midterm predictions?

[zimv20]

i've got the house going to the dems, and senate remaining in GOP hands.

dems will pick up only 2 senate seats, in PA and MO. races in OH, MT and RI will be laden with scandal, but will ultimately go to the GOP.

dems will barely get the house majority, i'm guessing they'll pick up 18 seats. again, allegations of dirty tricks and vote suppression will be widespread. i reckon we'll see from the right what we saw in 2000, which was shrill ridicule for even considering court challenges.

i do, of course, hope i'm being madly pessimistic. but tonight i'm feeling like a realist.

[pseudobrit]

again, allegations of dirty tricks and vote suppression will be widespread.

Probably because dirty tricks and voter suppression will be widespread.

[zimv20]

Probably because dirty tricks and voter suppression will be widespread.
where there's smoke...


... there's a GOP operative burning absentee ballots...

[IJ Reilly]

For sporting purposes, I will predict that the Democrats gain 20 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

[Motley]

My guess is that the Dem's don't get enough candidates to take over the house or the senate. There will be much bitching and allegations of fraud, but nothing will come of them due to our "oh, shiney" short attention span media (and public). Bush will make a stupid speech about freedom and terrorists and moral values, or some such crud.

Accordingly, Jon Stewart will have great job security.

[obeygiant]

hmmm. there will be dirty tricks happening on both sides. but thats politics isnt it.

[zimv20]

three in the Senate.
making any calls on which 3?

[clevin]

hmmm. there will be dirty tricks happening on both sides. but thats politics isnt it.
so who is less evil? I bet you say "GOP", lol

I predict dem gain 25 in house, and 6 in senate.

[beatsme]

what would be awesome is for the Democrats to win the house and start investigating Rumsfeld's conduct of the war. A censure or (and oh how I would LOVE this) an impeachment of Bush for deliberately misleading the American public re: the Iraqi invasion would be sweet.

having said that, I agree with the above: Dems take the house, though not by much. Maybe pick up a seat or two in the Senate, but that's all.

[Sayhey]

Democrats gain in the range of 25 to 35 seats in the House and pick up 6 or 7 in the Senate. Senate pick ups include Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, Virginia, Missouri, and Rhode Island (shaky.) The possible seventh seat is either Tennessee (from early voting and a large black voter turnout) or Arizona (surprise pick of the night.) The Dems hold in the close races in New Jersey and Maryland. Democrats take both houses of Congress. Bush declares martial law. ;)

The last part is for everyone wearing tin-foil hats.

[obeygiant]

so who is less evil? I bet you say "GOP", lol



no, i would say both sides suck.

[Thomas Veil]

races in OH, MT and RI will be laden with scandal, but will ultimately go to the GOP.Sherrod Brown has been ahead of Mike DeWine in every Ohio poll, often by double digits. No way will Ohio's next senator be Republican.

I say: Dems pick up 29 seats in the House, five in the Senate.

[Chundles]

Does any of this matter if you've still got Dubya sitting on the throne with the power of veto?

If one man has the power to pass or not pass legislation, why do you need the houses?

[zimv20]

If one man has the power to pass or not pass legislation, why do you need the houses?
each house of congress has the power to create legislation -- the executive branch cannot do so (signing statements and other ******** aside). it's also possible for congress to override a veto.

there are other oversight duties assigned to congress, and only congress has the legal power to remove a president.

[zimv20]

Sherrod Brown has been ahead of Mike DeWine in every Ohio poll, often by double digits.
yes, i'm aware. but it's ohio.

i hope i'm wrong, but i don't think brown has a shenanigan-proof lead.

[solvs]

no, i would say both sides suck.

I believe that is the first thing we have ever agreed upon here, but the Republican side seems to have a lot more stories of fraud lately. Like cutting off Jim Webb's last name on some of the Diebold machines owned by Republicans, Robocallers pretending to be by Dems even though they're paid for by the RNC, sending out mailings saying people will be arrested if they try to vote, requiring certain forms of ID some poorer people don't have, boy the list just goes on. Sure Dems have ads trying to scare people and lie about things that aren't true, but Reps have that too, so I'd call that a draw.

Dems take the House, but not by as much as some would hope, and a good showing in the Senate. I don't know about the Gov races. I only know Arnold will win the one here because the other guy is awful and now he's pretending to be a lot more of an indie than he really is. :(

[beatsme]

no, i would say both sides suck.

