Hey, I'm gone for a few days.

The HR looks good, except for that I think Johnson will lose, and that Carnahan is
a toss-up; and that Sanders and Kirk will pull upsets.

Carnahan looks pretty strong here. The race will tighten, but Talent's commercials are horrible. While nominally 'on message' he looks like a giant wuss. His strength outstate has not been that great and his strategy isn't helping. Carnahan has neutralized the cultural issue of guns pretty well (despite being made fun of pointing out she is a hell of a shot).

In short, Talent hasn't increased his vote base from his run for governor two years ago and she has by being fairly moderate.

Looks like you're projecting a two-seat pick-up. I'm in the 1-2 pick-up range because I can't convince myself that all the vulnerable Dem. incumbents will win. As I'm sure so many of you have, I've gone back in forth as to who is the most vulnerable. Right now, I'm thinking Carnahan. But don't ask me why. As for the pick-ups, I still think New Hampshire is a better bet than Colorado.

To me:

Potential Democractic Losses:
South Dakota, Missouri, Minnesota, New Jersey
Potential Republican Losses: Arkansas, New Hampshire, Colorado, Texas

I wish I could be more optimistic for the Democrats but I can't. Democrats can't afford to lose any seats at all to keep their majority. I feel if they lose on seat they can still keep control by winning Arkansas. But if they lose two seats I think the GOP wins control.

Ced,

Here is how I see it:

On November 4th, there will be 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans. (I'm counting the Independent as a D.)

As I see it right now, Democrats take Arkansas. So, it is 52-48. I think Cornyn, with a push by Bush in Dallas, etc., will win, albeit narrowly. I don't see New Hampshire switching. Colorado is a big question mark.

Now, if Torch were still in, Republicans would have taken New Jersey easily. Now it isn't so simple. I see Democratic toss-ups in Minnesota, South Dakota, Missouri, New Jersey, and Georgia.

Republicans have to win two of the five to take control. Basically because each one of the Democratic five are complete toss-ups, in addition to Colorado for Republicans, I don't think we won't be able to call anything.

BushRep:
I think your inclusion of GA as a toss-up suggests a little hopefulness in your outlook -- GA is less vulnerable than the GOP is in NH, CO, and TX. I think Ced is right, there are eight races that right now look like they could legitimately go either way: MN, MO, SD, and NJ for the Dems, AR, CO, NH, and TX for the GOP. Other races might hold the potential to become competitive, but they simply are not there yet. Right now it looks like GA and SC are about equal in terms of holding possibility to become competitive, but still currently falling short of that.

If the eight toss-ups are all we have to work with, I think the Dems are looking OK. NJ and AR look fairly certain to go Democratic. If so, they only need to pick up two of the remaining six to hold their one seat majority. That seems likely to me:

SD: Johnson currently leads, Thune is becoming desparate (my prediction: Johnson holds);

MN: hard to predict how MN voters will respond to war vote; Wellstone proven in GOTV but maybe not enough this time? (tough to admit it, but maybe war vote does in Wellstone);

MO: Talent has closed the gap some, but not yet pulled even with Carnahan (right now Carnahan would win, but razor thin margin and volatile);

NH: Shaheen improving recently, she still has not closed the gap completely, but Sununu must wrangle with Smith write-in campaign; Shaheen is proven at GOTV in NH (too close to hazard a guess);

CO: has been dead even for some time; I tend to think that that situation does not look good for an incumbent (possible Strickland win);

TX: totally unpredictable because wholly dependent on GOTV and turn-out demographics; have to think Bush will invest whatever is necessary to win (Cornyn win).

and don't forget that Chafee may will provide the Dems with some insurance.

Will the VFW endorsement for Wellstone offset the "No War" vote, perhaps?

I am increasingly of the belief that Iraq is a loser of an issue for the Republicans.

Truly pro-war go-it-alone voters are not likely to be Democratic voters to begin with, and they will be satisfied when a war resolution passes. Much of the pro-war "majority" is actually conflicted, being in favor assuming there is U.N. involvement, allies, etc. I do not believe such a soft stance is likely to make any voters more likely to vote for one candidate or another, nor will it make a voter more motivated to actually vote. I believe Wellstone is actually in this category, saying that we should work with the U.N.

Anti-war voters are likely to be Democratic (or Green) anyway, but they will be angry, more motivated to vote, and will be anti-Republican. Even if their particular Senator votes for war, I expect they would still receive most of the benefit of the anti-war vote as a counter to Bush.

pied piper,
Good point about Chafee. Hasn't he alluded to switching on multiple occassions if he could stop the Republicans from controlling the Senate?

Vlajos,

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I heard Chafee being interviewed on NPR following Bush's speech. Although the topic of switching parties was not raised, he sounded very much like a Democrat. In fact, if I hadn't heard him introduced as Lincoln Chafee, I might have thought I was listening to Carl Levin, Joe Biden or John Kerry.
He expressed skepticism as to whether Bush had made his case and his comments lacked any reference to the GOP party line.

Take NH and NJ out of the picture. Switch not likely to happen. Six races are important: three held by GOP, TX, AR, CO and three by Dems, MO, MN and SD. And of course, watch the stock market the week of October 28.

Oh good predictions.

I only see 3 Democratic seats that are more than somewhat vulnerable. Johnson, Carnahan, and Wellstone should all hold on. There are still a number of GOP trouble spots; a couple of likely losses and more in danger. There's Tim Hutchinson, whose chance of reelection has disappeared (based on the general consensus here). Colorado is becoming an increasingly likely loss (Wayne Allard keeps dropping), and New Hampshire has had a Democratic edge for months now. Texas, Oregon, South Carolina, and North Carolina are far from over for Republicans. I'm not convinced that Oklahoma or Tennessee are safe either. I would be very surprised to see anything less than a 2 seat gain for Dems. A 3-4 seat gain is the most likely result. Don't let CW throw you off.

NH has not had a Dem edge for months. It actually has a GOP edge depending on the polls. Most of the other races you site other than Texas are over for now, unless the stock market falls below 7,000 the last week in October. Then there may be movement the other way.

If I have to predict now there are significantly greater chances of Jeb Bush loosing in Florida than Dems winning the Senate seats in SC, OR, TN, OK and NC. In fact, there may be significantly greater chances of Perry loosing in Texas than the Dems winning these senate races.

I'm not basing my guesses on polls - they don't give any indication as to what will happen in November; at least not in competetive races like this). I look at Senate races in Michigan and Washington in 2000 as examples of how polls are poor predictors. Polls always had Spencer Abraham ahead, but the quality of the campaigns and the way money was being spent indicated that Abraham would lose. Stabenow was down by as many as 17 points in October. CW stated that the race is basically over, it was wrong. In Washington, Maria Cantwell also never led in polls, she also lost the September primary. We all know how that turned out.

Raj, I saw you cite that 7000 benchmark yesterday, and I wonder why you choose that number in particular? Is it because it would be another, clear and sudden move so close to the election? Apart from that, given that the Dow has dropped about 3000 since Spring, why would a few hundred points mean all that much? (Possibly it's a moot point, as we seem hell-bent for it)

I wasn't available to respond to your posts yesterday, but did want to comment on what you said, about some of the notable poll/pundit miscalls of recent vintage. You're quite right some were suggesting Carter would pull it out in 1980 (and no one foresaw a GOP Senate); and 1998 is too near to even require review. What strikes me, though, is something those years had in common: the forecast (backed by polling) didn't match the environment. Things seemed to be falling apart in 1980; it made complete sense for their to be an anti-incumbent landslide, despite what surveys said. In 1998, the economy was booming, and every measure of public opinion from January on said 2/3 of the public wanted the Lewinsky thing dropped on the spot -- it made no sense to predict significant Republican gains in that climate. The public reacted rationally; the pollsters just didn't see it coming.

I think this year hovers ominously in that same cognitively-dissonant territory...the pollsters may again be missing the big story (though intrepid Zogby has opined it feels a bit like '94 in reverse). The market has, in my determinedly centrist father's term, hemorrhaged, and continues downward; consumer confidence today took its biggest drop in a long while, and wasn't starting from a position of strength; the airwaves are flooded with talk of war -- a war for which no poll yet has shown serious public support (if anything, the passionate position appears to favor the opposition). In this climate, to predict Republican gains is a head-spinner. It wouldn't surprise me to see a big Democratic tilt from the current numbers -- requiring every pollster to opine about the "sudden, last-minute shift".

I think in the close races it'll be all about GOTV. And my feeling is, the Dems are much more mobilized than the Repubs, particularly now after Bush's Taft-Hartley invocation. Not that this is unusual; the opposition party is almost always going to be more mobilized in a midterm, which is why there are usually historical gains. But this election, I feel like even moderate Dems are angry about the current leadership, and therefore much more likely to come out.

Texas, of course, depends on the minority turnout (just like I think that SD will be all about the Native American turnout), which is impossible to predict, but having minority candidates straight-down-the-ticket sure doesn't hurt the either Kirk or Sanchez one bit.

Hauser:

I agree with all your predictions except Kirk. I think he'll win based on explosive GOTV efforts. The polls have him down because of Coryn defining Kirk on TV as a liberal. The Allard-Strictland race might also shift direction towards November but I think the GOP leanings in that state are whats keeping Allard alive for now. Johnson will win but I expect it to be by 100-300 votes.

I think 51-49 dems is pretty accurate.
Bush rep, Cornyn better send Bush to Houston or East Texas, maybe a Dallas exurb, because Kirk will carry Dallas and Tarrant counties by a good margin. Bush only won Dallas County with 52%, and he and Cheney lived there. He will be the first dem since Ann Richards, and Bob Bullock did it in the early 90s to carry them.
I still think the Senate race depends on who goes to the polls.

We just might make that DOW below 7000 benchmark this week? Are the voters completely oblivious to this loss of wealth?

Why am I harping on below 7,000 Dow. Simple. First, the folks get the statements in mail. I got mine yesterday. They would find wealth eroded considerably. The undecideds would watch the stock market more closely...if Dow goes below 7,000 it would make news. You may say that the market had lost 3,000 points in the last three months...true. However, Dow going below 8,000 made news on July 19, 2002. So, Dow falling again below 8,000 two weeks ago was not news. But, it would make the headlines if it falls below 7,000. However,it has to happen at the right time for the Dems...last week in October. If it happens on October 31, it would be major news on November 1, as the undecideds make up their mind. And this kind of news helps the Dems. I would go further to say that the Inside Straight is likely to happen in the House if and only if the Dow goes below 7,000 for the first time since 1997, during the last week of October. People's memories are short and so is the media's. If the Dow goes below 7,000 next week in the middle of the World Series and goes back up again, before falling below 7,000 would not make news in the last week of October. It has to fall once below 7,000 and that once has to be the last week of October.

