Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Friday, November 07, 2008

Senate Talking Guy?

I leafed through the blog archives today to see how our predictions have panned out over the past few years. On the whole, we have all made some good calls and some bad ones. When it comes to the Senate, though, the king of predictions proves to be LTG. Nearly two years ago, way back on November 27, 2006, LTG made the following predictions for the 2008 Senate races.

1. CORRECT: DEMS pick up CO
2. CORRECT: DEMS pick up NH
3. CORRECT: DEMS pick up OR or MN
4. CORRECT: DEMS pick up "at least one" of VA, NM
5. ALMOST CORRECT: DEMS gain no other seats.
[Possible Exception: GA headed to December runoff]
In other words, he got almost everything right. Furthermore, on the eve of the 2006 election, LTG correctly called every 2006 Senate race:
My predictions: Senate: 50(D)-49(R)-1(I). Democrats will pick up Montana, Penn, Ohio, RI, Virginia, and Missouri. Lieberman, an Independent, will take Connecticut in a close race.
So kudos to LTG! Any thoughts for 2010? Now is the time!


The Law Talking Guy said...

I was hardly alone in these predictions for the Senate, of course. The guiding light of those predictions was the knowledge that Iraq would remain a quagmire and W would remain unpopular. I did not count on Iraq dropping out of the news and somewhat improving but the economy tanking. Same difference in the end, though.

For 2010, we do not know much except that the economy will probably still be struggling.

The Law Talking Guy said...

Midterm elections usually do not favor the President's party. Assume in 2010 tougher year for Democrats, like 1998. Assume that Obama is less popular than now. Assume that without him on the ballot, black turnout is lower. Assume, however, that the GOP continues its rightward bent. We know much less about 2010 in 2008 than we did about 2008 in 2006.

Senate Races:
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (lose)
Barbara Boxer of California (win)
Ken Salazar of Colorado (win)
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii (win until he dies)
DEMOCRAT of Illinois replacing Obama (win)
Evan Bayh of Indiana (win)
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland (win)
Harry Reid of Nevada (win in a tough fight)
Chuck Schumer of New York (win)
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota (lose)
Ron Wyden of Oregon (win)
Patrick Leahy of Vermont (win)
Patty Murray of Washington (win)
[-2, AR and ND]
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin (win)
Richard Shelby of Alabama (win)
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (win)
John McCain of Arizona (lose or retire)
Mel Martinez of Florida (win)
Johnny Isakson of Georgia (win)
Mike Crapo of Idaho (win)
Chuck Grassley of Iowa (win)
Jim Bunning of Kentucky (win)
David Vitter of Louisiana (lose)
Kit Bond of Missouri (win)
Judd Gregg of New Hampshire (lose)
Richard Burr of North Carolina (win)
George Voinovich of Ohio (lose)
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (win)
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (lose or retire)
Jim DeMint of South Carolina (win)
John Thune of South Dakota (win)
Bob Bennett of Utah (win)
[GOP-4 – AZ, LA, NH, PA]
Net pickup for DEM: 2.

Bell Curve said...

Russ Feingold would be very upset to be lumped with the Republicans.

The Law Talking Guy said...

I was re-editing when I posted and moved the GOP line up. oops.

Raised By Republicans said...

Way to go LTG!

Re: Voinovich, the "Club for Growth" has targeted him as a "RINO" (Republican in Name Only). He could face a serious primary challenge.

Re: Arizona, I think it depends if Napolitano runs or not. If she does, the Democrats will take that seat regardless of McCain's decision. If she doesn't, McCain would beat "Random Democrat" but in an open seat it would be a toss up.

The Law Talking Guy said...

I don't know AZ politics well enough to know if Napolitano is the only Dem with a big presence in that state. Isn't there at least one Udall available?

Raised By Republicans said...

Well, aren't all the Udalls already in the Senate?

In my more petty moods, I'd have serious trouble voting for, or supporting, a Mormon unless he (and are there any Mormon women on the national political scene?) publicly repudiates what the LDS did in California.