2006 Predictions

[Sam Spade]

This is my roughly one-year from election day prediction:

Senate
Right now, I'm going to only predict Pennsylvania flipping, as Santorum loses even after making great strides in the summer and fall by a 52%-48% margin, making it 54-45-1. 

On the Democrat side (incumbent):
- Nelson (NE) will not get more than 55%, but unless he's stupid in the Alito thing (which he won't be), his competition is not strong enough.
- Nelson (FL) would be potentially in danger if his competition weren't Katherine Harris.  Harris will pull 46%-47%, but that's a pretty solid limit.

There are a few others I could put here, probably not, since most of the open seats are Dem seats.

On the Republican side:
- Santorum (PA), I made my points above.
- Chafee (RI) will survive and by more than people think, 55%-45%.  If the Democrats had gotten a top-tier candidate, it would have been possible, however.
- DeWine (OH) is not going to lose with his current competition.  Brown is too liberal.  Hackett will not do nearly as well in a full-year campaign.
- Talent (MO) will be close and this race will be close throughout, as pretty much all Missouri races are, but will win with 51%-53% of the vote.  Incumbency in the Senate helps, plus Talent is above 50% in popularity. 
- Burns (MT) will not be as close as some think.  Over 55%.

Open seats:

- Minnesota.  This is the big enchilada among open seats.  Right now, I'm placing it with the Democrat, because I think there will be a Democratic tilt to 2006.  If I think this Democratic tilt becomes less, and I see some polls proving that rationale, you could easily see a switch.
- New Jersey.  The wild card.  Kean is a good candidate, it just all depends as to who he's running against.  I'm not projecting it a switch right now, but my opinion on this one could change also.
- Maryland.  The Republican's Tennessee.  Steele is a good candidate and can reach 45% in a open race, but barring someone other than Cardin winning the nomination, the chances of him getting over 45%, much less 50% is pretty low.
- Tennessee.  The Democrat's Maryland.  Ford is a good candidate for Western Tennessee, but can he make any move in the all-important, GOP-leaning Middle Tennessee.  My bet is no, unless the Republican candidates self-destruct in the primaries.  He can get 45%, but above that will be hard otherwise.  Other candidates (ie from Middle Tennessee) would have a better shot.
- Vermont.  Richard Tarrant's going to spend a lot of money, but I doubt this one's close.

And I think that's it.
House
I'll also predict the Democrats to gain roughly 8 seats in the House, Republicans will gain 1 seat.  This is a fairly large change considering current House gerrymandering.

This will make the House 225 Republican, 209 Democrat, 1 Independent.
Right now, things are not looking up for the Republicans, obviously.  I don't believe, with the current gerrymandering in place, that the Democrats could take back the House even now unless, if the Ohio and California referendums pass, both of which will benefit Democrats.  Or if things get worse for the Republicans in the upcoming year.

Depending on how this and other factors change in the next year, my predictions will change accordingly.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Senate
Reps.--52
Dems.--47 (pick up PA; and 2 of the following states--OH, MO, RI, MT)
Ind.--1
House
Reps.--221
Dems.--213
Ind.--1

but we'll have to make final predictions later on!

[Blank Slate]

I feel it's just a bit too early for me to start predicting, I have to wait on five things over this fall and into the winter to start making any safe predictions.

The five things would have to be:

1.  The results on November 8, 2005.  If the Democrats hold the New Jersey and Virginia Governorship and perhaps if Kaine/Warner popularity in the latter of those two states can either pull in Byrne for Lt. Governor or Deeds for Attorney General (I actually now think the former of those are more a slight possibility) then expect that this will be a hopeful sign for the Democrats in '06. If New Jersey and Virginia Governorship both stay Democrat, and both Byrne and Deeds go down in defeat than it might not be as hopeful for the Democrats.  Also if Kaine and one of the other statewide Democrats do win on the 8th, that will lend creedence to Warner being a hopeful Democratic alternative for many against Hillary and Warner being cast in that mode will rightly make Republicans very nervous.

2.   If the White House leak scandal continues to grow or fester.   This will help the Democrats (even if Alito gets confirmed by a lopsided margin; Alito's positive confirmation will be drowned out by the scandal for this administration). 

3.   If home heating oil prices go through the roof, than it will also mean a rise in gas prices at the pump, yet again, and also will cause the stock market to swoon and prices for other commodoties also rise.  The Consumer Confidence level will also take a nose dive -- especially if this effects either Christmas shopping near the end of the season or if it effects what people buy in the New Year.  This will be bad news for Republicans -- all over.

