Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

November 7, 2006

0 views
Skip to first unread message

mra...@willamette.edu

unread,
May 25, 2006, 6:54:36 PM5/25/06
to

I think that the situation in Iraq six months from now will be very
similar to what it is now, and the American people will be looking for
a way to make their displeasure of this known. Combined with
increasing anti or luke-warm-Bush feelings among many conservatives, I
think the Republican base just won't support it as much as in the past
and we'll probably end up with a slim Democratic control of one or
(less likely but still plausible) both houses. At which point we are
probably going to get some very interesting investigations and house
hearings underway.

That's my prediction. What's yours?

--
Mike Ralls

Dave

unread,
May 25, 2006, 7:23:38 PM5/25/06
to

I predict the House and Senate remain Republican by a few seats. It is
possible that either house could flip but it is not likely. Geographic
reality and gerrymandering will trump other concerns. Most voters are
not dis-satisfied with _their_ Representatives.

The Democrats' chances are much better in the Senate (which is not
susceptible to gerrymandering) than in the House of Reps. GOP Senators
are identified more closely to the Republican party than GOP
Representatives are.

David Kohlhoff

eatfastnoodle

unread,
May 25, 2006, 10:52:25 PM5/25/06
to
Iraq is not the only issue in election, if Karl Rove can make the
election into a us versus them as he has already done so many times, or
if another famous Democratic ultra-left jump out, saying some crazy
things, therefore galvanizing the conservative base, the election can
become another
widely-predicted-Democratic-victory-turned-Republician-victory.

David Tenner

unread,
May 26, 2006, 1:28:23 AM5/26/06
to
You want the key to the election? Try this chart:
http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/NEWBUSHINDEX_28670_image001.gif

IMO the price of gas in Ocotber will be a better indicator than anything
else.

--
David Tenner
dte...@ameritech.net

Michael G. Koerner

unread,
May 26, 2006, 1:41:01 AM5/26/06
to

Don't forget that there is great dissatisfaction here in Wisconsin with the
current Democrat governor (James Doyle) and he is likely to go down this fall.
If the GOP puts up a decent candidate, Senator Herb Kohl (D) will also go
down for a republican gain of one seat in the USSenate. Kohl is not all that
popular, is seldom heard from and has been rated as one of the least effective
members of the entire Senate. This will make it very difficult, if not
impossible, for the Democrats to win enough other currently Republican seats
to take over that house.

Senator Russ Feingold's recent outspokenness has also greatly polarized the
state's electorate, especially outstate from Madison and Milwaukee, and this
will also hurt Kohl in his re-election bid. Kohl's main claim to fame was
buying the Milwaukee Bucks about 20 years ago to keep them in Wisconsin and he
uses most of the rest of his share of his family's retail fortune to
self-finance his Congressional election campaigns.

All eight of Wisconsin's USHouse seats are expected to remain with their
current parties (currently a 4-4 split). There is one vacancy, the District
#8 (Appleton/Green Bay) incumbant, Mark Green (R), is running against Doyle
for governor and it is known as a swing district, but is likely to stay in GOP
hands this time around as the Democrats have not fielded a strong candidate.

--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________

663

unread,
May 26, 2006, 4:03:55 AM5/26/06
to
I agree


sigi...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 26, 2006, 4:51:28 AM5/26/06
to

At this point, I agree with Dave: I expect to see Dem pickups, but not
to the point of taking back Congress.

I will be surprised if the Senate goes blue. Yes, it's looking like a
good year for the Dems, but they need to win six seats net. That's a
lot.

As for the House, I will be amazed if the House goes blue.
Gerrymandering has made large shifts very difficult there. We haven't
seen a big one since '96, and that was a while ago. Not impossible, I
guess, but I sure wouldn't bet on it.


Michael G. Koerner wrote:

> If the GOP puts up a decent candidate, Senator Herb Kohl (D) will also go
> down for a republican gain of one seat in the USSenate.

This looks like wishful thinking. Unless Tommy Thompson jumps in the
race -- and it's getting very late for that -- Kohl looks set to crush
all plausible opponents.

(If TT does jump in, then all bets are off. I might take him over Kohl
myself. But if he's gonna do it, he has to do it soon.)


Doug M.

Michael G. Koerner

unread,
May 26, 2006, 10:53:24 AM5/26/06
to
sigi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> At this point, I agree with Dave: I expect to see Dem pickups, but not
> to the point of taking back Congress.
>
> I will be surprised if the Senate goes blue. Yes, it's looking like a
> good year for the Dems, but they need to win six seats net. That's a
> lot.
>
> As for the House, I will be amazed if the House goes blue.
> Gerrymandering has made large shifts very difficult there. We haven't
> seen a big one since '96, and that was a while ago. Not impossible, I
> guess, but I sure wouldn't bet on it.