However, I would also hazard a prediction. If we get more or less the same government in four weeks, there is a high chance Bush would loose in 2004. I can see an Edwards-Bayh ticket or Gore-Bayh ticket winning over Bush-Cheney perhaps if even by a big margin if the economy sucks. A completely Dem Congress would give Bush the opportunity to win again.

We don't know how many people have lost money NoMoRepubs.

For example, some investors who invested during the boom years and didn't sell at the peaks have suffered no net loss at all. Those who invested at the peak were, well idiots in the first place.

Now, I understand there are people who have lost a lot of money in retirement accounts, but I think everyone recognizes that we, according to the analysts need one more vast capitulation before we're done.

I understand what it can mean for the GOP. The GOP needs its candidates to really hit hard on the economy.

Don't worry. The economy will be just fine by 2004. Two years ago we were in a near boom, and we can be there again in two.

As far as those possible Democratic tickets, I wish you would understand that Gore has serious emotional/mental problems that preclude his Presidential ambitions.

Nominate Bayh or take a long nap on elelction night 2004.

I agree with your analysis of the stock market but I think you are way to generous to the average voter's sophistication on economic issues.

Cleland is not threatened by ole SAXBY! Cleland will win by 5 points I would say. The Dems are going to keep control of the Senate. By the time Lautenberg is thru with Forrester New Jersey will be landslide.

I don't know too much about the "average investor."

It's just my opinion that if you have an account large enough to be hurt by the stock market, then chances are you are a regular reader of Bloomberg or CNBC. If you are a regular reader of those sites, then you must know that the end is near for the bear market.

I know it is extended logic.

"I'm not basing my guesses on polls - they don't give any indication as to what will happen in November; at least not in competetive races like this). I look at Senate races in Michigan and Washington in 2000 as examples of how polls are poor predictors. Polls always had Spencer Abraham ahead... In Washington, Maria Cantwell also never led in polls..."

The above message beautifully illustrates a very important point. You can't just look at whether an incumbent is leading. The important thing is whether an incumbent is getting 50% support. Incumbents who are leading but below 50% are usually in real trouble. Below are some figures from mid-2000 originally submitted to Political Wire on 6/28/02 by someone known as "JB" (this was such useful infomation, I made it a point to save it):

L = Incumbent Loser in November 2000
W = Incumbent Winner

Detroit News Poll: MI (8/23-8/25/00)
L Abraham (R): 43%
Stabenow (D): 34%

Elway: WA (7/15-7/17/00):
L Gorton (R): 43%
Cantwell (D): 35%

Mason Dixon: MN (7/6-7/8/00)
L Grams (R): 46%
Dayton (D): 29%

Lake Snell Perry (D): MT (8/5-8/7/00):
W Burns (R): 47%
Schweitzer (D): 38%

Pulse of PA: PA (8/27-8/29/00):
W Santorum (R): 48%
Klink (D): 35%

Fabrizio McLaughlin (R): MO (7/6-7/9/00)
L Ashcroft (R): 47%
Carnahan (D): 36%

Roth in Delaware and Robb in Virginia were not only below 50% in the polls, but were actually trailing their opponents. Naturally, they were toast.
Thus, the 50% rule appeared to work pretty well in 2000.

I would therefore say that incumbents such as Allard and G. Smith are probably in more trouble than is commonly believed. Wellstone, of course, may be in trouble, too. I would not apply the 50% rule so readily in South Dakota or Missouri, however. In the former, Thune, by virtue of the state having a single House member, has a comparably high profile to a Senator. And in the latter, Jean Carnahan has had only two years rather than the normal six to gain from incumbency.

BushRep,
While I am as far as a Democrat can be from being a Gore fan, what emotional/mental problems does he have? (He does have an issue with not moving his neck when he turns his head, but that's physical).

I like that Pulse of PA poll. It just goes to prove my point about Pennsylvania this year. Mason-Dixon had Klink double-digits behind on the final week. Yeah.

You may be right BushRep, but gee whizz all those
"idiots" who bought high just might make up a huge amount of the buying public. In fact I know quite a few Republican "idiots" who are tanking now, and they aren't happy. If I remember correctly even GWB's mother in law lost a whole $8,000. To hear people talk there just seems to be so few really "smart" folks in this country, in fact, I wonder if folks are "smart" enough to keep listening to the analysts.

Leftist,

He just say the most bizarre things.

This says it best.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62888-2002Sep24.html

NO Michael Kelly article says it best. Now there's a guy with emotional/mental problems...

The economy would be fine...if Bush does not invade Iraq. If he does, all major airlines would file for bankruptcy and unemployment would hit 6.5-7% by early 2004. Believe me, I am in this field. He invades Iraq in early 2003, he is finished politically in 2004. It would be just like his father's Presidencey...dejavu all over again.

Clinton bombed Yugoslavia, and the economy wasn't destroyed.

Indeed, the same events could take place in Iraq.

Gee BushRep, I watch CNBC; they were the ones who regularly hosted the likes of Henry Blodget and Solly's Grubman to lie to us about stocks. Now we are supposed to believe that they know how to call a bottom. Many bottoms have been miscalled thus far in this bear market. I hope you (or they) are right.

May be Gore has emotional problems, but Bush is not that far behind...in fact he may be well ahead of Gore on this issue. Mike Kelly is a rightwing moron, just like Kinsley of Slate is a left wing lunatic.

Yugoslavia does not have oil. It does not sit on the world's oil lanes. Look. I have a graduate degree in economics. Pull that crap on some other ignorant chap in the middle of the US South. Stop insulting people's intelligence.

demtom:

Sorry, I am wrong....the stock market has already hit the headlines. Check out msnbc.com right now.

Gee Raj I am a Southerner and not to shallow. Am I to assume you eat curry with your comment moniker. No. So don't be a geographic bigot.

BushRep needs to read the "Emerging Democratic Majority" Bush may well survive in 2004 BUT you might wanna take a 20 year nap BushRep

I'd bet all the money in my pocket against all the money in everyone else's pocket that Gore doesn't run in 2004.

Im a Yankee trapped in the South. Their are idiots in every region of the country. BushRep for instance is from PA

Sorry NoMoRep. No individual insult here. I was directing my comments at the majority of the southern folks who vote for the kind of Reps we have in Washington, ranging from DeLay, Lamar Smith, Zach Wamp to Jo Ann Davis and Virgil Goode. There are other states which have pockets of ignorance...no southern state with the possible exception of Louisiana (Cookesy, Duke and Edwards) can match Colorado's Sixtth District represented by Tancredo.

I'm rather tired today GaDem, so a 20 year nap sounds good.

Call me perverse NoMoRepubs, but I'm hoping for a big collapse in the next few days.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Articles/Dispatches/P31444.asp

In response to the Iraq claims, I'd point out that we're not supposed to be getting oil from Iraq. I thought Saudi Arabia was our big provider. The only way the market could be devestated by an Iraq invasion is if Hussein attacks Israel, and we can't control Sharon's response.

It's actually my biggest fear about Iraq.

"Their are idiots in every region of the country. BushRep for instance is from PA"

Psst...GaDem...you might want to do a "there"-check before calling someone else out on idiocy.

Gore is running. If he wasnt he wouldnt be wasting his time making big speeches on policy. Does Former Vice President Quayle make big speeches every week? How about Fritz Mondale?

GaDem, you're a Yankee. I'm a Yankee.
______________________________________
I'm a fool?

That makes two of us.

(Lincoln-Douglas debates)

Hey, GaDem, it's really pointless to argue about it now, but one of us is going to be right and one of us is going to be wrong. Let's just wait and see.

I do not want to insult BushRep. He just insulted my intelligence..his comparing Yugoslavia with Iraq just does not wash with me. I think he knows better, but thinks that G.C. Raj is a total fool, ie., I would buy his argument.

As I have said over and over again...Tancredo is from Colorado, and represents ex-California bigots who ran away from Asians because they could not compete with them.

Hussein would attack Saudi oil fields if we attack him, and he will attack our tankers. That would send the oil prices skyrocketing, and the airlines into bankruptcy.

Joey Dee I study politics. I could care less if my "theres" "theirs" "they're" 's are correct. I have a very good record at calling races. Bushrep was CONVINCED that Bob Casey Jr couldn't lose! Now its Mike Fisher! Hellllooooooo! I have said since about 1.5 years ago that Ed Rendell is the next governor of PA

I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence G.C. Raj. However, we've had some of our best economies during wartime.

Like I said, Sharon is the biggest obstacle to an invasion of Iraq.

Frankly, I can't understand the Iraqi generals as well. You know we're coming. Why not save yourself and your country a lot of trouble? Moreover, we'll help anyone who gets rid of Hitler II.

G.C. you are right about the oil. Besides in Yugoslavia it was a relatively minor war. Iraq will be a major war with supposedly 250,000 ground troups.

Also, I live in GA and there is not way Saxby is going to win. He has the South GA GOP vote and that is all. My friends that are GOP in metro Atlanta aren't even going to vote. The guy thats running for Govenor is a real so. ga. goober also!

GaDem, you're a Yankee. I'm a Yankee.
______________________________________
I'm a fool?

That makes two of us."-BushRep

Actually I said that idiots exist everywhere. Plenty of Northern and Southern idiots to go around

"Moreover, we'll help anyone who gets rid of Hitler II."

Good God comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler is like comparing George W Bush to George Washington. BushRep must live in front of Faux News sucking in every word that flows out of Paula Zahns mouth

GaDem, thanks for moving the terrain to my homestate.

I never said Casey COULDN'T lose. As early as February, I sensed Casey was slipping fast.

Casey had more than enough opportunities to win, but he missed everyone of them. He could have:

1. Gotten some rest before debates instead of looking like an insomniac. His face made it all the worse.

2. Picked a running mate from Philadelphia like Vince Fumo who would have severely damaged Rendell's margin there. At least, Casey would have gotten press attention.

I mean, Jack Wagner from Allegheny. I could have told Casey he wasn't going to lose Pittsburgh.

3. Pulled the ads. He, unlike Fisher, did not pull the negative ads. They didn't work, and he kept it up. It was like Napoleon at Waterloo. A simple change of tactics could have won the fight, but no, no, keep storming up the ridge.

Ridge? Hmm.

Zahn is on CNN. Has been there for a while now.

Sorry, ask anyone who has been in Iraq and left. Hussein is Hitler without the army.

Saddam is not Hitler. Hitler had brains, Saddam does not have any. So please do not give much credit to Saddam.

