My Mid Term Election Prediction

[Tigermike 3,054]

The Democrats will pick up some House seats. I have no idea if they will win enough to make Pelosi the Speaker of the House.

Republicans will retain a majority in the Senate.

Democrats will call for recounts in nearly all elections. There may very well be a law suit or two from the dems, just because that's what they do and they like it.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I predict the Democrats take over the Senate. They take formerly GOP seats in PA, OH and RI. They retain Dem seats in NJ, WA, MD, MI and MN, plus they get Lieberman in CT who will caucus with them. The GOP retains TN, MO, AZ, VA and MT.

I have no idea what will happen in the House.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I predict the Democrats take over the Senate. They take formerly GOP seats in PA, OH and RI. They retain Dem seats in NJ, WA, MD, MI and MN, plus they get Lieberman in CT who will caucus with them. The GOP retains TN, MO, AZ, VA and MT.

I have no idea what will happen in the House.

Your predictions don't add up to a Dem Senate. They need a net 6 seats.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Oh, my bad. Of course, the MT, MO and VA races are dead heats right now so those could swing their way.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I agree that Dem pickups should include PA, OH, and RI. Next best bets, in order, MT, MO, VA. Longshots AZ, TN.

Best Republican pickup chances, in order, MD, NJ.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I agree that Dem pickups should include PA, OH, and RI. Next best bets, in order, MT, MO, VA. Longshots AZ, TN.

Best Republican pickup chances, in order, MD, NJ.

Okay, I'll say Dems take 5-6 seats in the Senate. A few months back I believe I said the Dems take 25 seats in the house. I'll stick with that, although I won't be shocked if they take anywhere from 19-40. The electorate seems to be in a bit of flux.

Still think MD is the most likely Republican chance to take a Dem seat.

C'mon...others?

[otterinbham 0]

I think a last minute get-out-the-vote will save the GOP in the Senate--but just barely. In fact, I'm guessing the interesting twist will be what Lieberman decides to do once he walks away with the win. Meanwhile, the GOP has lost the house, but it will not have lost enough votes to keep Pelosi from advancing her loopy agenda--which might be the best outcome of all.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I think a last minute get-out-the-vote will save the GOP in the Senate--but just barely. In fact, I'm guessing the interesting twist will be what Lieberman decides to do once he walks away with the win. Meanwhile, the GOP has lost the house, but it will not have lost enough votes to keep Pelosi from advancing her loopy agenda--which might be the best outcome of all.

What do you believe that agenda is?

[Ranger12 46]

I think the dems will gain control in both. I think the country is just going to take it's natural swing back to the other party. There are times that the country tends to lean to one political philosophy, then they get tired of that and swing back to the other side.

60s...Liberal

70s...split

80s...conservative

90s...liberal

00s...conservative (so far)

So, we are due for a swing back to the liberal side, but hopefully I am wrong.

[AURaptor 1,126]

If the Dems win the House or the Senate, I'll hit the Gentlemen's club, to ease my pain.

If the GOP wins.....I'll hit the Gentlemen's club, just because.

[DKW 86 7,441]

I think the dems will gain control in both. I think the country is just going to take it's natural swing back to the other party. There are times that the country tends to lean to one political philosophy, then they get tired of that and swing back to the other side.

60s...Liberal

70s...split

80s...conservative

90s...liberal

00s...conservative (so far)

So, we are due for a swing back to the liberal side, but hopefully I am wrong.

This country NEEDS a divided govt. We do not need anyone nor anything in total control. I would give anything to have the true conservatives back in power in the House, but I do not want the Hastert spend machine back ever again. The Republicans will pick up some more local stuff. But I think the House will be a washout and the Senate will be almost 50-50. True gridlock and that is good for all.

Funny, but I almost wish for the nineties. A Rep controlled House and divided govt. Maybe we get that in 2008. Either way, the Spend-a-lots HAVE TO GO!!!!!

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Okay, my 2 cents, but I don't think the Dems get either house. I think they make gains in both, to force the Repubs to have to move closer to the center to get anything done, but the thought of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House scares the beejeebers out of me, and I imagine it will a lot of other people as well.

