2006 Predictions

[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) 

[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).   
   

[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.