midterm election predictions

[amicus]

http://www.onpointradio.org/features/2006/midterm.asp
Top Ten Structural Reasons Democrats are not likely to capture either the House or Senate in 2006 and why 2008 may not be much better.
- By Jack Beatty, On Point Analyst.

1. For decades, conventional wisdom had it that an increase in turnout would benefit Democrats: 2004 burst that chestnut with a vote increase by 17 million over 2000. Bush carried each of the nine states that registered the largest increase in turnout.

2. In 2004 "strong Republicans," now 20 percent of voters, outnumbered "strong Democrats" for the first time in 50 years. Strong partisans vote in congressional elections. More affluent voters vote in midterms. Edge: Republicans.

3. Getting out the base: GOP had averaged a 5 percent higher turnout than Democrats in House races but went up to 8.7 percent in 2004. A recent average of 6.3 percent higher than Democrats in Senate races then went to 9.6 percent higher.

4. Presidents "lose seats at midterm elections." Another burst chestnut. For only the second time since Civil War, president's party gained seats in 1998- that is, Democrats did. For the third time since the Civil War the president's party gained seats in 2002. As for the "six year itch"-another burst chestnut. 1998 was Clinton's 6th year.

5. Impregnable incumbency: In 2004, only seven of 402 incumbents seeking re-election lost, and four of them were in Texas, where Tom Delay's gerrymander defeated them. In 2002, only four of 382 incumbents seeking re-election lost. This marks the lowest rate of competition for House seats "EVER OBSERVED." Edge: Republicans.

6. The trend toward district-level consistency between the votes for president and congressman was stronger than ever in 2002-2004. In the Senate in 2004, 27 of 34 Senate seats were won by the party that won the presidential vote: the highest number since '64, making 75 percent of the Senate now congruent. Nebraska, North Dakota, Florida, West Virginia, New Mexico- Democratic incumbents are up in all of these states, states that Bush carried in 2004. Democrats are lucky that some of their incumbents (Nelson of Florida, Conrad of North Dakota, Byrd of West Virginia) did not draw strong challengers. Potentially tougher opponents chose not to run, concluding that 2006 was not going to be a GOP year. Were they wrong?

7. In the South, 40 percent of those who voted for Republican presidents voted for Democratic Congressional candidates between the ‘60s and ‘80s. After 1994, only 15 percent did, and in 2004, only 8 percent. The few non-African American Democratic incumbents in the South must buck that trend.

8. Economy. CBO predicts growth averaging 3.4 percent for the year. It also predicts "strong wage growth." Strong edge: Republicans.

9. Democrats will run a negative throw-the-bums-out campaign against the GOP "culture of corruption." But evidence from 2004 suggests that the attacks on Bush- president at war- energized marginal voters to support him. People wanted to vote "for," something not "against" it. Maybe Dems should rethink their message...

10. The Big Picture: The Democrats, Everett Carl Ladd writes in the Political Science Quarterly, are "an industrial age party" in a post-industrial America. They won in the 1930s because they had an answer for the problems of an industrialism-active government, which is not what post-industrial voters want now.

Also noteworthy are the gap between their liberalism- more so than ever in both houses of Congress- and "the median voter." Perversely, political scientist Gary C. Jacobson observes, "The fact that Senator Kerry came as close to defeating Bush as he did may convince Democrats that there is no compelling reason to moderate their perspectives to bring them into line with the median voter."

Bottom Line: Of three factors predicting the outcome of mid-term elections, including economy, number of seats the president's party already has, and the president's popularity, only the latter favors the Democrats. "Without a strong national tide in their favor, Democrats have no hope of winning control of the House," political scientist Gary C. Jacobson writes.

Is the Abramoff scandal the makings of a "strong national tide?" It seems unlikely. The GOP took over the House for the first time since 1954 in 1994 partly because it painted Democrats as corrupt and out-of-touch. But surveys suggest that an even bigger factor was the collapsing morale of Democratic base-voters, who were disgusted that Clinton had not managed to bring his proposal for universal health insurance to a vote and were alienated from Clinton's centrism in general. When Bush nominated Harriet Myers for the Supreme Court, the morale of GOP activists plummeted, but the nomination of Samuel Alito restored it. GOP base-voters remain happy with Bush and their party, thus the comparison to 1994 does not stand up.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._midterm_elections,_2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_election,_2006

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=DNW2006082401

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-geiger/2006-senate-elections-rep_b_28518.html

http://cantotalk.blogspot.com/2006/08/my-predictions-on-2006-midterm.html

http://electionpredictions.blogspot.com/

http://forums.santacruzsentinel.com/cgi-bin/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=000127&p=1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read through 20 to 30 various pieces, searching under congressional elections predictions 2006 and some variants of that...

