WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

It's possible Cy. I just don't think this is enough of an issue to cause voters who normally vote in mid-term elections to stay away from the polls. After all, the casual voter already stays away from mid-terms it seems and those would be the ones more likely to say the heck with it. And I seriously doubt that pushing this will get casual democrats to come out and vote than normal. I just don't see it.

But I guess we'll know in about a month.

The coverup and related lies that are still forthcoming may really damage the Republicans. And remember this is on top of Abramoff, DeLay, Ney, Cunningham, et al.

Also, the Woodward allegations and the leaked NIE findings may not go away in time. Moreover, the negative information pouring out of Iraq is stunning. I am always wrong, but this may be a major turnover in the House and Senate.

I doubt it for reasons which i have explained in detail already. CR has a good point about mid-terms--it's the hardcore party supporters who vote in mid-terms, largely, and the only likely effect would be for Republican voters to stay home. It is doubtful that these things will prove any advantage to any Democratic challenger, unless it is already a close race, and Republican voters do stay home.

I really do continue to believe that supporters of the Democrats are getting their hopes too high. At best, they could make significant gains in the House, without taking over, and might take the Senate.

Set, you may be right. And the thing about mostly hardcore party people who vote in mid-term elections is probably correct. Moreover, it seems that virtually nothing about Bush and the other conservatives seems to bother those hardcore voters, who rely on Fox and alternative news sources.

I disagree Set. And my analysis is that the Dems will most likely take the House and have a shot at the Senate.

If you look at the polls and the analysis of the the close races... coupled with the historical statistical fact that in midterm elections "undecideds" more often then not break against the incumbants. The race by race analysis that I have seen makes me think that the Dems will probably win the House by picking up 17 or more seats (they need 15).

But let's talk about Foley. Remember that these races are being contested. Voters haven't all made up their minds whether to vote, and some will vote who aren't the partisans who already have decided.

These are campaigns where what candidates and parties do and say make a different both with GOTV and influencing undecideds.

Foley helps in several significant ways.

1) Dennis Hastert is spending a lot of time talking about Foley.

He would much rather be talking about terrorism or gay marriage. Party leadership during an election want to focus their energy on getting their partisans elected- whether pushing issues, or rallying their base. The Democrat leadership is focussed on the election, the Republican House leadership is focussed on spin control.

It is very hard to help win an election when you are in the middle of fighting for your job.

2) The undecideds (people who will vote but aren't strictly partisan) are the factor that will decide several close races.

The issues being raised in an election greatly matters with undecided voters. If terrorism is on peoples mind it helps the Republicans. If the war in on peoples minds, it helps Democrats.

The Republicans had successfully stifled early Democratic attempts to raise the issue of corruption-- Bilbray defeated Busby who tried to make corruption a theme.

Now this puts corruption back in front of the public... and the Democrats haven't had to spend any political capital to put it there.

Don't pretend that general feeling toward a political party doesn't affect votes-- both in turnout and in the decision of the undecideds.

3) Of course undecideds aren't the only factor... rallying your partisans is perhaps more important. Issues like this have a real effect on both the Democratic and Republican base.

Issues like this energize the Democratic base even more who can now spur on the marginal democrats with cries of "Republican Corruption" and have more reasons to talk to their middle-left friends.

Issues like this will demoralize the middle right Republicans. The very fact that the word "Republican Disaster" is now more common makes this self-fulfilling prophecy.




I was feeling very optimistic about the House before the Foley scandal broke. I am quite sure that for several reasons this scandal makes a Democratic takeover, especially in the House, even more likely.

Republicans preach one thing and in private, do just that which they preach against! No wonder Foley was in the closet! When the Repugs, first heard of thse dealings, Foley, should have been asked to resign his seat! A sexual predator preying on young people, why their so-called "moral authority" is now being questioned! They're all money and power greedy, think they are above the law, because as they say, "I am the law"! The law pertains only to illegal aliens, blacks, muslims and anyone that gets in their way!

You may be right, E_brown, but i continue to doubt that the Democrats will take the House--they have a better shot at the Senate, where they could marginally take over by simply taking two Republican seats and not losing any of their own.

I think you are engaging in wishful thinking in your comments about "undecideds"--as CR has pointed out, turn out is always very low in the mid-terms. I frankly don't believe there are that many undecideds out there who can be relied upon to vote.

I would hope you are correct, but i don't think so. Congressional stagnation has been a fact of life all of my life (since the days of Harry Truman), even if it wasn't recognized until the late 1970s. The power of incumbency is enormous, and pork is no small part of that. The Republicans have not been behind hand at the pork barrel while they've had the opportunity.

EDIT: What i'm saying is that the uproar is overblown--people always want to throw the bums out, except for their own bum, who probably has been bringing home the bacon.

I am afraid your math is wrong Set,

The current mix in the Senate is 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and 1 Democratic-leaning independent. If the Democrats pick up two seats it would be 53 to 46+1 (still a Republican majority).

I agree that a Democrat pickup of two seats is likely, but they need six.

I was really hoping that George Allen would be number 6, but it looks like racist tendencies is still a political advantage in some parts.

Maybe I missed something,but what racist tendencies?

I know that Allen was accused of using a racial slur 20+ years ago.

His opponent in the Senate race has ADMITTED to using the same racial slur,and he wrote a book full of racial slurs.

Why are you giving him a pass?

George Allen did more than a slur...