4.   The War in Iraq getting nastier.  And especially if one of Iraq's neighbors (hopefully not Iran) gets dragged into the mess (ala Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War).
 
5.  Also historically the six year midterm is the most damaging (it's not called the six-year itch for nothing), as far as how many gains there are for the opposition party for the party in control of the White House, and I myself don't see the Bush administration particularly bucking this historic trend as the Clinton administration did in 1998.
 
Again the only thing I think might help Republican candidates if all five of these things happen the way they might, then would be a terrorist attack (but the timing of the terrorist attack and it's extent would be a factor as well; because I think '06 is not going to be a kind year altogether economically for this administration).

That being written I'll give my early reading on the possibility for the U.S. Senate races (I'm withholding the House predictions for now), and this could easily be revised and this isn't a final by any means:

52 R
47 D
  1 i

+3 D

I actually think if it is a huge Democratic day next November 7th, the Democrats will keep all the seats they are defending including the more vulnerable in another year:  FL, NE, MI  (all three by healthier margins than pundits and the GOP will think or want),  MN (by a maybe closer margin, although this is the state that most gives me concern for the Democrats, at this point, the Democrats need to get their act together here), & MD (despite Steele, R., I'm convinced that Democrats will hold this seat).

Other seats that might be in play before election day and could push up the Democratic gains by 7 seats (to give the Democrats control of the Senate, although not fillibuster proof of:  51 D 48 R 1 i)  would have to be the following four with Republicans incumbents that are possibly vulnerable:

1.  Montana (although the 4 Democrats running in the primary might be hurting their chances, and a liberal Kelleher running against Burns in the GOP primary will help him)
2.  Nevada (If Jack Carter, D. can catch on with enough voters and catch a Democratic wave than it is possible that he could defeat John Ensign if it's a particularly horrible year for the Republicans)
3.  Tennessee (I think that Ford, Jr., D. has a lot of potential, and is the most likely of the Democrats to push my prediction up to at least:  51 R 48 D 1 i, for a 4 seat gain for the Democrats, but Ford will have to hope the Republicans implode, which is very possible, but probable I'm not so sure, at least at this point in time)     
4.  Virginia  (If like I said happens on November 8, 2005, than I suspect that actor Ben Affleck, D. will run against incumbent George Allen, R. {and effectively crush Allen's presidential bid in '08} and make this at least a much closer race if not a win for Democrat Affleck -- of course I'm happy that Affleck is no longer involved with JLo)

As for other potentially close races (for a possible 10 seat or more pickup by the Democrats -- but I don't see this as of now), I'd look to:

1.  Maine (if Snowe, R. gets caught up in a particularly bad year for the Republicans)
2.  Mississippi (if Lott, R. decides to retire)
Rhode Island (as with Snowe, R.; if Chafee, R. gets caught up in a particularly bad year for Republicans)
3.  Texas (if Hutchison, R. gets caught up in either the scandal or if it is a particularly bad year to be a Republican)
 
The only seat I see as a potential pickup for the Republicans at this point is the New Jersey seat, but only if Kean, Jr. is strong enough {which quite possible -- this prediction would drop to:  53 R  46 D 1 i} in a Democratic leaning state.     

Here are the three seats that I believe the Democrats will pickup, I'm going to say with being certain (of course barring the various scenarios I wrote about up above -- this is why I'm not ready to give any final predictions -- I have to wait until at least the spring of '06 to do that): 

1.  Missouri:  I really believe that Claire McCaskill, D. will oust Jim Talent, R. in this swing state.

2.   Ohio:   Either Paul Hackett, D. or Sherrod Brown, D. is going to keep Mike DeWine, R. from getting another term, especially with DeWine's now vocal support of not letting the Democrats have the fillibuster for the Alito nomination.

3.   Pennsylvania:   I have to think Bob Casey, D. is the most likely possibility to keep Rick Santorum, R. (probably the weakest Republican incumbent running in next year's elections, and this includes for both the Senate, House and Governorships)  from another term (although Chuck Pennacchio might have an outside chance at being the one to keep Santorum from that next term) 

[MissCatholic]

I am really worried about the senate races. The governors i have stated on a previous thread that we will have a great night and win in AR, CA, MN, MD, CO, OH and NY and just lose IA.

For the senate i dont see us winning in Missouri. It will vote exactly the same as it did in 2004 around 52-47.

Tim Ryan really should have run for the good of the party but we will lose in Ohio 50-48.

