Simple question for the Prognosticators

[Pure]

Will Democrats 'take' the Senate in the US election.

There are several sites with polls and analysis, e.g.,

www.realclearpolitics.com


I like the maps at
www.electoral-vote.com

slate has some nice graphs
http://www.slate.com/id/2148600/

---

somewhere at this site:
www.washingtonpost.com

====
Here are some of the more thoughtful, recent analyses:

krauthammer
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/a_democratic_victory_would_be.html

buchanan
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/why_the_gop_is_losing.html

WSJ-- Henninger
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/depressed_voters_may_roll_dice.html

National Journal-- Cook
http://nationaljournal.com/cook.htm

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The Democrats will take the House, without a doubt. The Senate is a harder call. There has been so man Republican's caught with their hands in the cookie jar over the past couple of years coupled with their mindless insistance on following Bush into "Staying the Course" in Iraq, the Senate is pretty much up for grabs.

I do think the Dems will take the Senate, but not by much.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I read the title as "Procrastinators". I feel jipped.

 

[amicus]

I have witnessed quite a few elections, as you might suspect, but usually I have been more 'in the loop' for inside information, et cetera, that gave me a little better perspective than your average chunk of granite.

Few elections are simple or easy to predict and this one in no better or worse than any other, I suppose.

Interestingly enough as I glanced through the links you provided, I noted they reflected much of my own search efforts and I most likely found the same thing you did and anyone can follow and read and get an idea of the current status of punditry.

I didn't vote, although I may, if only to predict a larger than expected Republican victory even though I see that as unlikely, still possible...but I think I would not put money on it.

As I read the predictions on those websites, it seems the common expectation is for the Democrats to narrowly win the House of Representatives but lose the Senate by three seats.

Before the Kerry Faux Paux, the trend seemed to be that Republicans were beginning to close the gap in several key elections and stop the bleeding for the corruption charges and the Foley incident.

It is difficult to judge how the voting public will digest the blatant anti-war sentiment of Kerry and that wing of the party, it may be inconsequential or it may remind Republicans of what might happen if the Democrats gain control of either house and make them shy away from expressing dis-satisfaction with the war effort.

Another line of thought suggests that, polls be damned, when the voting public gets right up close and personal with the ballot box (or machine), they will vote their pocket book. A booming economy, a healthy stock market, lowest unemployment numbers in many years, may just make them question the wisdom of voting Democrat as it has been said that tax cuts will be rescinded and higher taxes imposes, which people are not pleased about.

While Bush and the war seem to be the central issue, it is, I think, important to realize that 'Bush' is not on the ballot and 'guilt by association' may not carry the day for the left.

Also not publicized is the fact that several States have ballot measures that are social in nature, stem cell research, gay marriage, abortion, a host of other issues that tend to draw heavy turnout and participation.

There is also the aspect that many pundits bring up, that this is an off year election and politics, lacking a Presidential choice, often concentrate more on local or state issues.

I mentioned a recent survey that indicated ABC, CBS and NBC gave favorable news for the Democrats almost 80 percent and nearly 90 percent negative news on the President and the Republicans. I rather suspect that this is just, 'preaching to the choir' as I have discovered, out here in the hinterlands, no one listens to the news.

Mentioned only a few times over the past few months and in various and sundry places, is that the 'out party', in the 6th year of a Presidency traditionally picks up between 30 and 60 House seats and an equitable number of Senate seats. That is not a truism and there have been exceptions even to the point of the incumbent party sweeping the election. Both are possible, neither rationally supportable with evidence.

We extreme political junkies always assert that each election is crucial to the fate and future of the nation and perhaps that is true.

Especially with the polarization of politics, which is nothing new, but the left wants to withdraw from world affairs and intensly manage the economy and pack the Supreme Court again to legislate social issues. Meanwhile, the right, having, it seems, somewhat divided loyalties, doesn't seem to have a clear agenda on either economic matters or foreign affairs.

Unlike some of the Lit regulars who considered leaving the country following the 2004 election, I imagine we will survive either result and proceed onwards as usual.

amicus...

