Is it nearly impossible?

[Democratic Hawk]

Yeah, it's impossible.  2000 was a Democratic year in the Senate.  Barring another Watergate, there simply aren't enough vulnerable Republican seats in 2006, not to mention that we have our own seats to defend.  If the Democrats take back the senate in this decade, at best it will be in 2008, riding on the coat tails of a good presidential candidate.  We will then proceed to lose the majority in 2010.

I pretty much agree with what you have said

The way I see it is that one can more or less rule out the Democrats gaining control of the Senate in 2006. They may have a better chance in 2008 since there were a few close contests in 2002 (Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, for example) and with the right candidate for President and the right candidates in marginal GOP Senate seats, they may very well be in with a better shot. Furthermore, a good presidential (i.e. electable) candidate may shore up support for any vulnerable Democratic incumbents

As far as 2006 goes - forget it,  unless Bush's or the GOP's ratings plummet significantly below current levels; but as of now (please correct me if I'm mistaken), I don't see the Democrats really benefiting from it. Only time will tell

Dave

[Keystone Phil]

Yeah, it's impossible.  2000 was a Democratic year in the Senate.  Barring another Watergate, there simply aren't enough vulnerable Republican seats in 2006, not to mention that we have our own seats to defend.  If the Democrats take back the senate in this decade, at best it will be in 2008, riding on the coat tails of a good presidential candidate.  We will then proceed to lose the majority in 2010.

I pretty much agree with what you have said

The way I see it is that one can more or less rule out the Democrats gaining control of the Senate in 2006. They may have a better chance in 2008 since there were a few close contests in 2002 (Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, for example)

Missouri won't matter in 2008. Talent is up in 2006. What happened was Carnahan died and his wife took over so when someone is appointed to take the candidate's place, they must face an election two years after being elected, as opposed to the usual six. Even with that special election after just two years, the seat is up again when it is supposed to be up (in this case 2006).

[Gustaf]

I voted yes. However, I don't consider it true that Democrats will necessarily be so shut out of the senate. The GOP has the upper hand, but I don't think Democrats will cease to hold senate seats in the South and West. We should all keep in mind that the contests in Kentucky, Alaska, Lousiana, Florida and South Dakota were all very close. The Republicans, IMO, had a bit of luck in 2004 in that all of the marginal seats went their way. Many of those could swing back.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well what did we all learn?

[Alcon]

Well what did we all learn?

Nothing new?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How about "Don't ever trust George Allen not to completely f**k things up?"

[Alcon]

How about "Don't ever trust George Allen not to completely f**k things up?"

Not new...

[opebo]

Haha, hilarious thread!

[Verily]

Well what did we all learn?

Well, those who didn't know it already now know that trying to predict elections a year in advance is A Bad Idea With Capital Letters.

[Boris]

Wow, we really suck at making long-term election predictions.

[elcorazon]

Even if 2006 becomes the Dems' equivilant to the GOP's 1994 (and I in no way believe that it will turn out that way), isn't it almost impossible for them to gain control of the Senate next year?

Reasonable to somewhat reasonable necessary pickups (They would need to pick up all of the following seats): Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Montana, Missouri and Ohio.

The remaining Republican seats are Maine, Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Indiana, Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona and Nevada. (I think we can all agree that the Dems are very unlikely to pickup any of these seats, including TN.)

So let's see here. The GOP has 55 Senators. Subtract the five from the reasonable to somewhat reasonable necessary pickups list and you have 50 GOP Senators. Even when you forget the fact that the GOP could end up picking up four to five seats, the Dems still cannot win back the upper body of the Congress.

Actually, when you think about it, the analysis wasn't that bad.  It just left out the possibility that some candidates might implode (George Allen) and underestimated the appeal of Harold Ford, Jr. (even though he lost, he certainly proved he had a "chance").  The tide turned enough that all the races Phil was worried about even a little, the dems took.

The reality was the dems taking the Senate WAS NEARLY Impossible.  Yet they did it.  Awesome.

[Stranger in a strange land]

1. don't try to make election predictions a year and a half out

2. the unexpected will happen

3. talk of a permanent republican majority was grossly premature

[TheresNoMoney]

Montana is the Senate race I'm most looking forward to in 2006.

Even back in the summer of 2005, I knew that Tester had a great shot to win!

