2006 U.S. Congressional Elections

[barbaro]

Here is a link listing every state, and every district, with every candidate up for election in about 16 weeks.

If folks want to note what they think will happen or won't happen, be a little specific. That's why this thread is being started.


(Darkhorse race in the Senate: Lieberman (D) from Connecticut. Watch out for Lamont. He's challenging with financial backing.

Total seats in House: 435
(R) 232
(D) 201
(I) 1

Link to all races in all districts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._complete_list

[stroller]

Maybe I could start a thread on the local council elections in lower Saxony?

Sorry, mm, I'm just not thrilled by the topic, wouldn't know Jack for Jill I'm afraid!

[barbaro]

^Sorry for the Yank-centric thread. Somebody kept babbling on about generalization but couldn't point to specifics. This thread is designed to him.

[barbaro]

(Darkhorse race in the Senate: Lieberman (D) from Connecticut. Watch out for Lamont. He's challenging with financial backing.

I just watched the debate.

Same 'ol stuff.

After 18 years, it's a good time for Lieberman to move on.

The primary is on August 8th.

[barbaro]

Storekeeper:

There is a new book coming out on July 18th, and I think I'll pick it up.

Here's a link to it. The preliminary reviews seem pretty good and there are some interesting details.

Link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/047...lance&n=283155

Excerpt

Despite poor polling for the Republicans, they are closer to making America a one-party country than most people imagine. One Party Country exposes the way Republicans have nearly completed their plan to:

• Make the most of redistricting, so that most congressional seats aren't really up for grabs
• Create software and databases the Democrats can only dream of—a huge advantage in turning out their base
• Make modern polling useless, since even the best polls can't measure the turnout advantage
• Turn big business into an arm of the party, from K Street to corporate boardrooms and sometimes onto the factory floor
• Stir up the religious right with one hand, while actually forwarding the competing agenda of their big donors with the other
• Create policies—like Iraq, Social Security privatization, and faith-based programs—that use the government's resources to tilt the electorate to the right and undermine the Democrats
• Neutralize the Democrats' traditional advantage with Hispanics, women, and African Americans
• Fill the courts with conservative judges ready to turn away challenges to this new order

This plan is not only audacious—it's working. Are there any flaws in Karl Rove's strategy? Are Democrats fighting back? Do they even have a clue what's going on? Read this dramatic and provocative exposé and find out.

[Storekeeper]

OK. I'll check it out. Snaffie everything I'm reading still doesn't indicate the Republicans are sweating bullets about the upcoming elections. Amazing ... they know they have more to lose than the Democrats but they ain't really to concerned it will actually happen.

[buadhai]

I'm beyond caring anymore. This from a guy whose first real job out of college was as a staffer on a Presidential political campaign. But, I've lived out of the US for 30 years now and haven't voted in a US national election since 1978....

[barbaro]

^^

The coming Congressionals are mostly for entertainment. It doesnt' matter which party wins, for the most part if one house is one party and the other house is another.

[Storekeeper]

^^

The coming Congressionals are mostly for entertainment. It doesnt' matter which party wins, for the most part if one house is one party and the other house is another.

Any seats opening in Washington State ?

[barbaro]

^ There are some campaigns in WA. I'm not following too closely. The link above in the OP notes some of them.

[Storekeeper]

Top 10 Senate Races to Watch in 2006

by John Hawkins
Posted Jul 12, 2006

Here are what appear to be, at least at this early stage, the key Senate races to watch for 2006:

Connecticut: Incumbent Joe Lieberman (D.) vs. Ned Lamont (D) vs. Alan Schlesinger (D.)

The number one priority of the Democratic "netroots" right now seems to be beating Joe Lieberman. All that attention seems to have paid off for Ned Lamont who has managed to close the gap and narrow Lieberman's lead over him to just 6 points according to a Rasmussen poll. If Lieberman loses, he has made it clear that he plans to run as an independent and this is where things could get really interesting. Some Democrats would undoubtedly back Lieberman, who would still probably be the strongest candidate, while others would back Lamont. If that were to happen, is it possible that Alan Schlesinger, who's polling way back at the moment, might be able to sneak in and win the seat? Perhaps, but even if Lieberman won as an independent, it's conceivable that you could see him take a few steps towards the center. This race has the potential to be a lot of fun if Lieberman loses the primary.

Maryland (Democratic Seat): Michael Steele (R.) vs. The Winner Of Ben Cardin (D.) & Kweisi Mfume (D.)