 

[kendo1]

Especially with the polarization of politics, which is nothing new, but the left wants to withdraw from world affairs and intensly manage the economy and pack the Supreme Court again to legislate social issues. Meanwhile, the right, having, it seems, somewhat divided loyalties, doesn't seem to have a clear agenda on either economic matters or foreign affairs.



amicus...

Does that mean you're in the middle?

 

[shereads]

I'd like to think we'll gain some seats, but as a long-time fan of the University of South Carolina Fighting Gamecocks, I've learned not to count my chickens etc.

Here in the Republic of Chads, our state and local elections have me thinking that everyone running for public office is a candidate for an episode of America's Most Wanted.

"He's a lobbyist!"

"She traveled to Castro's Cuba!"

"He wants to raid Social Security to provide your children with condoms so they can enjoy pre-marital sex, preferably in his basement."

"He's a Washington insider."

<boo! hiss!>

That's my personal fave. If an incumbent senator or representative is a Washington insider, his opponent is implicitly a young Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington," fresh from the cornfields of America's heartland - a bit naive, perhaps, but refreshingly so! And won't it be sweet when Mr. Smith, armed with nothing but courage, clarity of purpose and a sincere, forthright manner, defeats the underhanded maneuverings of all those cynics and profiteers whose years inside the Beltway have emptied them of the very values they were elected to represent!

Republicans seem partial to the 'Washington insider' accusation. Dubya used it to good effect in 2000, as if he had somehow remained a simple rancher's son from west Texas despite the Andover Academy years and his father's brief sabbatical from ranching as Director of the CIA, vice president, president, etcetera.

I'm not sure how you get much deeper inside Washington than that unless it's by laziness, lack of curiosity or sheer stupidity; I guess those things could protect a young person from absorbing unwanted information and unsavory influences, no matter how many times his dad's Washington cronies pulled his ass out of a sling.

But I digress.

I meant to say that our local crop of applicants for the position of Public Servant are, if you believe a fraction of what their opponents tell us, the slimiest clump of commie sympathisers, terrorist-coddlers, sex fiends, Mafia dons, baby rapists and escapees from hospitals for the criminally insane to bribe their way onto a ballot since the last Miami-Dade County School Board election. In a word,

Yikes!

 

[amicus]

SheReads: "..., the slimiest clump of commie sympathisers, terrorist-coddlers, sex fiends, Mafia dons, baby rapists and escapees from hospitals for the criminally insane to bribe their way onto a ballot since the last Miami-Dade County School Board election. In a word, ..."


~~~


...and those are just the democrats, egads...what next?


amicus...

 

[Huckleman2000]

I understand Montana, MO, and Virginia are tossups, and others are not too far out of the margin of error. I think Tennessee is closer than it looks - it really depends on the black turnout there. Unfortunately, I think the Dems will fall one short, leaving it a tie.

I really don't understand why Montana is a tossup - Burns is a total joke, but I guess he's THEIR total joke.

Virginia is another that depends on the black turnout, and somewhat on which way women hold their noses and pull a lever.

 

[shereads]

SheReads: "..., the slimiest clump of commie sympathisers, terrorist-coddlers, sex fiends, Mafia dons, baby rapists and escapees from hospitals for the criminally insane to bribe their way onto a ballot since the last Miami-Dade County School Board election. In a word, ..."


~~~


...and those are just the democrats, egads...what next?


amicus...

Except for the sex fiend. He's an evangelical Christian minister.

 

[amicus]

Gotcha...but he's not running for office, is he?

the one who must not be named...

 

[JamesSD]

The Foley effect is going strong, and I'd put the chance of the Dems taking the house at 70-75%.

The Senate is trickier, and is much more determined by individual races. I can't see either party ending with less than 48 (counting VT and CT as Dems, as Lieberman and Jeffords will caucus with the Dems... probably).

VA and MO and tossups. I can see Montana going either way... I have a hunch a lot of voters there aren't keen on either option.

When the dust settles, I predict a 50-50 tie as the most likely outcome. Still, anything between a 52-48 margin on either side seems reasonable right now.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The Foley effect is going strong, and I'd put the chance of the Dems taking the house at 70-75%.

The Senate is trickier, and is much more determined by individual races. I can't see either party ending with less than 48 (counting VT and CT as Dems, as Lieberman and Jeffords will caucus with the Dems... probably).

