What Will Happen in the Mid-Term Elections

[albionmoonlight]

All this talk about predictions and pervert Congressmen has gotten me wondering about what people think will happen in these mid-term elections.

Not what you want to happen, but what you think is going to happen.

I am getting more and more sick of politics qua politics. Perhaps it will lighten my mood to think of politics qua sport.

Or maybe I am just getting cynical.

[RendeR]

Killem all, start fresh.

But I expect the republicans to get their asses handed to them, deservedly I might ad.

[gottimd]

How long until this thread gets parodied into some sort of "erections" thread?

[Swaggs]

I think this Foley scandel delivers the House to the Democrats. I think the Repubs will hold on to 51-52 Senate seats.

[QuikSand]

If only there were a capable party running against the republicans, this would set up to be a total slaughter. As it is, they're a letter short, and will probably receive only laughter.

[revrew]

If only there were a capable party running against the republicans, this would set up to be a total slaughter. As it is, they're a letter short, and will probably receive only laughter.

While I agree with your assessment, QS, I think the opposite is also true:

If there were a capable party running against the Democrats, this would set up to be a total slaughter.

But so long as the leaders of both parties show themselves to be hopelessly out of touch with the rank-n-file members and general populace, both parties will flounder in ineptness. In fact, that's my prediction: Democrats win one house, rendering the Republicans even more inept. Thus, in 2008 we'll hear how the Republicans are inept and the Democrats are obstructionist, and the only thing we can be sure of is that the next president will win more on style than substance.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling, forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

[Toddzilla]

If only there were a capable party running against the republicans*sigh* true, dat.

[TroyF]

While I agree with your assessment, QS, I think the opposite is also true:

If there were a capable party running against the Democrats, this would set up to be a total slaughter.




I think this is where we stand. If one party stepped up and gave the middle ground people what they wanted, this thing would be a total slaughter either way.

As it stands, I don't see the Democrats gaining a lot of ground. A few seats here and there, but nothing earth shattering.

[MrBigglesworth]

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling, forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.
Are you a god?

[MalcPow]

I get where people are coming from when they talk about the failings of both parties, but I'm not sure I really agree that the parties don't represent the general populace. We've had discussions before about the two party system, its weaknesses and some of the institutional structures of our government and society that allow it to persist, but really, there are more than two political leanings in this country. We're forced to make these decisions based on some kind of calculus of which party is going to ultimately do the most (or the least harm) for what I care about most. For me, even though socially I'm pretty liberal, I can't vote for a Dem because I think they've put a gun to their heads on pulling out of Iraq should they gain any kind of control, and I'm basically a foreign policy hawk.

I guess what I'm saying is, we bemoan the disconnect between our politicians and the so-called rank and file party members or the "general populace," and it's a false distinction. Our politicians are so disjointed or watered down because we are as well, and the two party system doesn't really allow for a focused agenda, you're going to need to appeal to a few different bases to win election.

Oh, and I think the Repubs lose a few seats in both, but keep a majority in both.

[MrBigglesworth]

I used to think that the Dems would take the House and gain in the Senate, but the polls in the Senate look grim for the GOP:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/

GOP down in PA, Tenn, RI, Ohio, Montana, Missouri, and Maryland. And Allen is imploding in Virginia.

[stevew]

I sure hope Casey can stay the course. I'm pretty much giving him my vote cause his father was good to my parents(teachers).

[Ryche]

I actually voted that the Dems will take the Senate and the GOP retain the House. So many House seats have no chance of changing because they tend to contain more homogenous populations while Senate seats made up of a statewide range tend to move more with national trends.

Just my gut feeling though. It looks Minnesota is going to stay status quo with its congressional delegation. The open Senate seat will most likely stay Democrat and the 4-4 split in the House appears likely to continue.

[wade moore]

I used to think that the Dems would take the House and gain in the Senate, but the polls in the Senate look grim for the GOP:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/

GOP down in PA, Tenn, RI, Ohio, Montana, Missouri, and Maryland. And Allen is imploding in Virginia.


The virginia race is SO absurd. Policies have gone so far out the window it's not even funny.

