What do you all think about the Fall 2002 federal elections? Will the Democrats retain control of the Senate and remain the opposition in the House, or, as some have predicted, will they lose control of the Senate and regain control of the House?

If the Republicans gain control of the Senate, would they reappoint Trent Lott as Majority Leader, or do you think someone would step forward to challenge him? If the Democrats run the House again, I believe Gephardt assume control. So far Bush and Cheney have raised $90 million for the fall campaign, which far exceeds what the Democrats have raised.

Who are the most vulnerable Senate candidates and races? There are 20 Republican seats and 13 Democratic seats up for grabs, but many of the Republican seats are in sound Republican states. The most vulnerable Democrats are Paul Wellstone (MN), Jean Carnahan (MO), Max Cleland (GA), Max Baucus (MT), and Tim Johnson (SD). My sleazy senator, Bob Torricelli, also is in trouble, though his opponent, while rich, lacks charisma. I personally wish Torricelli had stepped down and allowed a more vigorous, progressive, ethically unchallenged Democrat to run against the Republicans. Among the Republicans, Gordon Smith (OR) and Bob Smith (NH) are struggling, Tim Hutchinson (AR) seems on the edge, and open seats in SC and TX could change parties.

In terms of gubernatorial elections, some Republicans, like George Pataki (NY), look to win cleanly, while others, like the current governor of Wisconsin, are foundering. Democrat Gray Davis of California may eke out a win, and in other states the Democrats could pick up a few governorships, like in Illinois, for example, especially if the economy remains weak.

Most dramatic potential win: If Ron Kirk tops Mike Cornyn in Texas, he would be the first Black person to represent a former Confederate state since Reconstruction, and only the third Black U.S. senator and the first from below the Mason-Dixon line since the 19th century.

The Democrats don't have a prayer of taking the Senate unless they have the cojones to challenge Bush on the issues, including the "war." Which they unsurprisingly show little inclination to do.

Since you asked, here's my take on the Senate races that are most interesting this election year (in order of my fascination):

(1) SOUTH DAKOTA
If Tom Daschle weren't majority leader, South Dakotans would vote to support Goerge W. Bush and the War Effort, and send the uncharismatic Tim Johnson packing. But the state gets extra clout being home of the majority leader (e.g., the taxpayer-fleecing farm bill) and a vote for Johnson is a vote for retaining Daschle as majority leader.
PREDICTION: Thune (Republican pickup)

(2) NORTH CAROLINA open seat
Elizabeth Dole has the charmisma and the celebrity. North Carolina is a Republican-leaning state. Democrats should be divided coming out of their primary.
PREDICTION: Dole (Republican hold)

(3) NEW JERSEY
The Torch is in trouble. New Jersey voters seem to love to vote for colorless multi-millionaire novices (Lautenberg, Corzine). This time that profile fits the "R," Douglas Forrester. But with memories of Jim Florio having dissipated, the Garden State has become reliably Dem.
PREDICTION: Torricelli (Democrat hold)

(4) MINNESOTA
George W. nearly took the liberal Gopher State and you gotta think his numbers have gotten a lot better, which will help the Republicans. With a War on, can any state afford a left-wing fringe Senator?
PREDICTION: Coleman (Republican pickup)

(5) TENNESSEE
Fred Thompson would have won by unanimous consent. Lamar Alexander would win in a walk - but only if he's the Republican nominee. More likely, conservative ideologue Ed Bryant gets the nomination and "New Democrat" Bob Clement emerges from his primary unscathed.
PREDICTION: Clement (Democrat pickup)

(6) NEW HAMPSHIRE
The Republican primary decides the winner. If it's the tubby idiot, Bob Smith, Gov. Shaheen wins in a walk. But New Englanders love political dynasties, and that should help Rep. John Sununu Jr. in the primary and the general.
PREDICTION: Sununu (Republican hold)