Not sure what the outcome will be...most reasonable estimate from taking all into consideration a very slim Republican majority in both house and senate when all is said and done...

ideas?


amicus...

 

[Carnevil9]

I think your point 9 is the most salient. Optimism generally trumps pessimism. Unless the Democrats can come up with solid alternative plans, their cries of "it won't work!" are not like to get them much traction........Carney

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Reasons why the Dems might still take over the House and the Senate.

1. Tom DeLay. Enough said.
2. Hurricane Katrina.
3. Popular fatigue over the Iraq War.
4. Scandals (Abramoff, Rove, no-WMDs)
5. Abuses of civil liberties.
6. Right-wing extremist judges (Alito, Roberts).
7. The ballooning national debt (still endorse the GOP, Ross?)
8. Angry "libertarian/fiscal conservative" Republicans, tired of kowtowing to the religious right- a split in the base of the GOP.
9. Increasing numbers of prominent third-party candidates and office-holders.
10. People simply are worse under Bush than they when he took over.
11. After 12 years in control of Congress, the GOP has lost focus, has no "Gingrich-like" figure to keep them united under a single basic agenda, and exists only to stay in office- basically where the Democrats were in 1994.

ETA: reason number 12. They lost some of their oldest supporters, people like me. Oh, wait, that's number 8 again.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Reasons why the Dems might still take over the House and the Senate.

1. Tom DeLay. Enough said.
2. Hurricane Katrina.
3. Popular fatigue over the Iraq War.
4. Scandals (Abramoff, Rove, no-WMDs)
5. Abuses of civil liberties.
6. Right-wing extremist judges (Alito, Roberts).
7. The ballooning national debt (still endorse the GOP, Ross?)
8. Angry "libertarian/fiscal conservative" Republicans, tired of kowtowing to the religious right- a split in the base of the GOP.
9. Increasing numbers of prominent third-party candidates and office-holders.
10. People simply are worse under Bush than they when he took over.
11. After 12 years in control of Congress, the GOP has lost focus, has no "Gingrich-like" figure to keep them united under a single basic agenda, and exists only to stay in office- basically where the Democrats were in 1994.

ETA: reason number 12. They lost some of their oldest supporters, people like me. Oh, wait, that's number 8 again.

Just looking at the numbers, the Democrats only need 3 seats in the House to take control. There were 15 "close" races for Republicans six weeks ago. That number has balooned to 31 "close" races for Republicans as of the end of July. Those Republican encumbants are slowly detaching themselves from the Bush White House to save their jobs and win these elections. There can be little doubt the Democrats will pick up 3 seats and take control.

On the Senate side, the Democrats need 15 seats. With 22 "close" races for the Republicans it dosn't seem likely we will see a Democrat run Senate in 2007.

The Democrats have a better chance in the Senate in 2008 if Bush "stays the course".

Just my thoughts.

JJ

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Just looking at the numbers, the Democrats only need 3 seats in the House to take control. There were 15 "close" races for Republicans six weeks ago. That number has balooned to 31 "close" races for Republicans as of the end of July. Those Republican encumbants are slowly detaching themselves from the Bush White House to save their jobs and win these elections. There can be little doubt the Democrats will pick up 3 seats and take control.

On the Senate side, the Democrats need 15 seats. With 22 "close" races for the Republicans it dosn't seem likely we will see a Democrat run Senate in 2007.

The Democrats have a better chance in the Senate in 2008 if Bush "stays the course".

Just my thoughts.

JJ

You might be right. I'm not sure. The only reason I want a Democratic victory is to give this country gridlock. Then the politicians will have to either compromise or stop passing new laws. Since old bad laws seem impossible to repeal, the best that I can hope for is permanent gridlock. Then the damage will be contained for a while, at least. Long enough to buy time for the next generation of voters to show their mettle (or lack thereof).

 

[mack_the_knife]

Reasons why the Dems might still take over the House and the Senate.

