Senate Races to Watch on Tuesday

Right now, as an outcome of this Tuesday’s election, it is certain that Democrats will have 55 seats and the republicans will have 37 seats, with eight seats with a reasonable degree of uncertainty.

The most recent information from Mississippi seems to indicate that the Republican Candidate (Wicker) is going to win this race against the Democrat, Musgrove. Another state often considered a tossup in the Senate is Texax, but it is looking like Republican Cornyn will beat Democrat Noriega.

In Georgia: Republican Chambliss is consistently ahead of Democrat Martin by a mere two points in polls over the last few days.

Kentucky: Republican McConnell is an unconfortable four points ahead of Democrqat Lunsford.

Oregon: Democrat Markley hovers about one point (not statistically significant) ahead of Republican Smith.

If all five of these seats go Republican (a reasonable guess) this leaves the count 55:42.

In Minnesota, Democrat Al Franken is in most polls a tiny bit (not statistically signficnat) ahead of incumbent Republican Norm Coleman. A very recent poll using allegedly improved methodology puts Coleman WAY ahead of Franken. Of all the races across the country, this one and the North Carolina race are probably the most interesting, and the most in need of your financial support!

New Hampshire: Democrat Shaheen seems to have pulled ahead of Republican Sununu by a statistically significant margin, but the surge is recent and therefore not secure.

North Carolina: Democrat Hagan is the tiniest bit ahead of Dole, not statistically significnat in most polls over the last several days.

It is by no means certain that all three of these states will place a Republican in the Senate in this race. But if they do, the Democrats are still two seats short of a filibusterer proof majority.

Comments

  1. #1 RSM
    October 28, 2008

    Which is the way any sensible person would want it.

    At least filibustering will keep the damage done to a minimum, just see how much damage has been done with an acquiescent congress and senate under Bush. I have no idea why anyone would want a filibuster proof senate. One of the few post-election checks on power still around.

  2. #2 Greg Laden
    October 28, 2008

    We want a filibuster proof senate at least for a few years because all it will take is one bitter, cranky Republican Senator who resents the sweep that may happen next Tuesday and who is hell bent on fucking up the Democrats to ruin it for everyone.

    That. Will. Happen. Anyone who thinks not is not paying careful attention and has not been paying attention for some time.

  3. #3 Erin
    October 29, 2008

    Could be a typo, but just in case: Oregon’s Democratic candidate is Jeff Merkley, not Markley.

    As much as I’d love to have a total Democratic sweep, I voted for Gordon Smith. He’s done a good job so far, and votes with the Democrats almost as much as he votes with the Republicans. Jeff Merkley, on the other hand, is busy climbing the political ladder.

    Basically: Either way the election goes in Oregon, it’s a win for the Democrats overall. You’ve got a relatively unknown Democrat who maybe-probably votes along party lines, and well-known Republican who votes with the Democrats on important issues. I’m not sure it would make much of a difference in passing bills and preventing fillibusters.

  4. #4 Greg Laden
    October 29, 2008

    Erin: The fillibuster number is 60. We either get it or we don’t. If we don’t get 60, we get filibusters. If we get 59 Senators, and Oregon sends a Republican, and the Republican won by one vote, they’re going to make one of those videos about how you ruined it for everybody!

Current ye@r *