(7) TEXAS
It's as lunatic to predict Democrat Ron Kirk will defeat John Cornyn as it is to predict Bill Simon will knock off Gray Davis. And remember, African-Americans in statewide races tend to poll better than the actual vote count.
PREDICTION: Cornyn (Republican hold)

(8) MISSOURI
The widow illegally appointed to the Senate is up for election. Widows appointed to Senate vacancies tend to do poorly in elections. Talent is a legit candidate and Missouri is a conservative state, all of which should favor the "R." Absent major vote fraud in St Louis and Kansas City (conducted under the auspices of a Democratic-appointed federal judge), that is.
PREDICTION: Talent (Republican pickup)

Overall prediction: Republicans gain two Senate seats.

All the other seats (including the open seats) are held by the current parties. If the Democrats had decent candidates in Oregon (Gordon Smith) and Arkansas (Tim Hutchinson), the Dems could knock off those two incumbents. If the Republicans had decent candidates in Georgia (Max Cleland), Louisiana (Mary Landrieu), Montana (Max Baucus), and maybe Illinois (Dick Durbin), then maybe the Republicans could pick up those seats. A major trend -- either pro-Republican because of flare-ups in the War Effort -- or pro-Dem because of failures in the War Effort, and the results of those six particular seats could change. But I doubt it.

The House: Republicans pick up 15-20 seats, largely due to re-districting and to the unlikelihood that the Dems could gain seats four elections in a row.

Governorships: Democrats pick up three to four, including mega-states Pennsylvania (Ed Rendell wins), Illinois, Michigan and maybe even Texas, although the Dem nominee Tony Sanchez is barely a Dem and is probably actually personally closer to George W. Bush than is Republican incumbent Rick Perry.

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Well, CITT, your picks go totally against tradition, which says the party in power loses seats in the midterm.

Way too early to make predictions. Voters don't tune in until after Labor Day and way too much can happen to change the dynamics.

[quote]Originally posted by Jim at Outsports:
Well, CITT, your picks go totally against tradition, which says the party in power loses seats in the midterm.

---

Except in the last midterm election, the party in the White House won seats in a midterm election.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

CITT -- I agree those are the top races -- but not on some of the outcomes:

(1) SOUTH DAKOTA
It is a GOP state -- so should go to Thune. I just feel sorry for the poor people of this state -- not only do they have to endure tons of campaign ads between now and Nov. for this race, but also for a competitive House race (the current GOP governor vs. a young Dem.) and a gubernatorial one. The airwaves from Rapid City to Sioux Falls (which are pretty cheap to begin with) are gonna be jam-packed.

(2) NORTH CAROLINA open seat
Dole has yet to show she can run a good campaign -- this gives the Dems a good shot -- and they have three good candidates running. Erskine Bowles, if he wins the primary, can raise enough $$$ to compete with her.

(3) NEW JERSEY
Yeah, the Torch is in trouble -- but will win.
I'd move it down the list. And put ARKANSAS in its place. Tim Hutchinson is in trouble and the Dems. have political scion -- and well-respected A.G. -- Mark Pryor -- as their candidate.

(4) MINNESOTA
Wellstone had pledged to serve only two terms -- now is reneging on that. And Minnesotans take credibility seriously (remember Wendell Anderson, the Gov. who had himself appointed Sen. after Mondale resigned to become V.P.? He was out on his ear the next election) Luckily for Wellstone there is a good Governor's race at the top of the ticket -- the DFL's union base will be working hard of GOTV. However, Coleman is an ideal pick for the GOP. I still think Wellstone will pull it out ...


(5) TENNESSEE
The state has become reliably GOP -- and will stay that way, regardless of whether it's Alexander or Bryant.

(6) NEW HAMPSHIRE
Say goodbye to Bob Smith -- but I think Shaheen -- having won three statewide elections -- will pull off a win over Sununu.

