0
   

News & discussion on house and senate races

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2006 08:49 pm
Sorry for the cross-post, but I'm gambling that it's interesting enough (with so much speculation going around about who is expecting what in terms of these elections' results):

-----------

What do the experts think?

There are a number of websites that continually assess the current state of the Senate and House races. Each day or week, they update their ratings to reflect what the current state of play is.

(Note: this does not equate with predictions for what the outcome of the race will be in a week's time; it is all about how things look right now.)

So how do these sites rate the balance of seats at the current moment? I made one of those colorful little tables (of course).. might be well useful for you all - for one because it isn't as easy as it should be to retrieve these numbers from the differently formatted ratings pages; and secondly, not unimportantly, to temper some expectations on both sides of A2K ;-).

Note: re the Senate, not one of these eight "asssessors" dares to give a majority to either party. The race for the majority is at the moment a true toss-up. That said, 5 out of 8 give the Republicans a slight edge, while only 1 gives the Democrats an edge.

Note: re the House, even here only one of the eight "assessors" gives the Democrats an actual majority; to all the others, the balance of power is still in the toss-up category. But here, all of them give either a slight or a clear edge to the Democrats.


http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/8879/assessing2006uscongriict9.gif

You can also go and look up the sites yourself:

- Congressional Quarterly Election Forecast Map
- Rasmussen Reports - Senate balance of power
- Rothenberg Political Report
- Real Clear Politics
- The Cook Political Report
- The Fix (WaPo)
- New York Times 2006 Election Guide
- Pollster.com

The real enthusiasts can compare this table with the one I made a month ago - and see just how much the Democrats have gained since then.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2006 08:57 pm
SierraSong wrote:
So what's the worry? If I recall correctly (I do), you said (the House, at least) would be a "Dem rout".

Things not looking so rosy for your side, all of a sudden?

Sierra, Realjohnboy was not talking about himself.

If you re-read the two contiguous posts you are replying to, you will find that he observed that the switch to voting early with absentee ballots "also has some folks worried [..] the worry has to do with the security of all of those votes. Could they be tampered with."

He was observing other people's worries, and actually emphasized that they were not the foremost on his own mind when he continued, "More of interest in my mind is the effect on the campaign strategies [..]".

Nice attempt at derisive posturing though.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2006 09:41 pm
Webpage Title
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 12:42 am
What garbage. The patron saint of the modern Democratic Party is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the modern Republican Party is trying to pull his New Deal down piece by piece.

Republicans do not believe the government has any business erecting a "safety net" for anybody, Democrats do. The newest Republican "reforms" to Social Security have but a single aim-to bankrupt the system by diverting the money necessary to keep it going into individual "private accounts". The system cannot stand the diversion of one third of the individuals' contributions without collapsing, and the Republicans know it. They make these proposals with one clear idea in mind-make Social Security unworkable so that the system will have to be scrapped.

The Democratic Party is following in the ideals Roosevelt laid down for it. the Republicans, in their short period of ascendancy, have shown their true colors by trying to break up the New Deal.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 01:54 am
kelticwizard wrote:
What garbage. The patron saint of the modern Democratic Party is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the modern Republican Party is trying to pull his New Deal down piece by piece.

You mean the Franklin Delano Roosevelt who imprisoned several hundred thousands innocent Americans for the sole crime of descending from Japanese ancestors? That's your patron saint? It seems to me that Bush is trying to imitate FDR in that regard. Fortunately his imitation is pale.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 02:28 am
Actually, I think that was more of a state thing than Federal. But yes, it is a blot on FDR's record, albeit one made during wartime where the nation's existence was conceivably in peril.

The Civil Rights movement would only make it's appearance AFTER WWII, I am afraid. And then, only very slowly.

One side note: the fellow who had more to do with locking up the Japanese Americans than anyone later got appointed to the US Supreme Court. His name was Earl Warren, and his name has become synonymous with courts granting recognition of civil rights to groups and individuals.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 04:53 am
kelticwizard wrote:
Actually, I think that was more of a state thing than Federal.

