Can the Democrats take over control of the Senate in 2004?

[terrya]

I know the election is a year away. But is there a realistic chance that the Democrats can regain control of the Senate?

IF Bush wins...I don't even want to think about him putting more ultra right wingers on the federal judiciary bench. Not to mention, god forbid, a couple of Supreme Court vacancies. A Democratic controlled Senate would be a balance to that.

I'm just not sure about the Democrats chances for control of the Senate next year. Here in Illinois, the Democrats stand a good chance of reclaiming the seat held by a Republican (Peter Fitzgerald). But then the Repugs stand a good chance of reclaiming the seat in North Carolina (where John Edwards isn't running for reelection)

Am I being a worrywart about this?

[benddem]

1. We can take back the senate if

They don't fix the voting machines again.

[La_Serpiente]

2. No

when the framers were creating the Senate in the Constitution, they made it so that only 1/3 of the Senators will be up for election each two years. This is because they didn't want national outrages or anything to affect their reputations unlike their couterparts in the House.

This year, it's the South's turn and a lot of Democratic Sen. are going to retire. I don't see us taking back the Senate.

However, there is optimism in the North. There is Illinois and Pennsylvania hopefully. In Pennsylvania, Sen. Arling Specter might be beat out by a extremist Republican in the primary. This would allow the Dem. to present himself as a moderate on issues and easily win the seat.

[goobergunch]

3. It's possible

but it will be difficult.

http://www.freewebs.com/goobergunch/gpr.html

[jeter]

4. It won't be difficult, what are you guys talking about

We have to pick up two seats. In 2000, everyone said it was "impossible" because we needed 5 seats. It was 55 Rep. to 45 Dem. We picked up 5 Senate seats in that election fdr a tie 50-50 Senate.

Historically 2 seats is nothing.

We just need good candidates and a strong message. It looks as if we will have good candidates for those southern states. And the Rep's are vulnerable in at least 3 seats, possibly more if we have some imagination and don't give up so early on them (as we seem to have a tendency to do). I think they GOP are vulnerable in Alaska, Illinois (which seem almost certain Dem pick ups). We have a good chance in Colorado, Missouri, and Oklahoma. If we run good candidates we may win New Hampshire, Maine, and Pennsylvania.

That means we have potential in 8 senate races. If we pick up two of them we've got the Senate back.

Stop being so negative.

[Rowdyboy]

5. We also have to hold on

in South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia-none of which is going to be easy. I'm sorry, the truth is, retaking the senate would be a minor miracle. We have 19 seats to their 15 and retirements haven't gone our way.

[goobergunch]

9. Alaska is a toss-up

And I don't think we even have candidates yet in Colorado or Missouri. Missouri especially is winnable, but you can't beat a Senator without a candidate.

(NOTE: I think I remember hearing something about Nancy Farmer running in MO.)

I highly doubt we're going to beat Judd Gregg; as for Maine, I don't even think there's a Senate seat up there.

And Georgia looks like a near-certain loss due to our lack of a candidate. The analogy is Illinois:Democrats::Georgia:Repukes.

[NewJerseyDem]

11. It will be difficult

First of all, there is no race in Maine in 2004.

The biggest problem isn't the number of seats but where those seats are.

Democratic seats up in 2004: 19
In states won by Bush: 10 3, possibly 5, retirements
In states won by Gore: 9 0 retirements

Republican seats up in 2004: 15
In states won by Bush: 12 1 retirement
In states won by Gore: 3 1 retirement

That chart shows that democrats have to win in a lot of red states and in some cases in open races.

Right now, it seems almost impossible for us to win in New Hampshire and we still don't really have a candidate in Colorado. In Pennsylvania, it will be very hard unless Specter loses in the primary. Missouri will also be very hard. We should win in Illinois and I also think that we have a good shot at Alaska and Oklahoma. I'd also add Kentucky where we may get a strong candidate after the state elections in November, so we may have an off shot there like in Missori.

But, we are very vulnerable in 3 open seats in the south, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia (where we have no candidate). Plus, an open seat in Louisiana is likely and that seat will be a fight to hold. We may also have an open seat in Florida and that could be trouble. Then, Tom Daschle may be vulnerable if John Thune runs. Republicans also have oppurtunities in Washington, Arkansas, Wisconsin, California, and Nevada where we must be concerned but we will probably win.

So, in general I think that we can win back the senate but it will be an uphill battle.

