Alright, time for a little prediction. Elections are less than 4 weeks away. The Foley scandal doesn't seem to have as much of a punch as I think we all were thinking it might have had a few weeks ago. There was a short decline but it doesn't seem to have much momentum. Come Nov 6, I don't think it will have any momentum, and Hastert will remain Speaker of the House.

Rasmussen currently shows 4 Senate seats are toss-ups. He has 48-48-4. But he also  has Lieberman flagged as a Democrat which is not accurate politlcal party wise. He's now an Indepdent. And I think Joe's indepdent status is going to keep Democrats from having full control of the Senate.

I do think Talent will barely win MO. I'm not sure about the other 3 toss-ups that Rasmussen has. George Allen and James Webb are in a statistical tie. The momentum is for Webb, but I think much of the momentum was due to missteps by Allen which I think he has finally moved past. I do think Allen will squeak by just a few thousand votes. Harold Ford in TN will win. And I have no idea about NJ.

I think the Senate is going to be divided right down the middle - 49-49-2.

The House is a different ballgame.  Novak has the GOP losing 20 seats as of today . I think once again though, The House is going to be pretty much split in the middle. I haven't decided if it will be a skin of your teeth DEmocrat takeover or yet, but it's going to be VERY close.

Democrats will at least take 10 seats.

GOP will lose 4 governorships (that number is a complete guess since I haven't watched any polls regarding that).

Why is GOP losing? Once the exit polling and everything else is done, we'll find out that Conservatives stayed home -- not because of some ground swell of anti-Bush voters.  Tehre's too many Conservatives wanting to teach the GOP a lesson about how far off they have gotten.

Jordan .

Why is GOP losing? Once the exit polling and everything else is done, we'll find out that Conservatives stayed home -- not because of some ground swell of anti-Bush voters. 

Nope, it'll be because some of us are giving birth, and the husband has to stay at the hospital with the wife.

Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

Here in California I'm guessing Arnold wins a second term!  Tee hee.  That was tough.  Phil (WHO???) Angelides has a pitiful commercial running which has replaced his commercial showing Arnold and Bush standing together during the 2004 election.  This new one has a college bulletin board from the 1970s and there in the middle is a big photo of Nixon with the words "Dump Nixon" written underneath. Then we have a shot of Angelides with his college Democrats group etc.  The implications of the two commercials have been if you don't like Bush and you didn't like Nixon, you'll like Phil Angelides.  But even here in Blue Cal-ee-fornia, Arnold is expected to win with a double digit lead. 

Our multi-term Democratic senator, Diane Feinstein, probably has a Repubiican running against her but I swear, I don't know who it is.  I'll vote for her again.  I've always liked Diane. 

The fantasy that Republicans are disgusted by the Mark Foley scandal and will stay home on election day seems to me a premise the media is hoping to spread but has no real life meaning.  I doubt any Republicans outside of Foley's home turf are going to sit it out in their home states.  

Other than that, I don't have any predictions.  Oh, other than this one:  If the Republicans should manage to hang on to either the Senate or the House, or be still my heart --  BOTH --  there will be cries of fixed elections, faulty voting machines, disenfranchisement and racism.  That is a certainty. 

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Brace yourself for aftershocks, Danwhy!  And slather yourself with sunscreen. 

Let's hope your prognostication gland is in fine working order!   

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I'm guessing there will be more disputed results than usual.

oh yeah. This election is going to the be worst so far when it comes to recounts, cries of disenfrachisement, etc. It's a very tight election and if, if, the tide turns back to the GOP a week before and the polls don't show (which is what happened in 04), then expect a lot of gnashing of teeth and cries of voter fraud.

should be as fun as a barrel of monkeys.

Small aside - this is great news. Proof that far-left wing blogs like Kos aren't as powerful as they think LOL!!!

Jordan .

I'm already upset about the disenfranchisement roadblocks I KNOW will be in place when I head out to my neighbor's garage to TRY to exercise my freedom of choice. Sure, they call them 'dumpsters' but THEY can't fool me. Fool me once...

Susan

PS  Go JOE!!!  I can feel the Joe-mentum building, Jordan! 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Geez, just when I was preparing myself for the Upcoming Democrat Gloat-a-polooza, I read THIS . Could it be yet another Republican victory? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh, Barrons must be another shill for the Republicans. Anyway, we'll know two weeks from Tuesday barring any recounts due to pesky hanging chads or butterfly ballots.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

My friend Dick Morris has this to say about the election coming up (if Morris is right - then I might be wrong with my guesses, and the wailing of another stolen election could be deafening this time around)

http://www.vote.com/magazine/columns/dickmorris/column60420992.phtml 

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

October 24, 2006 -- The latest polls show something very strange and quite encouraging is happening: The Republican base seems to be coming back home. This trend, only vaguely and dimly emerging from a variety of polls, suggests that a trend may be afoot that would deny the Democrats control of the House and the Senate.

With two weeks to go, anything can happen, but it is beginning to look poss- ible that the Democratic surge in the midterm elections may fall short of control in either House.

Here's the evidence:

* Pollsters Scott Rasmussen and John Zogby both show Republican Bob Corker gaining on Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee, a must-win Senate seat for the Democrats. Zogby has Corker ahead by seven, while Rasmussen still shows a Ford edge of two points.

* Zogby reports a "turnaround" in New Jersey's Senate race with the GOP candidate Tom Kean taking the lead, a conclusion shared by some other public polls.

* Even though Sen. Jim Talent in Missouri is still under the magic 50 percent threshold for an incumbent, Rasmussen has him one point ahead and Zogby puts him three up. But unless he crests 50 percent, he'll probably still lose.

* Even though he is a lost cause, both Rasmussen and Zogby show Montana's Republican Sen. Conrad Burns cutting the gap and moving up.

* In Virginia, Republican embattled incumbent Sen. George Allen has now moved over the 50 percent threshold in his internal polls. (He'd been at 48 percent.)

Nationally, Zogby reports that the generic Democratic edge is down to four points, having been as high as nine two weeks ago.

None of these data indicates that the Republicans are out of trouble yet, but Democrats must win one of these three races: Ford in Tennessee, Menendez in New Jersey or Webb in Virginia. If not, they'll fall at least one seat short of controlling the Senate even if they succeed in knocking off all five vulnerable GOP incumbents in Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Missouri.

Why are Republican fortunes brightening?

The GOP base, alienated by the Foley scandal and the generally dismal record of this Congress, may have fast forwarded to the prospect of a Democratic victory and recoiled. They may have pondered the impact of a repeal of the Patriot Act, a ban on NSA wiretapping and a requirement of having an attorney present in terrorist questioning - and decided not to punish the country for the sins of the Republican leaders.

Bush's success in dealing with North Korea and his willingness to reassess tactics in Iraq could also play a part in the slight shift now underway.

Then, too, some in the Democratic Party must be finally realizing what a disastrous decision it was to put Howard Dean in as party chairman. The Democratic National Committee is broke and borrowing, while the GOP can afford to fund fully its key races.

Right now, we would have to say that control of Congress has gone from "lean Democrat" to a "toss-up." And that's progress for the Republicans.

Eileen McGann co-authored this column.

Jordan .

2006 seems poised to be a blowout year.  Despite 12 years of unfavorable redistricting, look for Democrats to cruise to control of the House with an easy pickup of at least twenty-some seats.  Democrats should be able to pick up maybe five State Houses too.

The Senate could be interesting though.  With the breakdown now 55-44-1, and the staggered-term system of the Senate, Karl Rove might be able to pull something off with a final 72-hour get-out-the-vote blitz.

Some still consider Senate races in Minnesota, Michigan and Washington to be competitive.  They aren't.  Look for Democrats to hold these three seats.

Republicans are likely to lose seats in Ohio, Montana and Pennsylvania.  They'll lose Rhode Island too, although no one will notice.  I'm guessing George Allen holds on in Virginia and Corker edges out Ford in Tennessee.

