What will happen in the 2006 mid-term elections?

[wasteofo2]

Just gettin' early opinions to see who's good at predicting the future. You can vote multiple times, so vote for one result in the House, and one result in the Senate.

Obviously, a gain of 3 seats by one side means a loss of 3 seats on the other side. Also, it should be obvious that we're talking about net gains. If Democrats pick up 7 Republican seats, but Republicans pick up 6 Democratic seats, the Democrats only had a net gain of 1. I shouldn't have to say that on a physics forum...

I predict the Democrats will make modest gains, not because of a broad Democratic message or anything, just because of individual Republicans being succeptable to attack, and individual Democrats taking advantage of that and putting up a specific message that applies to their local constitutancy. The de-centralization of the Democratic party is what I expect to help them get back on their feet.

If anyone is dead-on, they will be given an award by the CPO (Congressional Predictions Office) and taken to do secret remote-viewing work for the CIA.For easy reference, here's a list of the Senators up for re-election in 2006.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/two_column_table/Class_I.htm

 

[BobG]

The ability to manipulate the borders of House Districts make it harder, proportionally, to pick up seats in the House. Still, I figure Dems to pick up at least 5 and maybe up to around 10.

Being statewide, Senators aren't quite as hard to unseat. I figure Republican Senators will bear the brunt of the Bush fallout. I'd say 3 or 4 will go down (you picked a really awkward place to break categories). With only about 33 up for re-election each cycle, 7 would be incredibly high.

 

[SOS2008]

elections: Senate - last held 2 November 2004 (next to be held November 2006); House of Representatives - last held 2 November 2004 (next to be held November 2006)
election results: Senate - percent of vote by party - NA%; seats by party - Republican Party 55, Democratic Party 44, independent 1; House of Representatives - percent of vote by party - NA%; seats by party - Republican Party 231, Democratic Party 200, undecided 4

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

For the Dems to achieve a 51% majority in the Senate they need to pick up 7 seats (though the 1 Independent is likely leaning toward the Dems so 6 may do), and in the House about 20 seats? Okay, that's what I'll vote for. Seriously it probably won't be that much, but improvement in balance of power is most important to me.

 

[loseyourname]

I picked 1-3 gain for Reps in the Senate, but I meant to select the same gain for the Dems. Sorry.

 

[Astronuc]

How about the US gives Texas back to Mexico and they keep Tom Delay. Then the US offers the 50th state position to Puero Rico or Guam or . . .
British Columbia.

 

[Skyhunter]

How about the US gives Texas back to Mexico and they keep Tom Delay. Then the US offers the 50th state position to Puero Rico or Guam or . . .
British Columbia.

Only if Bush and Rove are part of the deal.

 

[Astronuc]

Only if Bush and Rove are part of the deal.

Yeah, but that may sink the deal. I don't think Mexico wants them!

When was the last time Vincente Fox invited Bush for a visit?

 

[wasteofo2]

Anyone got an exact outline of how you think the Senate will change?

I'm fairly confident that Santorum (R. Pa) will lose to a Democrat.

Bill Frist (R. Tn) has said that he will not run again, and Harold Ford, a popular Democratic Congressman from Tennessee's 9th District, announced a while ago that he'll be running for that seat. Ford is one of those Congressmen that's on cable news channels all the time, and from what I've seen of him, he's very articulate, intelligent and serious (even grave). I'm not sure that there's a prominant Republican running for that seat yet, and with Ford being African American, he shouldn't have a tough time getting elected.

It sucks, but it also appears that Mike DeWine (R. Oh) and Lincoln Chafey (R. Ri) will both lose, even though they're fairly moderate, level-headed Republicans. Both are going to have to deal with loss of support from the extreme right, and possibly even primary challenges. In general, if there's a primary challenge to an incumbent official, the opposing party will win.

Mark Dayton (D. Mn) is not running again, and it appears the Democrats have no one to run in his place, so his seat will go to a Republican unless there's another Jack Ryan type scandal.

Robert Byrd (D. Wv) is up for re-election in 2006 as well, and he's liable to die any day now. But then again, many aincent Senators have a way of sticking around long after they should've died.

Jon Corzine's (D. Nj) seat will be up for re-election in 2006, and presumably whomever he chooses to be his replacement will run for that seat. I don't know that anyone can really predict whether that guy'll turn out to be any good or not. Has anyone got a view on him?