The thing is, if the Dems get control in both houses, or even just in the HOR, they will not have a significant enough majority to ramrod their agenda through - repealing the tax cuts, forbidding drilling for oil in the US, raising the minimum wage (and these are some of her stated aims for the first 100 days Link) But as I said, she won't have the votes, because the Dems will have such a slim majority at best - so none of this stuff happens.

But what WILL happen is nothing but muckracking and investigation and hearings and screams for impeachment. The Dems will have control of Judiciary Committee, among others, and will immediately commence a witch hunt about anything and everything they have had issue with for the last 6 years. Nothing will be accomplished because all they will be focused on is embarassing GWB and getting revenge.

Not my idea of how I want the next two years spent.

[otterinbham 0]

I think a last minute get-out-the-vote will save the GOP in the Senate--but just barely. In fact, I'm guessing the interesting twist will be what Lieberman decides to do once he walks away with the win. Meanwhile, the GOP has lost the house, but it will not have lost enough votes to keep Pelosi from advancing her loopy agenda--which might be the best outcome of all.

What do you believe that agenda is?

Repeal of the tax cuts, particularly capital gains taxes. After creating initially higher deficits both are actually leading to higher tax collections. For example, Capital Gains tax collections are now twice what they were in 2002, and far higher than any year in history. Putting the capital gains rate at a lower level actually makes it possible to conduct more transactions, spurring greater economic activity while resulting in a greater volume of tax revenue. It's a win win for government and taxpayers alike.

I really don't have any hope that either party will have the guts to dismantle the ticking time bomb of Social Security, the biggest Ponzi Scheme in history. Or tackle tax reform. Or rescind the stupid Prescription Act.

[Tiger Al 0]

Okay, my 2 cents, but I don't think the Dems get either house. I think they make gains in both, to force the Repubs to have to move closer to the center to get anything done, but the thought of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House scares the beejeebers out of me, and I imagine it will a lot of other people as well.

The thing is, if the Dems get control in both houses, or even just in the HOR, they will not have a significant enough majority to ramrod their agenda through - repealing the tax cuts, forbidding drilling for oil in the US, raising the minimum wage (and these are some of her stated aims for the first 100 days Link) But as I said, she won't have the votes, because the Dems will have such a slim majority at best - so none of this stuff happens.

But what WILL happen is nothing but muckracking and investigation and hearings and screams for impeachment. The Dems will have control of Judiciary Committee, among others, and will immediately commence a witch hunt about anything and everything they have had issue with for the last 6 years. Nothing will be accomplished because all they will be focused on is embarassing GWB and getting revenge.

Not my idea of how I want the next two years spent.

Oddly enough (but, not really surprising) your link made no mention of oil drilling, forbidden or otherwise.

You say "repealing the tax cuts" as if the entire program will be repealed. That's not what she said. Per your link:

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.

Now, to those of you who make $250K or more per year then, yes, your tax cuts may be repealed.

However, you failed to mention one of the biggest sins contained in the "100 hrs." which is to "Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients." Why is this bad?

Also, she wants to ""Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority." Yeah, keeping that deficit low is a really bad idea. You're right, increasing the national debt is a much better plan.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Oddly enough (but, not really surprising) your link made no mention of oil drilling, forbidden or otherwise.

Try this one: Link to Pelosi Position

We should not sacrifice the Arctic coastal plain, one of America's last truly wild places, for the sake of a small amount of oil.

Small amount... she is smoking dope.

However, you failed to mention one of the biggest sins contained in the "100 hrs." which is to "Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients." Why is this bad?

It's bad because it's pure socialism: whether it's tax breaks and incentives for deep water drilling being repealed, or the government setting prices for drugs - that's what's wrong. Next you will want the government to set the price for groceries or for cars... Comrade...

Also, she wants to ""Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority." Yeah, keeping that deficit low is a really bad idea. You're right, increasing the national debt is a much better plan.

