Electoral Predictions

[Tilted]

Now that the general election is only 2 weeks away, who'd like to make predictions regarding the number of House seats and/or Senate seats that the Republicans or Democrats will hold when the next Congress is seated? Or, make predictions about more specific races (e.g. O'Malley versus Ehrlich)? (If you would, please refrain from commenting on county races - it's probably best to not attract certain people here. )

The split right now is 57 D's to 41 R's with 2 I's in the Senate (100 total), and something like 255 D's to 178 R's with 2 vacancies in the House (435 total).

 

[Larry Gude]

Now that the general election is only 2 weeks away, who'd like to make predictions regarding the number of House seats and/or Senate seats that the Republicans or Democrats will hold when the next Congress is seated? Or, make predictions about more specific races (e.g. O'Malley versus Ehrlich)? (If you would, please refrain from commenting on county races - it's probably best to not attract certain people here. )

The split right now is 57 D's to 41 R's with 2 I's in the Senate (100 total), and something like 255 D's to 178 R's with 2 vacancies in the House (435 total).

I predict there will be NO change whatsoever. That the next congress will pass budgets larger than the current budget.

 

[BernieP]

I predict there will be NO change whatsoever. That the next congress will pass budgets larger than the current budget.

because (a) politicians are afraid of certain groups, or should I say some people will resort to class warfare to gain political advantage and that makes certain programs untouchable. (b) those untouchables will continue to grow with inflation and as they get expanded.

The American people have to decide what it is they want THEIR government to provide, to what level and then they have to accept some sort of fair tax system to pay for it. The graduated income tax system isn't it. You can't penalize people for working hard their entire life. On the other hand you can't allow the super rich, the true rich (i.e. billionares) to walk around tax free because they bought a tax break from their congressman. The system has to be simple and easy to enforce. We don't need to spend billions to employ a group of bullies, the IRS is the American version of the Gestapo.
Most of all you want a system that will raise the revenue necessary to pay for the government we select AND put money into the economy that creates jobs and in the end will increase tax revenues by expanding the economy.

 

[Larry Gude]

because (a) politicians are afraid of certain groups, or should I say some people will resort to class warfare to gain political advantage and that makes certain programs untouchable. (b) those untouchables will continue to grow with inflation and as they get expanded.

The American people have to decide what it is they want THEIR government to provide, to what level and then they have to accept some sort of fair tax system to pay for it. The graduated income tax system isn't it. You can't penalize people for working hard their entire life. On the other hand you can't allow the super rich, the true rich (i.e. billionares) to walk around tax free because they bought a tax break from their congressman. The system has to be simple and easy to enforce. We don't need to spend billions to employ a group of bullies, the IRS is the American version of the Gestapo.
Most of all you want a system that will raise the revenue necessary to pay for the government we select AND put money into the economy that creates jobs and in the end will increase tax revenues by expanding the economy.

Every single time someone puts a GOP'er on the spot and says in that snide, condescending left wing elite voice "What programs, specifically, would you cut???"

...every one of the stupid, spineless, weak kneed GOP'ers fails to say "For starters, we freeze all federal spending, all of it for, at the very least, the next budget. And then, we start cannibalizing programs we all know stink and are a bad deal for the tax payers in order to pay for the programs with the most support. It will be tough. It will be ugly but, better for the representatives of the American people to start making some of the tough choices then the people always getting stuck with out weak kneed, Lily livered, spineless attempts at actually making the budget smaller."

 

[JoeRider]

Every single time someone puts a GOP'er on the spot and says in that snide, condescending left wing elite voice "What programs, specifically, would you cut???"

PBS - for the hell of it (unless they do more of Kate)
department of eduction - for our schools like most inter-city DC example
environmental protection agency for global warming
IHS for immigration
DHS and FAA for the mess at the airports

Gees, where can we start.

 

[chernmax]

I say GOP wins the House, Dems lose Senator seats but retain control minus Harry Reid!

 

[chernmax]

Every single time someone puts a GOP'er on the spot and says in that snide, condescending left wing elite voice "What programs, specifically, would you cut???"