According to Wikipedia, "President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This matches the version of the story I read, and sounds very federal to me. The detention of Japanese Americans was as state-driven as Guantanamo Bay is today: not at all.

[quote="kelticwizard"0But yes, it is a blot on FDR's record, albeit one made during wartime where the nation's existence was conceivably in peril.[/quote]
That's how Bush justifies Guantanamo Bay today. Sure, the threat is much weaker -- but on the other hand, Bush is detaining a few hundred thousand foreigners where Roosevelt detained a few hundred thousand loyal US citizens who'd done nothing wrong.

kelticwizard wrote:
One side note: the fellow who had more to do with locking up the Japanese Americans than anyone later got appointed to the US Supreme Court. His name was Earl Warren, and his name has become synonymous with courts granting recognition of civil rights to groups and individuals.

Yes -- with the help of Hugo Black, a former KKK member. I'm not a big fan of the Warrren Court's jurisprudence, although I like many of the verdicts it reached politically.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 07:14 am
Thomas wrote:
kelticwizard wrote:
What garbage. The patron saint of the modern Democratic Party is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the modern Republican Party is trying to pull his New Deal down piece by piece.

You mean the Franklin Delano Roosevelt who imprisoned several hundred thousands innocent Americans for the sole crime of descending from Japanese ancestors? That's your patron saint?

No, obviously he meant the Franklin Delano Roosevelt who put the New Deal in place, and with that the socio-economic policies that shaped liberal generations to come. That is what Keltic was explicitly talking about, after all. He didnt say FDR was a saint - of course there were also bad things that he did - just that FDR became the political father of what the present Democratic Party stands for when he transformed America through the New Deal. Seems pretty clear to me what he meant - way to go to pull a statement off into leftfield.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 07:29 am
nimh wrote:
Seems pretty clear to me what he meant - way to go to pull a statement off into leftfield.

Thanks for your encouragement.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 04:01 pm
Thanks for the pretty table, Nimh.
I can appreciate that the sources you cited have the Senate races in the Tossup category or in the Leans To category. The polling margin of error justifies that caution (except for Arizona; I don't understand what the pollsters see to cause them to think Mr Kyl might lose).
With regard to the House, very few legitimate polls get done on those races. Instead, calls are made on the basis of past trends, changing demographics, personalities of the candidates during the campaign season and other purely anecdotal evidence.
The polling folks should, I think, be very cautious about getting into that game. But they do. And they end up putting most everything into the Tossup category. As well they should.
(Somehow that reminds me of a file clerk who worked for me briefly. She put pretty much everthing in a file called Miscellaneous).
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 09:30 pm
Not sure if anyone has posted it before..

A pretty good layout of the closest races and includes polling on each of those races

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/election_2006-21.html
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 09:36 pm
The latest polling in the 30 closest Republican held house seats show Dems with a lead in 25 of those seats when you look at the individual races on realclearpolitics.

The dates of the polling is all over the place and some big swings from one poll to the next. Hard to say how true it will be in the end but 25 seats would be far more than expected.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 06:25 am
Well it would be at the max end of what the various race-raters are suggesting at the moment (see table on previous page)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 07:19 pm
Oh and how is Katherine Harris doing, down there in Florida?

Still scary.

Quote:
Campaign Gone South

Florida's Katherine Harris Continues Her Senate Race, Shedding Staff Along the Way

Washington Post
Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Katherine Harris, who is trying to become a U.S. senator, says she is writing a tell-all about the many people who have wronged her. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to: the Republican leaders who didn't want her to run, the press that has covered her troubled campaign, and the many staffers who have quit her employ, whom she accuses of colluding with her opponent.

She is vague about what, precisely, makes her a victim, but she says she has it all documented.

"I've been writing it all year," she says in that kittenish voice. She often smiles and cocks her head as if she's letting you in on a secret. "It's going to be a great book."

If it is, it may be one of very few things that go well for the two-term Republican congresswoman.

