It's early yet, but the people on MSNBC are talking like the house will be republican controlled after this election. Charlie Cooke has republicans gaining 35+ seats in the House with 39 needed to take over, and many races too close to call. He has 5-7 seat gain for republicans in the senate (46-48 seats if that holds true).
Although I don't have the #'s, I think it'll be about 52-48 in the senate, and then a slight majority in the house (both for the democrats). And then next year nothing will change. Actually, that's my prediction no matter who has the majority.
I'm thinking the GOP gains will be more modest. Some of the dem seats were abandoned by design to give the dems an opportunity to retain seats that are traditionally safe as the Obama backlash can't be used against a non incumbent. Also, and I know this will rankle people but it's the truth, ultra close races will often fall the left due to amazingly good and organized voting fraud as we've seen in past recent elections. I think the GOP will pick up 28-30 seats in the House and 4 in the Senate.
# House Democrat, Senate Democrat # House Republican, Senate Republican # House Democrat, Senate Republican # House Republican, Senate Republican
Reminds me of the time a pollster called the house during the Clinton Administration. The poll question was, "Is President Clinton doing an outstanding job, excellent job or a very good job". Since my answer didn't fit the poll, it went as "undecided".
Interesting article if you like to read about polling. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010...olls-key-races-fail-predict/story?id=11479893 Basically it says the polls have been very wrong about recent races, etc. What I'll add as my own perspective (not written in that article) is the polls have been very wrong about REPUBLICAN primaries and it's been the Tea Party candidates upsetting the party power brokers' choices. So what does that mean for the November elections? Perhaps there's a huge amount of support for those Tea Party candidates that the polls are underestimating. Or misunderestimating.
I think that's fair. To some extent, pollsters are going to be biased towards those that have always won before, i.e. mainstream candidates. Hard to say. It will be interesting to see how many teabaggers actually get elected. As a democrat, I'm hoping most of them do. barfo
Instead of showing respect for people with whom you politically disagree, you feel the need to denigrate them. For future reference, they're called "tea partiers", but then again, you already know that. I think people on the left are wrongheaded, but well intentioned. I wouldn't dream of calling them "ball gurglers" or "nut suckers".
I don't think it matters who wins. Barring a major calamity (terrorist attack, etc) I see us muddling along pretty much like we have already. Obama has probably already passed all the major legislation he will during his first term. (Given the scope of the health care bill, that's not necessarily to say he won't have accomplished much.) I do think that people have over-estimated the impact of the Tea Partiers. Those who love the Tea Partiers really love them, but you don't get more than one vote just because you are intense about it. I think a lot of people, particularly women and minorities, hear these far right wing candidates and don't say or do much, but quietly cringe inside. And vote accordingly. McCain wasn't a classic Tea Party candidate, and he won the Republican nomination. Obama was a Tea Party nightmare, and he won the presidency. The proven path to winning in politics is to be on the fringe in the primaries and rush to the middle in the general election. The Tea Party strategy is to be on the fringe and stay there. If I'm wrong and they do really succeed, it's going to signal a whole new politics.
I think most people will be voting against rather than voting for. Interestingly, this will be the third consecutive election where the vote will have followed this pattern. There's massive dissatisfaction with both parties. My guess is the GOP will be given one more chance, and if they blow it a third party will be created based on limited government and balanced budgets. As for Obama, he created the Tea Party. The Tea Party is filled with people who just wanted to live their lives. As long as you mostly left them alone, they didn't much care. However, President Obama has proceeded with such a radical agenda, he has spurred people into action. Most of these people have never been politically active before; that's why the protests are so amateurish.
When your entire political platform is "I'm angry", when you are manipulated by the likes of the Koch brothers but are entirely unaware of it, when your politician of choice is a halfwit like Palin, then I really don't think you deserve any respect. That's nice that you think everyone on the left is well intentioned. I'm not sure I'd go so far as that. barfo
The above paragraph highlights your ignorance better than I could ever hope to do. I generally think the best of people until they prove me wrong. Note I didn't say "everyone", I just said "people on the left".
And that is a huge problem. To me, that kind of voting leads to fringe candidates. The far right, then the far left, now back to the far right... These fringe elements have repeatedly proved an inability to govern.
Sorry for your inadequacy, then So essentially you responded to my criticism of a particular group on the right by saying you wouldn't say the same thing about some of the people on the left. Well, I wouldn't call everyone on the right a teabagger, either. barfo
Let's hope it's a whole new politics. Though really good guys can get elected and slimed by opposition research bullshit. I'm OK with the Tea Party as long as they stick to their Libertarian theme: the govt's too big, the govt's spending too much, the deficits and debt are outrageously high, stick to the constitution, and that sort of thing. As soon as they get into advocating programs of social engineering, they'll lose my respect.
You're right. I'm completely inadequate when it comes to describing the Marianas Trench-like depth of your ignorance. Nice try. Lots of people identify with the principles of limited government, lower taxes and balanced budgets. Those are the general principles of Tea Partiers. The problem with calling them "teabaggers" is that it's not only belittling those people that want government to live within its means, but it's inaccurate. Plenty of people across the political spectrum enjoy that activity. And once again, I didn't say "some of the people", I said "people". You keep reaching for that rainbow, though.