 

[Manchot]

It's very difficult to predict what will happen a year from now. Assuming that nothing like 9/11 happens between now and then, it's probably a pretty safe assumption that the Republicans won't pick up any seats, and that the Democrats will probably pick up a few (at least based on the current poll numbers). How many seats they will gain is probably proportional to the number of indictments/convictions that happen from now until then.

 

[wasteofo2]

I guess I'll revive this thread 2 or 3 times in the leadup to November, just to see how people's opinions might've changed.

I'm keeping my bets as they were, but it now seems possible the Democrats might actually pick up 5 Senate seats, though 3 or 4 seems more likely.

Frist (R Tn.) is retiring, and Harold Ford (D Tn.) will win that state (so says I).

Santorum (R Pa.) will just lose, since he doesn't seem to realize Pa. voted for John Kerry in 2004.

Chafey (R Ri.) and DeWine (R Oh.) are still both in trouble from the right and left, and have at least 3 distinct ways to lose.

And on top of that, Robert Novak put out a column saying Trent Lott wants to retire, and that Ms.'s Democratic Attorney General is best positioned to succeed Lott.

Novak may have outed a CIA agent, but that's just all the more reason to believe him. The guy's got damned good sources.

 

[McGyver]

Rep Ney (R) Ohio will be gone as a result of the Abramoff scandal. He will likely be replaced by a Democrat. Remember the 2004 presidential race and issues of its being decided by goings on in Ohio?? Abramoff ... hum. There are a reported 11 House canditates running with Iraq war experience. 9 of the 11 are Democrats. They WILL be heard - and will have an impact in the entirety of the Democrat platform, and are expected to challenge Bush and the Republicans on their handling of the Iraq. Depending on what happens here, will then shape the 2008 presidential ticket. Republicans plan on stacking the U.S. Supreme Court with conservatives, not only for Roe vs. Wade, but to endow broad powers to the presidency. So count on them to put up a new offense to keep the White House in 2008.

This all resembles a Super Bowl game! It's all about momentum and field position. Yet, the refereeing of late is lacking.

 

[Astronuc]

Time to bring forward, not for the poll necessarily, but for discussion of what is and will happen in the mid-term (presidential that is) elections this year.

Already - US evangelicals warn Republicans ! (from BBC)

Prominent leaders from the Christian right have warned Republicans they must do more to advance conservative values ahead of the US mid-term elections.

Their message to Congress, controlled by Republicans, is "must do better".

Support from about a quarter of Americans who describe themselves as evangelicals was a factor in President George W Bush's two election victories.

The Republicans will need to keep them onboard if they are to retain control of Congress in November.

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4815912.stm

So a religious community warns or threatens an established political entity, despite the tradition of separating Church and State.

What does it mean to "advance conservative values"? Who gets to decide what these values are? Are these values up for discussion in the public domain?

 

[SOS2008]

Time to bring forward, not for the poll necessarily, but for discussion of what is and will happen in the mid-term (presidential that is) elections this year.

Already - US evangelicals warn Republicans ! (from BBC)

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4815912.stm

So a religious community warns or threatens an established political entity, despite the tradition of separating Church and State.

What does it mean to "advance conservative values"? Who gets to decide what these values are? Are these values up for discussion in the public domain?

No, of course this is not a part of public debate. And we know the so-called "values" have nothing to do with true Christian premises, such as helping the poor, the elderly, leaving a better world for our children, etc. Gay marriage was already defeated with props on the ballots in 2004. Now it is full steam ahead to ban abortion with legislation state by state.

In the meantime, as mentioned in another thread, the Republican party has chosen Tom DeLay to run in 2006 in Texas, and in the Republican straw polls for the 2008 presidential elections, Bill Frist came in first (and Bush came in second! ). Now in her bid to become the next U.S. Senator from Florida, Katherine Harris has announced that she is putting $10 million of her inherited wealth into her campaign.

If we aren't able to rid ourselves of these kinds of things, and these kind of politicians, our country will surely sink further into the sewer.

 

[BobG]

Time to bring forward, not for the poll necessarily, but for discussion of what is and will happen in the mid-term (presidential that is) elections this year.