Quote:
The Democrat she is challenging, Sen. Bill Nelson, was once considered highly vulnerable. Nowadays, according to recent polls, Harris is down by 26 or 35 points, approaching political rigor mortis.

"The only way Bill Nelson could lose this," says Darryl Paulson, a political scientist (and Republican) at the University of South Florida, "is if he got himself in a drug-induced stupor and ran naked down the main street of his home town."

"They can make the polls say whatever they want," Harris says. She says pollsters sometimes call her house and then hang up " 'cause we're not answering them the way they like."

The way Harris sees it, a vast left- and right-wing conspiracy, encompassing both the "liberal media" and the Republican "elite," is attempting to keep her out of the Senate. She says anyone could see the way the panel of questioners coddled Nelson at their debate last week. Her voice gets all high and mocking as she imitates them.

" Ooooh, Senator Nelson," she says. "I mean, come on."

Perhaps the worst blow to Harris's campaign has been the stories that have emerged from former staffers. They describe a Jekyll-and-Hyde candidate who can be seductively charming at one moment and pitch a temper tantrum the next, throwing a cellphone at a wall or a sheaf of papers at a campaign manager. Former chief adviser Ed Rollins, who managed Ronald Reagan's reelection to the White House in 1984, said working for Harris was like "being in insanity camp." He likened her staff to dogs that have been kicked.

Before he became the first of three campaign managers to quit, Jim Dornan programmed his cellphone to play the theme song from "The Exorcist" when Harris called.

Quote:
During an interview in the livestock arena, amid the ghosts of her cousins' cows, Harris talks about two of her greatest passions: art and Israel. [..] After Harris's quote about the importance of electing Christians was published in a Baptist publication, her campaign went into damage control, issuing a press release discussing Harris's love for Israel and explaining that while she was speaking to a Christian audience, she really meant that "people of faith" should be involved in government.

Harris does love talking about Israel. She's proud that Israelis sometimes assume she's one of them and talk to her in Hebrew. She is a Christian but has called herself a "wannabe" Jew. During the bitterly contested recount in 2000, which she oversaw as Florida's secretary of state, she compared herself to the Biblical character Queen Esther, who risked her life to save the Jews.

She says that when her husband of 10 years, wealthy Swedish businessman Anders Ebbeson, asked her to marry him, she first extracted a promise that they could live in the Holy Land one day. She doesn't know why she's always been so fascinated by the country.

"I can remember riding my bike to piano lessons and thinking about Israel," she says. "I thought I was adopted for a while."

Quote:
Several of her former staffers say they would have kept silent about goings-on in the Harris campaign if Harris herself had not publicly criticized them after they left, accusing them of being bad at their jobs, of putting "knives in my back" and of working with the Nelson campaign. They describe her as a micromanager, unable to trust her staff, prone to tears and rages over tiny things. They say she would rewrite speeches and press releases over and over. She would get upset if an aide hadn't brought her the correct coffee order from Starbucks. Dornan, the former campaign manager, says Harris was so concerned that only the best photographs of her went up on the campaign Web site that she insisted on going through every picture.

"It would be weeks and weeks and weeks before we could put anything up on the Web site," he says.

Dornan says he once infuriated Harris right before an event by setting it up so she could make a grand entrance. Instead, she wanted to greet supporters at the door as they arrived.

"She just goes completely ballistic," Dornan recalls. He says she yelled at him for 10 minutes and accused him of ruining her life. "I literally held the phone away from my ear, and everybody within a six-foot circle of me could hear her screaming."

Quote:
They worried about what one former field coordinator called her sense of "religious mission." Two former staffers -- Rollins and another onetime campaign manager, Jamie Miller -- have said Harris told them that God wanted her to be a senator. Rollins adds, "She told me that she thought she could be the first woman president."

Sitting in the livestock arena, Harris laughs at the notion she'd ever want to be president. In the past she told the Palm Beach Post that she was complimentary of those staffers who performed well, but had problems with those who would "try to undermine" her. Now, she sidesteps the question of why she had problems with staff.

"It's going to be easily explained in my book," she says.

