60 Million Votes

[DanS]

Here's a list of the seats up for election in 2006 in states with a Democrat senator that were at least within striking distance of Bush...

Florida -- Bill Nelson
Michigan -- Debbie Stabenow
Minnesota -- Mark Dayton
Nebraska -- Ben Nelson
New Mexico -- Jeff Bingaman
North Dakota -- Kent Conrad
West Virginia -- Robert Byrd
Wisconsin -- Herbert Kohl

Of course, there will be retirements (like Byrd) and some of these people are safe. Also, there are always some curveballs. Like Kennedy retiring and there being a strong GOP candidate in Massachusetts.

From...

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2002/6year.htm

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Ramo

Clinton probably would've gotten over 50% both times if it weren't for Perot. The only reason why anyone got over 50% of the vote this year is that there were no viable third party candidates.

For one, that's impossible to know, as we never had a full election poll with only Clinton and Bush I. But more importantly, where he would have or not doesn't really matter- Those Perot voters voted against Clinton being President, they wanted Ross Perot to be president. The great majority of the country did not give Clinton their vote.

It's not like there weren't any third party candidates. There were plenty of alternatives, such as Peroutka or Badnarik that people could have cast votes for instead. But they didn't, and a majority of the country gave their ballots to George W. Bush.

[DanS]

Of that list, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Stabenow, and Dayton look vulnerable.

There is also one possibly vulnerable Dem in a still solid blue territory. Maria Cantwell (WA).

In any event, the GOP has to defend seats in 3 blue states out of 15 seats total (PA, RI, ME) while the Dems have to defend seats in 5 red states out of 17 seats total (NM, WV, ND, FL, NE).

[Ramo]

For one, that's impossible to know, as we never had a full election poll with only Clinton and Bush I. But more importantly, where he would have or not doesn't really matter- Those Perot voters voted against Clinton being President, they wanted Ross Perot to be president. The great majority of the country did not give Clinton their vote.

It's not like there weren't any third party candidates. There were plenty of alternatives, such as Peroutka or Badnarik that people could have cast votes for instead. But they didn't, and a majority of the country gave their ballots to George W. Bush.

1. As I said, Perot voters went for Clinton over Bush something like 2-1 when he temporarily dropped out. It's impossible to know what would've happened (it's impossible to know anything, if you want to be pedantic), but as I said, it's very probable that Clinton would've gotten well over 50% without Perot.

2. Incumbent races are referendums on the incumbent. The Perot voters didn't vote against Clinton, rather they voted against Bush. So the vast majority of the country voted against Bush being President.

3. There are third party candidates in every election. Sometimes they're viable, sometimes they're not. This year, they were not. When they are not, someone will get at least 50%, and 1.5% more ain't enormous.

4. Again, Dear Leader won by the smallest margin an incumbent has won by since Wilson. Not a mandate. Period.

[PLATO]

So your saying that 60 million voters don't create a mandate? Is that what your saying?

I'm still a bit unclear on your position.

[Ramo]

Of that list, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Stabenow, and Dayton look vulnerable.

There is also one possibly vulnerable Dem in a still solid blue territory. Maria Cantwell (WA).

In any event, the GOP has to defend seats in 3 blue states out of 15 seats total (PA, RI, ME) while the Dems have to defend seats in 5 red states out of 17 seats total (NM, WV, ND, FL, NE).

But there are vulnerable Republicans in red states. Harold Ford Jr. could mount a strong challenge to Frist in TN. Mark Warner could challenge Allen in VA. Ensign may be vulnerable in NV given the right Dem, and Kyl in AZ had promised to resign, and the race could be competitive if he does.

Chaffee and Snowe may be vulnerable if they follow Shrub and Frist too closely, but are probably relatively safe.

Santorum, I'm betting, will go down. The Dems just need to find the right guy to beat him (Hoeffel might not be too bad a candidate).

On the Dem side:

Byrd has his seat as long as he wants it, and even if he doesn't the Dems would probably keep the seat (local party is strong - see their Gov. race). Cantwell will win easily (Murray, a weaker candidate, won by a fair margin). And I don't see a credible threat in NM.

Conrad may be vulnerable in ND, and Bill Nelson in FL given the right guys. Dayton in MN and Stablenow in MI will have tough races too.

And I'm guessing that Ben Nelson will lose in NE.

[Ramo]

So your saying that 60 million voters don't create a mandate? Is that what your saying?

I'm still a bit unclear on your position.

Yes, just like 57 million voters don't create a mandate.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Ramo

So your saying that 60 million voters don't create a mandate? Is that what your saying?

I'm still a bit unclear on your position.

Yes, just like 57 million voters don't create a mandate.

The mandate's kinda hard to make good on if you lost.........

[Ramo]

Point was, a large number of votes is not the same thing as a mandate. A lot of voters did vote for Dear Leader, but a lot voted against him too.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo
But there are vulnerable Republicans in red states. Harold Ford Jr. could mount a strong challenge to Frist in TN.

ZERO chance of that. Frist would absolutely embarass Ford at the polls. The only chance that Ford has at that seat is if Frist doesn't persue another term in order to make his run at the Presidentcy. The Ford family's power dwindles mightily once you get outside of Memphis and is virtually non-existent past Jackson. You really need to brush up on Tennessee politics before making a claim like that one.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo
Point was, a large number of votes is not the same thing as a mandate. A lot of voters did vote for Dear Leader, but a lot voted against him too.

So 60 million people...and the first president since Reagan to get over 50% of the vote means Kerry's agenda is the one we should persue?

[PLATO]

28 Govenorships

55 Senators

231 Representatives

THE PRESIDENT


Yep...No mandate from the American people yet.

[Admiral]

The question of mandate isn't whether we should pursue a strongly republican agenda or a strongly democratic agenda. It is whether the Republican's should work with Democrats, and adopt a moderate centrist position, or whether they should actively pursue a hardline conservative agenda, appoint only arch-conservative judges, institute a national sales tax, and generally tell the Democrats to go cry in a corner.

[Ramo]

So 60 million people...and the first president since Reagan to get over 50% of the vote means Kerry's agenda is the one we should persue?

Again, no viable third parties mean someone gets more than 50%. And 57 million voted against him.

I didn't say there was a mandate, either for Kerry or for Bush. Basically, there's a divided electorate. The only reason why it's not even closer is that the Kerry campaign focused GOTV only in the swing states (as opposed to the Bush campaign), so turnout in New York and California was low.

ZERO chance of that. Frist would absolutely embarass Ford at the polls. The only chance that Ford has at that seat is if Frist doesn't persue another term in order to make his run at the Presidentcy. The Ford family's power dwindles mightily once you get outside of Memphis and is virtually non-existent past Jackson. You really need to brush up on Tennessee politics before making a claim like that one.

Who said that I thought he'd win on the basis of his name (my understanding, is that it's a handicap more than anything else)?

[:) Smiley]

Bush math
-------------------------
49% = mandate
50% = landslide
51% = blowout
52% = declared president for life