« The Path To 9/11: Why Can't ABC Just Make Shit Up And Call It History? | Main | Some Questions »

September 07, 2006


Extremely helpful rundown, thank you Mimikatz.

Another useful page here from electoral-vote.com on the hot House races, with photos, blurbs & wikipedia links.

Chris Shays is a very skillful campaigner (more seasoned than Farrell), but this race isn't over. His district supported Lamont, so the timetable thing helps him and hurts Joe. However, yesterday's Bush gauntlet (support me, I am your GOP leader; you're with me or against me and I stand for torture and secret prisons) hurts all CT Rs who were running away from Bush.

In CT-2, a very D district, Simmons isn't half the campaigner Shays is.

I think Murphy in CT-5 has a better chance than Farrell. Simmons is clearly the most vulnerable of the three.

Just my opinion.

Thanks, Dem. None of the races are over until it's over. There are some good candidates running, and I still think we'll get at least the 15 we need. Another site with good info is the WaPo election site, except that they don't update too frequently. It has a background on each district in the contested races.

the new MSNBC/National journal site is good as well.


See CT-2:

7. Conn., House Dist. 2

Simmons (R) v. Courtney (D)

Charlie Cook's race rating: Toss up

Chuck Todd's Race Ranking: 7*
(With apologies to Mr. Alter...) Old C.W.: Lieberman indie bid divides Democrats, helps incumbent Republican. New C.W.: House Democratic candidates who can sport the endorsements of both Lamont and Lieberman have an edge.

Source: NationalJournal.com

*Ranked by likelihood to switch party control


As you sift through the data do you see any campaign themes or are they all basically local elections? I would have thought that the Dems would be interested in nationalizing the elections and making it a referendum on Bush and Iraq. However, in reading comments on MyDD it seems many Dem candidates are not claiming the Dem label in their campaign literature and media placements - implying they are running on their own.

Ab: It is hard to generalize. Visit the websites I linked to. They range from some who don't identify the candidate as a Dem to Mary Jo Kilroy's "Proud Democrat for Congress!" Many are against the Iraq war. Some have detailed proposals and some are pretty sketchy. Patricia Madrid and Kirsten Gillibrand have some good, hard-hitting ads, although Madrid never identifies heself as a Dem. Surprising in a state with a Dem Governor and Senator. Gillibrand does so identify, right at the top. Kellam (VA-02) and Cranley (OH-01) are the most conservative based on one of my earlier tours of the websites. Now that I've put the links in one place, I urge everyone to find out for themsleves just what our crop of candidates looks and sounds like.

I should note that Patsy Madrid clearly links Heather Wilson to Bush in her ads, and denounces the Bush Admin, so one would really have to be a "low information" voter not to figure it out.

Cook Report upgrades OH-01 (Cranley v. Chabot) and OH-15 (Kilroy v. Pryce) to tossup, but downgrades CA-11 (McNerney v. Pombo) to Likely R. But Pombo found himself in more scandal this week.

Minor point, but Hodes vs. Bass is NH-02 not 01.

Thanks for this. I read these kind of summations like I'm taking drugs - greedily, like it's going to fill a hole in me now. (Then, unfortunately, I remember that the election is 2 months away and I'm not going to know how it all turns out until then. At that point, refocusing on the local and immediate is the only thing to keep me sane.)

I'll also say while I'm here, for the benefit of anyone clicking through all those links, that Paul Hodes' positions reward close reading. On a quick skim they can look a little generic moderate Dem, but the closer you read, the more interesting - and progressive - they look. Listening to him in person, even more so.


As always, thanks for these reviews--I find them quite useful.

Oh, and here's a thought. Could the special election in TX be an attempt to use the results of the one to claim "voter intent" for the real election? That is, do you think they would try to claim that Stekla would get the same number of votes for the real race?

I thought Lampson wasn't participating in the special election, the better to dismiss it as nonsense, so that vote count would be meaningless? do I remember that wrong?

although that is an interesting idea & may have been on their minds

'Pockets--You are right that Lampson is not participating. The word is that Rick Perry did it so voters would know how to spell "Shelley Sekula-Gibbs" for the write-in, but then three other Republicans and a Libertarian jumped in, and one of the R's is running as a write-in as well. Not running in the Special would save Lampson from doing worse against a real than a write-in opponent. Apparently they use electrinic machines and the write-in process is cumbersome, rather like texting on a phone but with a larger keyboard.

In CO-04, that company didn't even poll the 3rd party candidate, Eric Eidsness, who took 8% in a Survey USA poll. And it was weighted 50% Republican sample, when the district is 40%. That means a lot of Republicans are ditching Marilyn Musgrave for Angie Paccione.

parietosphenoidal riverless rootstalk indaba watch castorite arthrometer lorettoite
Ed Quest

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad