Senate 2008 Guru: Following the Races

Keeping a close eye on developments in the 2008 U.S. Senate races

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Wednesday Early Morning Briefs

  • Cook Political Report Senior Editor Jennifer Duffy says: "Democrats will score a net gain of between three and six Senate seats next November." Barring shocking news in South Dakota at this point, Louisiana continues to be the only conceivable point of offense for Republicans. Meanwhile, Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire, and now New Mexico are looking like safe, strong pick-up opportunities for Democrats, rapidly making three the bare minimum pick-up estimate in the conventional wisdom.

    With polls trending the Democrats' way in Minnesota and Oregon, as well, a pick-up estimate of five may become the new conventional wisdom bare minimum in a few months. And, should Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich enter the Alaska race, Mitch McConnell's record-low poll numbers continue, and Tom Allen close the gap on Susan Collins over the next several months (as well as Treasurer John N. Kennedy or whoever the Republicans put up against Senator Mary Landrieu not gain traction), well, you get the picture. (And those are all very reasonable scenarios before getting into the North Carolinas, Texases, Oklahomas, Nebraskas, Tennessees and Idahos of the world.)

  • Nebraska: State Attorney General Jon Bruning has officially withdrawn from the 2008 Senate race and gotten behind chronic quitter Mike Johanns. NNN's Michaelis wonders why:

    Who can say what promises are being made behind the scenes - support in 2012, fund-raising help, a single Johanns term? Maybe it's as simple as the vindictive Heineman-Johanns machine promising not to focus its undivided attention on Bruning's political destruction.
    The GOP primary now stands between presumptive nominee Johanns and major underdog businessman Pat Flynn. Hopefully, Flynn can muster some persistent ankle biting. The question now arises as to whether Johanns' clearer path to the nomination will discourage Scott Kleeb from giving the race a go. (Draft Kleeb!) Or will Republican-turned-question-mark businessman Tony Raimondo jump into the Democratic fray as rumors suggest?

  • Kentucky: Amid Mitch McConnell's historic low approvals, DMKY's Sonka looks at the difference in McConnell's approve-disapprove among independents from October-November 2006 and October-Novemebr 2007. Among independents over the last year, McConnell has plummetted from an approve-disapprove of low 60s-low 30s to low 40s-mid 40s! McConnell has a net negative approval of six points among independents this month, standing at 40-46. And the good times roll.

  • Good for Chris Dodd!

  • Good for Desmond Tutu!

  • Looks like Conservapedia is coming out of the closet.

  • 24 Comments:

    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    Just a heads-up on a poll you may not have seen.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/alabama/alabama_2008_presidential_election

    Sessions: 62%
    Figures: 30%

    8:00 AM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/alabama/alabama_2008_presidential_election

    I keep on forgetting this blog doesn't automatically link.

    8:00 AM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger youngbuckbear said...

    Oh. My. God.

    Republicans are outpolling Democrats in ALABAMA!

    The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

    9:39 AM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    Was that really neccesary? Its news that he may have missed, so I was posting a link to be helpful.

    You're better off sticking with anecdoctal evidence to gauge the status of Senate races.

    9:44 AM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger Matthew said...

    It's Thanksgiving... give VA Blogger a break, Youngbuckbear (it was a legit news source)... he probably thinks that Virginia will beat Virginia Tech :-) Virginia Tech will be in the Orange Bowl!! GO HOKIES.

    10:24 AM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger - to answer your question, I think youngbuckbear's comment was necessary, given the unnecessary piles of smugness you dole out, often while being factually wrong. You know quite well that you were very excited to see any poll with any R beating any D for Senate, even though it is just Alabama.

    10:29 AM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    As a political junkie, presumably like you and anyone else who reads this blog, I'm excited to see any polling numbers, especially in races that are often neglected. Whether its a Republican-favored race like Alabama or a Democrat-favored race like Montana, I'm exciting either way, and I'll post links to them if you missed them.

    Unlike you, apparently, my fascination with politics and campaigns is not encumbered by partisan loyalty. Who knows? Maybe you did see the Alabama poll and decided that polls all of a sudden aren't newsworthy.

    But please, can we continue to argue about my motivation, because I think we'll be able to convince each other.

    10:51 AM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger Matthew said...

    VA... who is winning... the Hokies or the Hoos?

    10:57 AM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger Matthew said...

    I really need to find out how partisan VA is because the Hokies/Hoos question is massively important to Virginians like me, a Hokie alum.

    11:07 AM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger Neal said...

