2006 Mid-Term Elections.. What does this hold for America's Future?

Honestly I know we still have alittle while before the actual elections, but does anyone have any predictions on what will happen...


Will the Republicans Hold on to the Majority or will Democrats even it up or possiblely take Majority?


Post your thoughts.

 

I can't believe I am posting this, but I hope the Dems take control of the Senate, at least. I liked the GOP better when they didn't control everything.

 

DOT

My father, a Democrat just like me, has a saying "There should be a Democrat as President and a majority Republican Congress. Or a Republican President and a majority Democratic Congress. If neither, then it should be a Democrat President and a majority Democratic Congress, but only a slight majority."

 

I'd like to see a few Greens and Libertarians gain some seats. I have no expectation of it happening, but a man can dream.

 

I think we may see the core of the struggle between the center and the right in the GOP.

I think the dems will pick up seats, but not enough to break the GOP majority.

Peace,

V-03

 

I think things are going to end up kind of even. Both parties have had some monumental screw-ups recently.

The judges issue is going to hurt Ben Nelson in Nebraska unless he can be seen visibly brokering a compromise that holds. Rick Santorum is facing a tough race himself, though, but will Howard Dean play outside Philadelphia?

If the GOP can get a good challenger to Kent Conrad, and the judges issue remains in play next year, Conrad could go the way of Daschle.

The Republicans have a very interesting candidate for the Michigan seat held by Debbie Stabenow in Keith Butler. Butler could peel off a lot of support in Detroit - enough to win.

Plus, Mark Kennedy and Patty Wetterling will be in a rematch of their 2004 race in the Senate race in 2006. The Republicans could hold steady (worst case) or gain as many as four seats.

The Democrats might not be able to win the House, either. The GOP seems to be holding most of the cards at this point. They might have to deal with Tom DeLay, but the Democrats have to deal with Howard Dean and John Kerry.

 

DS77

With a D for president, R controlled congress and vice versa, how does anything get done?

 

Kerry and Dean are not really liabilities.

Remember, they represent more voters (the dems) than the GOP. Also, Kerry only lost by less than 5 percentage points.

Santorum may be in trouble, as Bob Casey Jr. may be the democrat running against him. A pro-life conservative democrat who is very popular in western Pennsylvania (as well as the son of a beloved former [and late] governor), he may very well have a strong chance of unseating Santorum.

We shall see.

Peace,

V-03

 

I'm all for the unseating of Santorum. Uhh...if anyone's wondering why I'm not talking Maryland politics it's because the Democrats always win here so no real choice in that.

 

I'm also for the unseating of Santorum and every single other nanny-statist on the hill. From his own mouth:

"Now we are forced to do something that societies often do when people can't control their desires. We have to pass laws to stop their desires."

Which I can agree with...to a degree. However, I completely disagree with what he considers to be acceptable desires.

 

cs

With a D for president, R controlled congress and vice versa, how does anything get done?

By that age-old concept of working together.

I'd say Clinton and the GOP congress had some success in this. If I'm not mistaken, Reagan and a Democrat Congress had some successes working together as well.

V03

Kerry only lost by less than 5 percentage points.

For the record, it was less than 3 percentage points.

I'd have to take a look at the seats that are open before making a judgment.

 

I'm all for the unseating of Santorum. Uhh...if anyone's wondering why I'm not talking Maryland politics it's because the Democrats always win here so no real choice in that.

Do they?

Kimball Kinnison

 

cal - Exactly. That's why the arrangment is so beautiful.

-Paul

 

Vaderize03

The problem is, the Democrats have Howard Dean, who could quickly become an albatross around every Democrat. Does he really have much appeal outside the DailyKos/MoveOn segment of the country?

 

I was really upset when Bush won the last election. I'd be surprised if the Democrats when the midterm elections. The Republicans seem to be on the rise.

I think the Iraq War was based on a pack of lies. A great deal of evidence has proved that Saddam had destroyed his own WMD and didn't have connexions to al Qaeda. The Iraq War wa a Christmas present to bin Laden because it helped his cause. Look at the numbers of how many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been killed.