A German politician compared GW to Hitler...wrong again. There are a lost worse folk in this country than GW...Tom Tancredo for example.

"Frankly, I can't understand the Iraqi generals as well. You know we're coming. Why not save yourself and your country a lot of trouble? Moreover, we'll help anyone who gets rid of Hitler II."

And I think you hit it on the nose with your last words here, BushRep. Hussein's men stick with him just like Hitler's did. Especially because so many of them are (a) his relatives and (b) belonging to that ethnic minority whose name I can't think of right now (Tunnis? something like that), who will be fairly SOL if the big man gets overthrown.

GaDem, I think the speeches, and more importantly the country's (and the media's) reception to them, are a major reason Gore's not running. He was testing the waters, plain as day. Nobody noticed, even the media, except when they were bitchslapping him for speaking out against Bush without offering a credible alternative.

Admittedly, perhaps there's a bit of wishful thinking in here; I believe that Republicans positively SALIVATE over a Bush-Gore rematch, and that's the last thing that I want to give them.

May be the GOP is salivating on a Bush-Gore re-match. The only reason they would not be salivating...the economy still stinks in early 2004. Likely to happen if Bush invades Iraq. Otherwise not likely.

Also, Gore hasn't been taking nearly the kinds of steps that the other serious candidates have been taking, particularly with his campaign schedule this year. He's barely been visible. For example, in Iowa this week, at their Jackson-Jefferson BBQ, the three Democrats there were the only three that I think are going to be serious contenders: Dean, Edwards and Kerry. This little trio has been the story of the whole "invisible primary." Why hasn't Gore been out there? He's got no job right now, as opposed to those three.

I even thought that his speech on Iraq was FURTHER evidence that he wasn't running, since it makes him so vulnerable if Bush succesfully prosecutes a war.

BushRep,
That speech demonstrates emotional/mental problems? Then I must be insane, because I don't think Gore went nearly far enough.

I think this is a war fought for the purpose of enriching the oil and military companies who own Bush and to boost Republicans' electoral chances.

Weapons of mass destruction? If Iraq still has them (which Scott Ritter, who is more qualified than anyone in the Bush administration to say, says Iraq doesn't have) then their use is likely only if the US invades Iraq (according to General Anthony Zinni). And remember that it was Daddy Bush and his boss Reagan who first gave bioweapons to Iraq in the first place, according to a story I saw on the AP wire about 5 days ago. The US is also complicit in Saddam's rise to power, by the way (and once gave him a list of Iraqi communists to be murdered).

Do about 40% (I'm roughly averaging the polls I've seen) Americans, most of the rest of the world, and I have serious emotional/mental problems?

I think the Pentagon has more intelligence, in both ways, than Scott Ritter.

Is Scott Ritter the guy who ran to Baghdad to make movies for Saddam?

The guys who have emotional problems are Saddam Hussein and perhaps most leaders in the Middle East. But, we have more than our share of folks here...eating curry, grits or otherwise...Perle, Wolfowitz, Bolton and Adelman all have emotional problems...without having borne arms for the country. Luckily they did not win the argument.

Everyone says why I keep harping about Tom Tancredo and the CO GOP as being emotional, isolationist and plain old stupid. Go to today's Denver Post. There is a report on the resignation of Governor Owen's Treasurer...he said that illegal aliens use welfare money to buy expensive homes and crowd white people out. Pretty dumb I must say.

I speak from experience. Actually, there are communities in Tancredo's district such as Parker, areas of Rural Littleton, parts of Highland Ranch, Evergreen and Conifer where they would not sell houses to Asians or Asian Americans or for that matter sell them land to build on..why? many of the residents are CA transplants who got away from Asian competition in California. If you are a single Asian, may be they would sell you a house. If you have school age kids forget it. "Orientals are too smart," a mother of two girls told me.."if they get in our girls do not stand much of a chance."

Pentagon definitely has more intelligence than other federal organizations that run security, or so I hope.

Tancredo is a moron. He is a hypocrite. I have no use for him.

Don't you understand he is aiming to for Campbell's seat in 2004, if Campbell retires?

The dumb bigot thinks that immigration is a huge issue today. Republicans have to do to him, with Democratic help, what Democrats, with Republican help, did to McKinney.

Being a teenager is not an a priori slam on a person's intellect (witness Mr. Liberal's cogent and well-reasoned posts). However, younger adults inevitably lack a certain wisdom that explain some of BushRep's sillier comments
(Saddam=Hitler, the economy is great, investors who invested in the bull market are idiots, etc.).

Good thing BushRep is approaching military age. I'm sure he'll be eager to follow his fearless leader into battle as soon as he graduates high school, right?

I agree with you on Tancredo, BushRep. But, I was in his District and he truly does represent his district. With the redistricting which has made his district 70% white flighters from CA and TX it would be very difficult to pull off a McKinney.

I think he has given up on 2004 Senate race. That is why he is reneging on his term limits pledge. First, Campbell is not likely to retire. Second, governor Owen is likely to make the run in 2004 in the event Campbell retires.

I would definitely vote Dem if I lived in CO. However, across the border in KS or NE, the story would be different. I would wholeheartedly support Hagel and Brownback...and others such as Osborne, Tiahart and Ryun.

I'm ready Kos. Either way, if we don't go to war, I'm a marked person because of where I live.

I live around nuclear powerplants and between two major cities. It's nice to have such a cavalier attitude about chemical and biological warfare when you won't be the one affected by them. Maybe when Saddam is gassing us up here, I'll be able to get off one last post.

By the way, Kos, principle one of investing is, "buy low, sell high." You don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out.

New WMUR-UNH poll shows Benson with lead and Shaheen/Sununu to close to call... According to a new poll conducted by Andy Smith and the UNH Survey-Center, Craig Benson has a 16 point lead over Mark Fernald and Jeanne Shaheen leads John Sununu by 3%. Margin of error 4%.

Benson (R) 49%
Fernald (D) 33%
Babiarz (L) 3%
Other 3%
Undecided 12%

Shaheen (D) 47%
Sununu (R) 44%
Blevens (L) 1%
Other 2%
Undecided 6%

Shaheen calls

Scott Ritter was for 5 years Chief Inspector. Saddam does not have capability to hit the US, or, probably, anyone at all.

The Hauser Report is quite a bit more biased than the Cook Report, but probably more entertaining. However, it's hard to take the report very seriously when reading such hyperbole like "evil hyprocritcal scum" and calling Tennessee an "evil state".

Sununu has lost all of his momentum. The momentum is shifting to the Dems. Did anyone hear about Shaheen's new ad. It shows sununu saying he always have and always put the intrest of the repbulican party above everything more or less i forget the exact quote. this comment should really hurt him. Lets go Shaheen.

Leftist,

Everyone said the same thing about Hitler. The same exact thing in fact.

New Hampshire polls are all over the place. I believe Sununu has an edge, but I'm not sure how much.

Everyone said the same thing about Hitler after he invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia and other countries. Saddam tries to be another Hitler. He invaded Kuwait..we nailed his ass! I do not think that the world would tolerate another Hitler or Soviet Union ever again.

the poll looks pretty good, it show benson with a good lead which is right so this poll is more or less give 3 or 4 points right. You have to admit sununnu has lost momentum in the race, and the new Shaheen ad is pretty good.

A "marked person"... again, immaturity -- living in an area that MIGHT be hit by terrorists can never be the same as going house to house ferreting out defenders in Baghdad. Don't insult members of our armed forces that way.

I live near the Golden Gate Bridge -- a supposed target. I also served in the Army during the Gulf War. Guess which time I was in greater danger. Jeez. Train for weeks in an NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) suit before you spout off aboutt cavalier attitudes.

And not even Bush's CIA supports your assertion.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021009/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_120

To summarize: If the US does nothing, Iraq is unlikely to strike US. If US attacks, all bets are off.

"By the way, Kos, principle one of investing is, "buy low, sell high." You don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out."

No, not Einstein. But a psychic? Yes. You never know when the "high" is until after the fact. It's obvious you've never invested or you would know the adage you cite is a practical impossibility. If "buy low, sell high" was a practical guide to investing, everyone would be rich, no one would lose money, and we wouldn't have hundreds of investment sites, books, pundits, MSNBC, brokerage houses, analysts, etc.

Hauser Report, Cook Report and other so-called "Conventional Wisdom" are mere heresays. I just need the polls, source and sample size to make my decision.

PAGUY:

What is your exact source on the NH Polls? Can you give me a newspaper where this is covered?

The WMUR poll said that Sununu would win the GOP primary by 22 points.

I don't believe them after that stupid mistake. What turn-out model were they using?

www.politicsnh.com

Better yet, go to WMUR.com sometime tonight, and the results should be there.

Don't take their polls too seriously. They called the GOP Gubernatorial primary right on the button too. Yet, there were horribly wrong in the Senate primary.

"Clinton bombed Yugoslavia, and the economy wasn't destroyed. Indeed, the same events could take place in Iraq." -BushRep

BushRep, a mainly air war in Yugoslavia is so totally different than a mostly ground war in Iraq it's a completely rediculous comparison.

"we've had some of our best economies during wartime. " - BushRep

In EVERY war - during the war - the economy has gotten hit by a negative effect, not a positive one. You're probably predicating this idea on the aftermath of WWII, which was one of the better economic growth periods of this country - but that was AFTER the war, and it was an EXCEPTION to the rule of war huting an economy. That also occurred because of several reasons that aren't likely to be in effect now: The U.S. Government RAISED TAXES to finance the war, and spent a large amount of that on revitalizing much of the national industry and infrastructure that was still languishing from the depression - this is not a Bush/Neocon thing to do, and further, we currently have industrial overcapacity. The stay-at-home women went to work to replace the men going to war, and afterward, many kept working, giving a significant extra boost to productivity - there is no serious stay-at-home sex right now to do this with. And WWII poured a lot of money into research and development into new commercially viable technologies like the airplane, which won't happen now since we've JUST poured a lot of money into R&D during the tech boom and we have a lot of viable products waiting for a market.

"I'd point out that we're not supposed to be getting oil from Iraq." - BushRep

Remember the Global Economy? Even if WE don't get our oil from Iraq, OTHER countries do. When the supply is cut off, those countries will turn to the same countries who supply us, causing less supply, higher demand, and much higher prices. Gas prices (and heating oil, since it most likely will occur in winter) will easily top $3/gallon.

"we'll help anyone who gets rid of Hitler II" - BushRep

Right. Hussein has the potential to take over most of the civilized world, when he couldn't even win against Iran with the U.S.'s help. The guy is a petty little dictator. People were calling Castro the next Hitler for a long time, and you can see how far HIS influence spread.