[Gabu]

Yeah, it's pretty much impossible, barring some horrible GOP scandal.

Looks like Ebowed nailed it.

[Akno21]

Yeah, it's pretty much impossible, barring some horrible GOP scandal.

Looks like Ebowed nailed it.

Was it really scandal? Aside from Conrad Burns, Republican Senate losses can be more directly tied to Iraq, general unhappiness with Bush, or individual candidates repeatingly shooting themselves in the foot.

[Gabu]

Was it really scandal? Aside from Conrad Burns, Republican Senate losses can be more directly tied to Iraq, general unhappiness with Bush, or individual candidates repeatingly shooting themselves in the foot.

I'm thinking of the word "macaca".  Had Virginia not been in play, the Democrats would have had no chance whatsoever of taking back the Senate, and Virginia would not have been in play had Allen not shot himself in the foot and started murmurs that he was racist.

[MarkWarner08]

In 2006, Dems have a chance for pickups in PA, RI, and MT as well as MO and OH (if McCaskill and Brown run). TN and AZ are possible but the chances are slim.

Dems should have a 3-seat pickup goal.

2008 will also offer pickup opportunities in states like CO, MN, NH and open seats like Maine (if Collins retires like she's supposed to), Alaska (if Stevens retires) and Virginia (if Warner retires).

Prescience. It's a gift that you have. BTW, congrats on Hodes and Shea-Porter!

[MarkWarner08]

Yeah, it's pretty much impossible, barring some horrible GOP scandal.

Looks like Ebowed nailed it.

Was it really scandal? Aside from Conrad Burns, Republican Senate losses can be more directly tied to Iraq, general unhappiness with Bush, or individual candidates repeatingly shooting themselves in the foot.

The Foley scandal probably shifted the House shift from 12-18 to 29-?. I don't think it played much of a role in the Senate races.

Santorum lost because of Santorum, DeWine lost because he was an Ohio Republican, Chafee lost because he was a Republican, Talent lost because he was a rubber stamp Republican in a purple state, Burns lost because of Jack Abramoff and Brian Schweitzer's late boost for Tester and Allen lost because of an Asian monkey.

I went 13/13 in the Senate and 45/64 in the House. I will never again buy hype about a Jewish Democrat from New York winning in Wyoming. http://www.predict06.com/people/profile/1794?filter=House

[opebo]

Was it really scandal? Aside from Conrad Burns, Republican Senate losses can be more directly tied to Iraq, general unhappiness with Bush, or individual candidates repeatingly shooting themselves in the foot.

I'm thinking of the word "macaca".  Had Virginia not been in play, the Democrats would have had no chance whatsoever of taking back the Senate, and Virginia would not have been in play had Allen not shot himself in the foot and started murmurs that he was racist.

But why would that hurt him in Virginia?  Perhaps because it made him seem stupid for not using better 'code-words' like smarter Republicans, but certainly not for the racism itself, which is always a sure vote-getter (see TN).

[Gustaf]

It was nearly impossible. Had not Foley, Macaca and all of that happened the Democrats wouldn't have taken back the senate. Also, Ford probably wouldn't have come as close either. One may also note that no one, not even the most partisan Democrats were predicting a Democrat take-over at this point.

[Alcon]

Was it really scandal? Aside from Conrad Burns, Republican Senate losses can be more directly tied to Iraq, general unhappiness with Bush, or individual candidates repeatingly shooting themselves in the foot.

I'm thinking of the word "macaca".  Had Virginia not been in play, the Democrats would have had no chance whatsoever of taking back the Senate, and Virginia would not have been in play had Allen not shot himself in the foot and started murmurs that he was racist.

But why would that hurt him in Virginia?  Perhaps because it made him seem stupid for not using better 'code-words' like smarter Republicans, but certainly not for the racism itself, which is always a sure vote-getter (see TN).

So, what caused his sudden cratering in the polls after the incident?

[Defarge]

Oh how wrong we were

[Keystone Phil]

Yeah, we did learn something. Let's apply that to 2008 before we all start saying that the Dems are guarenteed to increase their majority.

[elcorazon]

odd thing for me to say, but Phil is correct.  2008 is a LONG way off, people.

[TheresNoMoney]

Prescience. It's a gift that you have.

Thank you. I am partisan, but very objective when it comes to elections. I think I have a good feel for the average voter.