Already - US evangelicals warn Republicans ! (from BBC)

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4815912.stm

So a religious community warns or threatens an established political entity, despite the tradition of separating Church and State.

What does it mean to "advance conservative values"? Who gets to decide what these values are? Are these values up for discussion in the public domain?

The National Association of Evagelicals doesn't make a secret of their goals. You can read them right on their web site: http://www.nae.net/images/civic_responsibility2.pdf

In a short summary, evangelicals politically believe:

Religious freedom: Believes people should be free to express their religious views in public. Separation of church and state doesn’t mean people should be protected from encountering religion.

Nurture family life and protect children: Government shouldn’t interfere in how families educate their children (i.e. - pro school vouchers) and shouldn’t recognize same sex marriages as the equivalent of heterosexual marriages.

Protect sanctity of human life: Seeks to outlaw abortion, euthanasia and stem-cell research.

Justice and compassion for poor and vulnerable: Restore dignity to poor by making job training a requirement to receive welfare, encourage faith-based charity, and crack down on collecting child support payments. Encourage abstinence.

Protect human rights world-wide: Urges United States to increase its commitment to developing democracy in former colonial lands, Muslim nations, and nations emerging from Communism. Correct lingering effects of US racist history through well-conceived efforts that foster dignity and responsibility.

Seek peace and work to restrain violence: Work to reduce conflict by promoting international understanding and engaging in non-violent conflict resolution.

Protect God’s creation: Encourage recycling, conservation and enjoyment of nature, encourage fuel efficiency, reduce pollution, and encourage sustainable use of natural resources.

And, of course they're up for discussion in the public domain. That's what elections are.

 

[SOS2008]

The National Association of Evagelicals doesn't make a secret of their goals. You can read them right on their web site: http://www.nae.net/images/civic_responsibility2.pdf

In a short summary, evangelicals politically believe:

Religious freedom: Believes people should be free to express their religious views in public. Separation of church and state doesn’t mean people should be protected from encountering religion.

Nurture family life and protect children: Government shouldn’t interfere in how families educate their children (i.e. - pro school vouchers) and shouldn’t recognize same sex marriages as the equivalent of heterosexual marriages.

Protect sanctity of human life: Seeks to outlaw abortion, euthanasia and stem-cell research.

Justice and compassion for poor and vulnerable: Restore dignity to poor by making job training a requirement to receive welfare, encourage faith-based charity, and crack down on collecting child support payments. Encourage abstinence.

Protect human rights world-wide: Urges United States to increase its commitment to developing democracy in former colonial lands, Muslim nations, and nations emerging from Communism. Correct lingering effects of US racist history through well-conceived efforts that foster dignity and responsibility.

Seek peace and work to restrain violence: Work to reduce conflict by promoting international understanding and engaging in non-violent conflict resolution.

Protect God’s creation: Encourage recycling, conservation and enjoyment of nature, encourage fuel efficiency, reduce pollution, and encourage sustainable use of natural resources.

And, of course they're up for discussion in the public domain. That's what elections are.

I think what Astronuc is referring to is public debate about what the above list of "values" should be. Obviously The National Association of Evangelicals has already determined what these are. While they have added issues regarding the poor and the environment (due to criticism in 2004), I question the sincerity. For example, in comparison to efforts to ban abortion, what pro-environment things have they done (protests, legislation, etc.)?

In regard to the school vouchers, they want tax dollars to send their children to religious schools so they won't have to foot the bill on their own. This is a clear violation of Separation of Church and State and they know it.

And obviously they support Bush/Cheney, who violate human rights by torturing prisoners in secret camps. What does spreading democracy have to do with human rights? Nothing. That is all just neocon BS.

 

[loseyourname]

The National Association of Evagelicals doesn't make a secret of their goals. You can read them right on their web site: http://www.nae.net/images/civic_responsibility2.pdf

That's a great document, Bob. Here's a little piece of advice we could all take heed of:

We will differ with other Christians and with non-Christians over the best policies. Thus we must practice humility and cooperation to achieve modest and attainable goals for the good of society. We must take care to employ the language of civility and to avoid denigrating those with whom we disagree. Because political work requires persuasion and cooperation with those who do not share our Christian commitment, we must offer a reasoned and easy-to-grasp defense of our goals.