I would not take any polls on NH and TX races seriously anymore. Only SD and MN have been consistent across all authentic polls! If these wide differences continue, I think I would wait till election day to find out what happens in TX and NH.

Immaturity?

We could have waited until Hitler developed the atomic bomb before we went after him. Instead, we did it the hard way, going after him before the evil man developed a working nuclear weapon.

I guess you would have said at the time that it wasn't worth the risk of lives. If Roosevelt said it was necessary, you would have told him to take his wheelchair over there and do the fighting himself.

Why don't you just say it? You oppose the war because it is Bush, and you hate him. You think that Bush is just trying to make his friends in the oil business rich. Moreover, you admire Saddam Hussein because he hates the Bush family too. However, you would have no qualms if it were a Democratic President like Bill Clinton. I'm absolutely sure of it.

Did you oppose bombing Iraq in 1998 on the Left Coast? Bet not. At least be honest.

Change the admire to agree.

You're not that bad I hope.

We considered using ground troops in Yugoslavia in addition to bombing, but the relentless bombing did the trick. People turned on their dictator and overthrew him. The same could happen in Iraq.

I can't understand why you think Milosevic is so evil, yet you don't think the same of Hussein. It was worth it to risk lives overthrowing Milosevic, but it isn't worth lives to overthrow Hussein.

If you can explain the difference, I'll think you are being sincere.

BushRep:

Just a few things. I wouldn't necessarily say that just because the economy ain't doing so hot now, it won't turn around by November of 2004. However, the stock market is, I think, the first shoe that drops, and the least noticed, in the minds of the average (and, I think, most every swing) voter. A loss of jobs, for example, is a much bigger. Investors may very well buy low at the bottom, but it takes a long time for that to reverberate in the larger scheme of things. We're still getting reports of LAST year's economic data being not-so-great, and this year is looking much bleaker, as far as the job market goes (which, by the way, affects the investors that we need to turn the market around; if next year we're getting this year's data, then the market will take some hits again). Companies are shedding workers at a steady clip right now, and those are the voters that are going to be energized. Moreover (you knew there was going to be a "moreover" in here somewhere), it's going to be that much more difficult for the unemployed to get some kind of job to replace the one that they lost. The stock market is the first thing to fall, and the first thing to rise. But employment rates are probably going to be the last.

We're in the middle (or maybe at the end; I'm certainly no market analyst) of the longest bear market since 1937. We're not going to really feel it until probably about this time next year. Regardless of whether the stock market is finally turning around by then, the job market is going to be a different story for awhile.

BushRep:

We only got into WW II because Japan attacked us on December 7, 1941. A few days later Hitler's Germany attacked our navy.

Before Japan flattened Pearl Harbor a significant proportion of white Americans sympathized with Hitler. Anti-semitism was rampant in the US along with the lynching of blacks (Marion, IN, Tulsa, and Rosewood, FL for example). Klan controlled a few state machinery including Indian during the 1920s and 1930s. Klan and anti-semites controlled most of the south. Notable personalities such as Charles Lindberg supported Hitler and isolationism. Had Japan not attacked us, we would not have gone after Hitler...there would be no D-Day commemoration. Hitler would have conquered Europe and Japan would have conquered Asia. Hitler would have made an alliance with the Klan in the United States, some of whom were in the Roosevelt Administration and it would have been Europe versus Asia. To some extent that war is being continued on a non-violent level in Tancredo's Colorado sixth district and in parts of Hawaii. However, on a global scale such a war would have meant that we would have returned to the stone age.

Sweet LORD you guys are posting quickly. I'm still on that economy silliness.

Also, BushRep, how's Bush going to pay for the war?

So few people in Washington are asking this question.

As far as the economy goes - remember that the bear market that cost Bush Sr. his reelection ended significantly more than a year before the election date. We're closing in on that territory now.

"how's Bush going to pay for the war?" - Joey Dee

He'll just run up the deficit more. By the time things get critical with the country's finances the Democrats will be in change and have to be mature and raise taxes to pay for Bush's interest on his debt he's piling up now. And, of course, they'll get the blame.

RParker --

Yeah, I knew that was the answer; I just wanted to know how BushRep was going to justify further deficit spending.

Honestly, I don't think that the Democrats will be so punished for it. They raise taxes (or, more logically, just roll back the $1.6 tax cut) in 2005, and we can get back to business. Things will look a lot better by 2006, and most of the voters won't have been affected by the rollback anyhow.

Sorry. I meant $1.6 BILLION tax cut.

Howard Dean has a nice term for Bush's economic policy -- "borrow-and-spend" -- that neatly twists the common criticism of 70s and 80s Democratic policy (or at least the Republican spin on it).

With all the recent NH polls showing a dead heat in the Senate race, I think we can safely disregard the one from a week or so ago that showed a 21 point Sununu lead.

It looks to me like Shaheen has the momentum now. Let's hope she can keep it.

Actually, you meant $1.6 TRILLION tax cut. Borrow-and-spend is an excellent term - I have heard others besides Dean use it. It would be wise for every Democrat to use that term, just as the Republicans did with "tax-and-spend".

BushRep,
I opposed in 1991, I opposed in 1998, and I oppose it now. Saddam is a very bad man (I shrink from using the word evil in general -- call it my Quaker school education).

You also forget that Saddam got the green light at first from Bush 1 to invade Kuwait, as well as Iran (although that was Reagan).

These comparisons of Hitler to Saddam are frankly beginning to offend me. Saddam simply does not have the capacity to threaten the world. Hitler did. Saddam was already beaten once before and is much weaker now -- Hitler was not. Saddam has no serious military-industrial infrastructure and no allies. I do not deny that Iraqis would be better off without him. But I also believe that to invade Iraq would be such a bloodbath that it would be a grossly immoral act.

To compare Saddam to Hitler is not only inaccurate, but it is incredibly insensitive. My grandparents are Holocaust refugees, and while Saddam has committed his genocides, they were sanctioned by the US and to repeat them is now beyond his reach. It is better to let a sick tyrant die than to massacre tens of thousands of Iraqis in forcing a faster end to his regime.

Wow. Duh. Of course I meant trillion.

Putting aside the obvious problems with drawing comparisons between Hussein and Hitler, the need to invoke the analogy is itself revealing, because it is a rhetorical move hinged on an appeal to emotion that is typically resorted to when a rational cogent case cannot be made. The "Hitler" appeal is one of the later signs of a losing argument.

That said, what is it about Bush's knocking down dictators that their GOP predecessors created? Reagan creates Noriega, Bush I invades. The Regean/Bush Administration empowers Hussien (including providing the germs that served as the basis for his biological weapons programs and standing by, continuing to support him, while he used chemical weapons in massacring Kurds), then Bush I and Bush II need to invade. Perhaps if we didn't prop up these dictators, we wouldn't need to knock them down. Let's try a little foresight, people...

Can anyone explain where the "point of no return" is, as far as the economy affecting Bush's reelection in '04? It doesn't seem as though a substantial recovery is going to come soon. For example, if things don't seem to be turning around through 2003, is it too late for Bush if indicators start rising in early 2004. Of course, one has to take in to account the fact that employment is a lagging indicator. I think you can tell what I'm getting at. Anyone have any insight into this? Thanks.

Alias, I'm thinking your point of no return could be divined from the index of leading economic indicators. The index has been down for the last three months in a row.

I think employment needs to be good in the Summer of '04 for Bush to benefit. Let's say employment lags the economy as a whole by 6 months, and the leading indicators lead the economy by six months, then the LEI should have a strong and sustained upward trend by this time next year, or the economy is an albatros for Bush.

I really do not have what the GDP forecasts are. GDP is a measure of the economic growth rate. Right now they are forecasting an economic growth rate of 3% for the last quarter. You are right, unemployment is a lagging indicator. However, unemployment should be compared with jobs created or lost. In September unemployment fell to 5.6% but the economy lost 43,000 jobs, and that is not good news. I believe there would be a very slow recovery if Bush does not invade Iraq. Otherwise the oil prices will go up, corporations would cut back as raw material prices increase and unemployment would go much higher..6.5% to 7% range. If that happens by early 2004, Bush will not win, even if Gore runs against him, the latter's emotional problems not withstanding. People will get tired of waiting for an economic recovery and only diehards would vote for Bush.

GADEM, are you here?

If so, please explain:

http://www.saxby.org/media/news/newsdetail.asp?n=239

BushRep,
Here's one where I almost agree with you. While I hope Cleland is reelected, it has been noticeable (and disappointing) this year how many incumbents are avoiding debates. It is antidemocratic (lower case d) to try to avoid the presentation of your ideas to the public.

But, people are to blame as well. We want everything...education, invasion of Iraq, tranpsort, rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan so that 9/11 never happens again, cheap oil, and yes, we also want tax cuts. It is possible to have it all if the economy continues to grow. But, for that we have to encourage Foreign Direct Investment because domestic capital is in short supply in the short-run. But, FDI would not come in unless we have enough skilled labor, and American corporations move elsewhere as well...which means changes in immigration policy...we had a tough time with it in 1998 and 1999, by the time we got around to raising the skilled labor quota the damage was already done....FDI was drying up fast, and US corporations were moving jobs to the skilled labor in South-east Asia. The tech demand started drying up, and the bubble burst in early 2001. Why? because we were busy trying to satisfy anti-foreign labor bigots led by Tom Tancredo and the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR)...so we are back wher we started...Sept 11 only aggravated the situation.

"Did you oppose bombing Iraq in 1998 on the Left Coast? Bet not. At least be honest."

Yeah. I opposed it. I supported Gulf War I, and I was in the Army at the time. I supported knocking out Milosevic. He had started three wars, and his Kosovo campaign was threatening to spread over into Albania and Macedonia.

And, the US and EU made repeated and concerted efforts (almost to a fault) to use diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Military action was TRULY a last resort. And, the Serbia war had the full backing of virtually all of our international allies (Greece being the ONE exception). Even Russia backed off and let NATO take out Milosevic.

Iraq isn't threatening anyone. Even the CIA had to come to that conclusion. Use the weapons inspectors. If Iraq truly hinders their progress, then a lot of the opposition to Gulf War II would quickly evaporate.

The biggest problem people have with Bush and Iraq is that he couldn't be bothere by building international support. He couldn't be bothered to use diplomacy. He wants his war, and he'll get whether it makes sense or not. He'll throw out a new justification every day, and when it's refuted by the evidence, he'll move out to the next excuse (hoping something will eventually stick). And, he timed this "crisis" to coincide with the midterms. If Iraq was such a pressing concern, why not cancel his MONTH-LONG vacation to take care of the problem? Why? Because the timing wouldn't jive with November.