I'm not so pessimistic or optimistic (depending on the readers' point of view)
about party changes in Congress as some pundants are. History shows that the
normal course is that the party not in the White House usually gains a few
seats in off-year elections, but right now, I am expecting the GOP to still
control both houses next year.

Still, it is only May and a lot can happen between now and November (sort of
like handicapping next season's Super Bowl).

> Michael G. Koerner wrote:
>
>
>> If the GOP puts up a decent candidate, Senator Herb Kohl (D) will also go
>>down for a republican gain of one seat in the USSenate.
>
>
> This looks like wishful thinking. Unless Tommy Thompson jumps in the
> race -- and it's getting very late for that -- Kohl looks set to crush
> all plausible opponents.
>
> (If TT does jump in, then all bets are off. I might take him over Kohl
> myself. But if he's gonna do it, he has to do it soon.)

Well, Tommy would be a 'decent candidate', would he not? ;-)

He is getting to be the 'Brett Favre' of Wisconsin politics, isn't he? I do
agree though, if Tommy gets in it would toss a HUGE monkeywrench into the
Democratic National Congressional Committee's well laid plans, but it he is
getting short on time if he wants to get into the race.

Dave

unread,
May 26, 2006, 4:19:38 PM5/26/06
to
sigi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> At this point, I agree with Dave: I expect to see Dem pickups, but not
> to the point of taking back Congress.

My over-unders for betting purposes are
Senate 53R 46D 1IND
HoR 224R 211D
Governorships 24R 26D

I think that this election has the potential for odd trends below the
partisan numbers. Moderate Democrats may have a banner year that
increases their numbers in the House and Senate. That could have
interesting consequences to how the Senate and House will be run.

On the other side we could witness the African-American Republican
phenomenon go into bloom if a few of the current candidates (Swann,
Steele, Butler, Blackwell) are successful.

If we are going to see a major partisan realignment we are more likely
to see it in 2008 due to partisan imbalances and coat-tails.

> I will be surprised if the Senate goes blue. Yes, it's looking like a
> good year for the Dems, but they need to win six seats net. That's a
> lot.
>
> As for the House, I will be amazed if the House goes blue.
> Gerrymandering has made large shifts very difficult there. We haven't
> seen a big one since '96, and that was a while ago. Not impossible, I
> guess, but I sure wouldn't bet on it.

Democrats have not received more votes for the HoR than Republicans
since 1996. A wider margin of victory than Clinton's 1996 margin is
possible but unlikely in 2008. Gerrymandering does exaggerate the GOP's
majority but that majority is based in an actual (although usually
narrow) majority of votes.

>
> Michael G. Koerner wrote:
>
> > If the GOP puts up a decent candidate, Senator Herb Kohl (D) will also go
> > down for a republican gain of one seat in the USSenate.
>
> This looks like wishful thinking. Unless Tommy Thompson jumps in the
> race -- and it's getting very late for that -- Kohl looks set to crush
> all plausible opponents.
>
> (If TT does jump in, then all bets are off. I might take him over Kohl
> myself. But if he's gonna do it, he has to do it soon.)

TT is not jumping in. Dole hasn't been able to recruit any 1st class
candidates in win-able seats.

> Doug M.

dougla...@gmail.com

unread,
May 27, 2006, 9:54:40 AM5/27/06
to

I think turnout is going to be key, rather than a lot of disgruntled
Republicans venting their discontent with Dubya upon their local GOP
candidate. If Republicans are not motivated to go to the polls, but
Democrats (sensing victory) do, that is where Democratic gains will
come. I agree with others who think it is somewhat unlikely that
either the Senate or House will go blue, simply because it is real
tough to pick up the kind of numbers that they need in the Senate and
the gerrymandering in the House.

the Republicans know that turnout is key, which is why they are tossing
around the boogieman of a Democratic Congress impeaching Dubya to try
to get their base to turn out, taking a page from the Democratic
playbook of the Clinton years in which the impeachment had the effect
of rallying Dems around the president. the other tactic is revival of
anti-gay issues. AFAIK, bans on gay marriage and gay adoption are
going to be on state ballots again this fall, in the hopes of boosting
evangelical turnout for the GOP.

Coyu

unread,
May 29, 2006, 9:40:33 AM5/29/06
to
Douglas Muir wrote:

> As for the House, I will be amazed if the House goes blue.
> Gerrymandering has made large shifts very difficult there. We haven't
> seen a big one since '96, and that was a while ago. Not impossible, I
> guess, but I sure wouldn't bet on it.

One unintended consequence of the current gerrymandering
scheme -- if it flips, it's going to be a *huge* flip.

> This looks like wishful thinking. Unless Tommy Thompson jumps in the
> race -- and it's getting very late for that -- Kohl looks set to crush
> all plausible opponents.
>
> (If TT does jump in, then all bets are off. I might take him over Kohl
> myself. But if he's gonna do it, he has to do it soon.)