Missouri is the most interesting race of the night.  I'm calling it for McCaskill, but don't bet against Jordan's home-field forecasting advantage here.

Polls have Kean Jr. ahead in New Jersey as voters continue to think that he's former governor Kean Sr.  Still, Menendez probably would have taken this easily a few days ago.  This week's gay marriage ruling helps Republicans, and the Hispanic surname probably doesn't help Menendez, but Democrats are better organized in the state and should hold on here.

Democrats technically lose Connecticut, as Lieberman returns to the Senate as an Independent.

That leaves 50R, 48D, and 2I. 

Oh, and call it even money that the Republicans manage to get Lieberman to switch parties after the election.

I'm not changing my prediction but I've been carefully watching polls lately looking for trends. There seems to be a small, very small shift toward the GOP in some areas. I'm not sure if it's enough though.

Here's why Talent will win - Amendment 2 in MO will bring Conservatives into the polling place to ensure that the amendment doesn't pass. If every state had something like Amendment 2 on the ballot, the Senate and House wouldn't be changing.

Ya'll might remember that Rasmussen (the pollster I watch mostly) was pretty accurate in previous elections. Here's his SENATE BALANCE OF POWER.

in the VA race - even though Webb's work is fictional, I think it might make a few important swing votes change their minds. I predict that Allen will be widening his lead this next week (if it hasn't done so yet).

I think B has something about Lieberman. It really depends on what the final rundown is. If it's tied, I'm sure there will be lots of pressure on Lieberman to change his party affiliation.

Jordan .

I haven't been following the Virginia senate race closely at all but after the hoopla over the quotes from James Webb's novels, I took a peek.  James Webb was once in the Reagan administration -- Secretary of Navy.  I also am aware that a lot of the leftie Democrats do not like or trust his Republican past. 

For me, whatever he wrote as part of a novel has absolutely no bearing on the man insomuch as I don't think he should be looked at with suspicion for a passage on a Thai man who puts his 4 year old son's penis in his mouth. Seriously.  What does that have to do with the price of beans?  If Allen is responsible for making the fictional passages a campaign issue this week, I'd say that is truly lame.

I went back to Webb's own articles written from 1997 on and found him thoughtful and better still, consistent.  Were I voting in Virginia, I'd be leaning Webb-ish.

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

RE Webb: Here's what will stick in the mind of voters: "he wrote about a man putting his son's penis in his mouth."

The fact that it is fictional is secondary. The fact that it's "normal" in some places around the world is also secondary. The blog I read (rightwingnews.com) had this info on his site weeks before it hit mainstream, plus lots other quotes from his books - including a scene of a woman cutting up a banana with her privates.

Now here's an interesting article about the Tom DeLay district. The GOP candidate has to be a write-in, and the latest Zogby shows a statistical tie in this district -- let me rephrase - a tie between a Democratic candidate on a ballot versus a GOP who has to be written in. It was believed that DeLay's seat would go Blue, but it's very possible the GOP may retain the seat.

I do feel the winds changing and I'm a tad more optimistic for the GOP than I was a week or two ago. It's going to be close but I think the GOP may keep the Senate by a seat (the worst that will happen is the tie) and may keep the House by a few seats.

Jordan .

I don't know, Jordan. Maybe that's what people who AREN'T voting in Virginia will remember but I find it really hard to believe that voters who have been following the two candidates will suddenly shift course because of a line from a novel.

Point in fact. Jordan knows I have a small group of people I communicate with several times a week by email. They are a group of 18 like-minded hold-overs from Court TV Post Board who 'met' during the OJ trial. One of them is an ex-Marine, his son is a Marine (served two tours of duty in Iraq) and a serious Republican. Very conservative. He loves Webb, said he was well aware of the cultural ...uh... 'man's mouth meets boy's penis' thingie from his own time spent in Indochina. Another is a lawyer from Berkeley who did the 60s thing expected of a law student from UC Berkeley but eventually became a conservative Republican. Another is a CPA from Florida. But all of them are big fans of Jim Webb and would vote for him over Allen were any of them in Virginia. If Webb loses I think it will be from a shortage of Democrats who don't trust him.