(7) TEXAS
Cornyn's running about as bad a race as Elizabeth Dole, giving Kirk a good chance -- and, like in Minnesota, there's a good Gov. race, a well-financed Hispanic Dem. vs. light-weight heir-apparent Rick Perry. But Bush ain't gonna let them Dems embarass him in his own state. Count on him visting the ranch in Crawford with many photo-ops between now and November.

(8) MISSOURI
While widows do generally do poorly in elections, Sen. Carnahan has already won one -- everyone knew they were voting for her in Nov. 2000 despite her late husband's name on the ballot. And Talent has recently lost a statewide election. Furthermore Carnahan is doing her homework her in D.C. (which is impressing people) and really working hard. So she'll win reelection.

My upset of the cycle will be Max Baucus.

Oh, and no way the Dems. will win the House back.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

Don't forget about Arkansas, boys. Not only is the conservative, family values Republican incumbent damaged after dumping his longtime wife for a younger staffer, but the Democratic nominee is a proven state-wide vote getter whose daddy once held the seat he seeks. Pryor could and should be Hutchison in November.

And don't count out Jean Carnahan just yet.

If anyone deserves to lose it is Tim Hutchison of Arkansas. He is a judgemental "pro family" far right wing "Chrisitian" who jumped in front of every camera he could to critize Bill Clinton about Monica. Well, guess what? Mr. "pro family" was having his own affair with a staffer many years his junior. This kind of stuff drives me crazy, I dont care if its from a Republican or Democrat.

[quote]Except in the last midterm election, the party in the White House won seats in a midterm election.

---

You are right but I wasn't clear. The tradition is most pronounced in the first mid-term election after a new party has taken power.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Dude, I hope you call balls and strikes better than you call political races.

Both Carnahan and Talent are honorable people. I don't consider either of them worthless as politicians. My reading of Missouri and the abilities of the two candidates leads me to believe that Carnahan is a better ideological fit for the state.

I can only believe the good people of the state of Missouri will see the light and send her back for a full six year term.

A bad sign for Tim Hutchinson: He won his primary against Jim Duggar, a very right-wing Christian famvals state pol with 13 kids and one on the way, but only by a 75%-25% margin. I say "only" because an incumbent with a primary should perform far better than that against an underfunded candidate few people had ever heard of before. Two possible scenarios: 1) Christian conservatives voted for Duggar in the primary as a protest but will come back to Hutchinson in the general, following their political smarts that tell them Republican control of the Senate is more important than some guy's divorce, or 2) Chritian conservatives are extremely peeved at Hutchinson, as indicated by Duggar's relatively strong primary showing, and will stay home in November as a protest against Hutch's divorce, leaving Pryor the winner.

Alas, my bet right now is on option 2, but I think pickups in MO, MN, and SD, as well as victories in NH, OR, TN, SC, NC, etc., seal a GOP Senate Majority.

One race nobody seems to have mentioned is Maine. Susan Collins is not having a completely easy go of it against her challenger, state Senator Chellie Pennigree(?). Which leads me to my predictions . . .

1) Susan Collins loses, but . . .

2) Saxby Chambliss (love the name) beats Max Cleland in GA.

3) EITHER Democrats launch a semi-covert whisper campaign in South Carolina questioning 40-some-odd year old bachelor Lindsay Graham's sexuality (Democrats have already started this by saying Graham is "too light in the loafers" to fill Strom Thurmond's shoes, OR a gay publication or group attempts to out him. The charges, so to speak, don't stick, Lindsay wins.

4) FINAL PREDICTION: The Baltimore Orioles will NOT win the World Series, nor will the Baltimore Ravens.

Now the W.H. is publicly admitting that Smith and Hutchinson are in trouble -- and D.C. is all abuzz today about Who lost Karl Rove's slide show?

"That was the mystery today at the W.H., where an administration that prides itself on secrecy was in a minor uproar over an intern who apparently dropped a computer disk containing a confidential analysis of the coming 2002 elections in Lafayette Park. The disk was then picked up by an enterprising Democratic Senate staff member, who made sure that its most embarrassing points were made public.