This is a picture of Allen with the leaders of the Council of Conservative Citizens-- an ultra-right group that promotes a White Christian America.

Then there are the matters of the Confederate flag and the noose in his office.

MM, don't you recall that he only recently used the word "macaca," which in Northern Africa is used to describe blacks?

But you apparently missed my earlier, long post about what constitutes control. Senate rules, which they are constitutionally permitted to promulgate themselves, call for three-fifths of the quorum to close debate on any topic. (Usually, this is stated as being 60 votes, but that assumes that the entire body is present, if only 80 senators were present, 48 would be a sufficient vote to close debate and proceed to a vote.) Now, it is possible that if all Senators are present, the Republicans cannot get 60 votes to close debate, and would be forced to proceed to the "nuclear option," which neither party wants to do--but a favorite parliamentary tactic in any government is to wait until the end of a session, or just until the weekend looms, run all your party members in when the opposing parties members are not all present, and establish a quorum which one can control. Therefore, if there were only 90 members present, and the Republicans had made sure that all their members were present, they'd have the necessarty three-fifths of the quorum to close debate on any topic and proceed to a vote. That sort of gambit is common in legislatures and parliaments.

So, if the Democrats pick up two seats, and lose none of their own, or simply have a two seat net gain (really, though, i ought to have said three or four), then they're in a position to deny the Republicans the opportunity to pull that quorum trick. Even if the Republicans managed to get all 53 members (or 52, or 51, depending on how well the Democrats do next month), the Democrats might be able to run all over town before the end of a term, or the weekend, and get enough Democrats to show up for the roll call to be able to continue a filibuster.

In my long post, i pointed out that even in the House, you need more than a simple majority to assure control when voting as a quorum and not the full House. This applies even more in the Senate, where Senate rules (i believe it's Senate Rule 22, but i'd have to look it up) call for a three-fifths vote to end debate--which is just marginal control. Absolute control of the Senate only occurs when a party has two-thirds of the vote, or more. It is always important to keep in mind that a good floor manager (and whether or not anyone likes him, Hastert, for example, has proven to be a good floor manager) can work wonders by playing on the quorum, paying attention to how many members are present, and who specifically is absent. So it is always necessary to have a "margin of error" majority to assure control.

By the way, your notion that the Democrats can pick up 14 or 15 seats and take over the House only works if they don't lose any seats. And, once again, you need that buffer of a few votes (eight to ten in the House, and three or four in the Senate) to assure control of the quorum, which means 50% plus a few in the House, and 60% plus a few in the Senate.

I hope you're right--but i'm afraid that you're not.

The party that has a simple majority has an advantage in either house of Congress.

Obviously a larger number is an advantage, but a simple majority is a big thing. The party with the majority (and it only takes one seat) assigns all the commitee chairs and sets the agenda.

Getting the majority in the House is a big prize since the Speaker of the House (who is appointed by the ruling party) has a big say in setting the agenda. The Democrats only need a couplei of seats to set the schedule for bills or even (if they can be unified) keep issues off the floor.

I will be very happy if the Democrats take a simple majority in the House. This will mean that the bills the Republicans are keeping off the floor... from immigration reform to debate on Iraq or even to impeachment (although I think this is not a good thing)... but these things will suddenly be taken off the sideline (where the republicans have been keeping them) and thrust into debate.

The very fact that the Speaker of the House (a position that in my mind has far too much power) will be a Democrat is a significant change.

So,his SUPPOSED racist comments are wrong,but his challengers ADMITTED racist comments and writings are ok by you?

That is what you seem to be saying,because you have not commented on that at all.

You have a double standard.

Mysteryman,

Forget about the comments. They are insignificant... and there is no double standard. If someone makes a racially intolerant comment that they later regret it is forgivable whether you are George Allen or not.

I am sayong George Allen is much more than racial comments.

He has used racist imagery from the Confederate Flag (which some question is a racist symbol) to a noose (which is unmistakable in its intent.

And he was the member of a group that unapologetically believes that the US should be White and Christian.

I will forget about George Allen's racist comments if you will.

But the other stuff all adds up to the fact that George Allen has an iissue with racism that goes beyond comments.

What do you say about the noose in the office, MM?

Is this statement typical of mainstream Republican thought?

The opposition to affirmative action, busing of school children etc. seems fairly mainstream among Republicans. The wording of this opposition seem targeted to pleasse white Southern racists. Southern racism is typical of some Republican factions but not others. I wouldn't call it "mainstream".

The other thing to consider is WHY some Republicans oppose busing of school children and WHY some Republicans oppose many forms of Affirmative Action. The reasons are almost never racism but based on far more practical (and more humane) principles that are antithesis to a socialist society. And to automatically equate the Confederate flag with racism is to deny freedom of expression and deny the turth that the interpretation that many place on that flag has absolutely nothing to do with racism. And to automatically assume anybody who uses a racial slur is evil is to discount many many people who assimilate politically incorrect language into their vocabulary usually due to cultural influences but whom have absolutely no racist propensitives whatsoever.

Prejudice and bigotry is too often found in the arena of those who presume to judge others based on nothing more than pre-determined politically correct principles.

This is blatantly obvious in the political arena when one side can't 'get' the other on the issues so they go after them with poltiics of personal destruction. It is hideous and unconscionable, but many quite decent and honorable people are taken down by that indefensible tactic.

Foxy, read the quote from Allen's little group.

You don't oppose race-mixing, do you Foxy?