Read his own website with his articles and speeches before any of this came up and you will find a man who has experienced a full breadth of life's events. Should he have self-censored his novels at a time when he had no future plans to run for office in order to be non-salacious? The guy is a best selling author not some self-published hack.

As far as the banana thing, having lived near the Mexican border for most of my life, I can't tell you how many guys have told me similar stories of girl tricks performed in Tijuana 'nightclubs' south of the border. Really, Jordan, this cannot be shocking and I think those trying to make it so is where I'd attach my doubts.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in the bizarre candidacy of the multi-talented Jim Webb, check out this article from the Weekly Standard , not a Democratic website.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

"I find it really hard to believe that voters who have been following the two candidates will suddenly shift course because of a line from a novel"

True, but in my first post I said "swing voters" so there won't be any shifting courses. I'm referring to those who go into the voting booth having not followed closely, but remember something about Webb writing a novel about a father doing something naughty to his son. For anyone in the "know" it doesn't change. I'm just referring to the swing, non-political types who end up voting with little info.  

BTW - After Ford's idiotic comment about Democrats loving God more than Republicans do, Corker is a shoe-in for TN Senator. Ford just offended half of the state with that comment. More importantly, he offended politically middle of the road Christians.

Jordan .

I've read some of the backlash with Ford but hadn't heard what he said about Dems, Reps and God-love. Hilarious! It really gets amusing in the final days, doesn't it? I read one leftie woman who said she was in tears over Ford having said "my God is bigger than your God" and didn't know what in the world she was talking about. She said she was now having trouble deciding if she could possibly vote for him as much as she wanted a Democrat.

All the talk about the "racist" ad with the Playboy reference and the white babe saying, "Psst, call me,Harold!" seems truly silly. Dem strategists claiming it was clearly racism playing to the worst elements of Tennessee's racialist white supremecist types. I wonder if she had been a hot black babe if it would have been equally racist inferring that a black Senatorial candidate who's a bachelor should ONLY date women of his own race.

Ah, well, only a few more days.

My ballot is marked with the exception of the mother-lovin' judges -- who knows who these people are anyway??? -- and a couple of propositions. I know I'm against clean air, clean water, trees, and stuff. I know I'm for big oil, evil tobacco companies and for forcing pregnant underage girls to have parental notification for their abortions even if their parents are abusive drug-addled child molesters so those few are already figured out. I always vote against more $$$$ for schools (with the one exception of the community college) and they almost always win.  Oddly, school bonds are almost always on every single forthcoming ballot too. Then there are fire fighter propositions and various sundry others. Can't stand the California citizen sponsored propositions and wish the people would let the legislators do their job and legislate rather than the people whose propositions are often later turned over by the California Supreme Court anyway.

End of mini-rant.  May the rigged voting machines work their magic and may the Republic remain so!

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

From George Friedman at Stratfor:

The Election and Investigatory Powers of Congress

By George Friedman

There is now only a week to go before midterm congressional elections in the United States. The legislative outcome is already fairly clear. President George W. Bush lost the ability to drive legislation through Congress when he had to back away from his Social Security proposals. That situation will continue: The president will not be able to generate legislation without building coalitions. On the other hand, Congress will not be able to override his vetoes. That means that, regardless of whether the Democrats take the House of Representatives (as appears likely) or the Senate (which appears less likely but still possible), the basic architecture of the American legislative process will remain intact. Democrats will not gain much power to legislate; Republicans will not lose much.

If the Democrats take control of the House from the Republicans, the most important change will not be that Nancy Pelosi becomes House Speaker, but that the leadership of House committees will shift -- and even more significant, that there will be upheaval of committee staffs. Republicans will shift to minority staff positions -- and have to let go of a lot of staffers -- while the Democrats will get to hire a lot of new ones. These staffers serve two functions. The first is preparing legislation, the second is managing investigations. Given the likelihood of political gridlock, there will be precious little opportunity for legislation to be signed into law during the next two years -- but there likely will be ample opportunity and motivation for congressional investigations.