Normally, a Republican Senatorial candidate would have an extremely difficult time making any headway in a Democratic stronghold like Maryland. However, Michael Steele is drawing a lot of national attention -- and a strongly contested Democratic primary between Ben Cardin and Kweisi Mfume may create an opportunity for the GOP. According to a Washington Post poll, Mfume leads Cardin 31% to 25%.

Among registered voters, Cardin leads Steele, an African American, by 10 points while Mfume leads him by three points. Mfume and Steele are tied among likely voters.

If Cardin wins, Steele will probably have to make an uphill slog to attain victory, but if Mfume pulls off a win in the Democratic primary, look for this race to turn into a real dogfight that Steele has a decent shot of winning.

Minnesota (Democratic Seat): Mark Kennedy (R.) vs. Amy Klobuchar(D.)

Minnesota seems to be a state in transition. Not that long ago, it was considered a Democratic stronghold. Then, Jesse "The Body" Ventura was elected as Governor. After the Independent Ventura stepped out of the picture, Republican Tim Pawlenty captured the governorship and Norm Coleman managed to take a seat held by the late, great liberal Senator, Paul Wellstone. Can Mark Kennedy continue to pull Minnesota to the right? Maybe. It's a nip and tuck race with a Rasmussen poll showing Klobuchar ahead of Kennedy, 47% to 44%. This one still looks to be up in the air. Missouri: Incumbent Jim Talent (R.) vs. Claire McCaskill (D.)

This race is still wide open with a St. Louis Post Dispatch poll showing McCaskill up 49%-43% while a Zogby poll has Talent up 49% to 44%. Meanwhile, the latest Rasmussen poll has it tied at 42%. Who's going to win in the end? It's impossible to say at this point, although Talent has three times as much money on hand; so just grab the popcorn and keep your eyes on Missouri. Montana: Incumbent Conrad Burns (R.) vs. Jon Tester (D.)

You'd think a state like Montana, where George Bush won by 20 or more points in the last two elections, would be an easy retention for the GOP, but that is not proving to be the case. Conrad Burns, who had a surprisingly tough time with Democrat Brian Schweitzer in 2000, has been hampered by his ties to Jack Abramoff and is down to John Tester 50% to 43% in the latest Rasmussen poll. Those are poor numbers for an incumbent to have at this point in the election cycle and Burns is going to need to step his game up a notch or two to pull this one out.

New Jersey: Incumbent Robert Menendez (D.) vs. Tom Kean (R.)

This campaign has already turned into a real Garden State slugfest, with both candidates hurling barbs at each other left and right. In a liberal state like New Jersey, Menendez probably has the edge, but Kean is staying within striking distance. Rasmussen has it in Menendez's favor, 46%-41% while Zogby gives Menendez a smaller 1 point lead, at 41%-40%. Ohio: Incumbent Mike DeWine (R.) vs. Sherrod Brown (D.)

Mike DeWine has managed to infuriate a lot of conservatives by supporting the controversial Gang-of-14 compromise on judges and by being for the Senate's illegal immigration amnesty bill. Fortunately for DeWine, a bruising battle between Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett seems to have dampened Democratic enthusiasm for Brown. At the moment, Rasmussen has DeWine up 46% to 39%, although Brown has been staying within striking distance. Pennsylvania: Incumbent Rick Santorum (R.) vs. Bob Casey (D.) Rasmussen Reports puts Casey's lead over Santorum at a staggering 15%, while Zogby puts it at 7 points. Either way, Santorum has been in a deep hole since the beginning of this race and has been desperately trying to climb out. On the other hand, he does have a much larger campaign chest than Casey, who is thought to be a less than exciting candidate who has largely gotten by in Pennsylvania politics by exploiting his father's good name in the state. So, at the moment, the odds seem to be against Santorum, who's widely considered to be the most vulnerable GOP incumbent, but he still has a chance to pull out a victory before it's all said and done. Rhode Island: The Winner Of Incumbent Lincoln Chafee (R.) & Steven Laffey (R.) vs. Sheldon Whitehouse (D.)

Lincoln Chafee, a left-of-center Republican, has been engaged in a vicious primary with Steven Laffey. Because Laffey could conceivably defeat Chafee in the primary, but couldn't win in the general election, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has been attacking Laffey at every opportunity, even though it has probably cost them countless millions of dollars in fundraising opportunities because of complaints like this one. So if Laffey pulls it out, he'll be slaughtered. If Chafee wins, you'll see a demoralized Republican base being asked to support a candidate many of them don't really like in one of the most liberal states in America. That's not a very promising scenario for the GOP, especially since Whitehouse leads Chafee 38% to 37% and Laffey 55% to 25% in a Brown University poll. Washington: Incumbent Maria Cantwell (D.) vs. Mike McGavick (R.)