HW Bush wasn't like that (he waited until AFTER the midterms to ask Congress for support). Clinton was definitely not like that. But Bush II is an amateur using war for political gain, regardless the lives he'll throw away. It's sick.

What is disgusting is a President who started a war to avert his impeachment.

What is disgusting is a dictator who encourages Palestinian youths to blow themselves up.

What is disgusting is the failure of many people to come to grips with the horrible mistake of letting this man start so many wars.

What is disgusting is European politicians who oppose Bush's Iraq policy for political gain from left-wing fanatics in their country.

What is disgusting is the new thought in America that Presidents should not deal with a threat until after Election Day. Pretty soon, with never-ending campaigns, a President's decision to go to war will always be called political showmanship.

What is really reassuring to me is the millions of Americans who support our President.

What is really reassuring to me is a President who is willing to revoke a horrible U.S. policy of supporting demons even if they support our policy.

I'm glad to see a President who will exercise the unparalleled moral, political, and military authority of American without worrying what our enemies might think.

I'm just gonna respond to that one point-by-point.

"What is disgusting is a President who started a war to avert his impeachment."

While he didn't start the war, yes, I agree that Clinton shouldn't have done that.

"What is disgusting is a dictator who encourages Palestinian youths to blow themselves up."

Ok, first of all, Arafat was elected. Let's remember that. Second, he spoke out against the violence. While I have no love for Arafat, he isn't the demon that Zionists make him out to be.

"What is disgusting is European politicians who oppose Bush's Iraq policy for political gain from left-wing fanatics in their country."

I'm skipping the next one for space's sake, and because we've already gone over it.

While Schroeder certainly did gain from that stand, think about this: if it allowed him to overcome a double-digit lead, then doesn't that mean that most of the country agrees? So by your reasoning... Germany is a nation of left-wing fanatics?

"What is disgusting is the new thought in America that Presidents should not deal with a threat until after Election Day. Pretty soon, with never-ending campaigns, a President's decision to go to war will always be called political showmanship."

Two things: first of all, IT IS NOT A PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO GO TO WAR! Other than that, I would agree, but why did Bush say it was unacceptable for Congress to vote after the election? Would, say, one month make much difference?

"What is really reassuring to me is the millions of Americans who support our President."

Same for me for the millions who oppose invading and setting other countries on fire.

"What is really reassuring to me is a President who is willing to revoke a horrible U.S. policy of supporting demons even if they support our policy."

A policy his dad championed! And besides, why hasn't he spoken out against Musharraf if this is true? King Fahd? Hosni Mubarak? Islam Karimov? He lets us use his military bases. How about the dictatorship of Myanmar? Oh yeah, they allow Halliburton to use slave labor to build pipelines!

"I'm glad to see a President who will exercise the unparalleled moral, political, and military authority of American without worrying what our enemies might think."

First of all, perhaps he should worry about what they think. This is how we make more enemies, and eventually, more September 11s. Second, what gives America more authority than, say, Saddam? Why can't he call for regime change here? We have BOTH done horrific things. You're just giving a euphemism for imperialism. Finally, what about what our (former?) friends think?

Okay, I'll come back point-by-point.

"Ok, first of all, Arafat was elected. Let's remember that. Second, he spoke out against the violence. While I have no love for Arafat, he isn't the demon that Zionists make him out to be."

He was elected in a Palestinian election. (an oxymoron) Moreover, he really never has done anything to stop the violence.

"While Schroeder certainly did gain from that stand, think about this: if it allowed him to overcome a double-digit lead, then doesn't that mean that most of the country agrees? So by your reasoning... Germany is a nation of left-wing fanatics?"

If you've noticed, I'm not planning to move to Germany. You've figured out why.

"Two things: first of all, IT IS NOT A PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO GO TO WAR! Other than that, I would agree, but why did Bush say it was unacceptable for Congress to vote after the election? Would, say, one month make much difference?"

The last President to really ask Congress for their imput was FDR. All others have made it a mere formality.

"Same for me for the millions who oppose invading and setting other countries on fire."

We wouldn't have to set countries on fire if the people would take justice into their own hands. If Saddam starts reprisals, it will give us an even greater motive to destroy him.

"First of all, perhaps he should worry about what they think. This is how we make more enemies, and eventually, more September 11s. Second, what gives America more authority than, say, Saddam? Why can't he call for regime change here? We have BOTH done horrific things. You're just giving a euphemism for imperialism. Finally, what about what our (former?) friends think?"

You live up to your name. You're consistent.

Listen, we can go on another day, but MyDD asked me to keep the fights short, so in the future, let's give our points numbers. It will make it easier than reposting the entire quote.

Well, if the economy is really global, and if we need a real capitulation to end the selling, you can take some comfort in the fact that the Nikkei is down to 1983 levels.

"I'm glad to see a President who will exercise the unparalleled moral, political, and military authority of American without worrying what our enemies might think."

Bushrep, the problem is not what our enemies think, its what our allies think! Our allies think that we have a crazed cowboy in the White House.

As far as Saxby goes, that information on his website seemed silly. Are we not debating Iraq in washington. Apparently Saxby thinks its more important to go to the Ga National Fair that to discuss national security.

"He was elected in a Palestinian election. (an oxymoron) "

Hmm, while we're at it, let's just call them Saracen ragheads! Are you saying that Palestinians are incapable of living in a democratic society?

"I'm glad to see a President who will exercise the unparalleled moral, political, and military authority of American without worrying what our enemies might think."

Unparalleled moral authority? I read that half an hour ago, and I'm still hiccuping I laughed so hard.

The only thing I could find so funny is mentioning Bill Clinton and the word fidelity in the same sentence.

One little difference. I never have, and never will, defend Clinton for what he did, but there is nothing impeachable about getting a BJ in the Oval Office. Wrong? Absolutely. Impeachable? Get a life.

And while I'm at it, let's think of some of the moral paragons who conducted the $70 million investigation;

Dan Burton-Rumored to have a child out of wedlock, bragged to a State Department beauracrat (the parent of a friend of mine, actually) that he would work to cut his agency's budget and put him out of a job (so incensincg Jim Moran that he threatened to punch him in the face)

Bob Barr-Thrice-divorced freak has been photoed in strip club licking whipped cream off tits, forced wife to have an abortion, arrested as a deadbeat dad (and we won't even mention the lawsuit or the firearm incident)

Henry Hyde-Claimed "youthful indescretion" for an affair he had with a married woman-when he was 40

Tiny Tim Hutchinson-Need I say more?

Ken Calvert-Arrested for getting a BJ from a hooker

and last, but certainly not least,

Newt-Handed first wife divorce papers on her deathbed, was bonking secretary throughout whole Lewinsky charade

If anyone else has more details, I'd welcome them.

Milosevic was more Hitler like then Sadamm. I'm glad we put a stop to his genocide before he was able to gain momentum. As for Iraq we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Yes, we should put a stop to Sadam once and for all but at what price? The more we talk war the more energized and united the Mideast becomes in there hatered for us. We should of had Sadam Hussan assassinated during the Gulf War. Bush 1 did a half fast job and now we're paying the price 11 years later. Our best hope is that the Iraqe people overthrow there own dictator. Keep our troops at home and continue the tradition of bombing Iraq- then let the rebels do the rest.

"Also, Gore hasn't been taking nearly the kinds of steps that the other serious candidates have been taking, particularly with his campaign schedule this year. He's barely been visible."

He promised earlier this year that he would work first and formost at helping to Dems elected in 2002. I took that to mean he wouldn't be making any presidential moves for the most part. And while it is true that the media hasn't been paying that much attention to his speeches especially the Economic ones there are large numbers of Dems who have. This is why Gores polling numbers have gone up 3 to 5% in the last few months.

"I even thought that his speech on Iraq was FURTHER evidence that he wasn't running, since it makes him so vulnerable if Bush succesfully prosecutes a war."

I think you are wrong Joey. Gore took a stand. A brave stand because unlike most of the Repubs and many of the Dems in this country he gets his info from sources other than the media and talkshow pundits. Invading Iraq will cause a dissaster. The so called Israeli nightmare scenario isn't even as much of a a potential problem when compared to the future ethnic/nationalistic conflicts that will exist in a post Saddam Iraq.
It wont be Yugoslavia '95 - '99 or Iraq in '91. Al knows this.

John Jimenez

Bushrep alluded to it and I have received the same argument when Mr. Bush's terrifying policies are mentioned; and that argument is always about Clinton's lying under oath, and how he "soiled" the oval office with his affair. What I don't understand is how does what Clinton did in any way excuse George Bush? Even if we all agree that Clinton was the devil incarnate, how would that excuse Bush for his lies, his insider trading, his sending people to their death for a war that is over oil, or revenge, or power trip, or to win a mid-term election, and his obvious ineptness for the job. How does Clinton being "bad" make GWB "good?"

Shaheen with a three point lead in WMUR poll. As I predicted, New Hampshire is the Dems. second best chance for a pickup.

Just last week I thought Shaheen was dead in the water. But not now. There have been three polls in the last week that show Shaheen either in the lead or tied. The other had some crazy 21 point lead for Sununu.

Republican Poll
45-Sununu
45-Shaheen

Democratic Poll
46 Shaheen
44 Sununu

University of NH

47-Shaheen
44-Sununu

I think she might pull this off. She seems to be gaining momentum at the right time.

"I think you are wrong Joey. Gore took a stand. A brave stand because unlike most of the Repubs and many of the Dems in this country he gets his info from sources other than the media and talkshow pundits."

See, this is exactly my point. I'm not talking about an ethical argument here; my statement is pure politics. I think that his speech really did energize other members of his party to talk more bravely about their misgivings with the war. But brave stands don't win the White House. Gore knows this surely better than anyone; he was there when Clinton took a brave stand on healthcare (right idea, wrong approach) and gays in the military (TRULY right idea), and he watched it almost cost Clinton the Presidency. Brave stands get you 4% nationwide as an independent. The American people don't vote for brave stands; they admire them, but they don't vote for them. I know I'm going to get attacked for saying that on this board, but I think that the historical evidence is pretty plain. Even Lincoln had to win with 40% of the vote in a 3-way election. And Al Gore has never been a brave stand-kind of guy; it smacks of politicking (not to mention sour grapes). Brave stands from a prohibitive favorite to win the nomination = nowhere to go but down. OTOH, brave stands from people like McCain or Howard Dean resonate much more, and are less risky because they generate exposure.