VA and MO and tossups. I can see Montana going either way... I have a hunch a lot of voters there aren't keen on either option.

When the dust settles, I predict a 50-50 tie as the most likely outcome. Still, anything between a 52-48 margin on either side seems reasonable right now.

I don't see why Foley will have any effect, except for the seat he vacated. People, if asked, will say something like "Oh, sure, I've heard of Foley. He's the (queer/gay/pedophile/vile sinner) who got caught and resigned. But he's not from around here. I have to choose between Smith and Jones." I think the same thing would be said about Kerry or Bush. Neither is running in this election.

Lieberman and Jeffords might caucus with the Dems but I don't believe either will have much party loyalty. That's assuming Lieberman wins, of course. They will have no real obligation to vote the party line.

You know, of course, if a vote is tied, the VP, Cheney, casts the deciding vote.

 

[Darkniciad]

The Republican get-out-the-vote machine appears to be running well. If the Democrats are too busy picking out curtains, and not getting voters to the polls again, they may very well be in for yet another rude awakening come the wee hours of next Wed. morning.

One of these days, they need to realize that "OMG Bush SUx0rz!" isn't a platform, and a promise to stalemate the business of government in endless inquiries isn't appealing to the average Joe ( See the Republican witch-hunt of Bill Clinton, everybody was sick to death of it until Monica )

I still think that even with a weak voter effort, the Dems will take the House, just probably not by as much of a margin as many are predicting.

I don't see them taking the Senate, or even managing a tie. I'd say 49, but 47 is a possibility.

I also see them hanging themselves in '08 if they spend 2 years doing nothing except hurling investigations, studies, and strongly worded letters of protest at the White House.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Being a Democrat in Dallas tends to make a person a bit pessimistic, not to mention gun shy. Perhaps it explains why I voted that the Democrats would end up a Senator or two short of a majority. Thanks, at least in part, to that now famous racist ad against Ford and Corker dumping 2 million of his own money into the campaign, the good ol' boys in Tennessee seem to be drifting toward their familiar Republican ways.

Va is a toss-up, but I've got a hunch it'll come down Republican. The key to the thing could be women voters. If so, Allen should have the edge. If the GOP holds on to those two seats, odds of the Dems picking up six others seems very slim.

Just a "for what little it's worth" type thought. If the GOP does keep the Senate by a narrow margin, the real power would probably become those much-maligned moderate Republican Senators from the northeast.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Pure]

if the dems can take either MO or VA, they have a chance for a tie.

VA until today was perhaps slightly going to Republicans, and Missouri a dead heat.

TN is going Repub.

so it MAY be the dems can secure a tie, i.e., one vote better than i predicted, i.e., about 49. i voted--cautiously-- that the Dems narrowly fail to capture the Senate.

this has several benefits btw. arguably it will splinter the Repubs, who must now as Rumple says, woo their centrists, which is against all basic Rovian slime politics. leaving the Repubs one house also gives less of an excuse for a number of botched things in the works.

here's another ray of hope. Ann Coulter implied that the dems would probably take the senate. if you think she's smart more than crazy, there's gotta be a reason.

it might be noted that the Dems makes these gains with a *very* rightwing bunch of candidates; some arguably liberal republicans in all but name. still that is the classic winning Clinton formula-- a silver bullet in the hands of the Dems against Southern vampire racists. i guess we need some gun totin', god fearin', crypto liberals who won't crap on the working poor, like GWB.

question: what might these close outcomes do for immigration policy? favor the 'fence' or favor 'amnesty' or Bush's crypto 'open border' amnesty-but-not-in-name.

as to Iraq, although the above allows continuation of the war, i'd suggest that the war enterprise--riding high on missionary zeal and misinformation-- is fatally injured; losing momentum; just as the country is falling apart. perhaps time for the US to split off the South and North and say, 'two parts outta three ain't bad.' there is, iirc, lots of oil in the North (Kurd)and South (Shia) areas. perhaps these areas would include key ports, effecively controlling the center region's access to the sea.
==

Washington Post Maryland Poll: Very interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_102906.htm

 

[Zeb_Carter]

You forgot an option on the poll...

"One dead horse is the same as another."