Should the Democrats use this power to their advantage, there will be long-term implications for both the next presidential election and foreign policy options in the interim.

One of the most important things that the Republicans achieved, with their control of both the House and Senate, was to establish control over the type and scope of investigations that were permitted. Now, even if control of only the House should change hands, the Democrats will be making those decisions. And, where the GOP's goal was to shut down congressional investigations, the Democrat Party's goal will be to open them up and use them to shape the political landscape ahead of the 2008 presidential election.

It is important to define what we mean by "investigation." On the surface, congressional investigations are opportunities for staffers from the majority party to wield subpoena power in efforts to embarrass their bosses' opponents. The investigations also provide opportunities for members of Congress and senators to make extensive speeches that witnesses have to sit and listen to when they are called to testify -- a very weird process, if you have ever seen it. Congressional investigations are not about coming to the truth of a matter in order for the laws of the republic to be improved for the common good. They are designed to extract political benefit and put opponents in the wrong. (Republicans and Democrats alike use the congressional investigative function to that end, so neither has the right to be indignant.)

For years, however, Democrats have been in no position to unilaterally call hearings and turn their staffs and subpoena powers loose on a topic -- which means they have been precluded from controlling the news cycle. The media focus intensely on major congressional hearings. For television networks, they provide vivid moments of confrontation; and the reams of testimony, leaked or official, give the print media an enormous opportunity to look for embarrassing moments that appear to reveal something newsworthy. In the course of these hearings, there might even be opportunities for witnesses to fall into acts of perjury -- or truth-telling -- that can lead to indictments and trials.

To reverse their position, the Democrats need not capture both the House and Senate next week. In fact, from the party's standpoint, that might not even be desirable. The Senate and House historically have gotten in each other's way in the hearing process. Moreover, there are a lot of Democratic senators considering a run for the presidency, but not many members of Congress with those ambitions. Senators who get caught up in congressional hearings can wind up being embarrassed themselves -- and with the competing goals of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and some of the other candidates, things could wind up a mess. But if the House alone goes to Democrats, Pelosi would be positioned to orchestrate a series of hearings from multiple committees and effectively control the news cycles. Within three months of the new House being sworn in, the political landscape could be dominated by hearings -- each week bringing new images of witnesses being skewered or news of embarrassing files being released. Against this backdrop, a new generation of Democratic congressmen would be making their debuts on the news networks, both while sitting on panels, and on the news channels afterward.

Politically, this would have two implications. First, the ability of the White House to control and direct public attention would decline dramatically. Not only would the White House not be able to shut down unwanted debate, but it would lack the ability even to take part in setting the agenda. Each week's subject would be chosen by the House Democratic leadership. Second, there will be a presidential election in two years that the Democrats want to win. Therefore, they would use congressional hearings to shape public opinion along the lines their party wants. The goal would be not only to embarrass the administration, but also to showcase Democratic strengths.

The Senate can decide to hold its own hearings, of course, and likely would if left in Republican hands. The problem is that, at the end of the day, the most interesting investigations would involve the Bush administration and corporations that can be linked to it. A GOP-controlled Senate could call useful hearings, but they would be overwhelmed by the Democratic fireworks. They just would not matter as much.

So let's consider, from a foreign policy standpoint, what would be likely matters for investigation:

• What did the Bush administration really know about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Did Bush dismiss advice from the CIA on Iraq?
  
• Did the administration ignore warnings about al Qaeda attacks prior to 9/11?

These, of course, would be the mothers of all investigations. Everything would be dragged out and pored over. The fact that there have been bipartisan examinations by the 9/11 commission would not matter: The new hearings would be framed as an inquiry into whether the 9/11 commission's recommendations were implemented -- and that would open the door to re-examine all the other issues.

Following close on these would be investigations into:

• Whether the Department of Homeland Security is effective.
  
• Whether the new structure of the intelligence community works.
  
• Whether Halliburton received contracts unfairly -- a line of inquiry that could touch Vice President Dick Cheney.
  