    Of course Sessions is polling ahead in AL- it is a GOP seat- Alabama is a red state- Sessions has the power of incumbency- Figures is a second or third tier challenger. Their are Republican Seats that are out of reach for Democrats.
    For example.
    1)Alabama
    2)Georgia
    3)Idaho-OPEN
    4)Kansas
    5)Mississippi
    6)Nebraska-OPEN
    7)South Carolina
    8)Tennessee
    9)Texas
    10)Wyoming
    11)Wyoming

    Their are Democratic Seats that are out of reach for Republicans.
    1)Delaware
    2)Illinios
    3)Massachusetts
    4)Michigan
    5)Rhode Island
    6)West Virginia

    Democrats are getting a free pass in
    1)Arkansas
    2)Iowa
    3)Montana
    4)New Jersey
    5)South Dakota.




    Three Republicans Seats are vulnerable due to individual incumbents flaws.
    1)Alaska- Scandal- OPEN Seat will make it a likely Republican Retention.
    2)North Carolina- Weak Incumbent- lackluster campaigner.
    3)Oklahoma- Incumbent with a George Allen,Conrad Burns,Jim Bunning moment.

    Kentucky- is basically a national race- a McConnell defeat will be a slap in the face to the Republican Senate. Democrats have credible challengers against McConnell- Stumbo,Luallen.

    Four Republican Seats are affected by the Democratic Wave.
    1)Maine- (Collins-R vs Allen-D)-
    2)Minnesota-(Coleman-R vs Franken-D)
    3)New Hampshire- (Sununu-R vs Shaheen-D)
    4)Oregon-(Smith-R vs Merkley-D)

    Democrats are favored to pick up NH. Republicans are favored to hold on to ME and OR. MN is tossup. Democrats are favored to hold on to LA.

    Democrats are favored to win open GOP seats in
    VA,NM and CO.

    11:10 AM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger Matthew said...

    http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/preview;_ylt=AtoXezlTrieex_qUZkvO544cvrYF?gid=200711240008

    "Virginia and Virginia Tech have played 88 times since 1895. None of those games meant as much as this one will. When the rivals meet Saturday in Charlottesville, the winner will not only take the annual Commonwealth Cup but punch a ticket to the ACC title game as winner of the conference's Coastal Division."

    11:13 AM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger Matthew said...

    Okay... done with the sports... sorry about the sidetrack, Guru.

    11:14 AM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger youngbuckbear said...

    "You're better off sticking with anecdoctal evidence to gauge the status of Senate races."

    FYI, I was also in Missoula, Montana in July of 2006 for my cousins wedding. I asked my family and other residents (Decidedly conservative mind you) if they felt that Conrad Burns was going to get re-elected.

    The most memorable quote? "The way he's p*ssed off so many people, no way in hell."

    And they were right.

    12:13 PM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger said: "Unlike you, apparently, my fascination with politics and campaigns is not encumbered by partisan loyalty."

    Really? I don't recall you EVER posting a link to a poll that didn't favor the Republican. Interesting. What a huge coincidence.

    Meanwhile, I post every single poll that I come across - polls that favor Democrats or Republicans. Of course I miss some either way. The blog is a hobby, not a job. Subscribe to National Journal and the Hotline if you're unhappy with the free service here.

    And, at the same time, I don't post on dozens and dozens of favorably fluff stories about Democrats that I don't feel add anything to the discussion about the races.

    So, please stifle your sanctimony.

    12:31 PM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger LP said...

    Udall confirms a reason for his reconsideration of NM-Sen race: He was assured Richardson would NOT run.

    Of course, everyone assumed this when Udall entered the race. But this is the first public acknowledgment by Udall.

    12:52 PM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    YBB-- You've absolutely convinced me. Anecdoctal evidence is always correct. Good job, and KUTGW.

    S2G-- As you said, you post most of the links that you come across. There have been very few links to polls that I have posted in the comments that you've missed. Is it a coincedence that all two or three of them have shown Republicans winning? I think it is. Can you prove otherwise by pointing out an example where you didn't post a poll favorable to Democrats, and I likewise didn't post it? Of course not.

    So why bother even trying to make that point?

    And if you're going to try and make that point, then what's to stop me from trying to argue that the reason you missed those polls in the first place is because they showed Republicans winning?

    I'm sorry if trying to provide information is offensive to you. Now that I've posted a link to information that you didn't provide, will you take steps towards banning me, like SSP did?

    1:22 PM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger youngbuckbear said...

    "YBB-- You've absolutely convinced me. Anecdoctal evidence is always correct. Good job, and KUTGW."

    Not a problem, VA. And please, just because you know the GOP is going to lose at least 4 seats in the upcoming cycle, don't go away mad. Just go away.

    2:05 PM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger said: "I'm sorry if trying to provide information is offensive to you. Now that I've posted a link to information that you didn't provide, will you take steps towards banning me, like SSP did?"

    va blogger - as you very well know, it's not the information that you provide that is offensive. As I've made clear over and over again, it's your smug, superior tone I find offensive (especially since you're so wrong so very often).

    Will I ban you? No. Even though you've repeatedly used offensive language after my repeated requests to you to avoid obscenities, I have not banned you or deleted a single comment you've ever posted, and you know that. And on the rare occasions on which you've posted a link of interest, I have included it in a subsequent post. And you know that, as well.

