January 14, 2004
60-40 VISION FILES:
Aiming for the Hill: Two more Senate seats for the GOP? (John J. Miller, January 14, 2004, National Review)
This year's field of Senate candidates has come into much sharper focus since my previous reports in September and July. And that means it's time to make a few predictions.But first, the big picture: Republicans control the Senate with 51 seats. If President Bush wins reelection, they can afford to lose a single seat and stay in charge, with Vice President Cheney breaking ties. If the Democratic nominee prevails, the GOP has no margin for error.
In November, 34 states will elect a senator. The Democrats are defending 19 of these seats and the Republicans hold the remaining 15. Few of these races are truly competitive — I've kept an eye on 18 of them, using a fairly generous standard of what makes a race worth watching.
It's still very early in the cycle, but I'm ready to begin making a few guesses: three GOP takeovers, one Democratic takeover, and four tossups (for two seats now held by Republicans and two by Democrats). If my assumptions are correct — and this isn't a money-back guarantee, folks! — then the likeliest scenario would be for the GOP to gain a pair of Senate seats and increase its majority to 53.
Herewith, my quick analysis of 18 races:
Worst case. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 14, 2004 09:28 PM
Why don't you sponser a contest with magnificent prizes for those who can best project the Senate's composition post 2004 reallignment. Of course, accurate projections by state will be the tie breaker.
It could be really fun for we pencil necked poli sci majors among your readers.
Posted by: Ray Clutts at January 14, 2004 09:59 PMWe're efforting it even now, with weighted results the earlier you put in your picks.
Posted by: oj at January 14, 2004 10:09 PMThe fundraising in Oklahoma is troubling. Henry is going to need a lot of money to win this state that goes so conservative on federal races, but Humphreys ought to be running better regardless. I suppose part of it could be spillover donations from the Dem presidential candidates who have been visiting the state (while the Bush people haven't had reason to yet), but still...
Posted by: kevin whited at January 14, 2004 11:01 PMMiller (if I remember correctly) was pessimistic for the 2002 races (had GOP losing 2 instead of gaining 2) and called several races neck and neck that the GOP won easily.
GOP should pick up the open Dem seats (except maybe Lousiana) and probably will get a surprise or 2 (South Dakota) but needs to hold Alaska, Oklahoma, etc. As discussed before who Bush faces and how big Bush wins by (assuming he wins which I think he will) will help pull some others along.
A contest sounds like a good idea.
It's embarrassing that anyone the GOP throws out is trailing Patty Murray.
Posted by: Matt C at January 15, 2004 10:21 AMMiller has Sen. Boxer of CA as leaning toward a Democrat retention. This is nonsense. Opinion polls taken during the recall showed her with an approval rating much lower than 50%, the classic sign of a vulnerable incumbent. Her seat is a least a tossup, if not leaning toward a Republican pickup.
As for Patty Murray, the statistics Miller cites do not impress me. Here in California, a district is considered safely Democratic only if 55% or more of its registered voters are Democrats (apparently, Republicans vote more often). Surely there are enough Democrats and independents embarrassed by Murray to make that race a tossup.
Posted by: Kevin Colwell at January 15, 2004 03:35 PMMiller's predictions are in line with Sabatos, at least on the total of 23, but I don't know how he thinks Bowles has a shot in NC, and I don't think the nepotism thing is going to hurt in Alaska as much as others seem to, and Oklahoma is not even close to in play just because Nickles is retiring. (they made that same mistake last year with both Carolinas)
I'm sticking to a total of 55
Posted by: MarkD at January 15, 2004 10:15 PM