1. Tom DeLay. Enough said.

Who is not seeking office. Democrats have a tendency to run their campaigns based upon the last election cycle a bit too much, they're going to be running against Bush in 2008, even though he won't be running either.

2. Hurricane Katrina.

As with many 'Bush did it badly' campaigns, the Democrats have yet to offer ANY workable solutions to FEMA's shortcomings. Without offering a counter-proposal, just what the hell are people supposed to vote for?

3. Popular fatigue over the Iraq War.

That one might find some traction, but likely won't sway many people to cross party lines who aren't aready in the house. I seriously doubt many will expect the Democrats to handle it better, unless they are of the 'cut and run' crowd.

4. Scandals (Abramoff, Rove, no-WMDs)

Veruses the several Democrat scandals with subsequent uproars as the Dems circle the wagons around their perceived wrongdoers while Republicans hold theirs to account.

5. Abuses of civil liberties.

2 out of the 3 major 'scandals' were clearly shown to have not been abuses at all, and totally legal. One was done in such a hatchet fashion, disserving the nation so eggregiously, that it probably cancelled out the goodwill toward the left generated by the one truly questionable practice.

6. Right-wing extremist judges (Alito, Roberts).

Those bastards, they're not supposed to actually READ the constitution. I suppose Bush, to be fair, should have nominated a Left-wing extremist judge?

7. The ballooning national debt (still endorse the GOP, Ross?)

Those believing that the Democrats would have spent less, raise their hands!

8. Angry "libertarian/fiscal conservative" Republicans, tired of kowtowing to the religious right- a split in the base of the GOP.

Do you think they're going to vote Democrat, just to show how upset they are? Yeah, that'll show the right, when we put the left in power we'll really get what we want...

9. Increasing numbers of prominent third-party candidates and office-holders.

You mean like Leibermann?

10. People simply are worse under Bush than they when he took over.

I'm going to assume you mean worse off. Most people in this country are doing dandy, so far as things look. I see tons of new cars rolling down the highway, I see scads of new houses going up, I see people filing the malls and Wal-Marts every Saturday to go shopping. I think maybe that was a very unsubstantiated observation of personal opinion, rather than some sort of fact.

11. After 12 years in control of Congress, the GOP has lost focus, has no "Gingrich-like" figure to keep them united under a single basic agenda, and exists only to stay in office- basically where the Democrats were in 1994.

And we all wish to rally behind Pelosi? I think, perhaps, not.

ETA: reason number 12. They lost some of their oldest supporters, people like me. Oh, wait, that's number 8 again.

IF you were a supporter, you were probably pretty iffy to begin with. I've watched you have liberal epiphany after epiphany, much like all the bisexual or lesbians who have 'discovered themselves' on this fine forum. If you were voting Republican before, it seems you were with the wrong party.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

You might be right. I'm not sure. The only reason I want a Democratic victory is to give this country gridlock. Then the politicians will have to either compromise or stop passing new laws. Since old bad laws seem impossible to repeal, the best that I can hope for is permanent gridlock. Then the damage will be contained for a while, at least. Long enough to buy time for the next generation of voters to show their mettle (or lack thereof).

If I'm right you will have grid lock. The Senate will go on passing the insane laws it's been doing for the past few years and they will die in the House.

BTW, did you hear the head of the Medicare Program quit yesterday saying he was retiring. Probably be spending the rest of his life trying to figure out the Bush Medicare Prescription Plan?

Just in case you don't believe me http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/washington/06resign.html

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Who is not seeking office. Democrats have a tendency to run their campaigns based upon the last election cycle a bit too much, they're going to be running against Bush in 2008, even though he won't be running either.

As with many 'Bush did it badly' campaigns, the Democrats have yet to offer ANY workable solutions to FEMA's shortcomings. Without offering a counter-proposal, just what the hell are people supposed to vote for?

That one might find some traction, but likely won't sway many people to cross party lines who aren't aready in the house. I seriously doubt many will expect the Democrats to handle it better, unless they are of the 'cut and run' crowd.

Veruses the several Democrat scandals with subsequent uproars as the Dems circle the wagons around their perceived wrongdoers while Republicans hold theirs to account.

2 out of the 3 major 'scandals' were clearly shown to have not been abuses at all, and totally legal. One was done in such a hatchet fashion, disserving the nation so eggregiously, that it probably cancelled out the goodwill toward the left generated by the one truly questionable practice.
Those bastards, they're not supposed to actually READ the constitution. I suppose Bush, to be fair, should have nominated a Left-wing extremist judge?