For example, the White House analysis of campaigns for the Senate, where Democrats hold a one-vote margin, shows that there is a "strong chance" that two Republican incumbents, Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas and Bob Smith of New Hampshire, will lose to Democrats, a direr assessment than Republican officials have stated publicly."

(reg. req. to access full article)

[quote] EITHER Democrats launch a semi-covert whisper campaign in South Carolina questioning 40-some-odd year old bachelor Lindsay Graham's sexuality (Democrats have already started this by saying Graham is "too light in the loafers" to fill Strom Thurmond's shoes, OR a gay publication or group attempts to out him. The charges, so to speak, don't stick, Lindsay wins.

---

William, I charge YOU with being queer. You are thus permanently disqualified from elective office.

Seriously, though, it's amazing how little has been spoken about this race in S.C. as of yet. I haven't heard anything of a "whisper campaign" going on; neither have I heard any whispers of this sort. It would be sweet irony if it were true, because Lindsay Graham has engaged in some gay-bashing politics in the past. In any case, this race, like the Cleland-Chambliss race in Georgia, will come down to black voter turnout. Unfortunately for Alex Sanders, the Democratic nominee running against Graham (who is respected and regarded as a credible candidate), I don't sense much enthusiasm among black voters down here at the moment. But that can change between now & November. My guess, & it's nothing more than a guess, is that Cleland will win in Georgia & that Graham will emerge the winner in S.C., 53-47%.
Nationally, I haven't paid enough attention yet to individual races to offer informed analysis, but judging from what I've read, I'm not counting out Paul Wellstone. I am worried that he might be done in by the nihilism of the Greens, or the Bush/Rove fund-raising juggernaut, but he's alot stronger at the grass roots than people think. This is one candidate for whom I would consider opening my checkbook.

Here's the Rove/Mehlman White House breakdown of Senate races:
Strong Chance For GOP Pickup
GA (Cleland)
IA (Harkin)
MN (Wellstone)
MO (Carnahan)
SD (Johnson)

Strong Chance For Dem Pickup
NH (Smith)
AR (Hutchinson)

Possible Chance For GOP Pickup
LA (Landrieu)
MT (Baucus)
NJ (Torricelli)

Possible Chance For Dem Pickup
CO (Allard)
ME (Collins)
NC (OPEN)
OR (Smith)
TN (OPEN)
TX (OPEN)

No Contest GOP-Held Seats
AL (Sessions)
ID (Craig)
KS (Roberts)
KY (McConnell)
MS (Cochran)
NE (Hagel)
NM (Domenici)
OK (Inhofe)
SC (OPEN)
VA (Warner)
WY (Enzi)

No Contest Dem-Held Seats
IL (Durbin)
MA (Kerry)
RI (Reed)
WV (Rockefeller)

furthermore, they fear that that 33 GOP held House seats are vulnerable compared to 15 Dem seats ...

The other wildcard is that should the GOP get a 50-50 tie in the Senate, Dems could retake the majority by convincing a squish - I'm sorry, a moderate - like Linc Chaffee to bolt.

RE the SC race, the Dems put the loafers remark in a press release upon Lindsay's announcement but retracted it after encountering some pretty fierce criticism from gay groups. I have an original of the release somewhere.

Word from SC is a gay publication has been snooping around about LC's personal life. Just a rumor though.

William1865,
Though I am not saying that it is a lie, I must say that I have not heard anything about this "whisper campaign", nor of any denouncements by gay groups at the S.C. Democratic Party. Nor have I found anything of the sort through search engines. In fact, Alex Sanders is solid on gay issues and has picked up the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign (though I'm certain that this is regarded as a joke by scoffing conservatives), while Lindsay Graham scores a big fat zero and has a record of sponsoring anti-gay legislation.

[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:
Now the W.H. is publicly admitting that Smith and Hutchinson are in trouble -- and D.C. is all abuzz today about Who lost Karl Rove's slide show?