Montana is full of corruption and if Morrison gets picked then he will lose 54-44. But Tester could get a lot closer as he is from rural Montana and not influenced by liberal missoula politics. But Tester would still lose 51-47.

Rhode Island is really pissing me off. Chafee cleverly votes with the dems on really controversial issues but then just rubber stamps bush on everything else and will win.

Santorum will lose in PA despite all the money.

Minnesota will be an absolute blood bath both at the governor and the seante and the dems will win both.

[Sam Spade]

I feel it's just a bit too early for me to start predicting, I have to wait on five things over this fall and into the winter to start making any safe predictions.

The five things would have to be:

1.  The results on November 8, 2005.  If the Democrats hold the New Jersey and Virginia Governorship and perhaps if Kaine/Warner popularity in the latter of those two states can either pull in Byrne for Lt. Governor or Deeds for Attorney General (I actually now think the former of those are more a slight possibility) then expect that this will be a hopeful sign for the Democrats in '06. If New Jersey and Virginia Governorship both stay Democrat, and both Byrne and Deeds go down in defeat than it might not be as hopeful for the Democrats.  Also if Kaine and one of the other statewide Democrats do win on the 8th, that will lend creedence to Warner being a hopeful Democratic alternative for many against Hillary and Warner being cast in that mode will rightly make Republicans very nervous.

2.   If the White House leak scandal continues to grow or fester.   This will help the Democrats (even if Alito gets confirmed by a lopsided margin; Alito's positive confirmation will be drowned out by the scandal for this administration). 

3.   If home heating oil prices go through the roof, than it will also mean a rise in gas prices at the pump, yet again, and also will cause the stock market to swoon and prices for other commodoties also rise.  The Consumer Confidence level will also take a nose dive -- especially if this effects either Christmas shopping near the end of the season or if it effects what people buy in the New Year.  This will be bad news for Republicans -- all over.

4.   The War in Iraq getting nastier.  And especially if one of Iraq's neighbors (hopefully not Iran) gets dragged into the mess (ala Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War).
 
5.  Also historically the six year midterm is the most damaging (it's not called the six-year itch for nothing), as far as how many gains there are for the opposition party for the party in control of the White House, and I myself don't see the Bush administration particularly bucking this historic trend as the Clinton administration did in 1998.
 
Again the only thing I think might help Republican candidates if all five of these things happen the way they might, then would be a terrorist attack (but the timing of the terrorist attack and it's extent would be a factor as well; because I think '06 is not going to be a kind year altogether economically for this administration).

That being written I'll give my early reading on the possibility for the U.S. Senate races (I'm withholding the House predictions for now), and this could easily be revised and this isn't a final by any means:

52 R
47 D
  1 i

+3 D

I actually think if it is a huge Democratic day next November 7th, the Democrats will keep all the seats they are defending including the more vulnerable in another year:  FL, NE, MI  (all three by healthier margins than pundits and the GOP will think or want),  MN (by a maybe closer margin, although this is the state that most gives me concern for the Democrats, at this point, the Democrats need to get their act together here), & MD (despite Steele, R., I'm convinced that Democrats will hold this seat).

Other seats that might be in play before election day and could push up the Democratic gains by 7 seats (to give the Democrats control of the Senate, although not fillibuster proof of:  51 D 48 R 1 i)  would have to be the following four with Republicans incumbents that are possibly vulnerable:

1.  Montana (although the 4 Democrats running in the primary might be hurting their chances, and a liberal Kelleher running against Burns in the GOP primary will help him)
2.  Nevada (If Jack Carter, D. can catch on with enough voters and catch a Democratic wave than it is possible that he could defeat John Ensign if it's a particularly horrible year for the Republicans)
3.  Tennessee (I think that Ford, Jr., D. has a lot of potential, and is the most likely of the Democrats to push my prediction up to at least:  51 R 48 D 1 i, for a 4 seat gain for the Democrats, but Ford will have to hope the Republicans implode, which is very possible, but probable I'm not so sure, at least at this point in time)     
4.  Virginia  (If like I said happens on November 8, 2005, than I suspect that actor Ben Affleck, D. will run against incumbent George Allen, R. {and effectively crush Allen's presidential bid in '08} and make this at least a much closer race if not a win for Democrat Affleck -- of course I'm happy that Affleck is no longer involved with JLo)

As for other potentially close races (for a possible 10 seat or more pickup by the Democrats -- but I don't see this as of now), I'd look to:

1.  Maine (if Snowe, R. gets caught up in a particularly bad year for the Republicans)
2.  Mississippi (if Lott, R. decides to retire)
Rhode Island (as with Snowe, R.; if Chafee, R. gets caught up in a particularly bad year for Republicans)
3.  Texas (if Hutchison, R. gets caught up in either the scandal or if it is a particularly bad year to be a Republican)
 
The only seat I see as a potential pickup for the Republicans at this point is the New Jersey seat, but only if Kean, Jr. is strong enough {which quite possible -- this prediction would drop to:  53 R  46 D 1 i} in a Democratic leaning state.     

