Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (7393)	9/29/1998 10:18:00 PM
From: Trippi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

Well the Senate is pretty easy to figure out: Republicans lose the Indiana Seat but pick up John Glenn's seat -- so that's a wash. NY and NC are the only other Republican Senate seats in play. The rest: Washington, California, Nevada, Wisconsin, Illinois, South Carolina all Democratic incumbents in tight races. Of the two Open seats currently held by Democrats -- Arkansas and Kentucky -- Arkansas is holding Democratic and Kentucky is a toss-up though I'd bet big on the Democrat. Democrats would have to lose 7 of the eight close or open seat races for your Senate prediction to come true -- Arkansas really is over so that would mean Democrats would have to lose all 7 of the races still in play plus lose both NY and NC. While two or three weeks ago that looked possible -- Both Murray and Reid have improved in the last week -- enough so that I would say they are no longer in danger. Hollings in S.C. is improving as well -- In Kentucky where Baesler was down about 10 days ago -- he's now leading there. And North Carolina is looking particularly bad for Faircloth -- and this week Shummer pulled into a lead in NY over D'Amato. The Senate is not captive to the same mid-term factor that occurs in the House -- but right now I would bet on little or no change in the Senate -- most likely a 1 to 2 seat loss for the Dems. However -- and I know you all hate to hear this -- the momentum -- in terms of the election has shifted -- If D'Amato and Faircloth remain in trouble (something that is dubious at least in terms of D'Amato's campaign prowess) it is possible that Democrats could actually squeak out a gain of one seat. Two weeks ago the scandal was moving the momentum in electoral terms to the Republicans big time -- but since the release of Clinton's taped testimony -- the movement has all been in the opposite direction -- again particularly so over the week-end. The point is -- even if the Republicans are right -- even if there are clear grounds for impeachment -- the way they are handling it is hurting them. Today Senator Lott made things worse -- saying that "bad behavior" itself was grounds for impeachment. The more partisan the Republicans become in the eyes of the American people -- the more they drive momentum to the Democrats.

To: greenspirit who wrote (7393)	9/30/1998 5:16:00 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 13994

Hi Michael D. Cummings; (A little off topic) That WA senate race... Did you see the editorial in The Stranger? thestranger.com Unfortunately, they don't have their archive running yet, so I can only type in a few quotes. They feel that Patty Murray is too right wing for them, (of course Linda Smith is even more right wing), but the real problem Murray has is her brains: Linda vs. Patty ... And this, of course, is Patty's other problem, and the reason why she has been targeted nationally by the Republican Party. It's not just that she's a sell-out who has clung pathetically to Bill Clinton at every opportunity. She's also incompetent. In six long years, she hasn't actually done anything. She can't point to one major bill or initiative. She is widely reported by D.C. insiders to be in over her head; a clueless Senator frequently lost in the Senate's procedural morass and horse-trading. One of Murray's TV commercials, spouting her concern for class size and (of course) the kids, (Parenthetical note: The Stranger is one of those weekly newspapers that refers to heterosexuals as "breeders".) has the tag line: "... and my bill lost by just one vote. But I'll keep fighting!" It's sorta like the coach of the 0-16 football team pleading for his job by reminding fans of the game he almost won. And that's the good candidate. In the other corner, we have Linda Smith. Smith will appear attractive to some of Murray's natural supporters because of her high-visiblity opposition to free trade and support of campaign finance reform. Don't buy it for a second. Linda may well be the most reactionary member of Congress. Should be an interesting race... -- Carl

To: greenspirit who wrote (7393)	9/30/1998 6:45:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 13994

Michael, I sure hope you are right about Linda beating Patty Murray. I have the pleasure of Linda being from my County; she lives about 10 miles away. I've seen her speak in person many many times at various fund raisers, since she represented my district in her races for State Legislature, State Senate, US Congress, and now US Senate. She's the real McCoy: Honest, ethical, family friendly, taxpayer friendly; she's nice but not fakey-friendly, she's energetic, goal-oriented, and she is a to-the-point speaker who cuts right to the issues. Okay, I'm sure you were going to vote for her anyway, but another good thing about Linda is that she doesn't take PAC money, as you probably know: She hasn't accepted any PAC money since well prior to her run for US Congress. She wanted to go to D.C. beholden to nobody except America and her constituents at home. She's a loose cannon in that crooked jungle, but we her grassroots supporters love her! :-)