Neither the most vocal Christians (I have no clue whether or not they are members of the NAE), nor the most vocal of their critics, do any of this.

 

[Bystander]

Given that the attention spans of media, politicians, and electorate are much less than that of a butterfly, predicting "issues" that people will have in mind 6 mos. from now is pretty much a crap shoot. The timing might be about right for adverse fallout from the DPW fiasco to bite just about every one of the incumbents. That leaves thirty-some plus the abstentions in the house to retain seats and the three hundred odd who put themselves on the record as opposed to be unseated. Probably not going to be even back page material by then.

So what might turn into issues between now and then? Jessica's Law? Levee levies? Foreign student admissions? CDC handling of the latest health scare, whatever it might be? SCOTUS botching another eminent domain case? War in S. America? Housing bubble collapses? Public school textbook bid rigging scandal?

 

[BobG]

I think what Astronuc is referring to is public debate about what the above list of "values" should be. Obviously The National Association of Evangelicals has already determined what these are. While they have added issues regarding the poor and the environment (due to criticism in 2004), I question the sincerity. For example, in comparison to efforts to ban abortion, what pro-environment things have they done (protests, legislation, etc.)?

In regard to the school vouchers, they want tax dollars to send their children to religious schools so they won't have to foot the bill on their own. This is a clear violation of Separation of Church and State and they know it.

And obviously they support Bush/Cheney, who violate human rights by torturing prisoners in secret camps. What does spreading democracy have to do with human rights? Nothing. That is all just neocon BS.

Bush did say "America is addicted to oil" in his State of the Union speech (even if he did butcher the speech and even if the budget resulted lay offs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory).

You need to read the section on protecting human rights to fully understand the "spreading democracy" part. Their interests happen to coincide with neocon interests, even if the motivation is different.

Because the Creator gave human beings liberty, we believe that religious liberty, including the right to change one’s religion, is a foundational right that must be respected by governments.

I see your point about who decides what evangelical Christians believe in (versus who decides whether the nation embraces these values). This gets to the heart of the problem of religions forming political parties - or taking control of an existing party. There's not a lot of critical thought among the rank and file about what policies a religion should follow. The rank and file follow whatever policies religious authorities decide on - after all, they've been endorsed by God.

That's also why evangelicals are such an attractive constituency to appeal to. They believe in faith and patience and will stick with their candidate much longer than the average voter - even if their candidate butchers his speeches and does a bad job of implementation.

 

[sanchecl]

In the meantime, as mentioned in another thread, the Republican party has chosen Tom DeLay to run in 2006 in Texas, and in the Republican straw polls for the 2008 presidential elections, Bill Frist came in first (and Bush came in second! ). Now in her bid to become the next U.S. Senator from Florida, Katherine Harris has announced that she is putting $10 million of her inherited wealth into her campaign.

If we aren't able to rid ourselves of these kinds of things, and these kind of politicians, our country will surely sink further into the sewer.[/QUOTE]

Let us not forget Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) & Ted Kenedy (D-MA). If you want to start singling out individuals, there are plenty from both major political parties that can be used as examples to make a given point.

Please describe your idea of "the sewer". Liberals and conservatives both use the term but mean something completely different when doing so. Just curious what you mena when using the term.

 

[wasteofo2]

and in the Republican straw polls for the 2008 presidential elections, Bill Frist came in first (and Bush came in second! ).

That was one straw poll in Tennesse. Frist literally had young Republicans from local colleges bussed into vote for him. 40% of the delegates voting in that poll were from Tennessee, and Frist got less than 40% of the vote, so it's not really indivatory of anything other than people Bill Frist brings to Republican conferences like him.

And Mitt Romney got 2nd place, Bush tied with George Allen for second, but that was only because McCain told all his delegates to vote for Bush to show support for him. So every Bush vote is really a McCain vote, plus there were a bunch of McCain votes that were listed as such. If you add the Bush and McCain votes, McCain got more than Romney.

 

[wasteofo2]

Alrighty, so my predictions on which seats will change hands have changed greatly.

Right now, Pennsylvania is the only Senate seat that will definitely go to the Democrats.

Montana is very likely to switch to Democratic, since Senator Burns is the most unpopular Senator in the nation.