...every one of the stupid, spineless, weak kneed GOP'ers fails to say "For starters, we freeze all federal spending, all of it for, at the very least, the next budget. And then, we start cannibalizing programs we all know stink and are a bad deal for the tax payers in order to pay for the programs with the most support. It will be tough. It will be ugly but, better for the representatives of the American people to start making some of the tough choices then the people always getting stuck with out weak kneed, Lily livered, spineless attempts at actually making the budget smaller."

Just because you don't hear it doesn't mean the GOP isn't already trying to do something about it!

» Tired of Big Government Spending? Then YouCut it! - Big Government

 

[BernieP]

Every single time someone puts a GOP'er on the spot and says in that snide, condescending left wing elite voice "What programs, specifically, would you cut???"

...every one of the stupid, spineless, weak kneed GOP'ers fails to say "For starters, we freeze all federal spending, all of it for, at the very least, the next budget. And then, we start cannibalizing programs we all know stink and are a bad deal for the tax payers in order to pay for the programs with the most support. It will be tough. It will be ugly but, better for the representatives of the American people to start making some of the tough choices then the people always getting stuck with out weak kneed, Lily livered, spineless attempts at actually making the budget smaller."

that would be like answering the question, "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?" To quote Col Nathan Jessup, "You want the truth? Well you can't handle the truth" The truth would cost them the election, in a landslide.
But people have to be educated, the electorate has to understand the government does not have it's own money, that it's OUR money.
But just a one year FREEZE would be a start. Painful, but survivable. Then start cutting fat. But cut taxes, run a deficit if you must, but put money back into the economy so it can grow. That's the major difference, if you take money out of the economy, if you penalize investment, you kill jobs and grow. As the economy contracts, taxe rates have to go up to offset the drop in revenue.
In my perfect world, year one would be to freeze spending and overhaul the tax system. Come up with a system that provides revenue in a fair manner but moves us back to a capitalist economic system and away from the socialistic system we are approaching.

 

[Larry Gude]

that would be like answering the question, "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?" To quote Col Nathan Jessup, "You want the truth? Well you can't handle the truth" The truth would cost them the election, in a landslide.But people have to be educated, the electorate has to understand the government does not have it's own money, that it's OUR money.
But just a one year FREEZE would be a start. Painful, but survivable. Then start cutting fat. But cut taxes, run a deficit if you must, but put money back into the economy so it can grow. That's the major difference, if you take money out of the economy, if you penalize investment, you kill jobs and grow. As the economy contracts, taxe rates have to go up to offset the drop in revenue.
In my perfect world, year one would be to freeze spending and overhaul the tax system. Come up with a system that provides revenue in a fair manner but moves us back to a capitalist economic system and away from the socialistic system we are approaching.

Totally 100% disagree. We are STILL a center right nation with left leaning social predispositions and right leaning fiscal predispositions.

Liberals are constantly renaming themselves to avoid, nationally, the stain of what they made modern liberalism mean. Progressives. Democrats. They can NOT stand tall and say "From each by his means to each by his needs as determined by us!". They HAVE to hide to win.

On the other hand, GOP'ers always talk conservative; "Gummint is too big, we spend too much, I am a Reaganite, I am conservative" and it WINS yet their problem is that they then govern from the left.

The problem with GOP'ers is getting them elected and THEN keeping an eye, or a boot, on them.

 

[FromTexas]

Republicans pull off a total of 50 Senate seats and 232 House seats.

 

[JoeRider]

GOP - 52 Senate 238 House - after elections 2 Dems switch to I.

 

[Pete]

Republicans pull off a total of 50 Senate seats and 232 House seats.

So how do you pick a Senate Majority Leader if the GOP and the Donks split the Senate? Does Biden then vote?

 

[JoeRider]

So how do you pick a Senate Majority Leader if the GOP and the Donks split the Senate? Does Biden then vote?

Good question. Senate rules would put the Biden as the leader of congress and probably consider him with the majority party, thus putting it over the edge. I think a lot depends on where the 2 Independents sit. They might be able to cherry pick their committees to help give either group majority.