You have to remember that MGK is from Appleton.

Thompson has some interesting rumored skeletons in his closet,
which apparently have prevented him from a greater national role.
It had to have been galling for him to step into Donna Shalala's
shoes -- she was only the UW Chancellor, while Thompson was the
big kahuna.

Still, there's a gentlemen's agreement in the Wisconsin press
that, oh, you don't bring up the time he was interviewed on live
TV red-faced drunk after the anthrax attacks. (They did the same
thing for Chris Farley after his death. It's not a partisan
thing, although I suppose it could become so, as with the
national media and its personality-driven coverage.)

The governor's race should be interesting. McCallum was voted
out because he was a jackass; Doyle might be voted out because
he's a Democrat.

It's interesting how the grass roots GOP in Wisconsin has
become so focused on abortion -- it's a classic "what's the
matter with Kansas" ploy, although I am sure 90+% of the GOP
activists in Wisconsin are sincere in their beliefs about that
issue. (Why South Dakota has been interesting to watch, from a
distance.) But the current war has cut across party opinion.
When conservative lawyers from the Wolf River valley think
something has gone horribly wrong, you know something is up.

Dave

unread,
May 29, 2006, 1:31:07 PM5/29/06
to
Coyu wrote:
> Douglas Muir wrote:
>
> > As for the House, I will be amazed if the House goes blue.
> > Gerrymandering has made large shifts very difficult there. We haven't
> > seen a big one since '96, and that was a while ago. Not impossible, I
> > guess, but I sure wouldn't bet on it.
>
> One unintended consequence of the current gerrymandering
> scheme -- if it flips, it's going to be a *huge* flip.

If uniform national "swing" existed this assertion would be likely. In
the last several elections the swing in different districts has varied
dramatically. In some years swing has shown regional elements. This
makes seat changes of any number more likely.

Also you would assume that a *huge* flip would only be likely if
gerrymandering primarily benefited Republicans at Democrats' expense(by
concentrating Democratic majorities and spreading Republican majorities
out). To the extent this exists it is mostly a result of
minority-majority districts and inner city districts.

Gerrymandering on a national scale tends to benefit incumbents
regardless of party. For instance last election Republican received
51.35% of the two party vote and received 53.3% of the seats in the
HoR. This is hardly the situation where Republican votes are
gerrymandered most effectively. That would have been the type of
situation where a *huge* flip is more likely than a small one.

I would say the main effect of gerrymandering is freezing each parties
number of seats in a narrow range assuming less than massive vote
swings.
Republicans: 240-205
Democrats: 230-195

So looking at the current situation I find a small flip much more
likely than a *huge* flip.

David Kohlhoff

kristen...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 30, 2006, 6:16:26 PM5/30/06
to
I am hoping we go blue, and i wish that there would be a massive shift
towards common sense, i am so sick of these hot button issues that get
everyone fired up and avoid real things like outsourcing, health care,
day care, education, social security. let people keep their private
issues private and get on with the business that needs to be done

Jordan

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 3:38:13 AM6/1/06
to

... and yet another "we wuz stabbed in the back by" rigged voting
machines / Republican installed judges / Martian insurrectionist legend
to allow the Democrats to blame _anyone_ but themselves for their
defeat.

- Jordan

Dennis Brennan

unread,
Jun 9, 2006, 12:09:23 AM6/9/06
to

Dave wrote:
> On the other side we could witness the African-American Republican
> phenomenon go into bloom if a few of the current candidates (Swann,
...) are successful.

Swann has zero chance of beating Ed Rendell. In other Pennsylvania
news, Santorum looks pretty beatable after all. (Of course, lots of
Pennsylvanians would apparently vote for a cinder block in preference
to Santorum: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11379.xml?ReleaseID=911)

David Tenner

unread,
Jun 11, 2006, 11:27:39 AM6/11/06
to
"Dennis Brennan" <spikeb...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1149826163.4...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
> Dave wrote:
>> On the other side we could witness the African-American Republican
>> phenomenon go into bloom if a few of the current candidates (Swann,
> ...) are successful.
>
> Swann has zero chance of beating Ed Rendell.

One other point to remember: Black candidates (whether Democrats or
Republicans) running against white candidates in white-majority
constituencies almost invariably do better in the polls than in the actual
election, presumably because of voters' reluctance to appear "bigoted" to
pollsters. (For that reason, although the latest Ohio Poll shows Blackwell
only six points behind Strickland, I think the odds are more heavily against
him than this would indicate--even leaving aside the fact that other polls
have shown a larger Strickland lead. Also, as
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060610/NEWS09/606100360
indicates, Strickland for now even has a financial advantage.)

--
David Tenner
dte...@ameritech.net

0 new messages