Maria Cantwell eked out a victory back in 2006 over Republican Slade Gorton by a little over 2000 votes -- and now she has another strong challenger in Mike McGavick. Perhaps that's why the National Journal's Hotline & the Cook Report have both said that Cantwell is the Democrats' most vulnerable incumbent. Of course, knocking off an incumbent is always tough duty, but with the latest Strategic Vision poll putting Cantwell up only 47% to 43%, McGavick should have a chance to pull it off.

[Storekeeper]

A Thought: The GOP Vs. Democrats

The Republican Party wins elections by coming up with good ideas and convincing people they're the right way to go and the Democrats win by handing out swag and pandering.

[barbaro]

This will be a tight race for control of the House.

CNN) -- Most Americans believe the GOP-controlled Congress has been a failure and say they plan to vote for Democrats in November, according to a poll released Wednesday.
Fifty-three percent of registered voters polled by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN said they were supporting Democrats, while 40 percent said they were leaning Republican. The remaining 7 percent either planned to support another party or had no opinion.
As for changing their minds when they get to the ballot box, only 43 percent of those planning to vote for Democrats said that was a possibility as opposed to 54 percent of those saying they plan to support Republicans.

I agree with SK on this.

Despite the apparent lack of confidence in the GOP, another question seemed to show that the respondents' confidence in Democrats was shaky, too. Asked which party would move the nation in the right direction, 43 percent said Republicans, compared to 41 who said Democrats.

Link: CNN.com - Control of Congress could change in '06, poll shows - Aug 9, 2006

The above article doesn't say much at all. But it does reveal how close many races will be, as well as control of the House.

The polling data that's out is organized and presented badly.

[Storekeeper]

ONE REASON WHY LIEBERMAN LOST

Post excerpted from Astute Blogger

I think that the fact that Joe is Jewish really hurt him with the base of the Democrats. HERE'S WHY: the Dems are no longer Israel's best friend; here's an excerpt from Michael Barone, commenting on a recent poll by the LAT and Bloomberg:

"[The poll asked:] Should the United States continue to align itself with Israel, adopt a more neutral posture, or align more with Arab countries?

By a 50 to 44 percent margin, respondents said we should stick with Israel rather than take a more neutral posture; only 2 percent want us to side more with Arab countries.

But there's a big difference between respondents of different parties. Here's a table showing the results, including independents.

Continue with Israel: Reps 64; Inds 46; Dems 39

More neutral posture R-29 ; I-49; D-54

We see a similar split on assessments of the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. The poll asked whether Israel's action was justified and not excessively harsh, justified but excessively harsh, or unjustified.... A majority, 56 percent, of Democrats think Israel did not act properly, while an even bigger majority, 64 percent, of Republicans think Israel did act properly. That's a pretty sharp difference."

I hope Jews still clinging to their Democrat Party affiliation are looking and listening - and rethinking their affiliation. After all, the majority of Dems think the USA should be neutral in dealings between Hizb'allah - (which until 9/11 had murdered more Americans than any other terrorist organization in the world, and which is a fanatical Islamofascist terrorist group - and Israel, (a staunch ally and a pluralistic democracy).

This is amoral, if not NUTS! Favoring neutrality toward any group of jihadomaniacs is at the very least appeasment. And I would argue it is anti-Semitic at its core - after all, Sheehan has repeatedly argued that her son Casey died for Israel. The Democrats who, like her, blame Israel, and the neocons, the Likud and/or Israel Lobby are the very same Democrats who comprise the netroots groups, who powered the Lamont victory. It is time for most Jews to vote GOP. The Dems don't trust you, or like Israel.

[Storekeeper]

Hey Milkman .... do you think that my boy rarcarey knows that the guy who beat Libermann for the Dem nod is a former Republican who owns Halliburton stock ? I didn't know that till I read it on one of your Libertarian websites the intellectual conservative today.

[Marmite the Dog]

Continue with Israel: Reps 64; Inds 46; Dems 39

More neutral posture R-29 ; I-49; D-54

So it seems that the Democrats are more in touch with reality. Just as we expected.

[man with no head]

Wonder what effect today's 'terrorist plot' will have on the outcome of the election?

[barbaro]

Hey Milkman .... do you think that my boy rarcarey knows that the guy who beat Libermann for the Dem nod is a former Republican who owns Halliburton stock ? I didn't know that till I read it on one of your Libertarian websites the intellectual conservative today.

I don't think folks know who Lamont is. I don't. (I'm not following too close.) But yeah, a lot of politicians owns stock of a lot of corporations.

As for the D's and R's and support of Israel.