My point is, Al knows this. He may not be the best politician out there, but he's clearly got a mind like a steel trap. He came to all the conclusions that I just elucidated in probably 3.5 seconds. He was speaking his mind. He was speaking his heart. But he knows that doing those things will usually cost someone the White House. And if he was even partially deluding himself into thinking otherwise, the media aftermath told him what he deep down already knew.

And I disagree with you about not getting advice from the media and pundits; I think that if there's any politician who's going to take his cues from the NY Times Op-Ed page, it's Al Gore.

As for the polls, he knows those numbers are as soft as can be. He's polling way above everyone because the electorate knows his name, and nobody else's.

Anyway, this is all no better than completely idle speculation at this point. I don't know if he's going to run. I don't think he is, but maybe he is. Political predictions are put on this earth to make astrology look good, is what I say in the end. You think he's running. I think he's not. You have your reasons, I have mine. Nobody's opinion really matters in this, except Al Gore.

Coming to the immediate situation at hand, if today was November 1, I would have to say that at the Federal level, Dems would keep the Senate and GOP would keep the House but by a narrow margin. The Dems would gain governorships, with a sleeper developing in Florida. I still would not believe any poll coming out of NH and TX.

FOX is reporting that Mike Taylor is dropping out of the Montana Senate race to make way for a write-in candidate.

"FOX is reporting that Mike Taylor is dropping out of the Montana Senate race to make way for a write-in candidate."

Wonder how much it would cost to send out postcards to everyone in Montana to remind them how to spell Racicot?

Another potential pickup for Democrats in Arkansas. A new poll on the governor's race has it

47 Huckabee
46 Fisher

With a Pryor victory likely, Huckabee cannot afford to be under 50% going into election day.

If true, not sure it'll mean as much as people think. Taylor wasn't that bad a candidate-it was more Baucus' position of strength.

I'm FAIRLY sure that that is a Democratic poll, Ced. Can anyone verify this?

If Racicot runs, then I'll be very happy.

It's about time Democrats pay for this slime campaigning.

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2002/10/10/build/local/50-taylor-bails.inc

I'm sick and tired of Democrats lecturing Republicans about tolerance and not living what they preach.

Racicot will now run, he said he has no intrerest in running and he wont change him mind.

BushRep, did you see the know kdka poll?
Redell has a 21 point lead. I dont think thats what it is, but it shows Fisher is way behind.

Racicot says he is not interested. The Montana Congressman may be approached. Governor Marz is not very popular at present.

Anyone know about election law in Montana?

Racicot explained early in this election cycle that he doesn't want to spend six years making a Senator's salary--he just left public office and he wants to cash in. And when he opted out, he already knew that 1) he could win, and 2) the Montana race could tip the Senate's partisan balance. Nothing has "changed" to make him reconsider his decision--there's no reason to think he'd agree to get into the race now, when the reasons for his earlier refusal still exist.

PAGUY,

If you believe Fisher is 21 points behind, then I feel real bad because I always respected your intelligent.

If Fisher only wins by four points in the center of the state, I'll jump off the Blue Ridge. He won 67% of the vote in central Pennsyvlania, outrunning everyother Pennsylvania Republican in recent memory. Plus, he and Arlen Specter are the two Republicans who recently have won a majority in Allgeheny County.

IM not saying Fisher is behind that much, but im saying Fisher is more like 15-13 points behind. The recent polls although they might not be right show a trend and a large leaning towards Rendell.

I'd point out that if Fisher gets the same percentage in central PA that most Republicans get, he will win narrowly.

Look at it this way:

1. Fisher isn't doing like Casey, namely continuing with the same failed tactics. Basically, Fisher has as just as much to run on as Rendell.

2. The Mason-Dixon poll had the SE at 59-26 with the rest undecided. Undecideds in the SE will break heavily for Fisher, unless he messes up in the debates.

3. Fisher is a good debater, and I doubt it will happen.

I have close family connections with Montana. A cousin of mine grew up being the best friend of Gov. Racicot's son. Racicot ain't running. He is a moderate to liberal Republican. He likes Max. As for Gov. Martz, I hope she runs, she's probably the most unpopular person in Montana. She's a joke. This race is over.

Bush wouldn't have appointed him to the RNC chairmanship if he were that liberal.

Martz is a moron, and I'm hoping the incumbent congressman or Hill runs against her.

Don't worry: we'll find someone to destroy slimy little Baucus, if the courts allow it. You don't want Baucus to run unopposed, do you?

Too bad Racicot won't run. I want PAYBACK for New Jersey, and I want it bad.

I want it more.

As if Racicot wouldn't make more as a Senator and wealthy lawyer on the side. Wonder how much he makes at the RNC?

Racicot is like Bush, a compassionate conservative. Baucus is not slimy. Ask the people of Montana. He's been there Senator for 4 terms, about to begin his 5th.

I agree that if Taylor wants off the ballot, someone else should be put on. But the difference between this race and NJ is that in NJ there was a key event between the primary and the dropout (a Senate admonition). In MT the only change is an attack ad.

Vlajos, I might have agree with you, but resorting to such a tactic when you are 19 points ahead is, well, slimy.

"agreed"

BushRep, Rendell is doing better in republican areas beacause, he is a different kind of democrat, he is actually campaigning across the state in repbulican areas, and Fisher isn't inspiring to republicans in general.

Seems to me that Bob Casey took 60% in every region of the state except Philadelphia and its suburbs. Rendell's magic isn't as great as some people try to make it.

I'm aware of Fisher's personality, but it has got him elected in Allegheny County, so he must have been doing something right all along.

Senate ethics rules prohibit senators from having jobs on the side. Otherwise, lots of companies would give them lots of money to do nothing. Racicot wants lots of money, so he can't be a senator.

I as a Democrat would like to say the ad was truly bad. But I think it was bad not because of the allegations, but becuase of the outright homophobia it is trying to stir up. I believe homophobia is wrong and this ad seems to be steeped in it.

Having said that, I think Baucus is safe. It wasn't his campaign doing this. For people here to try and peg it on him unfairly is just as wrong as the ad. Baucus has run a great campaign so far and I don't even think a Racicot could beat him. He has already beaten Rep. Dennis Rehberg before so I don't think you will see him jumping into the race. And last it is entirely to late (with less than 4 weeks to go) in the campaign to substitute somebody especially since Taylor is only suspending his campaign and not withdrawing his name.

Also any comments on Shaheen's big move to frontrunner in NH or the fact that Fisher is about to upset Huckabee in Clinton's homestate Arkansas?

"You don't want Baucus to run unopposed, do you?"

Nope. Just like I didn't like to see (GOP) Sen. Warner run unopposed. At least send out a sacrificial lamb to pretend people have a choice.

And yeah, the MT ad was slimy and unecessary. But most of the Dem partisans here can comfortably criticize ethical lapses in our party, something you GOPers on this board are unable to do.

That last message was me...

I haven't seen the ad, but the descriptions are hysterical. Anybody know where it's posted?
(and, as I recall, gay people were over the "gold chains and chest hair" look by the '80s, since we started it in the '70s. That alone should clear him of the "homo" charge, since the archive film is apparently from the '80's.)

Rehberg was approached earlier in the year about making the race-he declined after Hastert asked him to stay in the House (his seat might've gone Democratic, had Schwietzer run it would've been almost a Dem shoo-in), so I wouldn't expect him to do it now. And there's a huge differemce between Forrester-an empty suit whose entire campaign was "I'm not Torricelli"-and Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee and one of the most influential men in the Senate.

"This race is over."-Vlajos

This race has been over for a while-this is just an interesting sideshow.

And if you want to see the ad, go to nationaljournal.com, click on "Ad Spotlight", and go to Montana in the Senate catergory-and having watched the ad, the gay thing never even crossed my mind until the Republicans started talking about it.

I still do not believe that Rendell is ahead by 20. But, the GOP would have had a better shot at Casey.

Obviously I haven't seen the ad, either, but it seems to me an awful lot of people are responding to the GOP spin about it ("It's anti-gay" -- something they're, shall we say, new to giving a damn about) rather than waiting to see if the actual content supports that contention.

Thanks, AVADem.

I'm still not convinced that the race is over. There could be a backlash against Baucus, and Taylor could jump back in.

This could be a clever attempt to close the gap.

BushRep, you're not convinced Carl Levin's going to win.

Haven't seen the ad, but this strikes me as gop justification for running a piss-poor candidate. Read the description of the ad at Daily Kos, and it seems to me that:

#1) they used film of the guy that he himself publically showed in the 80's...now it's not supposed to be fair game?

#2) someone made an inferrence that may or may not be present

#3) the guy is guilty of poor fashion sense...sorry, but dressing up like SNF is about as stupid as Dukakis getting in the tank. Did that imply he was gay?

BushRep, this race is as over as the PA governor race.

BushRep thinks Rockefellar in West Virginia is a tossup!

Oh and Joe Biden better watch out cause Clatworthy might crack 20 percent in the polls!

A bit of a harsh for the world's largest collection of Chellie Pingree and Howard Dean boosters, no?

Seems like this Taylor guy just didn't have it in him to fight and win. Wuss is the word that comes to mind.

I think we've all conceded Maine. As for Dean, yeah, he's a long shot. But who can predict Presidential primaries -- Governor Who?

Frankly, Baucus wasn't going to lose anyway (unless Racicot entered. But I bet if Racicot wanted to run, Kitzhaber could have been persuaded to cancel him out by challenging Smith). This race a week ago was about as close as, say, Walters-Inhofe.

Pingree is toastier than Torch and I hate Howie Dean so what your refering to I have no idea

I have seven races solidly Democratic for your information. Montana just joined the list.

I'm really tired of the media's bias in Pennsylvania. Anytime Fisher questions Rendell's leadership in Pennsylvania, Fisher is being negative. Rendell goes boohooing to the world.

Rendell calls Fisher, "morally corrupt," and says Fisher is lying about Hershey foods, then Rendell is not being negative.

If Fisher wants to run negative ads, the best ad might call Rendell a hypocrite. Rendell has the principles of a snake. He says whatever serves him at a given time, and the media loves him for it.

Chill out on BushRep. He has the right to root for whatever Republicans he wants. People like Mike Taylor, Andy Raczkowski, Mike Fisher, and John Sanchez need encouragement, just like Jim Abott, Gloria Tristani, Joyce Corcoran, and even Frank Vondersaar (to name a couple of Dems) do.

Thanks JoeyJoeJoe.

Actually, I think Levin, Durbin, Kerry, Reed, Biden, Rockefeller, and now Baucus are safe.