[wade moore]

Dola:

I should correct my statement. The facade of it being about policies is gone... the weird thing is, the mudslinging is not like the governor race was last year with the candidates slinging mud, it's mostly the media...

[MrBigglesworth]

I actually voted that the Dems will take the Senate and the GOP retain the House. So many House seats have no chance of changing because they tend to contain more homogenous populations while Senate seats made up of a statewide range tend to move more with national trends.
Even so, I think a Dem takeover of the House is more likely because in the Senate they need a swing of 5 out of 30 total up for election, while in the House they need a swing of 15 out of 435 up for election.

[Kodos]

I have no faith that the Democrats can win even with the Republicans screwing up left and right.

[Swaggs]

If anyone remembers this guy from the 2004 elections, he is now tracking the polls for the 2006 elections: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

It is an interesting site to track every day.

He currently has the senate at 49 dems/50 repubs/1 tie and the house at 217-217 tie with 1 tie. For independents, he has them counted with the side they will caucus with.

[SFL Cat]

Since the Republicans are reportedly so good at stealing elections, they pick up 30-40 seats...if you can steal two presidential elections, stealing Congressional seats is easy!

[JPhillips]

I won't underestimate the Repub GOTV machine. I think the Dems will gain, but will come up two short in each chamber.

[Toddzilla]

The Independent Trout Fishing in America PartyOne on my favorite children's music groups. Excellent musicians.

[sterlingice]

Since the Republicans are reportedly so good at stealing elections, they pick up 30-40 seats...if you can steal two presidential elections, stealing Congressional seats is easy!

Well, yeah, you just jerrymander them a couple of years ago so there's no chance they change.

SI

[biological warrior]

So what do you guys think is the GOP's Center of Gravity in this elections?
I've been thinking but cant put a finger on a definite COG for the GOP.

[Arles]

I get where people are coming from when they talk about the failings of both parties, but I'm not sure I really agree that the parties don't represent the general populace. We've had discussions before about the two party system, its weaknesses and some of the institutional structures of our government and society that allow it to persist, but really, there are more than two political leanings in this country. We're forced to make these decisions based on some kind of calculus of which party is going to ultimately do the most (or the least harm) for what I care about most. For me, even though socially I'm pretty liberal, I can't vote for a Dem because I think they've put a gun to their heads on pulling out of Iraq should they gain any kind of control, and I'm basically a foreign policy hawk.

I guess what I'm saying is, we bemoan the disconnect between our politicians and the so-called rank and file party members or the "general populace," and it's a false distinction. Our politicians are so disjointed or watered down because we are as well, and the two party system doesn't really allow for a focused agenda, you're going to need to appeal to a few different bases to win election.

Oh, and I think the Repubs lose a few seats in both, but keep a majority in both.
I usually try and avoid posting on these subjects now days, but I think this is one of the better posts I've seen. To expound, what would be the "general" populous stance on abortion for each party? on gay marriage? on illegal work visas? on the Iraq strategy? on fiscal tax policy?

Let's say a republican takes the "reasonable" (this is always debatable) stance on against partial birth abortion, but not all abortions. Leave gay marriage to the states. Have a regulated work visa program combined with securing the borders and setup a new strategy in Iraq. Finally, he would be in favor of a tax policy of small cuts in both marginal rates (ie, extend the current cuts), payroll taxes but remove some of the corp welfare bills. Now, I *think* many people here would fine this person as more reasonable than their impression of a rank and file republican. However, this person would probably not survive the primaries against someone who...

is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-work Visas, stay the course in Iraq and in favor of broad tax relief (but no payroll tax cuts). That person would get much more funding and backing by conservative groups and leaders. You can make the same parallel to a democrat.

The thing is that the vocal hard-liners in each party have the most passion. They control the money, they put the time in to run campaigns, they do the dirty work to help candidates win. The "silent majority" that many people lament is not represented - isn't represented because they don't have the passion/desire/finances needed to win campaigns. The problem is much of the electorate comes off as apathetic and uninterested because of the state of both parties. However, the true (and unfortunate) irony is that things will never change in Washington until these people create their own PACs and Lobby groups to really start changing who gets elected. So, the "middle" everyone talks about will continue to lack representation and get even more frustrated/alienated as this cycle continues.