---

I find it VERY interesting that the supposed journalists at the New York Times are not the least bit inquisitive as to how the Democrats got a hold of that disk. "Found in Lafayette Park" and "dropped by an intern" just sound a little too CONVENIENT.

So the Republicans think they have a good chance of knocking of Max Cleland. And Bob Smith is in trouble in New Hampshire. Duh. The Democrats getting a copy of a "confidential" Republican election analysis on computer disk? That would be a much more interesting story than a rather pedestrian election analysis. It's a great story for a real journalist to uncover. Guess that's why Howell Raines's NY Times is uninterested.

Torricelli, in a poll taken yesterday, leads his challenger, multimillionaire moderate Republican Doug Forrester, by 14 points overall, and by as many as 26 points in every category except "personal ethics"! DUH!!! Torricelli is sleazy, but I think he's going to be re-elected. Forrester's fortune comes from providing prescription drug benefit program services to corporations, and health care is a hot-button issue here in New Jersey and elsewhere.

Among the GOP "pickups," I think MO, MN and SD are the best bets, though Jean Carnahan could pull it out. She's not as "worthless" as some one on the right here claimed. Pledge-breaker Wellstone is in serious trouble, as is Johnson, unfortunately. Harkin will win in Iowa.

If the Republicans don't nominate Sununu, Shaheen can beat Snuffaluffagus Smith in NH. He is a total wacko and deserves to be swept out. Hutchinson is a vile hypocrite, and deserves to be tossed out. Too bad that underfunded evangelical guy didn't beat him in the primary!

Among the GOP possibles, I think Baucus of Montana is the shakiest. Landrieu will pull it out in Louisiana.

Among the Dem possibles, the Democrats may win Oregon, and possibly Tennessee. I think Texas and North Carolina will go Republican (though one can only hope Kirk pulls off an upset!), while Collins will probably squeak through in Maine. I wish Ben Nighthorse Campbell were up for re-election--he needs to be defeated for his loathsome switch a few years ago.

Among the GOP no-contests, well...no contests! Sessions is the one I'd most like to see go. His politics and history are among the worst of anyone in the Senate. Chuck Hagel seems to be one of the brighter lights and more open-minded among the conservative Republicans--and I say this as a committed progressive. He's got sense, keep him in.

Among the Democratic no-contests, NOT ONE of these four is going to lose. Kerry, however, is trying to be president...but Massachusetts won't punish him for this.

Why Chafee doesn't just become a Democrat is beyond me. He'd easily win in Rhode Island. Yes, his father and family were longstanding Yankee Republicans, but the party of Salmon Chase and Leverett Saltonstall, Nelson Rockefeller and Margaret Chase Smith is LONG GONE. He votes to the left of Zell Miller, who, incidentally should do a swap with Chafee and thereby not upset the balance.

In the House, I do believe the Republicans could be in trouble, though I think they still will hold enough seats to keep control of the House.

BTW, will Ashcroft and company now go out and wiretap the Democrats to find out how they came up with that disk? "If you're not with us, you're against us...."

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
One race nobody seems to have mentioned is Maine. Susan Collins is not having a completely easy go of it against her challenger, state Senator Chellie Pennigree(?). Which leads me to my predictions . . .

1) Susan Collins loses, but . . .

2) Saxby Chambliss (love the name) beats Max Cleland in GA.

3) EITHER Democrats launch a semi-covert whisper campaign in South Carolina questioning 40-some-odd year old bachelor Lindsay Graham's sexuality (Democrats have already started this by saying Graham is "too light in the loafers" to fill Strom Thurmond's shoes, OR a gay publication or group attempts to out him. The charges, so to speak, don't stick, Lindsay wins.

---

As far as Collins goes, her presence as a Republican moderate is crucial. If she were to lose, that would winnow the band of moderate Republicans to only a handful, strengthening the likes of the pro-Lott types in the Republican party. One Republican I'd like to see run the show is Bill Frist, who is really smart and does appear to be more than an ultrapartisan warrior.

