2006 Election Results November 07, 2006 GOP Holds Congress!

[amicus]

2006 Election Results November 07, 2006 GOP Holds Congress!

Senate 52 R 48 R
House 224 R 211 D


February 13, 2006
A Prediction for the 2006 House Contest - Part I
By Jay Cost

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_10_06_JC.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_15_06_JC.html


(Last paragraph of Part Two)

“…Thus, we should consider an 11-seat swing in November as the maximum Democratic gain. Factoring in the incumbency pushes my estimate to less than 10. Factoring in the tight alignment of the electorate pushes my estimate to a Democratic gain of about 8 seats. Assuming that (a) Bush’s popularity does not drop off, (b) the economy does not stagnate and (c) Republicans do not have to defend more net open seats, I predict that the 110th Congress will have 224 Republicans and 211 Democrats…”
Jay Cost, creator of the Horse Race Blog, is a doctoral candidate of political science at the University of Chicago. He can be reached at jay_cost@hotmail.com.


~~~~~~~

It took a good bit of searching to find this single predictive blog that projected a Republican victory in the -upcoming mid-term elections as the vast majority predicted a much closer election and many expect the Democrats to take control of the House and perhaps the Senate.

For those few of you on this forum who recognize the potential disaster if left wing democrats control congress, I urge you to participate. The nation would not survive the left wing philosophy of the Democrat Party:

Increased taxes across the board with higher taxes on all business and industry.

Secular Humanist imperatives in social issues.

Return to ‘isolationist’ foreign policy standards.

A huge reduction in military readiness and expenditures and a huge cutback in Intelligence resources and manpower.

A continued push of energy policies that will increase the cost of energy to all, meaning extreme hardships for lower and middle class families and a destruction of the energy industry in general.

Just a few of the aspects and results that would debilitate the American Economy if the left gains power once again.

Good luck!

Amicus…

 

[Zeb_Carter]

They don't deserve it if it happens.

Government spending has risen during the years that the Rep. have had control of the congress and they have failed to secure our borders. The now appear to just like the TV weatherman, only right 60% of the time.

 

[AngeloMichael]

I really don't think you have to worry. I see the Democrats taking the house at most this election and I'm not even certain about that, the GOP definitely retains the Senate and in 2008 we elect another Republican President (Probable McCain if no scandals surface involving him in the next 2 years) and the GOP takes the House back. That's my prediction anyway.

And it's not that I like the GOP, I despise the party, this does not mean that I hate all Republicans but it does mean I hate their current party platform and any that subscribe to it which entails most if not all current politicians. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see the party lose power even if it means giving control to the Democrats.

No matter how many people say that our country is divided right down the middle, from my take on things I can't help but believe that the right has a slight majority. Slight it may be, but it's enough to retain control of power as long as they continue to hold the majority and even with the disaster area that the GOP is nowadays I still see them holding that advantage. The country may be depressed, disgusted, and furious at the current state of government, but the largest voting block is still loathe to turn more than one house of Congress over to the "godless liberals" if that.

I see the USA as a car rolling down a steep hill where at the bottom lays a crash and burn collision. The Republicans are only adding momentum to the car, the Democrats, while won't reverse direction, will at least apply the brakes. I see that as reason enough to vote for them, even though my ideal party would have the fiscal policies of "classic" consevatives, organizational skills of the neocons, and the social philosophy of the far left. But that's a pipe dream and I well know it.

 

[amicus]

Interesting...to say the least....and I am seldom surpised by this forum...


amicus...

 

[amicus]

Add to that an almost identical prediction by "Barron's" magazine:

http://discerningtexan.blogspot.com/2006/10/barrons-election-analysis-bucks-msm.html


amicus....I report...you decide....

 

[JamesSD]

The Stock Market clearly thinks the Democrats are taking the house. It has already priced in significant price changes to likely affected industries; Oil, Big Pharma, and Mortgage Financiers (Which have gone up, as Democrats generally favor looser lending standards to the poor).

Great mainstream article here http://biz.yahoo.com/special/election06_article1.html about the actual, non-Chicken Little effects of the pending Democrat takeover.

The short of it is gridlock is good in decent economic times. Cutting back on war expenditures could only help the economy (although that's my take, not the articles).

"Marquee issues Democrats might love to address -- including rolling back the Bush tax cuts or pulling troops out of Iraq -- don't have a snowball's chance in Texas of getting through a Republican Senate, much less avoiding the President's veto.

Likewise, marquee issues for the Republicans, such as Social Security reform and making the tax cuts permanent, are equally unlikely to be addressed."

 

[JamesSD]

Oh, that and the Modern Democratic party is not Socialist. I have no idea where you come up with their "agenda" from. They're made up of rich, mostly white men. They're slighlty less corrupt and have slightly more of a concience than Republicans.

 

[JamesSD]

And it's not that I like the GOP, I despise the party, this does not mean that I hate all Republicans but it does mean I hate their current party platform and any that subscribe to it which entails most if not all current politicians. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see the party lose power even if it means giving control to the Democrats.

This is exactly why the Dems are going to win in November. For many swing voters, they're the lesser of two evils.

 

[amicus]

I can understand the 'usual suspects' being stunned by the possibility of a repeat of 2004, when they were certain the democrats would sweep...imagine the chagrin sweeping the ranks at this late date, when even the expected gains in an off year, second term presidency may not even hold to statistical standards for the 'out party' gaining seats.

I am far from certain that the posted predictions will out...as I am a spectator now and not a participant...but I did detect with the talking head pundits on cable news even tonight, that the focus has already been re directed to the 2008 general elections....as if they have already conceded...


curious, eh?

amicus...

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Realisticly, there are only a small percent of voters who will swing this election one way or the other. In the 2004 election it was the Christian Conservative Right. Now they seem to have distanced themselves from the Republican Party. At this moment, the Rove machine seems to be courting the 18-24 year old demographic.

Unfortunately, with only two weeks left, the Foley Scandal making news every day, Hassert's very odd story on the scandal, Skilling's prison sentence today, the war in Iraq, the odd way the economy is recovering (Great numbers on the Dow Jones average -12,000 plus - but poor growth in new jobs, the housing slump and a dozen other indicators, it doesn't seem likely there is enough time for Rove & Assoc to turn this around. I believe the NY Times/ABC poll this morning called it a 17% spread in favor of the Democrats controlling congress.

It seems likely the Dems will take over the House and a toss up as to what happens in the Senate. My thinking is a split Legislative Branch for the next two years. That would be an interesting development. A Republican Senate making Bush-like laws and the funding for them shot down by the House.

In a lot of ways that would be a good thing. The things driving the economy right now are War Spending and Stock Price Adjustments. Both would level out rather quickly, allowing the economy to find it's own level of equalibrium again.

As far a predicting who wins and who loses, I wouldn't even want to go there. Right now many of the races are a close thing. I do expect the mud slinging to start beginning this week though.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

At least one senator is classed as Independent. I think Joe Lieberman will retain his seat and what happens then? He is not officially a Dem. but will tend to vote whith them most of the time, but will not feel obligated to do so. In other words, he will vote his opinion and conscience, which is what everybody should do.

 

[JamesSD]

At this moment, the Rove machine seems to be courting the 18-24 year old demographic.

If this is the case, Frist may have fucked them over with the online gambling ban. Young males are probably the biggest consumers of online gambling. You don't take away young men's 1) Porn 2) Beer 3) Poker.

 

[JamesSD]

The things driving the economy right now are War Spending and Stock Price Adjustments. Both would level out rather quickly, allowing the economy to find it's own level of equalibrium again.

To me, war spending driving an economy is an oxymoron. War and the military don't produce anything, they don't add value to the economy (they do protect value, in cases of national defense).

 

[amicus]

JamesSD]To me, war spending driving an economy is an oxymoron. War and the military don't produce anything, they don't add value to the economy (they do protect value, in cases of national defense).

[/I]