The Democrats have their collective heads up their @sses, but I'm so tired of Republican scare tactics. "Terrorists, gays, Mexicans...boogity boogity boo!" They want me to believe I should be as uptight and paranoid as they are. Get real :rolleyes:

[clevin]

no, i would say both sides suck.

now thats called "muddling"
its like
A robbed a lady in the street
B killed a homeless people
You say "they both criminals" which is right
but when ask you to vote, pick one, you still pick B, now thats confusing, both suck, for this country, you still need to pick a one suck "less".

[Lyle]

A censure or (and oh how I would LOVE this) an impeachment of Bush for deliberately misleading the American public re: the Iraqi invasion would be sweet.

Not that Nancy Pelosi is someone whose word I'd trust, but:

Pelosi has made one absolute pledge, perhaps with an eye toward helping a Democrat win the White House in 2008.

"We have taken impeachment off the table," she said at a recent press briefing, referring to past talk about impeaching President Bush.

Link (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2006/story?id=2634098)

[Dont Hurt Me]

She couldnt do anything anyways and she knows it. Republicans run the Senate and most of the democrats in the Senate are prostitutes to the corporations who own all those guys. Plus with Bush having less then 2 years and draft dodger Cheney as the next President it would all be a waste of time & money. Now if somehow Democrats ran both houses this would all be different.

[beatsme]

She couldnt do anything anyways and she knows it. Republicans run the Senate and most of the democrats in the Senate are prostitutes to the corporations who own all those guys. Plus with Bush having less then 2 years and draft dodger Cheney as the next President it would all be a waste of time & money. Now if somehow Democrats ran both houses this would all be different.

impeachment proceedings are conducted by the House, independent of the Senate. The Senate votes to convict.

[IJ Reilly]

making any calls on which 3?

Pennsylvania and Ohio seem like a lock for the Democrats, so those plus one of the toss-up seats (take your pick, but I don't think they get Missouri or Tennessee and probably not Rhode Island).

The way the congressional districts have been so expertly gerrymandered by the Republicans I think the opportunity for a real Democratic blowout this year are less than they were for the Republicans in 1994.

I'd be perfectly happy with a small Democratic majority in the House and a very closely divided Senate. The division would certainly take symbolic but otherwise politically divisive (and suicidal) issues, such as impeachment, off the table. It would force Democrats to do in the House what the Republicans have refused to for the past six years: talk to the other party. A larger majority might tempt them to conduct House business as a come-uppance. If voters see Democrats behaving in a purely partisan and vindictive fashion for two years, it would position them very poorly for 2008.

[Swarmlord]

No predictions here. All I know is that my taxes are still too high and will remain so.

[Peace]

I predict Diebold will keep Republicans in control of both the House and Senate.

[miniConvert]

Looking in from the outside here, and hearing the data from polls on the BBC, I'm hoping that both House and Senate will go Democrat, but realistically I think if anything changes control at all it'll be the House.

I do desperately hope something changes, because I don't think wall-to-wall Republican control is doing the US, or the world, any good. We need more balance.

[atszyman]

When asked "Will the Dems take over both houses of Congress in today's election?" the magic 8-ball, scratch that, the Mystical Orb (http://www.supercoolstuff.com/items/misc/nv1170.htm) on my desk said "So it shall be."

We all know that magic 8-balls never lie, does this hold for the generic knock off?

[bowens]

Probably because dirty tricks and voter suppression will be widespread.

Most likely from Democrats, though, as it was in 2004 when they counted more votes than there were ballots and even slit the tires of 25 vans which were to pick up voters.

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/10592.html

[bowens]

Does any of this matter if you've still got Dubya sitting on the throne with the power of veto?

If one man has the power to pass or not pass legislation, why do you need the houses?

Especially when he didn't veto anything at all for the first 5 1/2 years of his presidency.

[Eraserhead]

Most likely from Democrats, though, as it was in 2004 when they counted more votes than there were ballots and even slit the tires of 25 vans which were to pick up voters.

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/10592.html

What about the florida in 2000? That was the republicans, or did you forget about that.

[bowens]

I'm just saying you can't say that only 1 side does anything like this. Both parties are equally sleazy.