Missouri is a possible pick-up for the Dems; Senator Talent isn't horribly popular, and the state is evenly divided enough that general anti-Republican sentiment could drive him out. However, Talent could whip up a good campaign and skim by with 3 points or so.

Rhode Island is interesting. Lincoln Chafee, the Republican incumbent, is the most liberal Republican in the Senate, and didn't vote for the President in '04 (he voted for George Bush Sr. in protest). He faces a significant primary challenge by a more traditional Republican. If he loses in the primary, then the Democrat will definitely win, and even if he wins his primary, he may be defeated, despite his liberalness.

NJ could go either way, the latest poll had Kean (R) at 32% and Menendez (D) at 30%. Though it will probably stay Democratic, just cause it's NJ, and Republicans are sucking extra hard this year, while Democrats only suck as much as they always have. This is, sadly for them, the Republicans best chance at a pick-up.

So I'm sticking with my vote of Democrats gaining 1-3 in the Senate, and 5-15 in the House. It'll probably be closer to 5-8 that they end up gaining in the House, though. Gerrymandering's a *****. Either way, the Congress will be nearly evenly split after '06, with Republicans barely able to do anything.

A Congress paralyzed is better than one that's actively harming the nation.

 

[McGyver]

The Dems keep getting handed opportunities and squandering them. They are making very serious national tragedies, failures, and forshadows of doom in "potitical discussions." Those Democrats who continue to respond to the numeous Repubs and Bush White House screw-ups with their eye on their careers are NOT reacting from the "gut" with sincereity, the American public will read into this, and discount their efforts as has happened since Katrina.

How about some Democrats just plain getting ANGRY. The two I can recall in recent months (Murtha and ? man who took over Senate floor for one full day) got everyone's attention. Right now, the pacifism in many Liberals make-up has become their own handycap. We're in tough new times. Say it - and mean what you say. And the Dems have been handed enumerable opportunities!

It's still too early to say what might change in the Fall elections. I still don't see enough solid initiative and passion ouf of the Dems. They should organize a similar effort as to what the Repubs did in 1994 with Newt's "Contract with America" that won them the House.

 

[Astronuc]

Has anyone seen this?

http://www.ontheissues.org/ - pick your favorite or least favorite.

I listened to an interview this morning with Chrisite Todd-Whitman. I hope she gets back in.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Christie_Todd_Whitman.htm

She has written a book -"It's My Party Too".

It's My Party, Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America (Hardcover)

Haven't read it yet, but it sounds interesting.

Christine Todd Whitman: Battle for the GOP Core (Jan 2005)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4468239

She is a moderate Republican and in her new book argues against the hijacking of her party by zealous "social fundamentalists."

 

[edward]

If the republicans use the same type of tactics they have used in the past, specificially the New Hampshire 2002 phone line jamming scheme described below. They may pull of a 2006 six surprize.

Washington, DC - A new report suggests that the national Republican establishment--including the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and even the Bush White House--may have had a role in the criminal Election Day phone jamming scheme that disenfranchised countless New Hampshire voters in 2002.

The Union Leader today reported that "court records show Ken Mehlman's office received more than 75 telephone calls from now-convicted phone-jam conspirator James Tobin from Sept. 30 to Nov. 22 of that year." At the time, Mehlman--the current RNC Chair--was White House political director. [Union Leader, 3/23/06] This raises the disturbing question of whether Tobin, who worked for the RNC and the NRSC at the time and has since been convicted on two criminal charges for his role in the scheme, discussed the plan with one of the President's most important political strategists.

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/06/03/ale06035.html

The method used to disrupt voting was to hire a telephone solicitation company to flood the phone lines of a Democratic "get out the vote" telephone campaign. This smells like Karl Rove big time.

The administration now has the NSA intel gathering machine to assist them in their dirty little scandals. This type of activity is totally disgraceful. There has always been a certain level of underhanded dealings in politics, but the current administration has set a new low.

 

[McGyver]

Be Advised Democratic Party: Illegal Immigration Could Costs Fall '06 Election

Be advised Democratic party: If any of you voice any substantial support for today's "Illegal Immigration" rally - you WILL costs the party anticipated gains in the Fall '06 election.