I think the Republican in Michigan has a future in public service because he has shown skill on the campaign trail.
I have never thought he would win.

As far as John Sanchez and Bob Ehrlich, I was widely criticized on Politicalwire.com for saying that both men would make their races competitive. It was said that my cocoa-puffs were spiked. It seems as if I were right-both races are closing, and Ehrlich is ahead in some polls.

As far as Fisher and Pennsylvania, you don't have to be a genius to realize that I love Pennsylvania, its history, its meaning and importance for the country, and the Republican Party which has made it great. It would pain me deeply to see this state fall for a two-bit gambler who is blatantly intellectually dishonest. Bob Casey Jr. was right when he called Rendell a liar. I wouldn't have agreed with Bob Casey Jr., but I respect him because he is a decent person who sticks to his beliefs and represents a part of Pennsylvania that is disappearing.

I can't respect Rendell, in a million years. He is rude, oportunistic, and a liar.

The "Taylor is gay" ad, if intended for that purpose, was truly despicable. It only adds to the homophobia movement in the country. You have to admit (from a non-partisan perspective)that showing a picture of him like that is just begging for a reaction from the voters. That being said, this pretty much ensures Baucus' victory. Taylor, according to Reuters, will not ask for his name to be removed. That probably means that Racicot will not get in the race. I'm going to miss seing Teddy Roosevelt in the news, though. :(

A new poll from Suffolk University, Mass., has O'Brien up 42-30 over Romney. It's good news for her, but I think the race is much closer.

Here's the Reuters article: http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=1560902

Here's the MA Gov's race poll results:
http://www.suffolk.edu/opa/news/10_7_02_poll.html

Please don't make fun of me for going to this site. You can learn something from almost anyone, anywhere:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/campaign2002/766699/posts

Zogby's new Missouri poll has Talent marginally in the lead again.

Thank God.

I'm going to withdraw that post.

Something smells in Missouri.

I checked the newspaper link, and the date is correct:

http://www.semissourian.com/story.html$rec=86241

However, the wording is very similar to the August Zogby poll. I'm usually an expert at recognizing familiar wording, and it is very similar.

I withdraw my story.

That poll sounds pretty generous, although she did beat him to a pulp in both debates...in the second I was afraid she was gonna actually get him some sympathy votes.

It wasn't the Republicans who first started complaining about the ad's "gay" focus. The state's Human Rights Campaign (a gay advocacy group) had already complained to the state Democratic Party.

Remember, this is Montana -- where a guy wearing an earring is probably considered "gay." This ad, while effective with Montana's conservative electorate, was pretty sleazy. I wouldn't condone it from a Republican, and I similarly can't give Democrats a pass.

According to every political analyst. Democrats will most likely pick up one seat in the United States Senate

Alabama- Republican Retention- Sessions-R is going to be re-elected.
Alaska- Republican Retention- Stevens-R will be President Pro Temp if Republicans take control of the Senate
Arkansas- Democratic Pickup- Challenger Pryor-D will defeat Incumbent Hutchinson-R.. According to Hauser,MYDD,DC SACHs,Cook,Faucheux,and Sabato. Indepedent Polls have Pryor with a 5% lead.
Colorado- Too Close to Call. both parties need to win Colorado to maintain control in the Senate. Allard has a slight advantage of winning.
Delaware- Democratic Retention- Biden will most likely break the record to Strom Thurmond
Georgia- Democratic Retention- Miller,BArnes and High turnout among Blacks help Cleland win the Georgia Senate Race.
Idaho- Republican Retention- Black Helicopter States- Craig victory
Illinios- Democratic Retention- Durbin is going back to Washington
Iowa- Democratic Retention- Harkin defeats another Republican Congressman. Who will run against Harkin in 2008.
Kansas- Republican Retention
Louisiana- Democratic Retention- Landreiu wins no runn off necessary
Maine- Republican Retention- Democrats should write Pingree off and focus their attention in Arkansas,Colorado,Texas,New HAmpshire,South Dakota,Minnesota,Missouri.
Massachusetts-Democratic Retention-
Michigan-Democratic Retention- Levin will be re-elected'
Minnesota- Too Close to Call. Will Wellstone break 50% of the popular votes. How much will third party candidates recieve.
Mississippi- Republican Retention
Missouri- Too Close to Call. Grandma Carnahan has a slight advantage of winning the 2002 Special Election
Montana- Democratic Retention- Baucus has no opposition thanks to the Drop out of Mike(The Open Shirt,MAle Face Rubbing,Beauty School Drop Out)
Nebraska- Republican Retention- Hagel wins
New HAmpshire- Republican Retention- Sununu is favored to win
New Jersey- Democratic Retention- Lautenberg will hold on to 2 Senate Seats in New Jersey
New Mexico- Republican Retention- Domenici wins
North Carolina- Republican Retention- Will Dole become the GOP version of Hillary.
Oklahoma- Republican Retention= Inhofe will win. Democrats should replace Walters with Ex Senator David Boren.
Oregon- Republican Retention- I hoped Kitzhaber had ran against Gordon Smith. What about 1996 candidate Tom Bruggere- He has a huge warchest..
Rhode Island- Democratic Retention- Reed wins
South CArolina- Republican Retention- The so called moralistic arrogant bastard Lindsey Graham will win.
South Dakota- Democratic Retention- Johnson wins thanks to Thunes Stupidity and Arrogance- Had thune wished he remained in the Governors race
Tennesee- Republican Retention- Alexander will win. Will the Senate Be Red and Black
Texas- Republican Retention- Cornyn wins-
Virginia- Republican Retention
West Virginia- Democratic Retention- Rockefeller wins
Wyoming- Republican Retention- Enzi wins

Democrats Pick up the Senate Seat in Arkansas. Retention Too Close to Call Seats In Minnesota and Missouri
Republicans will retain Colorado but lose in Arkansas

51 Democrats
48 Republican
1 Independent

Democrats will pick up the Governorship in Arizona,Illinios,KAnsas,Maine,Massachusetts,Michigan,New Mexico,Pennsylvania,Rhode Island,Tennesee,Wisconsin +11 Seats
Republicans will pick up Governorship in Alabama,Alaska,Hawaii,New Hampshire +4 Seats

Democrat Racine will win the Popular vote in Vermont but Will the State legislature agree with the Voters

27 Democratic
21 Republican
1 Independent
1 Undecided

Neal Patel:

In the latest indy polls Sununu is behind Shaheen...polls in NH and TX are all over the place. So, I do not believe any of these polls or any CW.

Actually, NH Senate is now a tossup in independent polls and in internal polls from both sides. The recent ARG poll is clearly an outlier.

This is interesting:

http://miva.dmregister.com/miva/cgi-bin/miva?news/live/display.mv+direction=showstory&showrec=7

Wonder how many of Harkin's far-left wing allies are going to be angry over this?

I'm tired of tap-dancing Democrats-Harkin, Rendell, Daschle, etc.

You have to hand it to Wellstone. He is consistent.

Hey, BushRep, come back on over to http://www.ourcampaigns.com and make some leaning predictions on the record. :)

I remember you.

Sure.

Where do I put the predictions, and am I allowed to change them?

Hey, here's some new polling from Colorado's 7th district. Democrat Mike Feeley faces Republican Bob Beauprez, in a district divided in 3 between Dems, Reps and Independents. A previous poll for the Feeley campaign had Beauprez leading 39-33. Now, the gap is 39-39. That is, there is no gap. This race is tightening, and would be great for the Democrats to win.

Zogby has a Massachusetts poll showing that race nearly tied.

Romney has to start pushing hard. I knew it would tighten, but he needs to use that wonderful personality to shoot ahead again.

Kos: love your site. But:

Sorry, but absent some real- not assumed slight or bashing- this is just tough. Am I supposed to put more into this groups' contention because of who they represent? Are they maintaining that hairdressing commercials= gay bashing?

This film, if I understand correctly, was made by the candidate for selling his own business in WY...now it's gay bashing/homophobic?

You know what Baucus was trying to suggest.

"In the latest indy polls Sununu is behind Shaheen"

Only in one poll. I guess if we are to believe that one independent poll is decisive, then Coleman is ahead of Wellstone by six, huh?

RWG-little difference. The Coleman over Wellstone poll was one in a series of polls which had been clearly discredited, and two independent polls by Minnesota newspapers the week before had shown Wellstone ahead three or four.

Then how come your side (I don't know if you personally have done it, but your fellow partisans certainly have) continues to insist that Colorado is a dead heat? Not one poll, partisan or otherwise, has verified Zogby on that.

JDW -- I totally get your point and respect it. I know if I saw a similar commercial, I wouldn't be fazed by it. My last three homes have been in Chicago, Boston, and now the SF Bay Area. Believe me, I've seen it all.

But Montana is a whole different world than the one I live in. If it was just the GOP complaining, I might agree with you. But the state's Human Rights Commission and its leader (a Democratic state legislator) offered some of the harshest criticism of the spot.

At best, the commercial was making fun of Taylor's fashion sense. At best, it wasn't playing to homophobia, but making fun of Taylor's past persona. That's fine, but in my book, it's not clean politics. Who cares what he looked like 20 years ago? If he cheated the government out of student loan money, then by all means, tear his heart out. But this was gratuitious. If Taylor produced an informercial for his beauty school (or whatever it was), I'm sure they had footage of him working on a woman. Why didn't they use that?

If a Republican ran that ad, I would nail him (or her) to the wall. And believe me, at some point soon, some Republican will make the Baucus ad look tame in comparison. But I can't accuse the GOP of being hypocritical, while looking the other way on this ad.

Oh well. I've hogged up enough of poor Jerome's bandwidth on this issue. But it's cool that so many of us can disagree on this issue, but we don't degenerate into senseless flame wars. Viva los izquierdistas!

The GOP Poll also shows the NH race as dead heat. Polls are all over the place. I would like to see what the new Zogby Polls have to say on the CO race? Contrary to media misinformation, newspapers in CO hardly ever talk about Iraq...Qwest mostly and in the past two days about the resignation of Governor's Owen Secretary who said that illegals get money from welfare, buy houses and crowd the whites out. I do not know why it is a big deal. People in Evergreen, CO have told me that they would not sell houses or land to Asian families because they would take away scholarships and other awards in their school district from the "real" residents.

You know what everybody,

I'm tired of predictions. I just can't bring myself to them anymore. On Election Night, I'll just sit back and relax. Hopefully, things will break to my delight.

I just received the last e-mail from the Taylor campaign. It was typical, but I thought the last paragraph interesting:

"To all of you who helped, I will always be in your debt. Now let's look
to the horizon and prepare to embrace the candidate who's out there who
we pray will rise to the occasion and make history of which all
Montanans will be proud for generations to come."