Here are the three seats that I believe the Democrats will pickup, I'm going to say with being certain (of course barring the various scenarios I wrote about up above -- this is why I'm not ready to give any final predictions -- I have to wait until at least the spring of '06 to do that): 

1.  Missouri:  I really believe that Claire McCaskill, D. will oust Jim Talent, R. in this swing state.

2.   Ohio:   Either Paul Hackett, D. or Sherrod Brown, D. is going to keep Mike DeWine, R. from getting another term, especially with DeWine's now vocal support of not letting the Democrats have the fillibuster for the Alito nomination.

3.   Pennsylvania:   I have to think Bob Casey, D. is the most likely possibility to keep Rick Santorum, R. (probably the weakest Republican incumbent running in next year's elections, and this includes for both the Senate, House and Governorships)  from another term (although Chuck Pennacchio might have an outside chance at being the one to keep Santorum from that next term) 

The results in New Jersey and Virginia this upcoming Tuesday chances will say nothing about the potential electability of Warner or Allen for that matter.  Don't read anything into it with regards to that.

As to your ultra-happy Democratic hedge bets, Ensign will not lose in Nevada.  He and Harry Reid are buddies now and have been for a while.  Ensign will pull around where Harry Reid did last year - 60%.  In a catastrophic Republican year, maybe 55%. 

In Maine, the Republicans will only lose if Snowe retires.  Look at her approval ratings.  No chance.

And Texas, well that's just plain funny.  Unless Hutchinson gets caught in bed with a dead black boy, she won't lose and perhaps not even then.

[Blank Slate]

The results in New Jersey and Virginia this upcoming Tuesday chances will say nothing about the potential electability of Warner or Allen for that matter.  Don't read anything into it with regards to that.

As to your ultra-happy Democratic hedge bets, Ensign will not lose in Nevada.  He and Harry Reid are buddies now and have been for a while.  Ensign will pull around where Harry Reid did last year - 60%.  In a catastrophic Republican year, maybe 55%. 

In Maine, the Republicans will only lose if Snowe retires.  Look at her approval ratings.  No chance.

And Texas, well that's just plain funny.  Unless Hutchinson gets caught in bed with a dead black boy, she won't lose and perhaps not even then.

I never said my predictions were going to happen.  Read it more clearly.  None of this is final predictions.

But that being written, who amongst us mere mortals (are you one?), can really say what will happen?  After all these 2006 elections are nearly more than a year away (from November 5, 2005).   

Certainly in the past no one could have at all have predicted in 1965 that 1966 was going to be a dismal year for Democrats.   Certainly in the past no one could have predicted in 1993 that 1994 was going to be also a dismal year for Democrats.   Or no one could have at all been able to predict back at the end of 2000 that the Republicans would have been able to take advantage of terrorist attack on the U.S. in September 2001 to continue to make gains all the way into 2004.

And on the other foot, certainly in 1989 I doubt that anyone could have predicted, necessarily that Bush I was going to go against his no new taxes pledge and give the Democrats gains in 1990 (although let me give you a clue, back in November 1989, the wins by Democrats in Virginia's Governor and Lt. Governor races and the wins in the New Jersey Governor's races did start to have some effect on the outcome in the 1990 midterms -- I clearly remember that, because I participated in the process that brought that about).  Or no one predicted that in 1991, with Bush I being so high in the polls with the first Gulf War that Bush I would go in the skids and freefall in 1992 and allow the Governor of Arkansas, a Democrat a win in the election.  Or let's go further back, certainly in late 1985, I don't believe many people were predicting how well the Democrats were going to take back the Senate in the 1986 mid-terms.  Okay, 1973 is a bit different (because of Watergate), but I certainly don't believe that no one in 1972 would have been predicting the gigantic gains the Democrats made in 1974.  And if I go farther and farther back in time I'm sure that I could come up with more examples of pundits not able to make predictions a year or two before an election very accurately.