Bush and his gang won't be around forever, but the Republicans may remain the majority party for a long time. It's weird that no political parties are growing big enough to take the place of the Democrats or the Republicans. In American history other political parties rose and fell until the Democrats and Republicans became the two main ones after Lincoln's election. Boy, have they changed, especially those Republicans.

The Republican Party is not the Party of Lincoln anymore. I call them the party of fundamentalists and plutocrats. I don't like some evangelicals, fundamentalists, and Baptists becaues they talk about hell a lot and distort who Jesus really was. I don't think religion should be so much a part of our government. It's okay to have religious people in government, but everybody doesn't need to believe the same thing. I wouldn't care if we had a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Hindu as president. If you believe in the public good and are moral, it really doesn't matter what your religion is.

 

The problem is, the Democrats have Howard Dean, who could quickly become an albatross around every Democrat. Does he really have much appeal outside the DailyKos/MoveOn segment of the country?

Yes.

If gas prices continue the way that they are, you will discover that replays of "The Scream" will cease to impress people.

DeLay is far more of a liability than Dean, IMHO, especially in crucial swing states. Dean may be loud, but arrogance speaks louder, and DeLay is the poster boy for arrogance and power.

Peace,

V-03

 

DeLay as a definite possible liability. His restaffing of the ethics committee reeks of a Saturday Night Massacre, and he is losing some support in his own home district, despite his gerrymandering.

The Republicans' current attempts at victim status are likely to turn some people off as well. Despite the claims that the judges thumbed their nose at Congress, which represents the people, poll numbers actually show that Congress did not reflect the will of the people. More than half the people in the country believe that Congress acted solely for political gain in the Schiavo case, especially in light of the talking points memo, which can no longer be called a Democratic forgery.

Then there's the fact that they're trying to turn Bush's judicial nominees into Christian martyrs, victims of a "war on people of faith." Republicans hate when minorities call themselves victims of prejudice or play the "Race card," yet they seem to think such claims are legitimized if Christians are the supposed victims. And their phrasing of it is insulting to people of faith who are not Republicans--Republicans are essentially claiming to have a monopoly on religious conviction, and saying that those who are not Republicans are not truly people of faith.

And if Osama bin Laden is not caught by 2008, many may start to believe what I already suspect--that the Republicans aren't even trying to capture him, because he's of more value to them as a boogie-man at large; a threat looming over the public to persuade them that they must vote Republican to be safe.

 

I don't think the Republicans are deliberately avoiding catching Bin Laden. I don't think you're logic is strong there.

However, there's little in contemporary politics that bothers me so much as the Republican hypocrisy you mentioned. Anytime someone has an issue, they're all trying to play the "victim card." And yet the Republicans go on and on about liberal media bias, and suppression of people of faith (of which I am one). How arrogant do you have to be believe that everyone else on Earth but you is a lazy cheat trying to get over on everyone? To believe that no one has any real problems, but that the whole world is joined together in a giant conspiracy against just you? That's outrageous.

 

I'm just hoping that Santorum gets the boot. I've met and talked with quite a few Republicans who are fed up with his blathering nonsense, and who are planning to vote for Casey. There was a letter to the editor today in the Post Gazette from a Republican who said he would rather vote for a sight unseen Democrat than keep Santorum.

Rick Santorum is an embarassment to Pennsylvania.

 

You guys are underestimating the damage Dean is doing to your Party. Known as a 'big-time fundraiser', he has managed only half of the GOP fundraising contributions at this time since the onset of the new terms for both party chairmen. Several Democratic governors are refusing to meet with him when he shows up in their States.

That said, the GOP isn't doing itself many favors lately. Of course, a hostile press doesn't help matters for them, either.

The US Senate seat of Mary Landrieu (D), LA is up next year, and there's a really good chance she's going to be thrown out if the GOP puts up a decent candidate. She was rebuked by the Archbishop of New Orleans last month for her position on abortion, and unlike our northeastern counterparts, Louisianans tend to pay more attention to the direction of the Church in their voting. Democrats here tend to be much more conservative, and Landrieu is on the far-left in terms of Louisiana politics. She may win, but a great many people I speak to from both parties want her out.