The Democratic party presently is looking a girft horse in the mouth. American support for the Republican controlled House and Senate in April 2006 is reported to be at historic lows. All the Democrats need do to capture seats in the Fall '06 election is keep clear of "unpopular political issues," and offer proposals on key domestic issues (oil, jobs, health care, and the budget) and the war in Iraq.

Should there be any substantial Democratic party support for undocumented workers and today's demonstrations - it WILL diminish be you against the party by the Republicans in the Fall '06 election. In 2004, it was the party's support for "gay marriage" that was successfully pushed by Republicans to maintain seats in the House and Senate.

The "illegal immigrant" issue in 2006 is far more divisive than gay marriage was in 2004. Do not squander this opportunit!"

 

[BobG]

Be advised Democratic party: If any of you voice any substantial support for today's "Illegal Immigration" rally - you WILL costs the party anticipated gains in the Fall '06 election.

The Democratic party presently is looking a girft horse in the mouth. American support for the Republican controlled House and Senate in April 2006 is reported to be at historic lows. All the Democrats need do to capture seats in the Fall '06 election is keep clear of "unpopular political issues," and offer proposals on key domestic issues (oil, jobs, health care, and the budget) and the war in Iraq.

Should there be any substantial Democratic party support for undocumented workers and today's demonstrations - it WILL diminish be you against the party by the Republicans in the Fall '06 election. In 2004, it was the party's support for "gay marriage" that was successfully pushed by Republicans to maintain seats in the House and Senate.

The "illegal immigrant" issue in 2006 is far more divisive than gay marriage was in 2004. Do not squander this opportunit!"

In other words, the key for Democrats is be docile wimps afraid to stand for anything. In fact, they should never open their mouths except to utter soft platitudes devoid of any meaning what so ever.

I'm not sure that works anymore. In fact, if only one question could be asked of candidates in 2006 (and it couldn't be about Iraq), it would be, "What action or lack of action in your past do you regret the most?"

One reason for Bush's success, in spite of a personal history of substance abuse, in spite of very little political experience for a Presidential candidate, is that he was seen as a "straight shooter" who told you where he stood. In fact, of all of Bush's transgressions as President, it was having the pre-war rhetoric exposed as fraud that has hurt Bush's image the most. People now trust him even less than the average tap dancing politician that tries to either avoid taking any side of an issue or to take both sides of the issue at the same time.

If you're helping to run the country, you owe it to voters to let them know who they're electing.

 

[SOS2008]

A quick catch-up:

1) Like Jesus, the religious-right should stay out of politics completely and tend to God's work and the spiritual health of their flocks.
2) The "sewer" would be illegal activity (Tom DeLay), wrongly interfering in the right to privacy (Frist), and assisting in election fraud (Harris).

Other than that, the Dems have formulated clear positions on all issues, many of which I have posted in various threads. The problem is no one can hear them over the loud mob (the RNC & their pundits) that keeps screaming how the Dems have no platform.

Carry on.

 

[McGyver]

A quick catch-up:

Other than that, the Dems have formulated clear positions on all issues, many of which I have posted in various threads. The problem is no one can hear them over the loud mob (the RNC & their pundits) that keeps screaming how the Dems have no platform.

Carry on.

Then you haven't seen any recent interviews of Governor Howard Dean, DNC Chairman. He was interviewed on MSNBC's Hardball last Friday, and kindly given numerous opportunities to hammer away at the republicans how the Dems can do thing differently or better. His comments were sadly, mostly rhetoric. The Republicans are like a prize fighter pretty ready to go down. But the Dems have to attack with ideas and plan of substance, not rhetoric. They also CANNOT be distracted by "side issues" of the far left wing of the party. Winning elections is about studying polls and opponents, and implementing winning strategies.

 

[edward]

I fully expect Karl Rove to use the gay marriage issue again in the 2006 elections. There will be lawsuits filed by heretofore unknown gay activist groups, bringing about a rally of voters on the religious right.

It doesn't matter what the Democrats do or say, the gay marriage issue in the media sends the religious right into a voting frenzy.

Another Rove tactic is to attack an opponent with lies and deceitful statements to the point where the Democrat is kept occupied defending himself, then Rove drives the "He has no policy stake" into into the heart of his/her campaign.

This is already happening here in Arizona with the John Kyle Republican Senatorial campaign using television ads to accuse an independent of being a liberal. This is not anything new, but this is just the beginning.