[miniConvert]

I've just been reading this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/07/republican_robocall_annoyance/) about the automatic calls being made on behalf of the NRCC that at first appear to be from the Democrats. I'm not sure how that sort of thing is allowed to happen, but heads should roll for it.

[it5five]

Most likely from Democrats, though, as it was in 2004 when they counted more votes than there were ballots and even slit the tires of 25 vans which were to pick up voters.

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/10592.html

I guess that's a lot worse than scaring people into voting for your party by telling them that if the Democrats win we'll all die, or sending threatening letters to people telling them they will be arrested if they vote, or calling people telling them their polling places have changed (when they haven't) or having the Supreme Court (Republican majority) rule that the recount in Florida (presidents brother is governer) needed to stop, or having one of your partisan hacks in Ohio help you cheat your way into office for a second term.

Yeah, it's the Democrats we really need to watch out for.

Quit with the "both parties are equally sleazey" thing, because the aren't. They are both sleazey, yes, but the Republicans are lightyears ahead of Democrats in terms of sleaziness.

[Eraserhead]

I'm just saying you can't say that only 1 side does anything like this. Both parties are equally sleazy.

A presidency vs so low scale electoral fraud of a few thousand votes. Yep, they are totally the same.

If it's like the UK the local fraud would be sorted and a byelection would occur if needed.


A lot of good points


Totally agree with you.

[calculus]

I predict that George Bush will still be president.

[dsnort]

... or having the Supreme Court (Republican majority) rule that the recount in Florida (presidents brother is governer) needed to stop, or having one of your partisan hacks in Ohio help you cheat your way into office for a second term.

A presidency vs so low scale electoral fraud of a few thousand votes. Yep, they are totally the same.

What about the florida in 2000? That was the republicans, or did you forget about that.

There's a certain perverse, masochistic part of me that would like to see the Republicans pick up seats in the House and Senate just to watch the explosion of crackpot conspiracy theories. Dems heads would explode.

And for the record, I think the Rep's are going to lose both the House and the Senate. After all, they've spent six years proving they can't do anything constructive with the majority.

But just to be on the safe side, I think I'll go make me a hat out of tinfoil.

[it5five]

Especially when he didn't veto anything at all for the first 5 1/2 years of his presidency.

There isn't any need to veto anything when both houses are controlled by Republicans who give the rubber stamp to anything Bush wants.

[clevin]

I'm just saying you can't say that only 1 side does anything like this. Both parties are equally sleazy.
"most likely" dosen't mean "equal", you can quit pretending to be fair, your fairness isn;t much better than faux news.

[solvs]

Most likely from Democrats, though, as it was in 2004 when they counted more votes than there were ballots and even slit the tires of 25 vans which were to pick up voters.

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/10592.html

I'm not going to argue that the Dems don't pull this sort of thing, but you're ignoring the fact that the Reps do so much more and worse. I heard a few stories here and there of voter fraud on the Dems' side, but I was up in WA State in 2004. Go read up on the Gov election that year. Tell me something isn't fishy about that. Also, I've heard stories exactly like that one, but happening to the Dems, so it really does go both ways.

There are a few crazy liberals here and there that hate the Reps, but the neocons are so much better organized, I definitely fear 1 more than the other.

[beatsme]

Does any of this matter if you've still got Dubya sitting on the throne with the power of veto?

If one man has the power to pass or not pass legislation, why do you need the houses?

since it's not a line-item veto, it's uses are limited. Though I agree that since one party owns 2 of the 3 branches of govt. (I'm giving the Supreme Court the benefit of the doubt), the whole "checks and balances" thing is mostly useless these days.

IMHO, the big problem now is that the Republicans tend to frame everything in terms of national security, so anyone who dares register an objection will be suitably castigated (and presumably un-elected) during the next election cycle.

[zimv20]

from that HNN piece:
And five Democratic Party workers, including the son of a newly elected Democratic Congresswoman from the area, allegedly slit the tires of 25 vans intended to be used by the GOP to help voters get to the polls. (Democratic Party officials condemned the action.)
nice how the alleged actions of 5 nobodies equates to systematic dirty tricks by the GOP.

we need a name for this kind of dodgy equatism.

[solvs]

we need a name for this kind of dodgy equatism.

Spin? Partisan hackery? Lying?

[Blue Velvet]

Both houses going Dem.