• Whether private contractors like Blackwater are doing appropriate jobs in Iraq.
  
• Whether the Geneva Conventions should apply in cases of terrorist detentions.
  
• Whether China is violating international trade agreement.

And so on. Every scab would be opened -- as is the right of Congress, the tendency of the nation in unpopular wars, and likely an inevitable consequence of these midterm elections.

We can expect the charges raised at these hearings to be serious, and to come from two groups. The first will be Democratic critics of the administration. These will be unimportant: Such critics, along with people like former White House security adviser Richard Clarke, already have said everything they have to say. But the second group will include another class -- former members of the administration, the military and the CIA who have, since the invasion of Iraq, broken with the administration. They have occasionally raised their voices -- as, for instance, in Bob Woodward's recent book -- but the new congressional hearings would provide a platform for systematic criticism of the administration. And many of these critics seem bruised and bitter enough to avail themselves of it.

This intersects with internal Republican politics. At this point, the Republicans are divided into two camps. There are those who align with the Bush position: that the war in Iraq made sense and that, despite mistakes, it has been prosecuted fairly well on the whole. And there are those, coalesced around Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Warner, who argue that, though the rationale for the war very well might have made sense, its prosecution by Donald Rumsfeld has led to disaster. The lines might be evenly drawn, but for the strong suspicion that Sen. John McCain is in the latter camp.

McCain clearly intends to run for president and, though he publicly shows support for Bush, there is every evidence that McCain has never forgiven him for the treatment he received in the primaries of 2000. McCain is not going to attack the president, nor does he really oppose the war in Iraq, but he has shown signs that he feels that the war has not been well prosecuted. This view, shared publicly by recently retired military commanders who served in Iraq, holds out Rumsfeld as the villain. It is not something that McCain is going to lead the charge on, but in taking down Rumsfeld, McCain would be positioned to say that he supported the war and the president -- but not his secretary of defense, who was responsible for overseeing the prosecution of the war.

From McCain's point of view, little would be more perfect than an investigation into the war by a Democrat-controlled House during which former military and Defense Department officials pounded the daylights out of Rumsfeld. This would put whole-hearted Republican supporters of the president in a tough position and give McCain -- who, as a senator, would not have to participate in the hearings -- space to defend Bush's decision but not his tactics. The hearings also would allow him to challenge Democratic front-runners (Clinton and Obama) on their credentials for waging a war. They could be maneuvered into either going too far and taking a pure anti-war stance, or into trying to craft a defense policy at which McCain could strike. To put it another way, aggressively investigating an issue like the war could wind up blowing up in the Democrats' faces, but that is so distant and subtle a possibility that we won't worry about it happening -- nor will they.

What does seem certain, however, is this: The American interest in foreign policy is about to take an investigatory turn, as in the waning days of the Vietnam War. Various congressional hearings, like those of the Church Committee, so riveted the United States in the 1970s and so tied down the policymaking bureaucracy that crafting foreign policy became almost impossible.

George W. Bush is a lame duck in the worst sense of the term. Not only are there no more elections he can influence, but he is heading into his last two years in office with terrible poll ratings. And he is likely to lose control of the House of Representatives -- a loss that will generate endless hearings and investigations on foreign policy, placing Bush and his staff on the defensive for two years. Making foreign policy in this environment will be impossible.

Following the elections, five or six months will elapse before the House Democrats get organized and have staff in place. After that, the avalanche will fall in on Bush, and 2008 presidential politics will converge with congressional investigations to overwhelm his ability to manage foreign policy. That means the president has less than half a year to get his house in order if he hopes to control the situation, or at least to manage his response.

Meanwhile, the international window of opportunity for U.S. enemies will open wider and wider.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

oh the fun begins!!

Drudge has a headline on his site right now: SMARTCARDS GO MISSING IN TENNESSEE; CONTROLS ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES.

Get ready for something big to drop today too - Friday before the election. Two years ago it was a Bin Laden tape. Six years ago it was the news that Bush had a DUI (broke by Carl Cameron of FoxNews). 

Jordan .

i said above that the Senate would be tied.

