2006 Midterm's

[BHAMBARONS]

2006 Election

 

 

Senate: Direction: Incumbent: Latest Poll:

 

Pennsylvania: Strong Democrat Rick Santorum Casey +16

Maryland: Strong Democrat Paul Sarbanes Cardin +14

New Jersey: Lean Democrat Robert Menendez Menendez +3

Florida: Lean Democrat Bill Nelson Nelson +9

Connecticut: Strong Democrat Joe Lieberman Lieberman +21

Michigan: Strong Democrat Debbie Stabenow Stabenow +21

Virginia: Strong Republican George Allen Allen +12

Montana: Leaning Democrat Conrad Burns Morrison +7

Missouri: Leaning Republican Jim Talent Talent +5

Washington: Strong Democrat Maria Cantwell Cantwell +14

Rhode Island: Leaning Republican Lincoln Chafee Chafee +7

North Dakota: Strong Republican Kent Conrad Conrad + 13

Minnesota: Toss-Up Mark Dayton Klobuchar +1

Ohio: Lean Republican Mike DeWine DeWine +5

Texas: Strong Republican Kay Hutchison Hutchinson+39

Vermont: Strong Independent Jim Jeffords Sanders + 45

Tennessee: Toss-Up Bill Frist Bryant +2

Arizona: Strong Republican Jon Kyl Kyl + 13

California: Strong Democrat Diane Feinstein Feinstein + 17

 

 

 

The other 14 have no polling data because of the race the seats are as follows: 8 Republican and 6 Democrat

 

If the elections were to happen today Democrats would pick up seats in Pennsylvania, Montana and the Senate would set 53-47

 

 

 

Governor: Direction: Incumbent: Latest Poll:

 

Pennsylvania: Toss-Up Ed Rendell Rendell +2

Ohio: Strong Democrat Bob Taft Strickland+12

South Carolina: Strong Republican Mark Sanford Sanford +12

Georgia: Strong Republican Sonny Purdue Purdue +20

Florida: Leaning Republican Jeb Bush Gallagher+12

Iowa: Toss-Up Tom Vilsack Culver +1

Michigan: Toss-Up Jennifer Granholm Granholm+1

California: Toss-Up Arnold Schwarzenegger Angelides+1

Arkansas: Strong Democrat Asa Hutchinson Beebe +10

Kansas: Leaning Democrat Kathleen Sebelius Sebelius +8

Arizona: Strong Democrat Janet Napolitano Napolitano +23

Alabama: Leaning Republican Bob Riley Riley +8

Wisconsin: Leaning Democrat Jim Doyle Doyle +8

Maine: Leaning Republican John Baldacci Emery +3

Nevada: Leaning Republican Kenny Guinn Gibbons +5

Minnesota: Toss-Up Tim Pawlenty Pawlenty+2

Colorado: Lean Democrat Bill Owens Hickenlooper+8

Maryland: Lean Republican Bob Ehrlich Ehrlich +4

Vermont: Strong Republican Jim Douglas Douglas +23

Illinois: Lean Republican Rod Blagojevich Topinka +9

New York: Strong Republican George Pataki Spitzer +25

 

 

12 races do not have data because of the race they are split 7 Republicans 5 Democrats. Mass has two candidates that are tied both have leads over Republican candidate. If elections held today Demo’s pick up Ohio, California, Arkansas, Colorado and New York. Republicans pick up Maine and Illinois to make it 25-25 split.

Edited February 23, 2006 by BHAMBARONS

[minors]

Hey it doesn't work

[BHAMBARONS]

couldn't get my attachment to work hopefully this will work

[Heads22]

Since Vander Plaats joined Nussle's campaign here I wonder if that will have much effect on the goings on around here.

 

Yay, my first gubernatorial election in November.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Elections are 8+ months away. Polls dont really mean a lot until the last month or so.

[samclemens]

a lot can happen between now and the elections. this poll is virtually worthless.

[WilliamTell]

Since Vander Plaats joined Nussle's campaign here I wonder if that will have much effect on the goings on around here.

 

Yay, my first gubernatorial election in November.

 

It will, I'm surprised Nussle isn't winning actually. But this will be a tight race and in the end I'm thinking and hoping Nussle pulls through.

[minors]

These polls are worthless by November the Gop will take control in the red states and the house, senate, gov spots will all have the same make up as now if not a bigger majority. I am looking forward to Elections becuase then it will become evident that the liberal message just doesn't work anymore

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

These polls are worthless by November the Gop will take control in the red states and the house, senate, gov spots will all have the same make up as now if not a bigger majority.  I am looking forward to Elections becuase then it will become evident that the liberal message just doesn't work anymore

 

 

 

^^^^^

 

 

[BHAMBARONS]

a lot can happen between now and the elections. this poll is virtually worthless.

 

Yes I understand this I put this up there so it can be updated every so often and in November to see how things have changed that it's I realize these polls are nothing.

[Heads22]

These polls are worthless by November the Gop will take control in the red states and the house, senate, gov spots will all have the same make up as now if not a bigger majority.  I am looking forward to Elections becuase then it will become evident that the liberal message just doesn't work anymore

 

The Democratic Party: Killing babies and stomping puppies since 1792. We also hate God and love ice cream sandwiches.

[minors]

The Democratic Party: Killing babies and stomping puppies since 1792. We also hate God and love ice cream sandwiches.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You need to change that to 1992 when Clinton was elected. It will be fun to watch the democrats again this Novemeber squirm. I wonder what kind of excuse they will make next the line of the republicans throwing the election (2000 FLA, 2004 Ohio) that line is getting old.