 

[SOS2008]

Then you haven't seen any recent interviews of Governor Howard Dean, DNC Chairman. He was interviewed on MSNBC's Hardball last Friday, and kindly given numerous opportunities to hammer away at the republicans how the Dems can do thing differently or better. His comments were sadly, mostly rhetoric. The Republicans are like a prize fighter pretty ready to go down. But the Dems have to attack with ideas and plan of substance, not rhetoric. They also CANNOT be distracted by "side issues" of the far left wing of the party. Winning elections is about studying polls and opponents, and implementing winning strategies.

There are many others, such as Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Reid, etc. who have done a good job of expressing Dem views.

I fully expect Karl Rove to use the gay marriage issue again in the 2006 elections. There will be lawsuits filed by heretofore unknown gay activist groups, bringing about a rally of voters on the religious right.

It doesn't matter what the Democrats do or say, the gay marriage issue in the media sends the religious right into a voting frenzy.

Another Rove tactic is to attack an opponent with lies and deceitful statements to the point where the Democrat is kept occupied defending himself, then Rove drives the "He has no policy stake" into into the heart of his/her campaign.

This is already happening here in Arizona with the John Kyle Republican Senatorial campaign using television ads to accuse an independent of being a liberal. This is not anything new, but this is just the beginning.

So true. You'd think people would learn. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

And in fact BushCo has tried to fool us more than a dozen times — not only about Iraq, but about claims for limited government, or claims that judges and politicians should stick to the Constitution. The list has become so long one cannot recap anymore.

 

[Gokul43201]

What do election laws say about a situation where a Sec. of State runs for another elected position (like Governor) ?

This is happening in Ohio, and the Republican likely to win the primary is Ken Blackwell, the Sec. State notorious for the irregularities surrounding the 2004 elections. It makes a lot of Ohioan democrats nervous that he is responsible for conducting an election that determines his own fate.

 

[Astronuc]

Some analysis from the folks at NPR -
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2006/map/

Democrats' Senate Hopes May Hinge on Missouri
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5360203

All Things Considered, April 24, 2006 · If Democrats are going to get close to winning control of the Senate this November, they'll need to go beyond the three targets (Santorum, Burns, Chafee) everyone talks about. Political analysts say Missouri might be a swing state this year; first-term Republican Jim Talent looks strong but not unassailable.

Hey, I like Chafee.

 

[wasteofo2]

Currnet forecast:
PA, MO and MT go Democratic, though MO and MT by very small margins. NJ barely stays with Menendez. Maybe Dems pick up 8 net seats in the house.

Democrats are really sacking it up this year, the only race they're garunteed of is PA, and really, the should've won that by at least 15 points, and Santorum will probably end up with over 40%. MT, MO and NJ really aren't even garunteed, any or all of them could go to the Republicans. We could possibly end up with no net change, and PA and NJ just switching hands.

 

[Astronuc]

Hillary Clinton has a challenger in the NY Demcratic Primary - Jonathan Tasini. I listened to an interview yesterday morning with the regional public radio station and it was interesting. Anyway, Tasini's positions on the issues - http://www.tasinifornewyork.com/issues

Tasini made the comment that "Hillary's latest best friend is . . . Rupert Murdoch." ! He went on to indicated that Clinton is too conservative.

Should be interesting for the next few months, and certainly in November, and I can hardly wait for 2008.

 

[wasteofo2]

So now it seems that the Democrats are going to lose a seat in CT to an Independent. The guy has some crazy name like Loserman or something, I don't know much about him.

And it further seems that even if Chafee wins his primary in RI, that he'll just lose to Whitehouse in the general election.

If this guy Loserman, and Bernie Sanders of VT caucass with the Democrats, and the Democrats pick up PA and MT (which they definitely will), along with MO and RI (which seem likely), and can hold on to NJ, then the Democrats will only have a 1 seat minority in the Senate.

That's ALOT better than I think anyone would've predicted a few months ago.

And hell, Harold Ford seems to be about tied with his would-be opponents in TN in the low 40's. With some tricky campaigning and some dirty tricks, he could actually make the senate tied. Fancy fancy...

I'm going to keep updating this thread with my predictions until Nov. 7, you just watch.