The W
Views: 98350915
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.8.14 0654
The W - Current Events & Politics - MIdterm Predictions
This thread has 13 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.43
Pages: 1 2 Next
(518 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (27 total)
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
Well, we're in the stretch run, so how about some predictions on what Congress will look like at the end of these midterms.

Current makeup of Congress is:
House: 230 Republicans, 201 Democrats, 1 Independent, 3 vancancies
Senate: 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, 1 Independent

For the Senate, the real count is 55-45, and if you're giving Sanders a win in his Senate race, count him as a Democrat.

I'm saying when the dust settles we see:
House - 224 Democrats, 211 Republicans
Senate - 51 Republicans, 49 Democrats

From all the polling data I've seen the House looks lost, but I think a couple of GOP seats will hold on by the skin of their teeth to keep them from losing both houses.



Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
Promote this thread!
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 417 days
Last activity: 417 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.51
Although the media is pounding the drums that this is 1994, I keep thinking this is more 1998, where the Republicans get their collective nose's bloodied, but don't lose control. Thus, the Democrats win, but it appears as a loss with all the hype that they are a given to taken one or both houses. As always, the Democrats should try to get elections moved to 1st Tuesday of October, because they would rarely lose in those situations.

House: Republicans 222-213.
Senate: Republicans 53-47.

As a bonus pick, Lieberman wins by 13 in Connecticut.
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.05
The Dems win the House, but by no more than 5-6 seats. I don't think it'll quite be a rout, but there are a lot of close races in unlikely places. The fact that the GOP has had to spent extra time and money in places like Wyoming and Idaho is a sign that Dean's 50-state strategy is working a lot quicker than anyone gave it credit for.

As for the Senate, I think the Dems win in Ohio, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Montana. Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia are all horse races, but I think the Dems will only pull through in Missouri. This makes it 50-49 for the Repubs, with Sanders making it a tie (but not really, since Cheney still gets the deciding vote). I don't see the Democrats losing any of their own Senate seats in NJ and Maryland.



"I don't know what is more disquieting -- the fact that the rest of the statue is missing, or that it has four toes."
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.69
I still say it's a little early for predictions. The buzz now is turnout - Dems are going to have problems, and the GOP is going to be boosted by the NJ Gay marriage case. Look for one more story or turn in more momentum before the election.

So I'm waiting until the weekend before to make predictions.



Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.
-
Euripides


RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 614 days
Last activity: 5 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.62
MoeGates: So I'm waiting until the weekend before to make predictions.

No Doubt. And Re-Look at what you wanted to bet - you may have that backwards. Or adjust. I'm game

FLEA







Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high

1ryderfakin.com
hansen9j
Andouille








Since: 7.11.02
From: Riderville, SK

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.13
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    The buzz now is turnout - Dems are going to have problems, and the GOP is going to be boosted by the NJ Gay marriage case.


What about New Jersey is actually going to boost turnout? As far as I know, there are no initiatives to ban it like in 2004, so unless it's a case of "Vote Republican and this won't happen" (ignoring that the Republicans were in charge and it happened), I don't see it making that measurable of a difference.



Proud member of the Dwight Army of Champions.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 51 min.
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.35
Senate stays Republican at 51-49 or 50-50 giving Cheney something to do.

House - Dems have a majority of 7-10.

As someone not enamored of the Republicans, I hope they keep both houses. Let the bloodbath begin as positioning starts for 2008.

(edited by DrDirt on 30.10.06 0644)


Perception is reality
ExtremeLuchador
Salami








Since: 8.6.02
From: La Arena del Treno

Since last post: 2339 days
Last activity: 1404 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.61
Republicans will lose 2 Senate seats and 5 House seats.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.64
House: 227 - 208 Dem.
Senate: 50-50

Mild upset prediction: Harold Ford wins Tenessee Senate. Also goes on to make a serious run at the presidency, maybe even winning. I have this real strange feeling that Harold Ford is actually the antichrist. I can't explain it,. It's weird. Also has nothing to do with politics or policies or positions or anything.



Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.
-
Euripides


spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    House: 227 - 208 Dem.
    Senate: 50-50

    Mild upset prediction: Harold Ford wins Tenessee Senate. Also goes on to make a serious run at the presidency, maybe even winning. I have this real strange feeling that Harold Ford is actually the antichrist. I can't explain it,. It's weird. Also has nothing to do with politics or policies or positions or anything.

He kinda creeps me out when I see him. I can't explain it, but I think you might be on to something.

Maybe it's just local bias talking, but he also kind of strikes me as the bargain bin Barack Obama.

Speaking of which, and totally OT: my 2008 prediction, Obama runs for the presidency and wins the Dem nomination.



Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 417 days
Last activity: 417 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.55
    Originally posted by spf
      Originally posted by MoeGates
      House: 227 - 208 Dem.
      Senate: 50-50

      Mild upset prediction: Harold Ford wins Tenessee Senate. Also goes on to make a serious run at the presidency, maybe even winning. I have this real strange feeling that Harold Ford is actually the antichrist. I can't explain it,. It's weird. Also has nothing to do with politics or policies or positions or anything.

    He kinda creeps me out when I see him. I can't explain it, but I think you might be on to something.

    Maybe it's just local bias talking, but he also kind of strikes me as the bargain bin Barack Obama.

    Speaking of which, and totally OT: my 2008 prediction, Obama runs for the presidency and wins the Dem nomination.





I'll give Obama this: He does have the 'like-a-bility' factor in favor, something that definitely couldn't be said for the previous 2 Democratic nominees. However, can he take a punch? Gore, Clinton and Edwards (I'll discount Kerry because if he wasn't done before, he is now) could turn this into a street fight in order to get the nomination. Obama beat Alan Keyes for his Senate seat, which is less of a challenge than running unopposed. Can Obama fight back in that situation and still maintain his 'like-a-bility'? And, with no incumbent/vp running on the other side, can he raise enough money in an environment where at least 2 and possibly 3 Democrats could be ahead of him in that department and a busload of Republicans will be raising money? There are only X amount of dollars available. Is it worth taking the shot in '08 in a crowded field where Hillary and Gore have favors to cash in, or does he wait for '12 or '16 where he would in all probability be the Democratic frontrunner with another Senate election under his belt?
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
      Originally posted by spf
        Originally posted by MoeGates
        House: 227 - 208 Dem.
        Senate: 50-50

        Mild upset prediction: Harold Ford wins Tenessee Senate. Also goes on to make a serious run at the presidency, maybe even winning. I have this real strange feeling that Harold Ford is actually the antichrist. I can't explain it,. It's weird. Also has nothing to do with politics or policies or positions or anything.

      He kinda creeps me out when I see him. I can't explain it, but I think you might be on to something.

      Maybe it's just local bias talking, but he also kind of strikes me as the bargain bin Barack Obama.

      Speaking of which, and totally OT: my 2008 prediction, Obama runs for the presidency and wins the Dem nomination.





    I'll give Obama this: He does have the 'like-a-bility' factor in favor, something that definitely couldn't be said for the previous 2 Democratic nominees. However, can he take a punch? Gore, Clinton and Edwards (I'll discount Kerry because if he wasn't done before, he is now) could turn this into a street fight in order to get the nomination. Obama beat Alan Keyes for his Senate seat, which is less of a challenge than running unopposed. Can Obama fight back in that situation and still maintain his 'like-a-bility'? And, with no incumbent/vp running on the other side, can he raise enough money in an environment where at least 2 and possibly 3 Democrats could be ahead of him in that department and a busload of Republicans will be raising money? There are only X amount of dollars available. Is it worth taking the shot in '08 in a crowded field where Hillary and Gore have favors to cash in, or does he wait for '12 or '16 where he would in all probability be the Democratic frontrunner with another Senate election under his belt?

Well, now that the thread has spun off in this direction, let's just think about it.

For raising money, I wouldn't worry about it. His Illinois base is gigantic and he can pretty much touch everyone here for cash. He's been touring about the country all through 2004 and 2006, so I would suspect his network is vast enough that if he made an announcement of entry that he would quickly generate a great deal of funds. He might not raise quite as much as Kerry or Clinton, but he might not need to.

As for why to run in 2008...the iron is hot for Obama right now. If he waits until 2012 he might not get a shot due to a Dem incumbent. If he waits until 2016 he will be over a decade removed from his entrance into the public consciousness and most likely just another senator. Right now he still has that rock star appeal about him that time can only diminish.

I don't see Gore running in 2008. He seems like he has tailed off out of viability. I tend to agree with you on Kerry. Edwards is damaged from 2004 and strikes me as a paper tiger. I think you'd see 2008 come down to a race between Clinton and Obama if they both run. And I honestly think that Obama is the only candidate that Hilary fears. I don't know how he'll do in a dirty campaign, but I suspect that if it gets dirty that Hilary will end up worse for wear. Her best hope is to cruise to an anointing at the 2008 Democratic convention, instead of a bruising campaign with real viable contenders, as otherwise I have to suspect the sins of Bill would become front and center, and she does not have the charisma and charm to get out from under them.





Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 51 min.
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.35
It took 200 years to barely elect a Catholic Prez. Is the country able to elect a black or hispanic Prez? I think even a women would have trouble, even if not named Hillary. Obama seems like a great candidate and suited to the task (still early to tell). Would he lose votes because of who he is?



