Ya'll are trying too hard!

[CharlestonChad]

Is this an educated guess or did you just pull these numbers out of your ass?

educated guess

 

[CharlestonChad]

Is this an educated guess or did you just pull these numbers out of your ass?

Do you have any predictions?

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

If I had to guess, I would say 13 seats in the Senate (giving the dems 52 total) and just over 15 in the House. If that happens, they will have majority in congress.

You're putting the horse before the cart, you can't just wish a majority. Your scenario is theoretically possible but will never happen. Iraq will not be a major national issue this year, Democrats had better hope national security stops being one.

There's computer projections if you want to see voting trends, which is all they're good for. Here is a site:

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2006.html

They've got it as the GOP looks like it'll take small losses, but keep the majority in both houses of Congress. One of my problems with this analysis is that that site calls every race in every state, one point ahead is "weak", ten points is "strong", but time'll tell.

 

[CharlestonChad]

You're putting the horse before the cart, you can't just wish a majority. Your scenario is theoretically possible but will never happen. Iraq will not be a major national issue this year, Democrats had better hope national security stops being one.

There's computer projections if you want to see voting trends, which is all they're good for. Here is a site:

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2006.html

They've got it as the GOP looks like it'll take small losses, but keep the majority in both houses of Congress. One of my problems with this analysis is that that site calls every race in every state, one point ahead is "weak", ten points is "strong", but time'll tell.

I beg to differ. Iraq will be one of, if not the main issue in these elections. We are at war with an undefined enemy. If the polls are correct (they have been wrong before) Americans don't like how we are handling Iraq.

 

[jillian]

Eight Issues That Will
Shape the 2006 Elections
Which party will control Congress?


Barely two months remain in Campaign 2006 and the battle has intensified. What was theoretical earlier in the year now has become reality: Republicans are in danger of losing control of the House -- but Democrats will have to campaign hard to get it.

The first weeks of September showed that Republicans would use all their skills and experience to retain their House majority and to protect their majority in the Senate, which appears less at risk.

President Bush led the GOP counteroffensive, defending his policies in Iraq and the campaign against terror in a series of speeches that culminated with a nationally televised speech from the Oval Office on the fifth anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. His goal was clear: to shift the fall debate from the unpopular war in Iraq and argue, as he did successfully in 2004, that he and the Republicans would do a better job than the Democrats in keeping Americans safe.

The Republicans put on another display of their campaign skills in the Senate primary in Rhode Island. Sen. Lincoln Chaffee (R), a liberal Republican, often has been at odds with the Bush administration and many in his party, but no matter. In the cold calculations that typify the way Republicans approach campaigns, national party officials decided that, if Chaffee were to lose the primary to Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey, any hope of retaining the seat in November would be gone. To save Chaffee, these officials orchestrated at get-out-the-vote operation that swamped the challenger and put the Senate back in play in November.

The result of all this has been to give some Republicans a morale boost at the start of the fall campaigning, even if it has not materially changed the arc of this election year. Democrats need 15 seats to take control of the House and there are still more than enough GOP-held seats in play for that to happen. Democrats need six seats to win control of the Senate, and still a daunting challenge, as it was when the Post first launched the Bellwether project in July.

Bush's approval ratings have ticked up in the past month, to the relief of many in his party. But they still are low by historical standards. Disapproval of Congress remains high, as does dissatisfaction with the general direction of the country. Iraq remains unpopular.

All that continues to point to GOP losses in November, with the question continuing to be, will those losses be large enough to shift control of either chamber to the Democrats. Some political handicappers say the odds of a Democratic takeover of the House have increased.

The Post's Bellwether project looks at the battle to control Congress by taking the broad question of how big will Republican losses be in November and breaks it down into eight factors likely to determine the outcome.

The bellwethers, as defined here, are not simply a collection of competitive races. Instead they are contests that illuminate in vivid fashion the currents shaping a potentially historic election year.

Some of these bellwether questions are about ideological and geographical trends defining the election. Some deal with the practical side of politics -- how parties mobilize and turn out voters. Some deal with issues that continue to be at the forefront of voters' concerns: war, the economy and immigration.

We invite you to tell us what you think is important this fall, particularly areas you believe we've overlooked. Ours is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all the issues out there this year, but we believe those we've highlighted are likely to decide who controls Congress come next January. Already we've heard from quite a few people and we welcome more as we enter the decisive stage of the election.

Between now and Nov. 7, we will continue to return to these questions, with regular updates on whether the currents are shifting. We will do that by focusing on races for House and Senate that illustrate the big questions for 2006. This list is not exhaustive and it is not static. We've made a few changes in the lineup recently and will continue to monitor. In the end, the Bellwether project is a way of making sense of the chaos and the drama -- for political junkies and ordinary voters alike.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/bellwether/index.htm

 

[CharlestonChad]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/bellwether/index.htm

Liberal biased media that hates America.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

No ^^^, even "enemy analysis" can give you insight.

