By: gumball machine (L-CA) - 2006-06-22 @ 20:27:24

I don't know about VT. Everybody there tends to love Sanders; I think its a safe Sanders

 By: downwithdaleft (R-NJ) - 2006-06-30 @ 13:19:52

How is VT strong Dem? Explain your reasoning.

 By: cnbpjb (--GA) - 2006-06-30 @ 13:58:51

How is Ohio strong Democratic? It hasn't elected a Democrat for President since 1996 (although, I know some think otherwise in 2004). Also Carter isn't going to defeat Ensign in Nevada. Not to mention Webb in Virginia defeating Allen. Last Edit: 2006-06-30 @ 13:59:42

 By: downwithdaleft (R-NJ) - 2006-07-02 @ 22:14:51

Where are all these incredible independents that push alot of winners into the thirties? I just don't see that and this prediction is the Dems version of heaven.

 By: Heartofsong83 (O-ON) - 2006-07-04 @ 00:45:18

The only sub-40 winners I can see are in Washington (if the Greens can eat into Cantwell) and Connecticut (if Lieberman runs as an independent).

 By: cm04g (I-FL) - 2006-07-28 @ 00:10:18

Are u sure you are an independent? I think you don't wanna be associated with dems by name but be proud to be who you are (DEMOCRAT). You do not have to try to put yourself in the middle.

 By: ryer (R-VA) - 2006-07-28 @ 13:16:01

Um, cm04g, doesn't that critique of osidejettaboi seem a tad hypocritical on your part? True, his calls favor the Democrats significantly more than yours, but you've got the Democrats prevailing just about everywhere there's a real race. Of the seven most competitive contests -Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington - you've got the Democrats prevailing in six, giving only Ohio to the GOP. True, you haven't gone entirely native, not being among those unusually optimistic Democrats who see their candidates prevailing in Tennessee or Virginia, but that would appear to make you a more realistic Democrat, not necessarily an independent. So, cm04g, are you sure you are an independent?

 By: gumball machine (L-CA) - 2006-08-01 @ 19:27:41

ryer, I see many errors in that statement. Pennsylvania is not a competitive contest, everyone knows that Santorum is going down. Also, you don't have to be a Democrat to predict GOP losses this year. Another thing, of the alleged "seven most competitive races", three are already Democratic incumbents. We all know that Dems will win in PA and probably MT, so that only leaves two contests where GOP incumbents might lose, according to you. Because of that, it would be pretty reasonable for all but one of those seven states to go Dem.

 By: downwithdaleft (R-NJ) - 2006-08-01 @ 19:44:31

I think you need to change to "L" to a "D" and a captial one at that. We don't "all" "know" Santorum is going down. At this point, unlike some Republicans, I think he will lose. But there is still at least a 30% probably closer to 40% chance he holds on. And Montana will be the biggest suprise as Burns will turn it on in the end and pull off a squeaky close victory.

 By: polpro (R-NV) - 2006-08-01 @ 22:56:26

I agree with donwithdaleft regarding PA. I agree that it is more probable than not that Santorum loses but that should not be taken as broadly as "We all know" Again, while I predict that Burns will lose, that race will close due to the political makeup of Montana.

 By: ryer (R-VA) - 2006-08-02 @ 13:14:35

Actually, gumball machine, I've reread my comment and don't see any, yet alone many, errors in it. First, your comment that "everyone knows that Santorum is going down" is absurd. Admittedly, he is behind. But I doubt even the DSCC has decided to take Pennsylvania off their radar screen. They know that discounting Rick Santorum's political abilities is an at your own risk proposition. Moreover, gumball machine, I think you entirely missed my point. The prediction of osidejettaboi (who I'm guessing drives a Volkswagen product) caused cm04g to question whether or not he was an independent. But, cm04g also professes to be an independent even though his own predictions are similarly optimistic for the Democrats. I felt (and still feel) that there was a little "pot calling kettle black" action going on. On that matter, as a Libertarian rooting for the Democrats, what are you hoping to accomplish, gumball machine?

 By: gumball machine (L-CA) - 2006-08-02 @ 13:17:44

If you see my entry on Olawakandi version 22 you would see my political philosiphy. Also, look at my comments on my prediction you would see my basis for a Pennsylvania loss. And to answer ryer, I am just hoping that the liberal Republicans that voted for Medicare part D, raising funding for stem-cell research, and to raise the minimum wage loses. About "pot calling kettle black", the only one of those seven states you have going Dem is Washington. I am honestly doubtful about the GOP having a net gain of seats. Last Edit: 2006-08-02 @ 13:27:38

 By: gumball machine (L-CA) - 2006-08-02 @ 13:46:57

When I said "Libertarian rooting for Democrats", I didn't mean voting Democratic, I just want to teach the GOP to keep a consistent conservative platform, rather than act like RINO's, because I'd rather have a Dem-controlled Senate than a RINO-controlled Senate. Last Edit: 2006-08-02 @ 14:12:00

 By: ryer (R-VA) - 2006-08-02 @ 15:34:05

Since I readily acknowledge my partisan leanings, gumball machine, cm04g wouldn't have made that assertion about me. His point was specifically directed to osidejettaboi's declaring status as an "independent." Thus, in this particular case, I cannot be accused of being a pot to anyone else's kettle. Now, gumball machine, about "biting off one's nose to spite the face,"...perhaps I'll save that for another post.

 By: gumball machine (L-CA) - 2006-08-03 @ 00:19:14

What I was trying to say is that you are the other extreme. Also, what I said about PA, I think that if you look at the odds for PA on my prediction comments, you will see that PA has an 89-11 chance that it goes Dem. True that that is not certainty, but that is pretty likely.

 By: ryer (R-VA) - 2006-08-03 @ 00:59:24

While I appreciate your mathematical prowess and respect (and have defended) your decision to adhere to the markets for your predictions, gumball machine, I am not persuaded that Santorum has only an 11% chance of prevailing. I realized that you were trying to characterize my picks as extreme. However, that was not the point of the comments posted here. The point was about accurately declaring partisan affiliation. It appeared to me that cm04g's critique of osidejettaboi might lack some self-awareness on cm04g's part. Obviously, I would disagree that my own predictions are "extreme". Indeed, history - both recent and distant - would indicate otherwise. If they were extreme, I would probably be predicting Republican victories in Maryland, Washington, and Rhode Island. I am, however, not. I might also note that my current predictions have received much challenge on my prediction page, and you might go there to see my reasoning in each contest.

 By: cm04g (I-FL) - 2006-08-22 @ 21:01:38

To ryer My prediction seemed to lean towards the dems but I call it as I see it. OH, TN and RI are all "leans republican" in my map. I am not being overoptimistic.

 By: ryer (R-VA) - 2006-08-22 @ 23:16:24

I know that cm04g. But, you criticized osidejettaboi for not calling himself a Democrat. My point was that someone could assert the same when looking at your picks, even though they are more realistic (or at least closer to conventional wisdom) than osidejettaboi's.

 By: gumball machine (L-CA) - 2006-09-23 @ 22:50:24

Attention: Please change CT to Lieberman if you want to get rid of Down/U. Lib.!

• View Most Recent Entries
• View Entries with Most Recent Member Comments
• Go to Senatorial Prediction Home
• Update My 2006 Senatorial Prediction Map