-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
The Spectacle Blog
For the past three election cycles — covering, therefore, every seat in the Senate that will take office in January — Republicans have lost virtually every extremely close race, meaning a race that ends with margins within about 10,000-15,000 votes. This appears to be the case again this year, if Ken Buck and Dino Rossi also fall short. Consider all the following senators who won by knife’s edge:
Mark Begich, Alaska, 4,000 votes or 1% — and this, only after a flawed conviction of Ted Stevens.
Michael Bennet, Colorado — This isn’t over yet, but the Denver Post has called it for Bennet by an incredibly narrow margin.
Al Franken, Minnesota — 312 votes, .011%…. and if he really won among real, eligible voters, I’m a 7-foot-7 starting center for the Knicks.’
Tim Johnson, South Dakota — Okay, his narrow win actually was back in 2002, over John Thune, and he has been re-elected since then while Thune knocked off Tom Daschle, who probably would have survived anyone but Thune. So this one is a wash.
Mary Landrieu — her tightest race was her first election, in 1996, which she won by less than 6,000 votes in an election suspicious due to a ton of gambling money. A Republican incumbent otherwise almost certainly would have won that seat in each of her next two races.
Frank Lautenberg, N.J. — Okay, I’m changing my criteria from “close” to “questionable.” By New Jersey law, there was no way that Lautenberg should have been let into the race to replace the disgraced Robert Torricelli in 2002 — who surely would have lost.
Claire McCaskill, Missouri, and Jeff Merkely, Oregon: Both won in the end by a bit more than my 15,000 range, and won fair and square…. but still, their wins were remarkably close.
Patty Murray — Not over yet, but it looks like she will edge poor Dino Rossi.
Jon Tester, Montana, 3,500 votes, just under 1%, after incumbent Conrad Burns was slimed with ethics complaints that didn’t entirely prove true.
Jim Webb, Virginia — 9,000 votes, or .3%. The Washington Post ran a horrendously biased front-page campaign against Republican George Allen to help Webb sneak through.
Harry Reid — He did beat Angle by five percent, not an absolute squeaker, but he won two terms ago by just a few hundred votes.
There — that’s a heck of a list. Not a single current Republican, I think (unless I missed one), can be said to have just squeaked into office, with the exception of Thune over Daschle, which was payback . It seems to me that the Dems are better at “finding” votes than the Repubs are. What this means in terms of political ability, I don’t know, but it does mean that even a normal distribution of close races rather than a Demo sweep would mean that the GOP would have a majority… which, of course, they won’t have come January, absent some weird party switches.
Chris B| 11.3.10 @ 1:29PM
We won the Senate last night.
Swapping Pat Toomey for Arlen Specter? Marco Rubio for Mel Martinez? Rob Portman for George Voinovich? Mike Lee for Bob Bennett?
Reliables instead of RINOS? And with Joe Manchin winning with an explicitly DINO campaign.... This is good.
Dingy Harry remains the public face of the Senate Democrats. Yeah, I'm happy with that.
Ben Oester| 11.3.10 @ 1:38PM
I know the fruitcakes that reside here will go bonkers, but last night was a pretty damn good night for moderate Republicans. The two crazy sisters from Delaware and Nevada went down, Kirk won, and it sure looks like Murkowski might stay in Washington ...
Gotta love it.
Dan Abrams | 11.3.10 @ 1:43PM
Now you know what it feels like to be a Viking fan.
Michael L. Hauschild| 11.3.10 @ 1:45PM
Three reasons why Senate races are close;
1. Everybody in the state, border to border inclusive gets to vote for the Senatorial candidate. This means that the rural/urban or metropolitan/suburb divides are not accentuated by districting or gerrymandering influence.
2. Election cycles are much longer. Time in office trends to “moderate” the incumbent in the eyes of the voter. Senators can grandstand rhetorically and not have to be on the campaign trail from the time they enter office.
3. The legislative flow is from the house to the Senate and the state delegation is only two, very little infighting is possible since one cannot gang up on one. Nuancing the public opinion is inherently easier . The job description is essentially moderating the house positions and this tends to soften and evenly distribute both approval and disapproval of the constituency.
Siegfried X| 11.3.10 @ 1:59PM
It's a general principle that Democratic politicians fight harder than Republicans. It's like watching boy scouts against a motorcycle gang.
Jersey| 11.4.10 @ 10:14AM
"By New Jersey law, there was no way that Lautenberg should have been let into the race"
Really? So the NJ Supreme Court, the court that voted unanimously to allow Lautenberg to run, broke the law? BTW - the supreme court at the time was by majority appointed by a republican governor. Also - it's all cute and everything that the GOP won but it wasn't a referendum on Obama - if it was, the dems would have lost the senate too. There are NO moderate candidates in the GOP/TP anymore and the GOP /TP will not be able to fix the ecnomy while taking enormous bribes from coporations. Which is the number 1 reason the GOP/TP won this year, they were allowed by the supreme court to take as much money from special interests as they could fit in their extremist little pockets.
Dale Cord| 11.4.10 @ 11:31AM
Most of the population of our country is suffering under the delusion, that the Republicans are for the American people. There is no difference between these two UN-AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES, who have been fleecing the citizens of this country now since Woodrow Wilson's Communist regime took root in Washington. Being uneducated in history and politics is no shameful thing considering, our educational system is being controlled by the political machine in Washington and abroad. What is shameful though is to remain in a state of mental confusion as to who our enemy really is in this country. To focus your mind on entertainment though, instead of who is violating the sanctity of your freedoms, livelihood, home and privacy as an American citizen is the epitome of shameful stupidity. Your bible and history books have a multitude of warning signs for your survival in this world of predators. Who seek not only your income but your very soul. If you really want what is best for your loved ones, and true God given freedom and equality for all in America. Then open your eyes and unlock your mind and let truth set you free. The removal of both the Democrat's and Republican's in this great country of ours would be a great start. Read our Constitution for the legality and authorization by the people to do this or, remain subjects and cannon fodder to the warlords and criminals who rein over us at this present time. "There is a way that seems right to a man but, the end therein is Death"