[YASNY]

Actually, I hope the Democrats gain a majority in at least one of the houses of congress.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually, I hope the Democrats gain a majority in at least one of the houses of congress.

I think that is a possibility. But I think both houses will get very, very close to even, which in itself could make things better. If there is only a 2 or 4 seat gap in either house, there are always enough swing votes to call any partisan vote into question.

[NorthSideSox72]

Elections are 8+ months away.  Polls dont really mean a lot until the last month or so.

 

 

a lot can happen between now and the elections. this poll is virtually worthless.

 

 

These polls are worthless by November the Gop will take control in the red states and the house, senate, gov spots will all have the same make up as now if not a bigger majority.  I am looking forward to Elections becuase then it will become evident that the liberal message just doesn't work anymore

 

I see a theme here...

 

I agree that the polls are not exactly all-knowing, but with Congressional races, it means more now than +8-month polls would on a Prez election. Reason being, on congressional races, people vote less on the person and more on party. And opinions on party don't change as rapidly as they do on an individual candidate. So I wouldn't say they are worthless - I'd call them a leading indicator.

[minors]

I see a theme here...

 

I agree that the polls are not exactly all-knowing, but with Congressional races, it means more now than +8-month polls would on a Prez election.  Reason being, on congressional races, people vote less on the person and more on party.  And opinions on party don't change as rapidly as they do on an individual candidate.  So I wouldn't say they are worthless - I'd call them a leading indicator.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The more I look at these numbers the better I feel as a conservative we are leading or very competitive in states that are solid blue states. The polls even after the Abramoff scandals and still looking good for republicans.

[Rex Kickass]

If the elections were held today, the GOP would lose five seats in the Senate.

[Balta1701]

If the elections were held today, the GOP would lose five seats in the Senate.

Not necessarily. Recent History shows the GOP has a strong trend of being able to pick up votes beyond where they're polling due entirely to turnout, driven by things like gay marriage amendments and so forth. Bush wound up quite a bit higher in the general than he was showing in many of the polls right before the election (albiet within the margin of error of most of them), the Dems have been showing leads in generic Congressional ballots since at least early 2004, etc.

[Balta1701]

I think that is a possibility.  But I think both houses will get very, very close to even, which in itself could make things better.  If there is only a 2 or 4 seat gap in either house, there are always enough swing votes to call any partisan vote into question.

But see, the one thing I still point to is that if the Republicans keep both houses, but even have only a 1 seat majority in both houses...they still will manage to hold onto the gavels in every single committee. That means that the Republicans will still be able to prevent the Democrats from having any sort of investigation, swearing in witnesses, or issuing subpoenas, just as they have done the last 4 years.

 

I don't mind a 1-2 seat Democratic Majority in 1 house with the Republicans holding the majority in the other house. Wouldn't mind that outcome at all. If I had to give up the White House in 2008 to get 1 house of Congress in 2006 so that the Democrats could get subpoena power, I'd do it. Just so that there is finally some sort of check on Mr. Bush's power, and tens of billions more dollars can't simply disappear like they have in Iraq.

[NorthSideSox72]

But see, the one thing I still point to is that if the Republicans keep both houses, but even have only a 1 seat majority in both houses...they still will manage to hold onto the gavels in every single committee.  That means that the Republicans will still be able to prevent the Democrats from having any sort of investigation, swearing in witnesses, or issuing subpoenas, just as they have done the last 4 years.

 

I don't mind a 1-2 seat Democratic Majority in 1 house with the Republicans holding the majority in the other house.  Wouldn't mind that outcome at all.  If I had to give up the White House in 2008 to get 1 house of Congress in 2006 so that the Democrats could get subpoena power, I'd do it.  Just so that there is finally some sort of check on Mr. Bush's power, and tens of billions more dollars can't simply disappear like they have in Iraq.

I think I must be misunderstanding something. How would a party have "the gavel" in all the committees by having just a 1 seat majority? I didn't think it worked that way. Some committees will have Dem chairs and/or Dem majorities in that scenario. Am I misunderstanding your meaning of "the gavel"?

[Balta1701]

I think I must be misunderstanding something.  How would a party have "the gavel" in all the committees by having just a 1 seat majority?  I didn't think it worked that way.  Some committees will have Dem chairs and/or Dem majorities in that scenario.  Am I misunderstanding your meaning of "the gavel"?

As far as I know, when you have a majority at all in either house, you get the committee chairs. Which is why in 2001, the switch by Jeffords from voting with the Republican Caucus to voting with the Democratic caucus, which only gave the Dems a 1 seat advantage, was enough to put Democratic chairs on the committees. The party in control of the house, whether by 1 seat or 20 seats, chairs the committees.

[BHAMBARONS]

I am looking at my interactive map 270 to win.com and as of now I see Warner and Richardson as the best bests. I think Richardson would make a fine president.

[NorthSideSox72]

I am looking at my interactive map 270 to win.com  and as of now I see Warner and Richardson as the best bests.  I think Richardson would make a fine president.

I brought him up in the Indie thread as a possibility. He has done a lot of positive things for NM, but he has apparently ignored a few big problems in his state as well (such as grazing rights versus wilderness protection). But overall, he seems a good candidate. I just don't know if he can get his profile high enough to get the momentum he would need.