I just don't see the wave coming. Repubs are as detested as they were a few years ago, they're running a number of insane candidates, and Dems haven't really started to spend or campaign in earnest. Reid is up in NV when he didn't have a prayer a month ago. With any luck, the spill is stopped. The economy sucks, but most people still (and rightly so) blame Bush, and even more will after the real campaigning begins. Repubs have taken a number of idiotic policy stances, based, as far as I can tell, on only one principle: be directly opposed to anything done or proposed by Dems. Seriously, how can your leadership come out in favor of repealing financial reform the day the bill is passed? It's too bad the consumer protection stuff won't start to be felt by most Americans until after the election because I think a lot of folks are damn tired about being nickel and dimed to death with ridiculous fees and absurd interest rates. If the Dems are smart, they will make this election very much about their opposition to big finance/corporations running wild and Repubs support of the same and their practices that have been screwing Americans. Granted, betting on Dem smarts in an election year is not always a smart thing, but I do consider the fact that Obama is not stupid regarding elections to be a given. I think both houses remain in Dem hands. I'll say Repubs pick up between 14 and 17 seats in the House and 2 in the Senate (which should be more, but they are wasting opportunities with nutty candidates).
Only because you're in Oregon. It's probably the only state that won't be affected somewhat. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...rats_are_in_denial_about_november_106347.html The generic house vote is 3% in favor of Republicans right now, and Republicans have made significant gains when the generic house vote was 5% in favor of Democrats. (One's own Republican House member is almost always more popular than the replacement Republican.)
Only two in the senate? Really? Granted it's just one forecast, and the complete forecast gives about a 30% of Democrats losing 2 seats or fewer, but still it seems like a lot would have to change for that to happen. And by "a lot" I mean a very large drop in the unemployment rate.
Wow, that really reeks of calm objectivity. Truth is we don't know in July what happens in November, especially for midterms. And weslinder, I would say this about your reply to rimrocker: we don't live in a localized culture anymore. I really think he's getting the same type of info and media and conversation in Oregon as we get anywhere else. Sure, different coffee shop chatter in, say, Portland versus Goshen, Indiana, but I don't think that's what rimrocker was relying on. And Oregon has some incredibly conservative elements: about 49.5% of the population there in fact. (e.g. "I love the spotted owl... fried!" and so forth.)
Hard to say. The people seem disenchanted with both parties. Incumbents are obviously in trouble. Will anything get passed if Republicans pick up more seats? I am scared to know what will happen with the expiring Bush tax cuts. Will Republicans fight it out and risk getting none of the cuts extended?
I don't live in Portland or Eugene... and I could also say you're probably too optimistic because you live in Texas.
He's the editor of the National Review. But there's a lot of truth in that incredibly biased article. The Republicans might not pick up either house, but they are going to pick up a lot of seats. My prediction: split Congress.
I wouldn't bet against you, that's for sure. I wish we could find more articles that at least attempted to preach to more than the choir. It's almost impossible these days. There's an enormous opening for a centrist voice, but maybe she/he couldn't survive what would come from both sides, including thousands of labels pushing the centrist's image to one side or the other.
And like Oregon, I would guess there are different pockets of political fervor within the county.... Groves is a bit different than say, central Beaumont.
There's your problem right there. It never ceases to amaze me that out of a nation of 350 millon we seem to produce so few articulate, charismatic politicians that can produce a positive debate with clear visions of the greater public good. I think when you automatically rule out the agnostics and anyone who has ever used drugs you pare down the available candidates too far and increase the impact of restricted thinkers.
What is really the difference between the two. They both are for wasting money and giving in to big business.
This is one reason I'm not buying into the conventional wisdom of a wave election. We're just a few months before the election and Repubs have no idea of what they are running for. The House leadership has to ask a group of wingnut business people to set their agenda. Of course, we know Repubs are very much against anything Dem, but at some point voters will ask them what they are for (some, like Angle and Paul, will stupidly answer), and then they will be reminded why it was a good idea to kick them out of power in the first place.
I lost faith in the average American during the 00s. People are too ignorant about economics, politics in and around Capitol Hill, international affairs, etc. Come November, I see the GOP back in large numbers. The Democrats wasted the last 2 years to help Obama enact serious reform, despite the passage of the watered-down landmark health-care and financial legislation.
Repub Congressman Peter King on BB's radio show: Pardon me Congressman, but isn't that what elections are about? Republicans either have nothing to say or they are too afraid to really say what they want. This will cost them opportunities this year.