Yeah - a Democrat is going to pay as you go... pay with an increase in our taxes. The deficit is already dropping as capital gains taxes are increasing, just as predicted. The tax cuts enacted by the Republicans cause a short term increas in the deficit, which soon is compensated for by an increase in the collection in capital gains, as people invest more of the money they save, make a return, and pay taxes. The Dem programs are entitlement spending with no hope of return on investment, and no fiscal benefit. So my taxes go up but I have less money to invest as I see fit, so my capital gains taxes decrease,a nd I see a larger chunk of my paycheck vanish down the gullet of ineffective, socialist based entitlement programs like universal health care. Yeah, that makes a LOT of sense...

The good news is that even IF this happens, her majority will be so small that she won't be able to get her radical agenda through the House, and would definitely not be able to get it through the much more conservative Senate. Then there's Pres. Bush's veto pen. There is also a great possiblity that since she is one of the most radically liberal of her party, a good number of moderate Democrats in either House would not toe the party line. See Sentaor Joe Lieberman, who will have that nice big (I) next to his name, and ain't beholden to ANYONE, especially party members who sold him down the river in support of some anti-war zealot. Some of her own house party members have already started talking about NOT supporting her for Speaker. I wouldn't be planning any celebration parties just yet if I were her.

[Tiger Al 0]

t's bad because it's pure socialism: whether it's tax breaks and incentives for deep water drilling being repealed, or the government setting prices for drugs - that's what's wrong. Next you will want the government to set the price for groceries or for cars... Comrade...

Why is this 'socialism?" First, she said 'negotiate', not 'set.' Second, health insurance companies do this for their policyholders everyday. Why shouldn't Medicare be able to negotiate prices, too? You rail about the 'Dem entitlement spending' but this republican Congress created the largest entitlement program ever. Bush and this same republican Congress have had 6 yrs. to overhaul entitlement programs and have chosen instead to promote flag-burning amendments, Terri Schiavo legislation and anti-gay marriage laws.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

t's bad because it's pure socialism: whether it's tax breaks and incentives for deep water drilling being repealed, or the government setting prices for drugs - that's what's wrong. Next you will want the government to set the price for groceries or for cars... Comrade...

Why is this 'socialism?" First, she said 'negotiate', not 'set.' Second, health insurance companies do this for their policyholders everyday. Why shouldn't Medicare be able to negotiate prices, too? You rail about the 'Dem entitlement spending' but this republican Congress created the largest entitlement program ever. Bush and this same republican Congress have had 6 yrs. to overhaul entitlement programs and have chosen instead to promote flag-burning amendments, Terri Schiavo legislation and anti-gay marriage laws.

Yeah... "negotiate" prices with the government. Good luck with that.

I realize that the Repubs created a huge entitlement program with the Prescription Drug plan, and I never said I liked it. But the Dems have HISTORICALLY been the Entitlement Party, and I see no signs that it will change under a liberal like Pelosi.

But again, it really doesn't matter. Her majority is still slim, President Bush still has a veto, a tie in the Senate means Cheney does his job, and not all Democrats will support her if her agenda goes off the left end. In my mind, this really is not a bad thing. It will be a two year long campaign ad for whatever Republican decides to run for President in 2008, a good reminder to the American people of why we can't have a Dem in the White House. After so many years of Repub control, people tend to forget that the Dems are much worse - this will be a great wake up call. The only thing this Dem House/Congress will accomplish is creating work for DC lawyers as the subpoenas start to fly like snow. It will be investigation after hearing after muckracking, in a vicious and ultimately useless attempt to discredit a lame duck President. The Dems would be better off trying to come up with an alternative to Pres Bush and the Repubs rather than bashing the current administration who will be gone in two years anyway.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I agree that Dem pickups should include PA, OH, and RI. Next best bets, in order, MT, MO, VA. Longshots AZ, TN.

Best Republican pickup chances, in order, MD, NJ.

Okay, I'll say Dems take 5-6 seats in the Senate. A few months back I believe I said the Dems take 25 seats in the house. I'll stick with that, although I won't be shocked if they take anywhere from 19-40. The electorate seems to be in a bit of flux.

Still think MD is the most likely Republican chance to take a Dem seat.

C'mon...others?

Looks like the Dems get about 32 house seats, 6 Senate seats.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Tha t was better than expected by most. Letrs see what they do and see how long they stay in power.

I will be dollars to donuts that the Lobbying etc is strengthened if anything however. The Dems will likely want to cement their gains and that takes money.