Apparently, there is someone, and that someone will run. WHO?

(I'm not predicting WHO.)

--NEW JERSEY-- I feel great about election 2002. We've sent $100 to the Laut. Camp. Lautenberg is re-energizing the base in NJ. The Lautenberg camp hasn't even run tv ads and yet ahead in the polls. He's also pounding Forrester on gun control, that's def a plus in NJ. ---MONTANA-- I see no real action in Montana. The laws in Montana are much stricter than in NJ according to CNN's "Inside Politics" thus it would be harder to change candidates. Racicot aids revealed that he has no interest in the senate race at all. ---TEXAS--- Texas is slowly slipping away, a number of indi polls show cornyn increasing his margin, but then again Kirk hasn't been running a lot of ads, We'll have to see how this plays out. ---SOUTH DAKOTA---
I am very optomistic about SD, Johnson has consistently held slight leads. It all comes down to turnout.---MINN---
The GOTV from the unions will be strong. Invocation of Taft-Hartly will motivate the labor base. And the VFW is a BIG PLUS.---NEw HAMPSHIRE---
This race is far from over, Shaheen has been through this before. She has one of the best GOTV org. Remember her gubernatorial race, she was trailing in most polls, then pulled it off.
---Arkansas--- Goodbye Hutchison.
UPSET ALERT--> WATCH SANDERS IN SOUTH CAROLINA.... Closing gap in polls.
SO FAR I SAY DEMS HOLD ALL SEATS---PICK UP NEW HAMPSHIRE, ARKANSAS, MAYBE WITH A LIL EXTRA LUCK, COLORADO.

Where do I put the predictions, and am I allowed to change them?" - BushRep

On each race page, there is a leaning predictions area. You can choose the candidate and lean, then click on the "Predict Lean" button. You can change them any time you want, but it remembers your old ones as well as your current ones, and the dates you make them. That is, if you still want to make predictions. :)

Okay. Will do. I'll make an exception, although so much can change.

A comment on the Mike Taylor Montana ad from a gay perspective.

It's interesting that this ad is seen as Homophobic, and that the Republicans are discussing the ad as homophobic. What's interesting is that Mike Taylor isn't gay, and that there aren't any gay issues in the race. - Personally, the ad didn't seem too much like gay-bating to me. That seemed like a bit of a stretch.

Republicans have a terrible issue with homophobic campaigns (Bob Barr, Dick Armey, Jesse Helms), and with homophobic legislation (killing the hate crimes bill, killing effective aids education, etc.) they'd have to go a long way to convincing me that an ad is worse than bad policy.

Yet, the Republicans don't seem to have cornered the homophobia market, eh?

The Republicans have nothing to complain about in Montana. In the 2000 open House Seat they played up the fact that the Democrat was unmarried, to suggest she was a lesbian.

I wonder if BushRep thinks that the winning Republican Rehberg should be defeated this time around for resorting to that sort of campaign. If he doesn't, I would say he is nothing more than the pathetic hypocrite that he complains everybody else is.

In regards to the add, I saw it on Inside Politics yesterday, (it's on the web if you check out the PoliticalWire site). I didn't think homosexual at all.

I thought the attempt of the visuals in the ad was to show that Taylor is the stereotypical 70's swinger with loose morals, thereby showing that 1)he isn't one of us 2)a guy with loose morals would resort to the sort of things the copy in the add charged.

On both counts, I think the add is fairly harsh and takes the worst case scenario. The likeliest occurance is that Mr. Taylor's company was just being overly careless, but not criminal, in accepting student loan fees.

That said, political ads and discourse are sadly full of half truths and distortions, and, living in the real world, I'm hardly going to suggest that my side voluntarily withdraw from that sort of thing.

"Personally, the ad didn't seem too much like gay-bating to me. That seemed like a bit of a stretch."

At first, I didn't see it either, but I live in a very liberal state. I mean, we're talking about Montana here... a state that tried to get sodomy added as a Megan's Law offense.

When I reread Taylor's statements, I can absolutely see where he's coming from. At the very least, the commercial is pure charecter assassination...politics of the lowest kind. Do you really think the purpose of the ad was to highlight a student loan issue? Or just to show an open shirted 70s style man rubbing another man's face? Which one of those two is going to cost Taylor more votes, hmm?

Of course, put in perspective, Mike Taylor has it easy compared to Lindsey Graham. He's had to endure repeated homophobic attacks from the unapologetic South Carolina Democratic Party. But hey, it's all in the interest of electing candidates who will work with the majority to make the kind of attacks they're perpetrating a thing of the past...!

I agree with Adam. I didn't think the add was gay at all. It did bring the words "tacky" and "swinger" and "70's" to mind, but it certainly didn't seem to hint that he was gay.

Perhaps in Montana. Smirk. :>

As for proof that the Gay/Lesbian, etc. demographic goes Democratic, I submit the following...

"But as Southern Voice went to press early on Wednesday, exit polls showed gay voters had no difficulty making their choice, supporting Gore by a margin of more than 3-to-1."

and

"This year's gay vote went overwhelmingly for the Democrat, according to exit polls. Of the four percent of voters who identified as gay, ABC reported that 70 percent voted for Gore, 23 percent for Bush, one percent for Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan, and three percent for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader.

CNN reported slightly different numbers, with 71 percent for Gore, 24 percent for Bush, four percent for Nader and zero percent for Buchanan."

- Source:
http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=11451

Coincidentally, the Hauser Senate List is humorously misguided on New Jersey. This cycle represents the Republicans' best chance at winning a seat in the state since 1982. Polls show a dead heat, Republicans are energized (and gearing up an unprecedented GOTV effort), and Frank Lautenberg is old. I'd also like to thank him for that wonderful quote about finding his previous service as Senator to be a "personal inconvienence."

If he really thinks that there's a mere 15% chance for a turnover here, then I'd gladly put up my $15 against his $100 on a Republican victory in New Jersey.

"As for proof that the Gay/Lesbian, etc. demographic goes Democratic, I submit the following..."

You don't say?! And, by the way, it's 25% *and rising*.

Hint to GOP, don't give anymore money to Simon...
What an idiot, call Davis out on a statewide debate only to find out the damn picture was taken in a private residence? He must of really wanted to lose as to not spend his own money...

I think the GOP would be better off funding Jeb Bush. I guess the only prediction I made is right. Taegan's Political Wire Report says that GW is going to Florida to help out his brother "who is loosing ground to McBride." Bush's popularity not rubbing off on his brother.

ABC Nightline last night finally put the record straight by visiting Iowa and making clear that war is not very popular in Iowa and that the people there are focussed on economic issues, exactly a week after CNN's Capitol Hill Correspondent spread lies that Harkin is in a very tight race and that the vote against war would lead to him paying the political price. No one is held accountable these days.

RWG:

For your information there is another poll out today in Colorado...indy poll that shows the Senate race in dead heat, confirming what Zogby had to say. The Rocky Mountain Poll puts Allard at 39% and Strickland at 35%....Allard is not just under 50% this late in the game, a dangerous level for an incumbent, but under 40%...it is poltiical life support for an incumbent. 26% undecided. Check out Real Clear Politics, Political News.

I have to agree with Raj. The polls are all over the place in a lot of these contests, not just Texas.

Texas is not slipping away. It's just getting started. I was with Kirk at a fundraiser in Dallas in June, when he said he would get bombarded in the summer/early fall with RNC/RSCC/Tex Repub/Cornyn ads, calling him a liberal/soft on defense/hillary clone.

He said if he can just keep the faith and stay close to the margin of error he would win.
Hell, the Dallas Morning News counted him out in the polls on the primary, (had Kirk in 3rd behind Morales and Bentsen), and in the runoff, (Morales had an 8 point lead)

Kirk has an awesome GOTV program. His tv ads are great. The black and hispanic communties in Texas are energized, and the independent/moderate republicans are not, although the right wing is.

I think Bush Rep, and AC and even some of our Democratic posters will be surprised about Texas on Nov 5. I'm not predicting anything, but the statewide races will be close. Also keep an eye on TX-5. Hensarling is scared to death that no one's heard of him.

PC,

I've also had a hunch that Kirk will pull this off, scorring a major coup for a seat the Repubs will look like idiots for losing.

If my spidy sense is working right, then Kirk will win that TX Seat and Dems will win the Senate!

We'll see!

- MB

The momentum looks to me to be with the Dems again after a sticky period.
New Jersey is at best an evens race now.
New Hampshire is beginning to look that way too - especially if the best poll the Republicans can produce is one placing the candidates neck and neck - if the Smith write-in effort takes off (I haven't seen anything on this for a some days), Sunnunu will be in some bother - he certainly doesn't seem to have gained much momentum from the primary.
Iraq does not look to me like the solid issue for the Republicans I originally thought it would be given that polls show falling levels of support for military action, and even the CIA director is publically contradicting the Bush line. To gain the Senate the Republicans will have to pull a rabbit out of the hat in MI,MN or SD. Even if the other open seats are ultimately likely to stay Republican, the GOP is still having to divert resources to them, which cannot be good for their chances of picking up one of the others.

BushRep laughs at fidelity and Clinton being in the same sentence on October 9. But my suggestion is as all fundamentalists who follow Jesus would say..."ye who have no sin, or at least this particular sin (GOP with Tim Hutchinson, Former Governor Kirk Fordyce of MS, Bob Livingstone (R-LA), Bob Barr of GA, Newt Gingrich of GA..and some of their "Christian" supporters such as Amy "the whore" Grant of Opryland, Dan Burton of IN have this sin) caste the first stone on the Dems (Governor Patton of KY, Ex-Governor Mabus of LA, Bill Clinton of AR who also have this sin)....if you guys says that claiming to be Christian and philandering and lying is mostly a southern white politician problem, there may be some evidence to it, the protests from NoMoRep not withstanding...however it definitely is not unique to GOP or the Dems...Mostly regional, may be...but not unique to political parties.

The cult better known as the Bob Jones University honored their ex-graduate Tim Hutchinson in 1999 as a man who represents the best of the University's Christian teachings. The never took that statement back. Obviously, BJU values imply that philandering is OK as long as you stay within your own race.

This threads long enough. Post on another one.

Guys I live here in Louisiana, and I must tell you I wouldn't count on Mary winning outright in Nov. She is below 50% in the polls right now, and is out of touch with conservative Louisiana. Her base of support is N.O. which has been steadily losing influence and population in the sate. Still its possible she can steal the vote in New Orleans like she did in 96. But if you ask me I see a run off coming. She looked really bad in the debates this week.