Election 2006 -- Race By Race

Nothing like covering an event in Indianapolis when the clocks are turned back or forward back home but not in the hotel, arena, or stadium.

 

Typical Indiana. They have to be different than everyone else, besides Arizona.

 

There's already spinning about "sixth-year midterms" and how, if the D's pick up 25 seats, and not 40, it's a disappointment.
Just to nip that in the bud, here are the last bunch of sixth-year midterms:
1958: 49 seats
1966: 47 seats
1974: 49 seats
1986: 5 seats
1998: 5 seats

Anybody see a trend?

 

Fenian,

I agree with Hotline's Chuck Todd. The Dems will either pick up just enough seats for a very small majority (i.e. a majority of 5 or less) or they get the 35-to-40 wave. There is no 25-seat in between. There are about 10 races that the Dems have all but sealed. They either get 7-8 more and gain control in name only or they get the big sweep. Your thoughts?

 

If I were betting today, I'd say Todd's hedging. I think it's very possible they'll middle it, but, if I only have two alternatives, I'll lean toward the wave.

 

I don't see the middling it. As Todd said in his most recent House rankings, if the Dems get those first 23-25 races, they have all the momentum to run the table. If the Dems win in CT, NY, OH, PA and IN like they have the potential to, they are going to get nearly every single winnable race. I just don't see the wave stopping short like that.

And I lean toward the wave as well. I was looking at the races in Todd's 25-40 range and I didn't see many where the GOP should be optimistic. Wisconsin 8 is a perfect example. It's a GOP-leaning swing district, Mark Green left to run for gov. GOP has a good candidate in Assembly Speaker John Gard, who is well-funded and the state/nat GOP cleared the field for him. And yet he trails Steve Kagen, who is not that good of a candidate, but is a self-funder running in the right year. If guys like Gard are going down, it's because there is a massive wave. If Gard wins, it is because the GOP is able to hold the line at 20 or under.

 

Hostettler's DOA.

 

Burns is creeping (an appropriate word) up, but he's going to have to kick it in, the final
48 hours, to live . . .

 

I'll be very surprised if Kyl goes down. If Jim Pederson wins, he'll be doing it despite his staff's efforts - they're easily the most incompetent campaign people I've encountered on any level. Even the hardcore Democrats in my newsroom are voting Libertarian because they can't bring themselves to support Pederson.

And from what I hear from our guy who's been traveling with the candidates, some top people in the AZ GOP think both JD Hayworth and Rick Renzi are going to lose.

 

I think Hostetler has tightened the race a little. About 3-4 weeks ago, it looked like a laugher where Ellsworth would get above 55. I'm very reluctant to write Hostetler off because his entire M.O. is winning unwinnable relections. I'll put it this way: a month ago, I would have bet a year's salary on Ellsworth. Now I might be willing to bet a month's.

 

There's a hidden Republican bias in Montana. Burns-Tester may be even according to polls, but chances are that Burns is really leading by 5-6 percent and will actually win easily, which is unfortunate since his firefighter-hating, crooked ass needs to be gone from public office.

 

Fenian, I never open political threads, so I have no idea why you would ask me.

But Anne Northup is one of the Kentucky politicians I've actually heard of. So if she's behind, I call that an upset.

There is my lone political post of this election season.



Oh, and Harold Ford Jr. doesn't look like Derek Jeter.