Quote:
Thus far, she has put in approximately $3.2 million, which is, she says, "everything that I have liquid." Meanwhile, according to a financial disclosure report, her campaign has less than $1 million left. Nelson's campaign has nearly $7 million. Nelson has run seven ads since the primaries in September. Harris has aired only one and it started yesterday, according to campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Marks.

Harris turns stony when she's asked what will happen if she doesn't win.

"Haven't even considered it," she says in a tone that suggests a follow-up question would be foolhardy.

Later in the evening, while talking about her love for Queen Esther, she runs to the passenger seat of her SUV and seizes a Bible.

"I'll give you one verse," she says. "On the day that the enemies of the Jews had hoped to overpower them, the opposite occurred, in that the Jews themselves overpowered those who hated them."

What does that have to do with this race?

"November 7th," she replies.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 07:25 pm
I admit I found that WaPo gem through Wonkette. Wonkette itself has a gem too... about Montana's incumbent but at-risk Republican Senator, Conrad Burns.

Look past the cheeky headline and boggle your mind..

Quote:
Conrad Burns Is Abramoff's Little BitchBurns actually took at least $150,000 in bribes, more than any other lawmaker in America. Worse, Burns has been trashing Abramoff in public. You don't do that **** in the Mafia without Serious Consequences.

Abramoff friend describes Burns staff's ties to lobbyist [Billings Gazette]
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 08:39 pm
For the first time in the race so far, Webb is actually ahead of Allen in the average of the last five polls out for the Virginia Senate race..

He had a 4-point lead in three polls out in the last four days, done by three different pollsters.


http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/5308/virginia011106ol0.gif


In Tennessee and Missouri meanwhile the race seem totally tied...

http://img423.imageshack.us/img423/9857/tennessee011106sm2.gif

http://img423.imageshack.us/img423/3740/missouri011106ww2.gif
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 08:40 pm
Ain't this getting to be fun? Or maybe pathetic.

A new poll in Virginia has the Dem, Mr Webb, ahead of Mr Allen, the Repub incumbent, by a point or so. I don't put a lot of significance in it.

There was another incident today involving Allen. Appearing today here in Charlottesville he was approached by a UVA student who asked Allen why he had spat in his first wife's face. A pretty stupid question and Allen said nothing in response. But then two or three of his staff members took the questioner down and may have put a choke hold on him. All captured on tape by one of the local TV stations. Now available nationwide.

Mercifully, this will all be over in a week.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 08:44 pm
Vlad the Impaler wrote:
Ain't A new poll in Virginia has the Dem, Mr Webb, ahead of Mr Allen, the Repub incumbent, by a point or so. I don't put a lot of significance in it.

Four points actually, in three successive polls (we cross-posted just now).

But you're right to still be sceptical, for sure..
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 08:59 pm
Yes, I am skeptical of the most recent polls showing a sudden shift to Mr Webb.
And I tried to edit my last post, but I was too late, about who the guys were who wrestled the Allen heckler down. I said they were Allen staffers. But I can not say that for certain. View the video yourself.

-Vlad The Impaler-
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 09:53 pm
Yeah, I saw it... weird.

The whole episode does shed light on a cryptic paragraph in a TNR portrait of Mark Warner last month though.. it said:

Quote:
One night in New Hampshire, after a few drinks at a pool hall in a college town, the conversation turned to the political troubles of another potential '08 contender. I told a story that had been making the rounds about how this politician once spit on his wife. Warner's huge jaw dropped and his face blanched. The table fell silent. "I guess that's not that funny to you, is it?" I muttered. He shook his head.

So it was George Allen, then...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Oz fest 2004 - Question by Love2is0evol
Human Events Names Man of the Year, 2004 - Discussion by gungasnake
Your 2004 mix tape - Discussion by boomerang
BUSH WON FAIR AND SQUARE... - Discussion by Frank Apisa
Weeping and gnashing of teeth - Discussion by FreeDuck
WOW! Why Andrew Sullivan is supporting John Kerry - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Margarate Hassan - hostage in Iraq - Discussion by msolga
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 05:40:21