Even right now, I'm certain that just a few weeks ago no one could have forseen that Kaine was going to make Virginia very competitive the last weekend before the election or for that matter in New Jersey, Forrester would do the same.   And I certainly don't believe anyone knew back when Bush II was celebrating his so-called "victory" of a re-election in November 2004 (or even more currently in January 2005) that there would be as many problems as he has had during this summer and early fall to cause his poll numbers to go as far down as they have.   Did you, as mere mortal think those two things would happen?  (I would venture to say, that if you can predict these things you are very much close to GOD or if you did say that and could do the same, then you are probably VERY ARROGANT -- of course I know some GOP members who think they are close to GOD, but then again I have tendency to laugh in their faces).

More or less what I'm trying to say is the same old adage for 2006 applies for elections throughout history (at least more than a year away from that election), and I've heard this time and time, again:

Events can make fools even out of the best of people who can predict elections.   Or have you never heard that saying?

(Again as a mere mortal, I have no ability to predict elections this early in their cycle and neither should you or anyone else on this forum or any other place -- at least without some admitting that what you are predicting is definitely not DEFINITE and definitely not ACCURATE.   And again if you read better what I wrote you would read that that is what I wrote).   I would never  ever predict elections this far in advance of them, as I wrote I will not being make any DEFINITE or ACCURATE predictions any earlier than probably the spring of '06 and then at best probably not until either very late in May or very early in June of '06, and even then I will write that I reserve the right and respect to go back and say that I'm wrong about those predictions  -- and certainly reserve the right to revise them all the way up until the day before the election.  Of course, you know, I could always attack others on this forum about their predictions this early in the elections cycle of '06, and I would respect their right to defend themselves, but then again I usually won't, because it is a waste my time to attack others (especially since I'm admitting what seems to be a mistake by soooo many others in this day in age, but I will go ahead and make this HUMAN mistake and admit this about myself:  "I'm a mere mortal human.")  So why do I need to be attacked because of my thoughts about possible (BUT DEFINITELY NOT ACCURATE) predictions?  (Oh, boy it must show me being mere mortal, unlike most Texans -- oh, yeah that's right I'm only from Georgia -- well, actually originally I was from Florida -- but I quibble on that).   
   

[Sam Spade]

The results in New Jersey and Virginia this upcoming Tuesday chances will say nothing about the potential electability of Warner or Allen for that matter.  Don't read anything into it with regards to that.

As to your ultra-happy Democratic hedge bets, Ensign will not lose in Nevada.  He and Harry Reid are buddies now and have been for a while.  Ensign will pull around where Harry Reid did last year - 60%.  In a catastrophic Republican year, maybe 55%. 

In Maine, the Republicans will only lose if Snowe retires.  Look at her approval ratings.  No chance.

And Texas, well that's just plain funny.  Unless Hutchinson gets caught in bed with a dead black boy, she won't lose and perhaps not even then.

I never said my predictions were going to happen.  Read it more clearly.  None of this is final predictions.

But that being written, who amongst us mere mortals (are you one?), can really say what will happen?  After all these 2006 elections are nearly more than a year away (from November 5, 2005).   

Certainly in the past no one could have at all have predicted in 1965 that 1966 was going to be a dismal year for Democrats.   Certainly in the past no one could have predicted in 1993 that 1994 was going to be also a dismal year for Democrats.   Or no one could have at all been able to predict back at the end of 2000 that the Republicans would have been able to take advantage of terrorist attack on the U.S. in September 2001 to continue to make gains all the way into 2004.

And on the other foot, certainly in 1989 I doubt that anyone could have predicted, necessarily that Bush I was going to go against his no new taxes pledge and give the Democrats gains in 1990 (although let me give you a clue, back in November 1989, the wins by Democrats in Virginia's Governor and Lt. Governor races and the wins in the New Jersey Governor's races did start to have some effect on the outcome in the 1990 midterms -- I clearly remember that, because I participated in the process that brought that about).  Or no one predicted that in 1991, with Bush I being so high in the polls with the first Gulf War that Bush I would go in the skids and freefall in 1992 and allow the Governor of Arkansas, a Democrat a win in the election.  Or let's go further back, certainly in late 1985, I don't believe many people were predicting how well the Democrats were going to take back the Senate in the 1986 mid-terms.  Okay, 1973 is a bit different (because of Watergate), but I certainly don't believe that no one in 1972 would have been predicting the gigantic gains the Democrats made in 1974.  And if I go farther and farther back in time I'm sure that I could come up with more examples of pundits not able to make predictions a year or two before an election very accurately.