Those believing that the Democrats would have spent less, raise their hands!

Do you think they're going to vote Democrat, just to show how upset they are? Yeah, that'll show the right, when we put the left in power we'll really get what we want...
You mean like Leibermann?
I'm going to assume you mean worse off. Most people in this country are doing dandy, so far as things look. I see tons of new cars rolling down the highway, I see scads of new houses going up, I see people filing the malls and Wal-Marts every Saturday to go shopping. I think maybe that was a very unsubstantiated observation of personal opinion, rather than some sort of fact.

And we all wish to rally behind Pelosi? I think, perhaps, not.


IF you were a supporter, you were probably pretty iffy to begin with. I've watched you have liberal epiphany after epiphany, much like all the bisexual or lesbians who have 'discovered themselves' on this fine forum. If you were voting Republican before, it seems you were with the wrong party.

Iffy? I won't bother with your other. more dubious counterpoints. But you clearly don't know me. "Liberal epiphany"? I'm a Goldwater Republican, or was. I favor civil liberties over states' rights, and states' rights over federal powers. I favor SPENDING cuts along with tax cuts (I have no problem with Bush's tax cuts, but they weren't done in a fiscally responsible way, as in cutting spending too). I oppose socialism as a rule, with only small doses as in the AHCCCS and Kid's Care programs at the state level in Arizona. I oppose gun control, support the death penalty, and still have qualms about Roe vs. Wade (want to change it, even if I don't want to completely reverse it). It's true that I support gay rights, but that's because they are civil liberties issues, not because I favor any "special rights" for homosexuals.

I believe in privatizing AMTRAK, dismantling the Federal Reserve System in favor of the Independent Treasury System again, and pulling out of the United Nations (or replacing it with a more practical world forum). I favor a flat income tax. How are these "liberal" views? So what if I oppose the religious right's "moral" agenda of theocracy? I am a disgruntled Republican turned centrist/Libertarian independent. It IS true that I favor environmental protection, but that's because toxins in the air and water violate my inalienable right to live.

By the way, I'm ONE of those bisexuals to which you refer, in case you haven't noticed.

 

[Huckleman2000]

For the Senate, Dems need to pick up a net of 6 seats. States where it looks like they have a good chance of replacing a R with a D candidate include:

PA - Santorum goin' down
OH - DeWine has corruption problems, even if only by association with state R party
MT - Populist candidate Tester running strong against Abramoff-tainted Burns, who is self-destructing with weirdness
RI - Chafee in strong fight to retain seat for R

Also:
VA incumbent George Allen has been hurting himself with his racist comments.
TN and MO races are tight.

Here are some poll numbers in Senate battleground states:

Gallup. 8/23-27. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines)

Minnesota

Klobuchar (D) 50
Kennedy (R) 40

Missouri

Talent (R) 50
McCaskill (D) 44

Montana

Burns (R) 45
Tester (D) 48

Ohio

DeWine (R) 40
Brown (D) 46

Pennsylvania

Santorum (R) 38
Casey (D) 56

Also this, referring to new site Pollster.com

Among other goodies, they have five-poll and ten-poll average for eleven key Senate races right now. I will be incorporating these averages, with proper links, of course, into my Senate forecasts. Here are the five-poll moving averages each of the eleven states (click on the links to see the individual polls used and the long-term trends):

* Washington: Cantwell 51, McGavick 40
* Pennsylvania: Casey 49, Santorum 40
* Minnesota: Klobuchar 49, Kennedy 40
* Ohio: Brown 46, DeWine 40
* Montana: Tester 47, Burns 44
* New Jersey: Menendez 43, Kean 40
* Rhode Island: Whitehouse 42, Chafee 40
* Missouri: Talent 47, McCaskill 45
* Tennessee: Corker 46, Ford 42
* Virginia: Allen 48, Webb 42
* Arizona: Kyl 48, Pederson 37

These averages do not yet include the new polls from Gallup, nor do they include data from Maryland. However, they serve as an excellent snapshot of polling on Senate races this summer. Clearly, from this snapshot one can see that Democrats are doing pretty darn well. Ohio has clearly moved to "lean Dem" territory, and both Tennessee and Virginia clearly seem to be in play.