Take a look at Rasmussen's Senate Balance of Power . He now has Corker up by 8 against Harold Ford - this happened in just a few days. I think the GOP "Call me, Harold" ad had some impact, but most of all, Ford's ridiculous, "Democrats love God and Republicans don't" comment did him in in a conservative and religious state like TN.

Accordign to Rasmussen, it is coming down to Virginia and Missouri.

In MO, Talent and McCaskill are statistically tied. This race has always been close. MO is also dealing with Amendment 2 which is a stem-cell cloning Constitutioanl amendment making embryonic stem cell research through cloning of the embroys legal. Whichever way this amendment goes in the end, will also be who wins the election in MO, I think. If Amendment 2 wins, Talent loses, and vice-versa. I still feel pretty comfortable to say Talent will eek by.

VA is a different issue. The latest Rasmussen has Webb up by 2 and up by 5 when you add the leaners (which doesn't count in an off-year election). I do think Webb is going to eek right by. As I said in another post, Webb is technically a Republican in Democratic clothing. He separates from the GOP with the war and that's pretty much it. However, with the Senate so close, the Democrat and Republican leaders will not allow their party break ranks when it comes to voting so it'll be interesting how this comes out in reality.

The House is hard to tell because every Seat is up for grabs. Here's afew interesting guesses: DeLay's old seat will be retained by the GOP through a write-in vote. Foley's FL seat will also stay with the GOP. That's about all I can figure with the House. I'm thinking 10-14 seats will be taken by Democrats which puts them just shy of taking the House. And if they do take the House, it will only be by a seat or two.

In the end, this election is not the tidal wave the Democrats (and the media) were hoping it would be. This is not a 1994 repeat/upset. As a result, expect plenty of screaming about stolen elections.....again......

One last prediction - in some of these close elections, we will not know the winner for at least a week.

And here's some "professional" predictions from conservative Weekly Standard - almost all show Dems taking the House and there is split with regards to the Senate. 

Jordan .

So if the house goes Dem , the senate stays slightly Rep. The worst part is the hearings the Dems will probably initiate.  But won't there be that cherished gridlock situation ? 

A real knock on the Reps is the amount of pork and spending that has gone on over the years. That pork maneuvering seems to ingrain itself over time. That has been their big problem-what happened to smaller government?

I'm afraid of Dems choking off business with restrictions and general and specific taxes-like on gas for example.

I don't think the Dems can confront terrorism , IMO

Erwin I sent you 1 or 2 PMs

"That pork maneuvering seems to ingrain itself over time. That has been their big problem-what happened to smaller government?"

Adding pork is all about staying in power - at least it is unless you're a conservative or libertarian. True liberals (not libertarians) and moderates ultimately embrace pork. The more pork politicians can get, the more chance they have when it comes to staying in power because they've delivered the goods to their voters.

The problem is that with fiscal conservatives and libertarians, the last thing we want is more pork. And that is one aspect that the GOP screwed up on the past few years, and are now paying the price.

Moderates, Democrats and liberals embrace pork-barrelling pretty much. Libs do because that helps push the notion that govt is needed to live and survive. Most moderates (not all) do because they want to get stuff from govt because they feel like they deserve it. And Democrats (and Republicans) do it because that is how you stay in power.  The difference with Dems though is that their base are those individuals who embrace pork with few problems so Dems must provide that pork, whereas the GOP is now getting eaten, chewed up and spat out for taking the Democratic path.

Jordan .

we fix the problem by letting the GOP take a large hit. The GOP losing the House/Senate because of low GOP voter turnout I hope will make teh GOP wake up. If the GOP voters didn't stay home, then they might be able to win; so staying home, proves a st rong point.

The problem of course is the dangers of allowing Democrats to have power of either House in Congress because of where it leads in a variety of things - including taxes, spending (which granted hasn't been that great), foreign policy, and Iraq. Not to mention the numerous investigations about how Bush lied about everything from WMDs to whether or not the sky is blue. Luckily it's only 2 years of that instead of 6.  

Jordan .