2006 Predictions

[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.