    So, again, please stifle your sanctimony.

    2:35 PM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    "it's your smug, superior tone I find offensive"

    Yes, I mean, just take a look at this:

    "Just a heads-up on a poll you may not have seen."

    "I keep on forgetting this blog doesn't automatically link."

    So smug and superior. It must be stopped.

    4:31 PM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger - "Unlike you, apparently, my fascination with politics and campaigns is not encumbered by partisan loyalty." That is just one of the many, many smug comments I'm refering to. In your immortal words, "Don't play dumb." (Though I fear you may not be playing.)

    You talk about your alleged job that keeps you from running your own blog and airtight polling data that refutes what we post that you're conveniently not allowed to reveal. You're not too far removed from an eight-year-old swearing to his friends that he's related to some famous athlete or something. Then you attack those who disagree with you for being "partisan hack cheerleaders" and then proceed to partisan cheerlead, in a very hacky fashion at that. Not too hypocritical. Not to mention that you play fast and loose with what people actually type versus what you respond to.

    And you're wrong over and over and over again. You give yourself far too much credit if you think of yourself as anything beyond a mere nuisance. Unfortunately for me, you're my mere nuisance.

    5:08 PM, November 21, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    I've never cared if you don't believe me. I could email you my phone number, arrange a face-to-face meeting, bring my boss, hand you my business card, and show you my portofolio and you still wouldn't believe me, so when I tell you the reason why I can't operate my own blog or pass along confidential data, its not because I'm trying to impress you. I'm telling you what I know. The same when I pass along rumors I hear--about polling data--I'm leaving it for you to either take or leave.

    However, I've never called the polling I've shared, or any other polling for that matter, to be "airtight". Opinion research is an extremely valuable tool, but no one should be stupid enough to assume that it is flawless in any way. Gauging people's opinions is a very tricky thing, and its very easy to manipulate, either intentionally or unintentionally, the respondent.

    If you could do me two favors, however:

    1) Point out where I've been a partisan cheerleader,

    and

    2) point out what was smug and superior about my original post in this thread, where I posted a link to the poll you missed.

    I'll admit to being obnoxious most of the time. However, we are all on this site to gain a better understanding of the Senate races, including you, and in that spirit, I have on many occasions posted strictly objective informational links that you did not post. In response, you always belittle the contribution, question my motives, or in some other manner respond with a smartass remark. Don't act as if you're not simply a mere nuisance to me as well.

    12:01 PM, November 23, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger said: "In response, you always belittle the contribution, question my motives, or in some other manner respond with a smartass remark."

    Previously, va blogger said: "Now that I've posted a link to information that you didn't provide, will you take steps towards banning me, like SSP did?"

    And what did Senate 2008 Guru do? I included the link in the very next post. va blogger - did that "belittle the contribution, question my motives, or in some other manner respond with a smartass remark"?

    va blogger, you have zero credibility here. When you have a contribution worthy of discussion or inclusion, it gets discussed or included. And when it's not deemed worthy by myself or the numerous commenters on this blog, it doesn't get discussed. So save your tears. And if I'm a mere nuisance to you, you have the option of not reading the blog or not posting comments - so, again, save your tears.

    2:42 PM, November 23, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    Conveniently, you leave out half of the discussion, despite the fact that they are directly to the left of the comment box. Here it is, in order:

    VAB: Just a heads-up on a poll you may not have seen.

    YBB: Oh. My. God.

    Republicans are outpolling Democrats in ALABAMA!

    The sky is falling, the sky is falling!


    VAB: Was that really neccesary? Its news that he may have missed, so I was posting a link to be helpful.

    You're better off sticking with anecdoctal evidence to gauge the status of Senate races.


    S2G: va blogger - to answer your question, I think youngbuckbear's comment was necessary, given the unnecessary piles of smugness you dole out, often while being factually wrong. You know quite well that you were very excited to see any poll with any R beating any D for Senate, even though it is just Alabama.

    To recap:

    I posted a poll you missed. Youngbuckbear posted a sarcastic response. I asked him if such a response was neccesary, and then you stick your pretty little head in, not only endorsing YBB's sarcastic response, but then go on to question my motives.

    Like I said.

    Yes, you posted the link to the poll, which I appreciate. But it came after a sarcastic response and a questioning of my motives. If you're going to recap history, at least do a good job of it.

    And I had "zero credibility" with you the very first instant I posted anything critical of something you wrote. You claim to be open to all discussion, including among dissenters, but you give newred the same treatment you give me. Interesting; the two conservatives who have posted on your site have been met with hostility.

    You post as if your opinion of me matters.

    2:59 PM, November 23, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger said: "And I had 'zero credibility' with you the very first instant I posted anything critical of something you wrote."

    Wrong. Quite wrong.

    End of discussion. Enjoy the last word.

    3:17 PM, November 23, 2007  

    Post a Comment

    << Home