris
13th August 2008, 05:28 PM (17:28)
Why is it when the Republicans were in control and the Democrats were filibustering it was standing up for what you believe, but when it's the Democrats in control and the Republicans filibustering it's obstructionism?


I'm not quibbling semantics here, just merely pointing out the fact that politics are relevant to your perspective and assuming extreme positions on either side doesn't generally garner people to break down the doors to jump over to your side of the discussion.

Cindi Hammons
13th August 2008, 05:55 PM (17:55)
I don't like filibustering or obstructing!

Bruce Carriker
14th August 2008, 11:57 AM (11:57)
Why is it when the Republicans were in control and the Democrats were filibustering it was standing up for what you believe, but when it's the Democrats in control and the Republicans filibustering it's obstructionism?

It wasn't. The GOP called it "obstructionism" all the time.


I'm not quibbling semantics here, just merely pointing out the fact that politics are relevant to your perspective and assuming extreme positions on either side doesn't generally garner people to break down the doors to jump over to your side of the discussion.

Obviously.

However, the American voters SOUNDLY rejected the disastrous policies of this administration and the GOP-controlled Congress in 2006, and yet the GOP uses their filibuster power in the Senate to stop anything from happening. Then, lie of lies, they blame the Democratic leadership in Congress for not getting anything done.

Steven Martinez
14th August 2008, 12:16 PM (12:16)
Why is it when the Republicans were in control and the Democrats were filibustering it was standing up for what you believe, but when it's the Democrats in control and the Republicans filibustering it's obstructionism?


I'm not quibbling semantics here, just merely pointing out the fact that politics are relevant to your perspective and assuming extreme positions on either side doesn't generally garner people to break down the doors to jump over to your side of the discussion.

The problem with the Republican fillibuster is that it is unnecesary. When the Dems did it, that was their only method of using their power. Now the Republicans are using a power that is not needed for the President could and does veto everything the party does not like. It is a cheap atempt to put blame on a Dem controled congress instead of allowing the President to dig a deeper hole then he is already in.