Why? I can feel it in my bones... thus speaks the scientific voice of political forecasting. :D

Looking forward to 10pm (GMT) tonight for the exit polls, tucked up warmly in bed, listening to the radio with a smile on my face.

[zimv20]

Spin? Partisan hackery? Lying?
actually, i was going for Dodgy Equatism :-)

[zimv20]

Both houses going Dem.
i hope you're correct. but i'm still predicting close dem losses in ohio, montana, and rhode island.

[FoxyKaye]

I have three predictions for Election Day today:

* The Republicans will retain control of the House and Senate: nothing will change.

* The Democrats will get control of the House while Republicans retain control of the Senate: nothing will change.

* The Democrats will get control of both the House and Senate: nothing will change.

You heard it here first.

[clevin]

I have three predictions for Election Day today:

* The Republicans will retain control of the House and Senate: nothing will change.

* The Democrats will get control of the House while Republicans retain control of the Senate: nothing will change.

* The Democrats will get control of both the House and Senate: nothing will change.

You heard it here first.

lol, let me list if Dems get both
1. Bush will begin to Veto
2. Repubs begin to against "up or down vote"
3. Repubs begin to jump ship, switch party

[yg17]

My predictions:

The Dems are going to take the house without any problem
The senate is a bit more questionable. If the Dems don't get a majority, it will either be 50/50 or damn close, like 51/49. Considering that most things in the senate are a two-thirds vote, a majority is not even that important, so whether the Dems have 48, 49, or 50 seats isn't that big of a deal.
The repubs will ***** their pants once they realize they no longer have unlimited, unchecked power.

[atszyman]

Since we're predicting events beyond the election I will post my "How bad were they indicator" here.

If the Dems get the House investigations/oversight will begin.

At this point the best indicator on how bad the administration has been will be Cheney's health. If Cheney's health begins to decline the investigations are getting close to something big. If Cheney resigns (due to health reasons) the investigations have found something big enough that will lead to impeachment by a vast bi-partison majority of the House.

I think Bush and Cheney are tied to tightly together for an impeachment not to involve both and there's no way they are going to let a Dem Speaker of the House become President. Cheney would resign to let Bush appoint someone from outside the administration.

[pseudobrit]

Most likely from Democrats

Partisan apologist hackery. And a good ********ter too.

[gekko513]

The US is a very bad example of a democracy. There are only two parties. The parties rely 100% on money to win elections. Who has the money?

Sad as it may be, the cheating during elections isn't the worst part of the democratic system over there.

[Macky-Mac]

The US is a very bad example of a democracy. There are only two parties. The parties rely 100% on money to win elections. Who has the money?

Sad as it may be, the cheating during elections isn't the worst part of the democratic system over there.

aw heck......we have more than 2 parties. It's just that next to nobody ever votes for the other parties

[gekko513]

aw heck......we have more than 2 parties. It's just that next to nobody ever votes for the other parties

That's because the election rules are broken. There's no use in voting for a third party in the American system, because it's a wasted vote.

[Queso]

I predict Arnie wins enough votes to take over the whole US, then storms the White House single handedly, killing everyone in the process.

[pivo6]

That's because the election rules are broken. There's no use in voting for a third party in the American system, because it's a wasted vote.

Tell that to Jesse Ventura. :rolleyes:

I vote for third parties all of the time. To me, voting for the "least repulsive" is a wasted vote because you'll never change the system.

[IJ Reilly]

I predict Arnie wins enough votes to take over the whole US, then storms the White House single handedly, killing everyone in the process.

Best prediction yet. You should sent that one to Jon Stewart.

[Macky-Mac]

That's because the election rules are broken. There's no use in voting for a third party in the American system, because it's a wasted vote.

years ago, I had a co-worker who said the same thing.....he also said that you were wasting your vote if you didn't vote for the winner. He figured voting for the second place candidate was as much of a wasted a vote as voting for a third or fouth party candidate.......so he spent the election season trying to figure out who would win and then always voted for that candidate so his vote wouldn't be wasted

[solvs]

actually, i was going for Dodgy Equatism :-)

Have you met Americans? No one's going to say that. I thought of a few more colorful colloquialisms, but didn't want to get banned. :o

Looks like bv might have been right, or at least damn close.

