beasley vs. demint, sc runoff

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Beasely and DeMint are both very flawed candidates.

Beasely was a very unpopular governor who lost an election.
DeMint supports free trade. SC is a very protectionist state.

So it's tough to say who has the better chance, but Tenenbaum's chances are much better than any Democrat should have.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Furman, in Greenville (DeMint's area).

do you go to Bob Jones "University"?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And how is Virginia getting more Republican? What areas? Fairfax? Newport News? *laughs*

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Are you serious?

Competitive states by likely Presidential winner:

Bush

North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Louisiana
Florida
South Dakota
Colorado
Alaska
Oklahoma

Kerry

Illinois

Right off the bat, something becomes apparent: all except one major battle is being fought in Bush territory. So, all else being equal, Republicans would win every single one. Of course, all things are not equal- some candidates are stronger than others, or could turn out to be stronger.

However, most laypeople overestimate the degree to which voters split their ballots. Turnout is highest in Presidential years, and the 'extra' voters are the least likely of all to split. About 2/3 of the electorate votes for a more or less straight ticket- 1/3 for each party. But of course the parties are not of equal strength.

Thus, in, say, North Carolina, Bush should win by 11-16%, depending on his overall performance (I would say 14% is a good figure). In any case, that means well over 10% of Bush voters will have to vote Bowles PLUS the number of Kerry voters that vote Burr (a reasonably small number, but significant if you consider his local strength). So perhaps 15% of Bush's supporters have to go Bowles. Not going to happen. I think Burr is actually a better candidate than Bowles, but he could be inferior by a marginal degree and still win.

Louisiana is always difficult to predict, as it depends on the winner amongst the Democrats. A Northern Democrat last won Louisiana in 1960-- because Kennedy was Catholic. Kerry is, but is secular and disliked by religious voters. Bush will win by 4-10%, perhaps a bit higher if he routs Kerry nationally. John and Vitter are roughly equal candidates- Vitter is a bit better on his own but John is endorsed by Breaux- so this leans GOP. It is not by any means a sure thing. In a non-Presidential year, it would lean DNC.

Colorado is the race everyone thinks Democrats are going to win- for some reason- but will in fact lose, and perhaps handily. 'Celebrity' type candidates always beat expectations, and Coors is surprisingly adept politically. He is well funded in a state Bush will win by 6-12%, and his name recognition is obviously very good. And, let's face it, someone with 'Salazar' as a last name loses 1-2% off the top. Just ask 'Governor' Jindal about it. The Dems did well to get Salazar in the running (he's the only Democrat with any chance at all), but only a fool would give him the race at this point.

Most of the races are the same pattern... strong Dem candidates in Bush country. History is not on their side. EVEN IF BUSH LOSES THE NATIONAL ELECTION he will win those states, or most of them. In 2000, for instance, Slade Gorton lost because GORE helped his opponent in Washington (Gore won by 6%)... Cantwell won by 2,000 total votes. Stabenow also has Gore to thank: he won Michigan by 5%; she won by 1%.

And even when the results do not follow as such, the effect is still clear. In the 2000 Pennslyvania Senate race, Santorum beat Klink 53-45. In a non-Presidential year, he most likely would have won 58-40, perhaps by even more, but Klink was helped by Gore's win and the limited split-ticket voting for people that primarily vote in Presidential elections.

Trust me, the Democrats are not in good shape- whatever your liberal friends tell you. Much better shape than anticipated, but bleak nonetheless. GOP gains 2-3 seats, 4 if Bush wins big.

states in 2000 that had a different Senate race outcome than the presidential race:

North Dakota
Florida (disputable, but you would think so)
Georgia
Missouri
Pennsylvania
Vermont
Maine
West Virginia

and compare the margin of victories between the Senate and Presidential candidates in states like New Jersey and New Mexico, and it becomes obvious that a lot more split ticketing than you claim going on.

now to knock off some of your other points:

there is NO way the LA race leans GOP. You won't find a single serious analysist who says so. Even though Bush will probably win Louisiana easily, John is far more conservative than Kerry, so he could easily pick up much of the Bush vote, especially since Democrats have a commanding registration advantage in LA. Now lots are too conservative to vote for Kerry yes, but they'll vote for John. And Breaux is far more popular than Bush in LA, so his endorsement will mean more weight. And of course, there's the whole run off deal meaning this would likely be decided  not on election day. Only 2 years ago, LA reelected the far more liberal Landrieu. And finally, LA hasn't elected a Republican Senator since the Civil War. This race is a toss up only under absolutely best possible conditions for you.

Bush will not win by 14 points in NC. I'd put 10 as the best/worst case scenario. All the recent polls showing it being a lot closer than expected.

Colorado is the state where Republicans like to ignore all the polls giving Salazar a clear lead. And his last name obviously didn't stop him from getting 57% in his last election. Besides, the people who would refuse to vote for someone for that reason aren't the type who would vote for a Democrat anyway, the problem with the Jindal analogy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If you honestly think you every single Perot voter would've voted Republican if Perot wasn't in the race you are so dumb you aren't even worth arguing with. I'm so sure that Bush I would've beaten Clinton, a far weaker candidate than Dukakis by a much wider margin than Dukakis at a time when he was much more unpopular than he was in 1988. Add the Perot vote to Bush I's and Clinton loses every state except Arkansas and narrow pularalities in Maryland and New York. Yep, if it wasn't for Perot Bush would've won Rhode Island.

I don't see how you could say Landrieu would've lost in a presidential year, when THE ELECTION WOULD'VE NOT BEEN HELD THE SAME DAY AS THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. No split ticketing would've taken place that day. Landrieu probably would've done a little poorer the election day, but it would've had no effect on the run off.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If she was such a weak candidate, she wouldnt' be leading in most polls so far either.

also, women candidates usually do better for the Democrats down south, probably because they attract female voters more. If she can win a majority of the female vote, that + the black vote will put her over the top.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Beasley 52%
DeMint 48%