As for the race in my district...all the canidates are too busy throwing mud at eachother. It would appear that neither cares about the American people, just getting into office and stiring up muck about the other canidates.

I'm just tired of hearing the same ol' shit time after time after time.

 

[Pure]

plus ca change...

true, zeb, there's a lot to be said for the view that the US is controlled by 'republicrats'. policies one party denounces when out of power, are adopted once in power (e.g., Bush's drug plan for seniors).

corruption is in both parties; the NON incumbent is just waiting to get to the feed trough, if elected!

also, on CNN last night was the story of a Congression candidate in Montana who was a Democrat; but the 'new' western Democrat is indistinguishable from the Republican (i.e. he's pro-'values', pro gun, anti-abortion etc.).

it's also arguable that the election will NOT affect Iraq, even if Democrats control the Congres and win the Presidency-- the Republicans plan to wind down , and that's what a Dem would do (i.e., the Dem would likely NOT withdraw quickly, all at once.).

 

[Pure]

bump. some more recent polls suggest VA and even MO are slightly leaning Democratic

 

[Huckleman2000]

bump. some more recent polls suggest VA and even MO are slightly leaning Democratic

That would be huge. McCaskill, by most accounts, has run a really good campaign against a strong incumbent in a red state, and that would be really something if she beat Tallent.

But VA....
Webb is so much more talented and capable than Allen, but Allen has the whole old boy/good 'ole boy network sewn up. If Webb (an ex-Republican who has held very high offices, as well as a respected novelist ) can take VA, that would mean a total breakdown of the Rep base! No way to spin it any other way - Allen had POTUS aspirations!

 

[Boxlicker101]

true, zeb, there's a lot to be said for the view that the US is controlled by 'republicrats'. policies one party denounces when out of power, are adopted once in power (e.g., Bush's drug plan for seniors).

corruption is in both parties; the NON incumbent is just waiting to get to the feed trough, if elected!

also, on CNN last night was the story of a Congression candidate in Montana who was a Democrat; but the 'new' western Democrat is indistinguishable from the Republican (i.e. he's pro-'values', pro gun, anti-abortion etc.).

it's also arguable that the election will NOT affect Iraq, even if Democrats control the Congres and win the Presidency-- the Republicans plan to wind down , and that's what a Dem would do (i.e., the Dem would likely NOT withdraw quickly, all at once.).

The election will have little or no effect on Iraq. Everybody in the country, including Rummy and W, want the US forces to leave. The only differences are how soon. Some want the US to leave after the country is completly stable, etc. Others want the us ro pull our RIGHT NOW!! Most people are somewhere in between.

By the way, I have already voted. My wife and I will be baby sitting our granddaughter on election day at a site 100 miles from home, so we voted absentee ballot. They should be received on Monday.

From time to time, I read of a state being described as "red" or "blue", meaning it went, by however slim a margin, for Bush or Kerry in 2004. This is a silly designation to use now because it was only for that one election. The senators and reps. from specific states may be all or partly members of other parties.

 

[shereads]

Being a Democrat in Dallas tends to make a person a bit pessimistic, not to mention gun shy.

I feel your pain.

What position would you like in the new Blue States of America? I dibs Benevolent Queen.

 

[Liar]

What day is that election thingy of yours?

 

[Dr_Strabismus]

I feel your pain.

What position would you like in the new Blue States of America? I dibs Benevolent Queen.

The power will corrupt you and turn you into a Malevolent Queen, which will suit me fine.

 

[shereads]

The power will corrupt you and turn you into a Malevolent Queen, which will suit me fine.

Me too!

Now all I need are a few tens of millions who feel the same way, and someone to sew our flag. (Since the Blue States of America will be harnessed geographically to red states, the flag is a blue ground with the words, "We're With Stupid.")

 

[shereads]

What day is that election thingy of yours?

Tuesday. Thank god.

It's exhausting. Nonstop barrage of campaign commericals, fliers, junk mail, placard wavers, etc. The placard wavers are the Democrats; our TV budget ran out six months ago. Without the Republican National Committee pouring millions into commercials that alert the public to salient facts about Democratic candidates ("He's a Washington insider!") we wouldn't recognize their names by election day. Unless we read a newspaper. But of course nobody reads anymore.