[Blue Velvet]

Looks like bv might have been right, or at least damn close.


Let's see how things pan out over the next 24 hours... but the bones are rarely wrong. :D

I'm hyper-busy at work so don't have time to go hunting for news but I'll be interested to see and hear how the Republicans are going to spin this while probably privately falling in on each other in a flurry of recriminations and finger-pointing.

[leekohler]

I vote for third parties all of the time. To me, voting for the "least repulsive" is a wasted vote because you'll never change the system.

And look what your attitude got us in 2000. :rolleyes:

[jelloshotsrule]

And look what your attitude got us in 2000. :rolleyes:

i don't think those of us who wanted a good candidate to support forced al gore to be pathetically unemotional and lacking the energy he showed somewhat in the senate, and moreso post 2000 election...

[Chef Medeski]

A lot of congressional investigations, good, lot less spending, good, no fresh ideas, most likely, bad in any case, so many republican scandals unfooted the Republicans will barely be able to hold any seats in two years. Yet, the Democrats un leaderlike skills will lose them the presidency. Perfect. Another two years, of little spending, with hopefully a bit more ingenuity:

If they are unable to do something with their Congressional majority it will Surely spell death for any Democratic candidate for president in two years. Already not showing any strong resolve towards new ideas, it seems this next 2 years will merely bring more bad press for the Democrats. Itd be nice that way. Lets say the Democrats waste away the next two years because all their weak ideas are easily toppled by Republican opposition. They start numerous investigations allowing them to keep a lead in Congress in 2 years. Yet, The president goes to a Republican due to the lack of leadership shown, the exact quality a president needs Roll Eyes . If John McCain is that man, a quite flexible out reaching man. I think we will see two years of fresh ideas being brouth through the congress with a mix of most likely free-market economics with a lot less moral conservatism. But thats just my hopes. Its a bit too optimistic isnt it.

[it5five]

I don't understand why people think John McCaine is a flexible, moderate man.

I guess just because here in AZ he was in a bunch of TV commercials telling people to ban same sex marriage, to re-elect Jon Kyl, and in some more commercials for republican propositions. He isn't moderate at all. He's just another neocon that happens to have fought in a war, unlike his colleagues.

[solvs]

I don't understand why people think John McCaine is a flexible, moderate man.
Because compared to the rest of them, he is. It's all relative. Doesn't make it true though. Especially lately. He's been cuddling up to the right to win the primaries come '08, but it's losing him the moderates. Hopefully the Dems learn their lesson by going with someone who doesn't suck. But then, when have the Dems learned their lessons? When have they ever learned anything? :p

But the Reps probably won't learn either, because they lost the moderate Chaffee, Lamont lost to Libermann, negative ad campaigning (and racism) brought Ford down (even though Tran lost in the OC), Allen almost didn't lose, and a billion other things like the amendments relating to drugs and gay marriage.

So, in other words, look for a choice between 2 douchebags in '08 (as usual).

[xsedrinam]

.....So, in other words, look for a choice between 2 douchebags in '08 (as usual).
Looks like Iowa D-Gov. Tom Vilsack (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-vilsack-president,0,5664233.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines) is making plans to run in '08. Don't know much about him, though.

[solvs]

Don't know much about him, though.

He's probably a douchebag too, but I guess I'll give him the benefit of the hope he doesn't suck too much.

[jelloshotsrule]

He's probably a douchebag too, but I guess I'll give him the benefit of the hope he doesn't suck too much.

even if he hasn't sucked in the past, look for him to suck big time come '08. ;)

[Thomas Veil]

So the final result was the Dems gained 28 in the House and 4 in the Senate? Hot dang, I was off by only 1 in each chamber.

And that was just on a gut hunch.

(pats self on back)

I probably shoulda bet money on it. What was the over/under, anyway? :D

[WildCowboy]

The final results aren't known yet, as there are still some House races that haven't been called yet. But CNN is showing a net gain of 29 House seats for the Dems (28 from Republicans and one from an independent). From the looks of the outstanding races (CNN shows ten), they may pick up one or two more before all is said and done.

In the Senate, the Dems picked up six seats (MT, MO, OH, VA, PA, RI), but technically lost one to the independents in CT (although that loss was just Lieberman, who's still there, just not as a Dem). So technically, their net gain was five, but in reality it was six.