Perception is reality
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    It took 200 years to barely elect a Catholic Prez. Is the country able to elect a black or hispanic Prez? I think even a women would have trouble, even if not named Hillary. Obama seems like a great candidate and suited to the task (still early to tell). Would he lose votes because of who he is?

I have no doubt that there are people in this country who would never vote for a black, hispanic, gay, female, Asian, or other minority/underrepresented group's member for president. I think though that this problem is less of an issue for the Democrats than the Republicans. I suspect that most of the folks who would be unwilling to vote for a woman or a black man for President were probably already voting Republican or Libertarian or not voting at all. I suppose there could be a few votes lost, but I suspect most people who wouldn't vote Obama wouldn't vote Kerry or Edwards or anyone else on the blue side either. It seems to me that the GOP in the 80's and 90's pretty much swept all of the old school Southern Democrats who might have such tendencies into their ranks. And in most states where there might be any significant vote like that, it was probably going Red anyhow.



Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
General Zod
Italian








Since: 1.10.05
From: Mesa, Arizona

Since last post: 776 days
Last activity: 3 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.37
Democrats take House.
Republicans keep Senate.

As for Hilary/Barack. If she gets the nomination we have a Republican prez elected in 2008. He has a better chance of winning a general election but he strikes me as too good to be true. I fear the other shoe will drop on Barack Obama.



"The Dude abides"
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.76
Squeezing in under the wire - the Democrats'll take the House by about 20 seats. The Senate will wind up 50/50 again, leaving it in Republican control.



"That's my problem - I'm too frank. That's why my mother shoved me down the stairs. But then she is fat."
Kei Posiskunk
Kolbasz








Since: 7.1.02
From: Central PA, USA

Since last post: 80 days
Last activity: 30 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.23
I know I'm pretty uninformed, but I always got the impression that during Bill's 8 years in office, Hilary was really the one running the show, anyway. I didn't like her then, and I don't like her now. But here's the thing. The Dems have to be thinking that in the wake of all the Bush Administration backlash, and with no other strong candidates having emerged yet, there's no better time to try to put a woman in the White House. And Hilary has the name value to be seen as viable.

But if this happens, will she get seen for her positions, or just as the idea of having a woman President?






Welcome to the Odyssey.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
    Originally posted by Kei Posiskunk
    I know I'm pretty uninformed, but I always got the impression that during Bill's 8 years in office, Hilary was really the one running the show, anyway. I didn't like her then, and I don't like her now. But here's the thing. The Dems have to be thinking that in the wake of all the Bush Administration backlash, and with no other strong candidates having emerged yet, there's no better time to try to put a woman in the White House. And Hilary has the name value to be seen as viable.

    But if this happens, will she get seen for her positions, or just as the idea of having a woman President?
Hilary will never win. Not because she's a woman, but because she's Hilary. The amount of raw hatred she engenders in so many people is going to be impossible for her to overcome.



Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 417 days
Last activity: 417 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.55
    Originally posted by spf
      Originally posted by Kei Posiskunk
      I know I'm pretty uninformed, but I always got the impression that during Bill's 8 years in office, Hilary was really the one running the show, anyway. I didn't like her then, and I don't like her now. But here's the thing. The Dems have to be thinking that in the wake of all the Bush Administration backlash, and with no other strong candidates having emerged yet, there's no better time to try to put a woman in the White House. And Hilary has the name value to be seen as viable.

      But if this happens, will she get seen for her positions, or just as the idea of having a woman President?
    Hilary will never win. Not because she's a woman, but because she's Hilary. The amount of raw hatred she engenders in so many people is going to be impossible for her to overcome.





I never believed she could win before, but, looking at the map, she could get 270. It would probably be beneficial to her if she had the advantage Nixon had in '68 and her husband had in '92 and it was a 3-way race, whereby low-mid 40's could win states. But, outside of McCain, I can't see a viable Republican who can reach 270.
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.98
You don't think Rudy Giuliani could beat Hillary? I think Giuliani is maybe the best Republican candidate out there, even moreso than McCain. He's got a definite shot at winning a lot of those purplish states (Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Ohio) back into the Republican fold. I don't think his being a somewhat liberal Republican will be too much of a burden in the red states -- the 'base' will be out en masse to vote against Hillary anyway.



"I don't know what is more disquieting -- the fact that the rest of the statue is missing, or that it has four toes."
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 5.43
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Rumsfeld resigning
Next thread: Mehlman likely to leave RNC? from CNN.com
Previous thread: Air America being boycotted by advertisers
(518 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Big Victory for Daschle, considering this could have cost him the race. More on the original story Here...
The W - Current Events & Politics - MIdterm PredictionsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.14 seconds.