• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Odds of Dems taking House/Senate?

The odds are strongly against the Dems taking over either chamber, although they may make small gains.

In the Senate, there are only ten competitive races, 5 currently held by R's, 4 currently held by D's, and one I.

For the Dems to take control of the Senate, they have to GAIN six seats, so that's looking mathematically improbable.

For the house, the vast majority of members are safe, and there are only roughly 30 contested seats, with a 2:1 split being held by Reps, placing them in a vulnerable position. Assuming the dems win half, that results in a 5 seat gain, still giving the Reps a 226-207 majority in the house. Dems would need a FIFTEEN seat gain to win the house back, which isnt looking probable.
 
galenrox said:
Considering that by and large only 30% of the country is really a dedicated republican, and only 30% of the country is a dedicated democrat, 40% of the nation is swing voters, and the republicans have had a better grasp on this 40% for a while due to innovative politics. They found little issues that no one's ever gonna do **** about, and made them seem like the most important issues of the day (gay marriage, abortion), they convinced many people that an extremely decorated war veteran was a traitor, and that Bush had legitimate military experience that not only was equal to Kerry's tours of 'nam, but actually trumped them.
This is the old way of thinking...The moderates are not the target...the base is...

Let's say you have a town with 200 voters...100 Democrats...50 Republicans...50 in the middle...

The Democratic Party believes that because the town is 2:1 partywise, the victory seems conclusive...But here comes the Rove Factor...

You whip up the base to MAKE SURE that the people that want to vote your way are actually going to go out and vote...That's a helluva lot better than getting out your message and HOPING the "Middlers" will see things your way...Most likely, it'll end up split nomatter what one says...

The Republicans have been much better at this then the Democrats...In this case, the ones in the middle split...But the number of Republicans that come out to vote is 100%...50 votes...

The Democrats, which haven't done as good a job of "whipping up the base", only gets 49% of their party to actually come out to vote...

Guess what happens?...:2wave:
 
If I was American Iw ould vote for...no-one.

I mean I feel sorry for you guys, Republican or Democrats - only two options and two poor options as well. I don't blame the Americans that don't vote, whats the point - two parties that are as corrupt as each other. :roll:

Anyhow I expect the Democrats to come roaring back, but its not because of the "outstanding" Democrat charisma, but because the Republicans shot themselves in the foot. Bush promised to being "diginity" to the white house, so much fo that.
 
scottyz said:
I think the Dems would have a pretty good chance if they had the balls to stand up to the Bush admin. more often.

Stand up and do what? They stand up all the time. They stand up and scream and holler and make assertions and call names. They have plenty of balls, they have to to make the phoney claims they make with a straight face.
But that don't win elections.

Half the time they wont even defend themselves attack.

Well it's not them that are under constant attack, what they can't defend against are the policies and initiative the Republicans present so they only have name calling and baseless assertions.

Counting on the scandals

There are no more scandals in the Republican than with the Democrats. I've ask over and over of Democrats who they think will be the next Congressperson to go to jail and I get no answer because it's one of their own.

and the fact Bush is doing a bad job to guarantee

And the Dems are doing worse so who will that win them elections.

They're going to have to push hard and act like they actually want the jobs. Basically they need to act the exact opposite of John Kerry.

It's not a matter of whether they want the job, we all know they want the job they want it desperatly. But until they can say what they will do once they get it they aren't going to convince enought people to let them have it.

They said last fall that they were trying to think up what they stood for and would let everyone know in January. WEll?
 
Che said:
The Dems should have a picnic considering that more and more people aren't satisfied with Bush and the fact that he isn't doing anything about SS and Healthcare.

Excuse me! Bush IS doing or trying to do something about both and the Dems are doing nothing but obstruct.

What are the Democrat plans? Give me a reason to vote Democrat concerning both issues and do so without using the word Republican in the sentence.

Also the GOP controls all three branches so some people might be frightened.

No more or less than when Democrats held all three, why was that OK?

Also there are the scandals that the GOP is involved with.

And there are scandals the Dems are involved in. Who was the last Senator to pay a heft fine for illegal activities? Who do you think will be the next and will probably go to jail?


The thing is though, the Dems aren't capitalizing on any of this. They seem to be sitting back and hoping that the GOP continues to do crappy.

Give me a reason to vote FOR Democrats and not AGAINST Republicans.
 
GarzaUK said:
Bush promised to being "diginity" to the white house, so much fo that.

And where has he not been diginfied especially vis-a-vis the Democrats?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
I vote Democrat quite often,


Conflict said:
I never have.

I have and still consider state and local Democrats, the only national that holds any appeal to me right now is probably Leiberman.


I disagree. THe moderate democrats have slow played the issue and pretty much outwitted the congregation.

What few moderate Democrats there are are overshadowed by the mainstream Democrats who are doing nothing more that going around and trying to put forth the "vote for us because the Republicans are crooks" message.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Another non-starter but if they want to run on the platform that they will not engage in foriegn survielence, have at it.


There are greater things in life than politics.

OK your point being, and since at this moment in time we are discussing poklitics.