That's right, it's all speculation at this point, there may be eight isssues that are thought of as "the most important", but they won't be weighed equally by the voters in all likelihood.

Which one? These are local and state elections, so it does make sense for a military town to vote on a military issue.

Immigration will be a major issue in the southwest, not so much up here.

I beg to differ. Iraq will be one of, if not the main issue in these elections. We are at war with an undefined enemy. If the polls are correct (they have been wrong before) Americans don't like how we are handling Iraq.

You know, it's real bad when exit polls start being wrong.

People think there's two wars going on, nationalizing the election against Bush is iffy, he won with these poll numbers when he was actually on the ticket two years ago.

 

[CharlestonChad]

No ^^^, even "enemy analysis" can give you insight.

That's right, it's all speculation at this point, there may be eight isssues that are thought of as "the most important", but they won't be weighed equally by the voters in all likelihood.

Which one? These are local and state elections, so it does make sense for a military town to vote on a military issue.

Immigration will be a major issue in the southwest, not so much up here.



You know, it's real bad when exit polls start being wrong.

People think there's two wars going on, nationalizing the election against Bush is iffy, he won with these poll numbers when he was actually on the ticket two years ago.

Yup, it's all speculation.

 

[insein]

Put more effort into finding OBL and eliminating terror organizations.

We have eliminated about 80% of Al queda's top officials. We have killed numerous amounts of terrorist foot soldiers in Iraq. How will pulling out of Iraq allow us to achieve more success in this area?

Protect our boarders.

Ok. Im all for protecting the borders as long as it doesnt involve giving amnesty to 20 million people who are here illegally.

Stopping genocide in Africa.

Last i checked the US is the ONLY nation doing anything about Darfur. We're one of the few that have even acknowledged that its genocide. We do have alot on our plate though. So Africa is going to have to wait unless 1 of the other "major" countires of the world wants to get involved and do something.

Elimating Iran and NK from using nuclear weapons.

How?

Defend Isreal.

Why?

OR Bring home our men and women who are in harms way.

I see. So you'll just say it can't be done so bring them home.

Anyone of those would be better than being in Iraq.

I think you lose sight of the reason we are in IRaq. Its because of all of the above (aside from Africa and specifically the borders) that we are in Iraq.

 

[jillian]

We have eliminated about 80% of Al queda's top officials. We have killed numerous amounts of terrorist foot soldiers in Iraq. How will pulling out of Iraq allow us to achieve more success in this area?

Who are Al Queda's top officials? Where's the list? And where's that 80% coming from? We have to get out of Iraq because we're in the middle of "sectarian violence", in other words, they've got to duke it out. Doesn't mean we do it willy nilly or instantaneously, but there has to be a plan for withdrawal...not just "leaving it to the next guy".

Ok. Im all for protecting the borders as long as it doesnt involve giving amnesty to 20 million people who are here illegally.

Not a big issue in most states, unless they're border states.

Last i checked the US is the ONLY nation doing anything about Darfur. We're one of the few that have even acknowledged that its genocide. We do have alot on our plate though. So Africa is going to have to wait unless 1 of the other "major" countires of the world wants to get involved and do something.

While Darfur is a tragedy and should be addressed internationally, I don't think it's really on the radar of most people here, particularly not in the mid-terms.

How?

Good question and the answer is probably that it can't be done. But there are better ways to handle Iran than not talking to them. Plus, it allows the weasal, Amadnijad (sp?) to make hay with the issue with his "base"... thus fomenting more anti-American sentiment... something we don't need right now.

Why?

Because they're our only democratic ally in the middle east and the only place where there isn't hostility toward us and because, apparently, Bush needs Israel to fight the odd proxy war for us.

I see. So you'll just say it can't be done so bring them home.

They should be brought home for a myriad of reasons.... not the least of which is that the cost far exceeds its effectiveness or its value to us.

I think you lose sight of the reason we are in IRaq. Its because of all of the above (aside from Africa and specifically the borders) that we are in Iraq.

The reasons we are in Iraq, IMO, are misguided... it's time to stop pursuing a failed policy.

 

[trobinett]

jillian states:

The reasons we are in Iraq, IMO, are misguided... it's time to stop pursuing a failed policy.

Excuse me?

A failed policy?

Please, point out HOW our policy in Iraq has FAILED.

I'd much rather tear someone else's back yard up, than my own.

I'd much rather blow the shit out of my enemy's turf than my own'

I'd much rather go to the funeral of my enemy than my own.

I'll reapeat this for the thousands time, YES we have lost SOILDERS in Iraq, but WE haven't been attacked on our soil since 911, what part of that don't you fucking idiots understand?

I await your lame ass answer.

 

[red states rule]

I beg to differ. Iraq will be one of, if not the main issue in these elections. We are at war with an undefined enemy. If the polls are correct (they have been wrong before) Americans don't like how we are handling Iraq.

Sorry CC, the war in Iraq will not be THE issue in this election. Since no President is being chosen, the issue will be the economy and the pocketbook.

Three months ago Dems were crowing how they would be swept back into power, now they have the 'deer in the headlights' look.

