Election '06: Prognostication.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

What will the make-up of the Senate and the House be after the November elections? Who's going to win? Who's going to lose? And how about those gubernatorial races?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What will the make-up of the Senate and the House be after the November elections? Who's going to win? Who's going to lose? And how about those gubernatorial races?

So, Ty, what are your bets?

Mine:

Senate: 50 Rs, 48 Ds, 2 Is who caucus with Ds
House: 218 Rs, 217 Ds

Pickups in both, but not enough to put the Ds over the top. Dems pick up house control in special elections over the next year.

No strong views on the Guvs at this point.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
What will the make-up of the Senate and the House be after the November elections? Who's going to win? Who's going to lose? And how about those gubernatorial races?

Dem wins House

GOP wins Senate

We all lose.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Dem wins House

GOP wins Senate

We all lose.

Wow. Rangel really does have you spooked.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Dem wins House

GOP wins Senate

We all lose.

2. But we don't really lose. The people who lose are those who vote Dem thinking the Dems can somehow recapture a New Deal wage package and benefits for them.

Those days, those benefits, those wages - gone. Burned up for the next 200 years, until foreign labor costs rise to meet American labor costs.

The Dems are the most hideous liars of all - they're telling the entitlement junkies who vote for them that they can protect wages and "win" something for the middle class. As though they could fight global economic forces...

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
2. But we don't really lose. The people who lose are those who vote Dem thinking the Dems can somehow recapture a New Deal wage package and benefits for them.

Those days, those benefits, those wages - gone. Burned up for the next 200 years, until foreign labor costs rise to meet American labor costs.

The Dems are the most hideous liars of all - they're telling the entitlement junkies who vote for them that they can protect wages and "win" something for the middle class. As though they could fight global economic forces...

Pfeh. About the most they'll do is put a minimum wage raise on the table. I know that minimum wage laws threaten the end of civilization, but stay calm -- it's only a threat.

As for Iraq, etc. -- about all the Dems can do is raise questions and a fuss. Hopefully, they'll do that in a way that forces the admin to be a little more rational and a little more honest. (Viz. Bush, today, acknowledging that maybe things in Iraq aren't going all that splendidly -- and not blaming it on the media.)

Hopefully the Dems won't proceed to organize a circular firing squad.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
(Viz. Bush, today, acknowledging that maybe things in Iraq aren't going all that splendidly -- and not blaming it on the media.)

Interesting. We've gone from "Message: I care" to "Message: I know."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Pfeh. About the most they'll do is put a minimum wage raise on the table. I know that minimum wage laws threaten the end of civilization, but stay calm -- it's only a threat.

As for Iraq, etc. -- about all the Dems can do is raise questions and a fuss. Hopefully, they'll do that in a way that forces the admin to be a little more rational and a little more honest. (Viz. Bush, today, acknowledging that maybe things in Iraq aren't going all that splendidly -- and not blaming it on the media.)

Hopefully the Dems won't proceed to organize a circular firing squad.

I'm putting a lot of faith in Nancy Pelosi for that, and I hope I'm not wrong.

I think that, despite Rangel's desires and Slave's fears, Pelosi wouldn't let him cut off war funding (if only because it would ultimately be politically devastating for the Dems and she is smart enough to see that). Force some compromises, yes -- actual negotiations between politicians of different parties. Radical freaking thought.

S_A_M

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
I'm putting a lot of faith in Nancy Pelosi for that, and I hope I'm not wrong.

I think that, despite Rangel's desires and Slave's fears, Pelosi wouldn't let him cut off war funding (if only because it would ultimately be politically devastating for the Dems and she is smart enough to see that). Force some compromises, yes -- actual negotiations between politicians of different parties. Radical freaking thought.

S_A_M

Charlie - besides always being a hoot on the talk circuit - is always good for the big ceremonial act.

Remember, this is the guy that put up draft legislation a year or two back.

[Replaced_Texan]

The only thing that'll happen in the next two years if one of the chambers flips will be the months of endless hearings and the coverage of people trying to dodge congressional subpeonas using "executive privilege" as their excuse.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Pfeh. About the most they'll do is put a minimum wage raise on the table. I know that minimum wage laws threaten the end of civilization, but stay calm -- it's only a threat.

If this were only true. They can't put up all sorts of trade barriers and restrictions to try and prevent outsourcing etc. and in the end they will just hurt our competitiveness"

Originally posted by Sidd Finch As for Iraq, etc. -- about all the Dems can do is raise questions and a fuss. Hopefully, they'll do that in a way that forces the admin to be a little more rational and a little more honest. (Viz. Bush, today, acknowledging that maybe things in Iraq aren't going all that splendidly -- and not blaming it on the media.)

Hopefully the Dems won't proceed to organize a circular firing squad.

All they will do is cut off funding and encourage the insurgents. Then Iraq will become the quagmire they are pretending it is now (we haven't even gotten to ten percent of the casualties we have had in every other war this century) - except of course Guld War One. If you assume the war has cost 300 billion, that is just a little over ten percent of one years budget. We spend more money on farm subsidies. In terms of percentages of GNP by far the cheapest war this century - except of course Gulf War I.

[Spanky]

My bet

52 Rs in Senate.
221 Rs in the House.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Charlie - besides always being a hoot on the talk circuit - is always good for the big ceremonial act.

Remember, this is the guy that put up draft legislation a year or two back.

Not saying he wouldn't try it.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
My bet

52 Rs in Senate.
221 Rs in the House.

That's about what I bet Hank (1 month board support).

Come to think of it, I'm not sure what his counter-position was -- except that I might be wrong . . . wpp.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The only thing that'll happen in the next two years if one of the chambers flips will be the months of endless hearings and the coverage of people trying to dodge congressional subpeonas using "executive privilege" as their excuse.

2. Repeat of 97-99.