This country needs two strong parties, and I'm glad that some of the US Senate was able to compromise at least temporarily. As we know however, much of the compromise consisted of political maneuvering by certain Senators who are up for election soon (including Landrieu from LA). It seems that the minority is acting like spoiled children who can't accept their position in government currently, and the majority isn't immune from such behavior, either.

This whole filibuster thing is disgusting. Bush is President, let his candidates who pass committee have up or down votes and stop obstructionism.

If a Democrat were in office, that's the way it is. Let him have his nominees have up-or-down votes as well once out of committee. The GOP passed that ultra-liberal (former lawyer for the ACLU) Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 

I don't think the Republicans are deliberately avoiding catching Bin Laden. I don't think you're logic is strong there.

You're forgetting the influence of Karl Rove, as well as the fact that this administration, shortly after 9/11, when other flights were grounded, allowed Bin Laden's family members to be flown home. Bush is willing to accept him being "marginalized," and that he "doesn't think that much about him," while treating Saddam Hussein as a major threat, which evidence has shown he was not--he had no WMDs. There's also the Downing Street Memo, which showed their intention to manipulate intelligence to justify going into Iraq, which involved diverting resources from the search for Bin Laden. There are also members of the Bush administration now admitting that the "colored alert system" was raised, to indicate a terrorist threat, even when there wasn't one, just for the purpose of political gain. So the political advantage of not capturing Bin Laden is not out of the picture, and its certainly not something Karl Rove would overlook.


That said, the GOP isn't doing itself many favors lately. Of course, a hostile press doesn't help matters for them, either.

The press is in their pocket. They have Fox News, AM radio, and numerous newspapers willing to roll over for anything they say. Witness how easily they were made to stop using "Nuclear Option" in favor of "Constitutional Option," and to attribute the former phrase to Democrats instead of the Republicans' own Trent Lott.

This whole filibuster thing is disgusting. Bush is President, let his candidates who pass committee have up or down votes and stop obstructionism.

If a Democrat were in office, that's the way it is. Let him have his nominees have up-or-down votes as well once out of committee. The GOP passed that ultra-liberal (former lawyer for the ACLU) Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

You either forget, or you've bought into the Republicans' current lie that such a filibuster is unprecedented. The Republicans filibustered Clinton's nominees as well, so you have no business calling it "obstructionism" when Democrats do it. Only three of Bush's nominees have been given high recommendations by the ABA. The endless debate over many of these candidates is because their reputations are often against them.

And being President, despite what Bush may believe, does not mean that the other branches are there simply to rubber stamp anything you ask for.

 

Ah, more of this Michael Moore crap!

DeLay as a definite possible liability. His restaffing of the ethics committee reeks of a Saturday Night Massacre, and he is losing some support in his own home district, despite his gerrymandering.

As a young "gun toting" NRA supporting conservative republican Texan, I can honestly tell you that I can't stand DeLay. I wouldn't vote for him if I could.

The US Senate seat of Mary Landrieu (D), LA is up next year, and there's a really good chance she's going to be thrown out if the GOP puts up a decent candidate. She was rebuked by the Archbishop of New Orleans last month for her position on abortion, and unlike our northeastern counterparts, Louisianans tend to pay more attention to the direction of the Church in their voting. Democrats here tend to be much more conservative, and Landrieu is on the far-left in terms of Louisiana politics. She may win, but a great many people I speak to from both parties want her out.

You'll have to wait till '08 for that, she just narrowly beat Suzzie Terrel in 2002.

 

DM, don't you think that the "fundraising gap" could represent the fact that the GOP has far more donors capable of giving super-large "hard-money" donations than the dems do?

That's a skewed way of looking at it .

Peace,

V-03

ps And you underestimate the damage that DeLay is doing to your party.

 

DeLay is a master at running the Congress.

He's not having the effect that Gingrich did in negative pull.

Democrats hate him because of his effectiveness, but there isn't as much negative effect as you think, V03.

We'll see how it pans out in 2006.

 

Democrats hate him because of his effectiveness

Quite a few of us hate him for radically different reasons, actually, like his extremism.