The Bush administration's stand against an Israeli cease-fire, and shipping bombs to Israel after their air campaign, is the latest blow to America in Iraq.

Muqtada Al-Sadr and his Mahdi army, and his followers and sympathizers are anti-U.S., as is Al Sistani.

So, a significan number of Shiites and the Sunnis are against the U.S.

Although the U.S. has always been biased in its support of Israel, in the past the U.S. played the role of "third party negotiator." Well, not this time.

This was a big mistake.

[raycarey]

Although the U.S. has always been biased in its support of Israel, in the past the U.S. played the role of "third party negotiator." Well, not this time. This was a big mistake.

'cowboy diplomacy' doesn't seem to be getting the job done, does it?

[man with no head]

The Bush administration's stand against an Israeli cease-fire, and shipping bombs to Israel after their air campaign, is the latest blow to America in Iraq.

Muqtada Al-Sadr and his Mahdi army, and his followers and sympathizers are anti-U.S., as is Al Sistani.

So, a significan number of Shiites and the Sunnis are against the U.S.

Although the U.S. has always been biased in its support of Israel, in the past the U.S. played the role of "third party negotiator." Well, not this time.

This was a big mistake.

Maybe the only thing that can unite Iraq's factions is near universal anti-US sentiment?

What a waste of solder's lives and taxpayer's money.

Ever wonder how many uninsured children lacking health care in the U.S. these hundreds of billions would have helped?

[barbaro]

Maybe the only thing that can unite Iraq's factions is near universal anti-US sentiment?

What a waste of solder's lives and taxpayer's money.

Ever wonder how many uninsured children lacking health care in the U.S. these hundreds of billions would have helped?

Yes, it's costing a lot. The U.S. government can also secretly spend money in Iraq that we don't know about.

Lawrence Lindsey, was the Economic Advisor to W. Bush prior and just after the Americans attacked Iraq.

He was going around the U.S. giving speeches arguing that attacking Iraq would bring gasoline prices down because of increased oil supply, and that it would benefit the American economy. He has many speeches recorded about this.

The Bush administration then asked him to do a financial study on how much Iraq was going to cost. (Lindsey was an insider and high-lever member of the W. Bush administration.)

Lindsey did his economic study and released it publicly stating it would probably cost 1.9 Trillion dollars.

Bush and Rumsfeld went nuts. They publicly denounced his figure. Rumsfeld also rebuked him publicly stating Iraq would only cost $50 billion.

Lindsay left the adminitration (or was pushed out soon after).

[barbaro]

Republicans losing ‘security moms’

Married mothers leaning more toward Dems, polls show

By Jim VandeHei
Updated: 9:33 p.m. PT Aug 17, 2006

CLINTONVILLE, Ohio, Aug. 17 - Married women with children, the "security moms" whose concerns about terrorism made them an essential part of Republican victories in 2002 and 2004, are taking flight from GOP politicians this year in ways that appear likely to provide a major boost for Democrats in the midterm elections, according to polls and interviews.
This critical group of swing voters -- who are an especially significant factor in many of the most competitive suburban districts on which control of Congress will hinge -- is more inclined to vote Democratic than at any point since Sept. 11, 2001, according to data compiled for The Washington Post by the Pew Research Center.

Married mothers said in interviews here that they remain concerned about national security and the ability of Democrats to keep them safe from terrorist strikes. But surveys indicate Republicans are not benefiting from this phenomenon as they have before.

Disaffection with President Bush, the Iraq war, and other concerns such as rising gasoline prices and economic anxiety are proving more powerful in shaping voter attitudes.

Entire: WP: GOP losing 'security moms' - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com


------------------
Like I said a long time ago, the Dems will take the House. But don't expect any changes. The Ds and Rs are one political party that represent the same interests.

[man with no head]

I think people are getting tired of losing their liberties in the name of the 'war on terrorism.'

Just today Bush slammed the courts for making a wrong decision and basically calling them opponents who "do not understand the nature of the world in which we live."

Sorry, Bush, the Constitution won, the people won, and you lost. Get. Over. It.

I don't want someone in power who is going to trip all over themselves every time they have a chance to lower my freedom and break the law in some imaginary pursuit of a ficticious and endless 'war.' I want someone in power who is going to have an effective FOREIGN intelligence gathering agency that doesn't trample all over the rights of those people living peacefully IN the United States.

Bush blasts court ruling on surveillance - Yahoo! News

[Storekeeper]

You guys are totally losing it ... it's going to take alot more than what you guys are talking about to get the "Sheep" ... ... to abandon the Republican party.

[man with no head]

Anyone want to place bets on how many more 'terrorist' plots get uncovered before November? Or, if bin Laden suddenly gets captured?