Everything has been going wrong for the Dems, which means things are going right for America.

The economy continues roll along, gas prices are dropping, unemployment continues to low, interest rates are holding steady, inflation is in check, and wages are increasing.

Also, more proof the Bush tax cuts are working came out when the US Treasury set a record for tax receipts on Sept 15. A total of $85.8 billion in taxes was collected, a 20 percent increase over last year.

The Dow is set to hit an all time record and folks should be very happy when they look at their 401K statements.

However, if you listen to the Dems you would think we were back in the 1930's

Libs are still running on their usual doom and gloom message, and if the polls are any indication, it is not working. The once huge lead Dems had has evaporated.

Dems once had a 20 plus lead in the Generic ballot, it is now a dead heat.

Republicans are correctly pointing out how Dems will raise taxes, wave the white flag in the face of terrorists, start impeachment proceedings, and Sen Pelosi would be third in line for President.

Libs continue to tell Americans how miserable they are. How there is no hope unless they vote for them. How the government should provide for and take care of them.

It is the same liberal gobbledygook they use in every election, and the folks will choose a strong economy and a safe nation as they have in the last three national elections.

Then we will have to endure the rants on how the election was stolen, and not all the votes were counted. I would rather have the libs unhinged then in power.

 

[MtnBiker]

If I had to guess, I would say 13 seats in the Senate (giving the dems 52 total) and just over 15 in the House. If that happens, they will have majority in congress.

Is this an educated guess or did you just pull these numbers out of your ass?

I would say he pulled the numbers out of his ass.

Let's review; the question was how many seats the Democrats will gain.

CharlestonChad gave an answer of a 13 seat gain giving the dems a total of 52. The problem is the dems currently hold 44 seats. 13 + 44 = 57.

Furthermore, I would like to know in just which states CharlestonChad believes this 13 seat gain will happen.

 

[jillian]

jillian states:



Excuse me?

A failed policy?

Please, point out HOW our policy in Iraq has FAILED.

I'd much rather tear someone else's back yard up, than my own.

I'd much rather blow the shit out of my enemy's turf than my own'

I'd much rather go to the funeral of my enemy than my own.

I'll reapeat this for the thousands time, YES we have lost SOILDERS in Iraq, but WE haven't been attacked on our soil since 911, what part of that don't you fucking idiots understand?

I await your lame ass answer.

Are you so dense that you don't know there were 7 years between the two WTC attacks? The only "fucking idiot" I am attending to right now is you, lovie.... do get a grip.

That "let's fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" garbage is just that... garbage. And we're so effective in Iraq that our buddies there were going to give the insurgents a free pass if they "only" killed Americans and not other Iraqis.

And now, your own State Department has said that our presence in Iraq has INCREASED, not decreased terrorism... good on, dude.

As for lame, ever read your own posts?

 

[red states rule]

I would say he pulled the numbers out of his ass.

Let's review; the question was how many seats the Democrats will gain.

CharlestonChad gave an answer of a 13 seat gain giving the dems a total of 52. The problem is the dems currently hold 44 seats. 13 + 44 = 57.

Furthermore, I would like to know in just which states CharlestonChad believes this 13 seat gain will happen.

Right off, I say Maryland would be a pickup for Republicans. Michael Steele has a very good shot at winning his Senate bid.

 

[MtnBiker]

Right off, I say Maryland would be a pickup for Republicans. Michael Steele has a very good shot at winning his Senate bid.

I would not count it as a pick up, rather as a possiblity. At this point.

 

[Annie]

I guess I don't want GOP to lose, there is no other party of record. At the same time, I wouldn't call any of the races.

My guess, even if they lose, they win.

 

[red states rule]

I would not count it as a pick up, rather as a possiblity. At this point.

True. Five weeks is a long time, but Steele is gaining - much like Republicans across the country

I would not be surprised to see Republicans make modest gains in both the House and Senate.

 

[trobinett]

Are you so dense that you don't know there were 7 years between the two WTC attacks? The only "fucking idiot" I am attending to right now is you, lovie.... do get a grip.

That "let's fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" garbage is just that... garbage. And we're so effective in Iraq that our buddies there were going to give the insurgents a free pass if they "only" killed Americans and not other Iraqis.

And now, your own State Department has said that our presence in Iraq has INCREASED, not decreased terrorism... good on, dude.

As for lame, ever read your own posts?

You have wrapped yourself so tight in the rhetoric of the left, that common sense can no longer work its way into your story land mind.

Please, try to get a grip. There aren't any "free passes" since this administration took office. Can't talk for the past.

Tell me again, just so I can make sure you're the fucking idiot I know you are, that fighting them over there, isn't preferable to fighting them over here is.

You are such a lame ass, totally disconnected from the world around you.

Your the kind of jerk, that walks into a biker bar, gets the shit kicked out of them, and blames the bar owner for not posting warning sign's.

Piss off..:gross2:

 

[MtnBiker]

Whoa! there are alot of F-bombs going off in this thread.