~~~~~~

This thread has wandered and I doubt it will be revived, but in answer to your above, I suggest a study of the period of time during the great depression in the 1930's when all the social programs of Franklin Delano Roosevelt failed to revive the economy.

Yes, true, do the research, all the grandiose socialist programs of putting people to work, digging holes and filling them in again, failed to revive the economy. It was not until the government began conscripting men into military service and awarding huge contracts to private companies to produce war materials, hence, hiring millions of workers, that the standard of living, the 'economy' began to improve.

You might also note, that much of the technological progress of science happened only as a by-product of military research into radio and radar and aeronautics that fostered an entire industry in post war years.

Thus you are totally in error when you state: "...JamesSD]To me, war spending driving an economy is an oxymoron. War and the military don't produce anything, they don't add value to the economy ..."

The same is true of Cold War technology, satellite technology, hence, global navigation, satellite communications, (the internet), weather satellites, and exotic materials for civilian use, all stemmed from military research and applications.

think it through again, my friend...


amicus...

 

[Liar]

Yes, true, do the research, all the grandiose socialist programs of putting people to work, digging holes and filling them in again, failed to revive the economy. It was not until the government began conscripting men into military service and awarding huge contracts to private companies to produce war materials, hence, hiring millions of workers, that the standard of living, the 'economy' began to improve.

You might also note, that much of the technological progress of science happened only as a by-product of military research into radio and radar and aeronautics that fostered an entire industry in post war years.

Thus you are totally in error when you state: "...JamesSD]To me, war spending driving an economy is an oxymoron. War and the military don't produce anything, they don't add value to the economy ..."

The same is true of Cold War technology, satellite technology, hence, global navigation, satellite communications, (the internet), weather satellites, and exotic materials for civilian use, all stemmed from military research and applications.

Can't say much about the Roosevelt programs, because I haven't read up. But social programs in general are not designed to steer the economy, they're designed to make sure as few people as possible gets royally fucked when the economy is bad. They might even take into consideration that doing so might actually prolong a recession, if that means that it will reduce the total number of victims. Good policy or bad? Wise or unwise? Seems to be a matter of ideology more than pragmatics.

I agree with you that the by-product of militery reseach has been a big contributor to tech advancements. But you'd have to agree though, that private enterprise on it's own didn't exactly push the development forward, and that advances in technology and product development is, in fact,

...wait for it...

tax funded. Your money, taken by force from you and spent in ways that you have no mandate to control. Hooray for taxes?