Even right now, I'm certain that just a few weeks ago no one could have forseen that Kaine was going to make Virginia very competitive the last weekend before the election or for that matter in New Jersey, Forrester would do the same.   And I certainly don't believe anyone knew back when Bush II was celebrating his so-called "victory" of a re-election in November 2004 (or even more currently in January 2005) that there would be as many problems as he has had during this summer and early fall to cause his poll numbers to go as far down as they have.   Did you, as mere mortal think those two things would happen?  (I would venture to say, that if you can predict these things you are very much close to GOD or if you did say that and could do the same, then you are probably VERY ARROGANT -- of course I know some GOP members who think they are close to GOD, but then again I have tendency to laugh in their faces).

More or less what I'm trying to say is the same old adage for 2006 applies for elections throughout history (at least more than a year away from that election), and I've heard this time and time, again:

Events can make fools even out of the best of people who can predict elections.   Or have you never heard that saying?

(Again as a mere mortal, I have no ability to predict elections this early in their cycle and neither should you or anyone else on this forum or any other place -- at least without some admitting that what you are predicting is definitely not DEFINITE and definitely not ACCURATE.   And again if you read better what I wrote you would read that that is what I wrote).   I would never  ever predict elections this far in advance of them, as I wrote I will not being make any DEFINITE or ACCURATE predictions any earlier than probably the spring of '06 and then at best probably not until either very late in May or very early in June of '06, and even then I will write that I reserve the right and respect to go back and say that I'm wrong about those predictions  -- and certainly reserve the right to revise them all the way up until the day before the election.  Of course, you know, I could always attack others on this forum about their predictions this early in the elections cycle of '06, and I would respect their right to defend themselves, but then again I usually won't, because it is a waste my time to attack others (especially since I'm admitting what seems to be a mistake by soooo many others in this day in age, but I will go ahead and make this HUMAN mistake and admit this about myself:  "I'm a mere mortal human.")  So why do I need to be attacked because of my thoughts about possible (BUT DEFINITELY NOT ACCURATE) predictions?  (Oh, boy it must show me being mere mortal, unlike most Texans -- oh, yeah that's right I'm only from Georgia -- well, actually originally I was from Florida -- but I quibble on that).   
   

Whoa.  I wasn't expecting this much comment.  I'll respond to it with more acumen in my thoughts in the morning.

Let me say one thing though.  I am not being presumptuous in any shape, way, or form as to what will happen in 2006.  My present prediction won't probably be worth a hill of beans come a year from now.

I only know my historical trends and what can happen in worst/best-case scenarios and what factors come together to cause those things to happen. 

As most of those I have posted with for a while here know, I really just posit my best guesses and opinions on the facts we have available.

I will respond to one other thing right now.  I never said any of the reasonable predictions you posted were/weren't going to happen.  I was just questioning the viability of radically excellent Democratic ones, even under the best possible circumstances. 

Having lived through the downfall and present disaster that is the Texas Democratic Party, I felt like letting you know that if Bush's approval was down to 10% and the Democrats gain 10 seats in the Senate (which will not happen, btw, even under a 1994-type election or worse), Hutchinson will not lose that seat.  That's all.  (as I wait for Democrats to nominate the loser Chris Bell to run as governor) 

[Ben.]

Even right now, I'm certain that just a few weeks ago no one could have forseen that Kaine was going to make Virginia very competitive the last weekend before the election...

Hate to remind people but…

The latest poll seems to suggest that the contest is still very close, and to me at least it'll come down to independents more than any other group to decide this, and I think Kaine seems to be clawing his way out of his long time rut in the polls, I always maintained that as the campaign heated up Kaine might get his second wind.   

..and then way back in July…

As the campaign heats up however and Kaine (no doubt with the strong support of Warner) is perceived as another moderate democrat in the mould of the popular Warner his numbers should creep back up especially amongst the conservative rural voters who backed Warner last time round.

In the end I think that the nearer we get to the time immediately leading up to the election the better Kaine’s polling will look, that said you have to assume that he will continue to fight a solid campaign and continue to raise enough cash*… so I think the result will be close and Kilgore is polling better at the moment thanks to his party identification, this IMHO will change as the election nears and the “Warner Republicans” (like the sound of that) begin to make their minds up about Kaine.

* = Is there such a thing in elections as “enough cash”?       

…as for 2006, gerrymandering by both sides (it really should be illegal if you ask me) means that there won’t be much movement in the House but despite this Democrats could still gain anything from 5-10 seats, impressive considering the circumstances.