I hope war hero and wheelchair-bound Cleland can pull out a win. His politics are decent and he's a truly honorable man. Saxby Chambliss, who's been on "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" more frequently of late, can't hold Cleland's jock.

Alex Sanders sounds like quite a candidate. Didn't South Carolina, like Mississippi and Alabama, elect a Democratic governor the last go-round? Maybe Sanders can win in SC; I mean, they keep that Fritz Hollings, a fairly liberal paleolithic sapsucker, in office, don't they?

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Ump, duuuude! Unclench and let it go.

Jean Carnahan is NOT the great satan from the Show Me State. You still have yet to convince me that Talent (or Ashcroft in 2000) is a better match for the people of MO than Senator Carnahan (say it aloud, now) is.

Given the long history that the Carnahans and Ashcroft had, did you really believe that Senator Jean Carnahan (say it, again) would have voted FOR his confirmation?

In the grand scheme of things, you may be right in an ass backwards sort of way. I'd rather have that fundy pig John Ashcroft blunted as one of one hundred in the Senate instead of him serving as the Atty General any day of the week.

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: SFHoya ]

Bush is the President. Get over it.
Carnahan is the Senator. Get over it.

True that--Bush is Prez, Carnahan is U.S. Senator. Both gained office by means of judicial coup, but the case of the President is far more serious....

No one has really asked this publicly, but did Ashcroft and Bush make some kind of deal about the Missouri senatorial election? Not that it would have been improper, but I think Ashcroft quickly realized that he'd have FAR MORE POWER as Attorney General than as one of a body of 100 and made an agreement with Bush, who by appointing Ashcroft greatly pleased conservative Christian supporters. (Traditionally Missouri has had centrist U.S. Senators in office, especially since the Civil War. Ashcroft replaced moderate Republican John C. Danforth, and current senior Republican Senator Christopher Bond replaced moderate Democrat Stuart Symington.)

In fact, even before September 11, 2001 he had begun to push forward his agenda, and since then he has advanced a series of measures that make anything his predecessors put forward pale in comparison. Since he has George Bush's complete support, I think he's made out quite well. He still wants to be president too.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

And once again, hypocrisy rears its ugly head. Quelle surprise.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

By your logic, Ump25, because no one did anything to oppose Carnahan's remaining on the ballot or Mrs. Carnahan's taking the seat, she is the legal Senator from Missouri. There were many opportunities for opposition, but, in my mind, Republicans were too afraid of looking like the big bad bullies on the block. Well, sometimes doing the right thing means being unpopular and sometimes doing the expedient thing means losing. So as far as I'm concerned, Carnahan is the legal senator from MO, and the loyal opposition got exactly what it created.

Here in DC I think everyone just assumed that Ashcroft made a deal with Bush that in exchange for a high-level appointment he wouldn't make a big deal out of the MO Senate race. It would have looked awful for the GOP to be fighting the recount ballot in FL and to be challenging the outcome in MO. Stealing the Presidency was obviously far more important.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Looking at the Mel Carnahan Plane Crash as a strictly practical matter, it could not have happened at a better time for Democrats. As I recall - I'm sure "correct me if I'm wrong" goes without saying here - Ashcroft was leading slightly in the polls when Carnahan died. Ashcroft was in at least a decent position to win the race. Then the plane crashes - too late to give Dems a chance to actually put somebody else on the ballot, but too soon to give the Ashcroft people any time to get their bearings and deal with it, especially when what they have to deal with is a popular first lady/grieving widow. One more week and I think the sympathy would have died down and the Ashcroft folks could have at least tried to explain the absurdity of electing a dead guy to the Senate, which is what Missouri did. Or, if the plane had crashed, say, two or three days before the election, there would have been no way for the Democrats to completely fill the void, and enough people probably would have voted for Ashcroft out of confusion for him to win. You know you're a great politician when you can even manage to die somewhat spectacularly at a strategically advantageous time.