However

[poskonig]

15. It is difficult because we are playing a lot of defense.

eom

[zubeneshamali]

6. May happen sooner than that

if we can get a few more good men like Jeffords to see the light.

:think: :think: :think: :think: :think: :think:

[terrya]

7. Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island, for instance?

I like your optomism, zubeneshamali

[sandnsea]

8. The Insider Cockroaches?

I thought we didn't want them.

No, the die is cast. They'll all be thrown out on their asses because we're too fucking stupid to appreciate what we have; while the right will just froth at the mouth and vote the R.

[Vis Numar]

10. Yep

Illinios, Pennsylania, Alaska.

[carpetbagger]

12. It's possible, but unlikely.

The seats that are reasonably up for grabs are Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and South Dakota. There are others, but I expect that a few expectedly tight races won't materialize on each side. That's 7 dems and 4 republicans up for grabs, and that would mean the democrats need to win 9 of 11 tight races. That would require a national tilt towards us, as well as some good fortune race by race. Possible, but tough.

P.S. I think a Chaffee defection is possible but unlikely with a Bush re-election and a 50-50 split, but he's unlikely to defect if the democrats hold the White House.

[Silverhair]

13. Difficult

Democrats have more seats up for reelection than the Reps do, so we are more vunerable.

Usually, the party that wins the presidency picks up seats in both house & senate.

While the poll numbers are trending in a good direction for us, I would not place much faith in them this early. W is not yet campaigning, which for him is the correct move. Politics is a bit like chess, in which certain moves are predictable. The correct move for W is to gather campaign funds, act like he is presidental and above the fray until the Democrats have a definate candidate. For now he would have his men doing oppo research. It is going to be a difficult election. Rove is sharp and W proved in 02 that he can campaign and has coattails.

If we lose seats in the senate and lose the presidency badly, like McGovern or Mondale did, then we will lose the ability to filibuster and block things. We will be marginalized.

Personally, I think Clark is our best chance.

[lostnfound]

14. Campaigning should be "We need Dem pres & congress to reverse all Bush*"

to reverse all that Bush has done to us like patriot act and the environment

[mandyky]

16. Who is up for re-election in 2004?

I think Bunning and McConnell just got 6 more years 2years ago, here in KY. We might be able to pick up Nichols (R - OK). I just am not sure who else is running in the Rs this cycle.

[NewJerseyDem]

18. Senators up for reelection

Republicans

Gregg
Specter
Shelby
Bunning
Voinovich
Fitzgerald (retiring)
Bond
Grassley
Brownback
Nickles (retiring)
Campbell
Crapo
Bennett
McCain
Murkowski

Democrats

Leahy
Dodd
Schumer
Mikulski
Edwards (retiring)
Hollings (retiring)
Miller (retiring)
Graham (may retire)
Breaux (may retire)
Lincoln
Bayh
Feingold
Dorgan
Daschle
Reid
Boxer
Wyden
Murray
Inouye

[Loyal]

20. I see a possible +1 for us,

assuming that Dean wins the nomination and wins the GE, then we will have a tiebreaking vote in the house with the vice president. This is assuming that no more Democratic senators announce retirement, and that we win Illinois, and do not lose SC, NC, or GA. Easier said than done. We could very well lose one or two seats.

[meisje]

17. yeah, just like we took cali... uhh

[Loyal]

19. Probably not

But it's WAYY more possible than the House. The House is all but impossible now, considering the redistricting in Texas.

[Loyal]

21. I see a possible +1 for us,

assuming that a non-(sitting) Senator wins the nomination and wins the GE, then we will have a tiebreaking vote in the house with the vice president. This is assuming that no more Democratic senators announce retirement, and that we win Illinois, and do not lose SC, NC, or GA. Easier said than done. We could very well lose one or two seats.

[greendog]

22. How would a Democrat controlled Senate help with the Supreme Court?

Antonin Scalia was confirmed by the Senate 98-0. Not a single Democrat voted aganst him.

Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate with 11 Democrats crossing over to vote with the Republicans ... AFTER the whole Anita Hill controversy.

[rusk2003]

23. I think so but

it will be hard mostly getting voters to turn out.


They must reminds voters of the
the corporate scandals,layoffs,leaks of classified infomration,the faluire of the Iraq war,poor ecconomy, etc. This all happened when every branch of the Governmnet is Republican Conservative so I think if the Democrats remind people and give them alternatives I do not see why not.

It will be a lot easier geting control of the House since every seat is up for grabs. But only a fraction of the Senate is up for grabs.