In the Senate there will be more competitive races than the GOP hoped for, Casey should be able to knock off Santorum, he’s a good candidate and the only credible one the PA Dems could really have come up with. The Democrats should be able to defend most of their seats though close contests in MD, MN and perhaps NJ are likely though both will probably go to the Dems in the end… in Ohio (assuming Hackett is the candidate) and Missouri close contests are in prospect and if it is indeed a bad night for the GOP one or both may be Dem pickups.

Then you have to go into more “long shot” territory, MT, TN and MS (should Lott retire and Moore run)… if it is indeed a bad night for the GOP then that may take Ford over the top in TN (but it’ll have to be a very bad night… conceivable but unlikely), if Lott’s out in MS and Moore runs in an off year election which leans to the Dems nationally, then he’ll win, but Lott IMO will probably stick it out and he’ll win by a crushing margin mean Moore won't run and may well be left to contemplate a gubernatorial run in 2007.           

[Ben.]

And Texas, well that's just plain funny.  Unless Hutchinson gets caught in bed with a dead black boy, she won't lose and perhaps not even then.

What ever happened to the Texas Democratic Party anyway?

And will/would a growing Hispanic population and serious financial backing do any good?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Might as well have a go:

Senate

If the political climate this time next year is like it is right now, the Democrats shouldn't (in theory) lose any more Senate seats. But then again the GOP lost Arkansas in 2002 and I don't think you can rule out upsets... and if the Democrats suffer in upset loss methinks it would be in New Jersey. The DFL's organisation is working again in Minnesota and Kennedy is nowt more than an average candidate (in a 50/50 year he'd have a real chance though) and the Democrats really shouldn't be losing anything in Maryland in a year that they do well in nationally... unless that nutter wins the primary. Florida should be an extremely vunerable seat, good Dem year or not, but the state's Republicans appear to have decided to commit a little bit of political hari kari this time round.
The most vunerable GOP incumbent seems to be Santorum; unless the political climate flips on it's head or Casey is hit by a big scandel he's probably toast.
Not so with the other possible Democratic pickups; while both Ohio and Missouri seem targetable, neither comes even close to being an easy gain, although in all probabilty one of the two will fall. Mississippi would probably be very close if Lott retires (the state is very competative away from national level and both parties have a couple of solid candidates. Could be a good race, that).
After that, we hit the longshots (MT, TN, RI (now if Langevin had run...) and all that) and, unless this is 1974 all over again, the Democrats will be very lucky to gain more than one and pretty lucky to get just that.

In conclusion... the Democrats are going to be stuck as minority party in the Senate unless they get freakishly lucky.

House

Now this... this is much more interesting and I'll probably spend more time following this than the various Senate races. I'll just be brief here though; the idea that no party can make serious gains in the House due to gerrymandering is a myth. Republicans like it because it makes them feel secure, Democrats like it because they can use it as a scapegoat for their failure to make any progress over the past few years. The idea that there are only 30 competative districts is also a myth (see above). And even if these myths were true, it has to be remembered that the Republican majority in the House remains pretty slim. The fact that it's been like this for a decade neatly sums up how American politics has been over this past decade; one party has been able to win just about every national election going by small margins more due to the failures of their opponants than anything else. The House has always tended to reflect the national mood better than Senate (the fact that it has all-up elections every two years is one reason, but not the only one) and if the Democrats have a good year in 2006 they will take the House.
But a bad year for the Republicans (as looks pretty certain) is not the same thing as a good year for the Democrats. If the GOP loses a lot (relatively speaking) of seats next year, they will have had a bad year. But politics is about power and power in the House is all about being in the majority; and in a two-party system you cannot claim to have had a good election unless you end it being in power.

[Sam Spade]

And Texas, well that's just plain funny.  Unless Hutchinson gets caught in bed with a dead black boy, she won't lose and perhaps not even then.

What ever happened to the Texas Democratic Party anyway?

And will/would a growing Hispanic population and serious financial backing do any good?

Well, Hutchinson is pretty much untouchable,  Heck, me, Texasgurl and probably jimrtex have voted for Hutchinson before, so she certainly has support from a lot of different wings of the political spectrum and her numbers in Texas agree with that.  She typically shows about 60%-70% approval.

Now, as for the rest of the Democratic party in Texas, your points would be accurate had not a couple of things happened in the 1990s.

The Hispanic population is the great equalizer, supposedly.  The problem is that the Republicans in Texas are probably the most astute Republican party nationwide in its dealings with the Hispanic bloc.  They understand what Al understands.  They are decently liberal economically, especially towards education, while being conservative socially.