Lieberman is in the cat seat if this happens. Talk about a political animals, he sure knows how to play his cards.

 

[philibusters]

I don't follow this stuff closely enough to really make an educated guess, but I think the Republicans take the House with an overwhelming majority (say 240 to 195 or something of that sort) and I am not sure who will take the Senate, but think it could go either way.

 

[Rommey]

So how do you pick a Senate Majority Leader if the GOP and the Donks split the Senate? Does Biden then vote?

Tom Daschle and Trent Lott were the Majority leaders in 2001 when the Senate was 50/50. Daschle until Jan 20 while Gore was VP; Lott from Jan 21 to June 6 when "Jumpin" Jeffords switched from (R) to (I). At that point Daschle took over again since it was 50/49/1. When Paul Wellstone died, the Senate was 49/49/1, but since Jeffords was caucusing with the (D), Daschle remained as Majority Leader.

 

[ImnoMensa]

Tom Daschle and Trent Lott were the Majority leaders in 2001 when the Senate was 50/50. Daschle until Jan 20 while Gore was VP; Lott from Jan 21 to June 6 when "Jumpin" Jeffords switched from (R) to (I). At that point Daschle took over again since it was 50/49/1. When Paul Wellstone died, the Senate was 49/49/1, but since Jeffords was caucusing with the (D), Daschle remained as Majority Leader.

Nancy Pelosi will lose her jet and the office with Speaker written on the door.

 

[Tilted]

Totally 100% disagree. We are STILL a center right nation with left leaning social predispositions and right leaning fiscal predispositions.

Yeah, but in name only, and that's only because what is considered fiscally liberal, moderate, and conservative continues to slide to the left. Many may consider themselves fiscal conservatives, and that label may be correct in so far as what that term is generally used to refer to at the moment (e.g. people using it to refer to themselves), but many of those people aren't fiscal conservatives by any reasonable measure or historically linked measure. Today's fiscal conservatives are yesterday's moderate fiscal liberals.

It's kinda like saying, 'this is still America.' Well, of course it is, because that's what we call whatever it is that this is. What America is, however, may have changed profoundly.

We aren't a fiscally conservative, or even moderate, nation. We're a nation of uber fiscal liberals, extreme fiscal liberals, and fiscal liberals, with a smattering of moderate fiscal liberals and the occasional fiscal moderate thrown in. There are some unsubstantiated stories about sightings of an actual fiscal conservative, but much like the Bigfoot legend, it's hard to know whether those stories are based on reality or the result of overactive imaginations.

 

[Tilted]

I'm gonna go with 48 Republican Senate seats and 229 Republican House seats. It's kinda tough to guess a number for the House because there are so many races, it could swing quite a few seats in either direction. In the Senate, there appear to be 6 or 7 races that are still in real play. If all of them go the right way for Republicans, they could end up with 52 seats - but I find that very unlikely.

I don't think the Republicans have done a good job of capitalizing on the opportunity they'd been presented (i.e. for an electoral landslide) - a lot of things set-up in their favor. There's still a couple weeks left though, things could change considerably.

 

[JoeRider]

I don't think the Republicans have done a good job of capitalizing on the opportunity they'd been presented

That is no surprise!

 

[SamSpade]

I'm gonna go with 48 Republican Senate seats and 229 Republican House seats. It's kinda tough to guess a number for the House because there are so many races, it could swing quite a few seats in either direction. In the Senate, there appear to be 6 or 7 races that are still in real play. If all of them go the right way for Republicans, they could end up with 52 seats - but I find that very unlikely.

I don't think the Republicans have done a good job of capitalizing on the opportunity they'd been presented (i.e. for an electoral landslide) - a lot of things set-up in their favor. There's still a couple weeks left though, things could change considerably.

Those numbers are consistent with what I read on Real Clear Politics.

I've heard any number of pundits who have said the GOP lost some ground by tipping their hand a little early, thus giving the Dems a shot at regaining some ground where they might otherwise have been taken unawares.

I'm still hoping for a tsunami though.