The Republicans understand this as well, and while being in control of matters, have spent gobs of money on education, while staying conservative socially and on most other matters.  They have consistently drawn 40+% of the Hispanic vote in Texas since 1998 and there's a saying in Texas that if a Republican gets 35% of the Hispanic vote in Texas, he can't lose.  In addition, the Hispanic population there has been moving towards identifying more as Independents now than ever before.  The Hispanic bloc in Texas used to be one of the most Democratic in the nation, now it is the least Democratic.

Which brings me to the second problem in the Texas Democratic Party.  They have simply moved too far to the left, especially in social matters, which is not where Texas stands.  They have tried to appease the liberals in Austin and in the centers of Houston and Dallas, while pushing their percentage in the other 2/3rd and 3/4ths of the voting population of the state (suburbs and rural areas) down to 30% or below of the total vote.

They also have lost considerable financial backing, and do not have the candidates to run in races.  I would say the Democrats do not run candidates in 20% of Texas races, especially in North Texas, where the second strongest party is the Libertarians right now.

And all of this is why the Governor's race next year is going to be between Rick Perry and Carole Keaton Rylander in the Republican primary.  Mark my words.

[WMS]

And Texas, well that's just plain funny.  Unless Hutchinson gets caught in bed with a dead black boy, she won't lose and perhaps not even then.

What ever happened to the Texas Democratic Party anyway?

And will/would a growing Hispanic population and serious financial backing do any good?

Well, Hutchinson is pretty much untouchable,  Heck, me, Texasgurl and probably jimrtex have voted for Hutchinson before, so she certainly has support from a lot of different wings of the political spectrum and her numbers in Texas agree with that.  She typically shows about 60%-70% approval.

Now, as for the rest of the Democratic party in Texas, your points would be accurate had not a couple of things happened in the 1990s.

The Hispanic population is the great equalizer, supposedly.  The problem is that the Republicans in Texas are probably the most astute Republican party nationwide in its dealings with the Hispanic bloc.  They understand what Al understands.  They are decently liberal economically, especially towards education, while being conservative socially.

The Republicans understand this as well, and while being in control of matters, have spent gobs of money on education, while staying conservative socially and on most other matters.  They have consistently drawn 40+% of the Hispanic vote in Texas since 1998 and there's a saying in Texas that if a Republican gets 35% of the Hispanic vote in Texas, he can't lose.  In addition, the Hispanic population there has been moving towards identifying more as Independents now than ever before.  The Hispanic bloc in Texas used to be one of the most Democratic in the nation, now it is the least Democratic.

Which brings me to the second problem in the Texas Democratic Party.  They have simply moved too far to the left, especially in social matters, which is not where Texas stands.  They have tried to appease the liberals in Austin and in the centers of Houston and Dallas, while pushing their percentage in the other 2/3rd and 3/4ths of the voting population of the state (suburbs and rural areas) down to 30% or below of the total vote.

They also have lost considerable financial backing, and do not have the candidates to run in races.  I would say the Democrats do not run candidates in 20% of Texas races, especially in North Texas, where the second strongest party is the Libertarians right now.

And all of this is why the Governor's race next year is going to be between Rick Perry and Carole Keaton Rylander in the Republican primary.  Mark my words.

Parts of this analysis apply to the national Democratic party as well, I'd say. Especially the bits about Hispanics - they're not liberals, damnit - and the shift to the left of the Texas Democratic Party torpedoing their numbers outside of urban cores.

[Blank Slate]

I hate eating crow, especially before any actual voting takes place, but my 2006 predictions might not be too far off the mark:

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll is listing this bit of business that hasn't been seen since shortly before the 1994 elections (remember that one against the Democrats and for the Republicans, kiddies?)  This latest poll has the following results for individual thought out there in the U.S. about individual members of Congress:

Re-elect  My Incumbent                   37%
Vote for Someone New                   51%

And this nearly, if I recall, mirrors the results for Bush's popularity numbers, doesn't it?

So, I may not be too far off the mark about this upcoming mid-term elections ending up not being too disimiliar too a routing election for the party not in control of the White House (that would be the Democrats, this time) such as was found in 1994,  1974, 1966, 1958, 1946, etc.  (and again as like I and other analyst like to call:  "Six-year itch" elections, 1986 & 1938 & 1926, as I recall were also one, but on a smaller scale).    Again the only six year midterm that that didn't happen (where the party in control of the White House actually picked up seats), was the mid-term of 1998.

I think it's time either people reaccess both their ridicule of my possible predictions, or their own predictions.  Or perhaps wait like I will until late in the spring of 2006 to post predictions.

[TomC]

Senate +3 dems
House +8 dems