Originally Posted by Stinger
Ahhh it's the Dems and the left that want to control speech, and they lose on that one too.

I've seen no substance in regard to this conjecture.

It's Democrats who want to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and control speech on the radio. It's liberal Democrats who put in speech codes on college campuses. It's liberals who want to make thoughts criminal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
but bottom line is there are not enough races they can win to take over either house, at least not at this point.


I believe that you are wrong. Only time will tell.

That's what the the pollsters and commentators are saying when they look at the numbers. Not enough seats that are threatened either way to make any big swings.
 
galenrox said:
lol, I see you've breeched the 6,000 post levee!
If I didn't have to combat Liberal lies and deceit, I'd still be around 100...cheesy smile...:2wave:

galenrox said:
yeah, but you've also gotta keep in mind that it's gonna take some ridiculously good politiking for the republicans to get out of this unscathed.
RightatNYU's earlier excerise on the seats up for grabs indicates otherwise...

galenrox said:
They made it through 2002 and 2004 off of magnificent talking points, but they don't have them anymore. You've gotta admit, you watch Fox News now and hear the republican strategists coming on and, in the face of Abramoff saying he met the president a dozen times despite Bush's claim of not remembering ever meeting him (which is possible, although considering him being close friends with Rove unlikely), Libby fingering Cheney, and Brown coming out swinging (although all of the merit of these stories is debatable, so was the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, but you can't argue against the effect of the headlines), all you hear in response is "But the Democrats don't do anything."
You're indicating something that is new to the way of media/politics...These will always come out until we get an Administration in this country that doesn't have its wrinkles...We've never had one yet, but in today's world, it gets pushed to the forefront..

I think more people should understand what I've written in the above link...

galenrox said:
What makes me nervous is the Bush administration has been uncharacteristically weak in the politics department since last Spring. This makes me believe they've been preparing something, and the democrats honestly don't know a ****ing thing about politiking, and if Rove's got something up his sleeve you know they'll fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
It's already been made public that Bush intentionally chose not to be aggressive after the elections to calm this country down from it's bickering...Unfortunately, this led to the Democrats gaining an upperhand in the media due to GWB's passive reactions...This led to the low poll percentages...He countered starting with his Veterans' Day speech...And "Yes"...it was very late...

galenrox said:
You're right about the base thing, taking for assumed that you admit it's not as simple as that. If the republicans play to their base and the democrats play to their base, the republicans win, because people are then left having to pick between a religious fanatic and a socialist (in overly simplistic terms, obviously), and more people are closer to being a religious fanatic than a socialist.
Yes, I know I went to extremes, but the point was made...

galenrox said:
That being said, most of that other 40% are closer to being a socialist than a corrupt religious fanatic, and that's something that needs to be remembered.
Disingenuous remark...Let me rephrase without the perceived attack...

"That being said, most of that other 40% are closer to being people of faith than a socialist, and that's something that needs to be remembered."

Most are NOT closer to "corrupt religious fanatics"...

Most ARE closer to "people of faith"...

Big difference...

galenrox said:
And don't forget that Nixon had brilliant political thinkers behind him to, he won 49 states in the election before he resigned.
Yup...
 
I think at the very least Dems will make significant gains in both The House and The Senate, it's too early to tell if they can gain the majority in either.
Momentum is certainly on their side. A lot of it has to do with the release of the new party platform in March and the GOP's continued implosion.

Another big factor will be the forthcoming SCOTUS ruling on Delay's redistricting trial in Texas.

Interestingly, it actually would actually help the chances of winning the presidency in 08 to not have won back Congress in 06. I think the public in general sees the danger of one party rule and no checks and balances.
 
Last edited:
galenrox said:
lol, spending 23 hours a day here didn't hurt either!:2wave:
What's that rule about Mod abuse?..;)

galenrox said:
That's a fair point, but according to this
http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_senate_race_06.htm
there are 7 republican held seats that might go democrat.
It's not likely, but it won't take democrats taking the senate for the republicans to escape unscathed.
Remember Bush's speach about political capital?
No mention of any Democratic seats that might go Republican?...Only like to portray one side of the issue, eh?...:roll:

galenrox said:
That's a decent point, and I understand it.
But whether or not it's completely fair doesn't change the fact that it's there, and, based on what we're seeing, the Bush administration doesn't have anymore tricks up their sleeves. I would be elated if that were true, but I'm suspicious. Karl Rove from 1999-2004 was by far the most innovative political strategist that has come about in my lifetime, and I have difficulty believing that he doesn't have anything up his sleeve.
I have no idea either...I'm not a stratagist...but I play one on TV....

galenrox said:
Oh yeah, THAT was it, not Cindy Sheehan, Hurricane Katrina, Valorie Plame, no, it was Bush was too nice of a guy.

And you know full well that you'd call me out if I said something like that about a democrat.
BS...Pure BS...I wouldn't "call you out"...I would ask for sources though...Want mine?...How about the President himself?...

interview on Dec. 14 said:
HUME: It was an evident decision after the election to try to be above the political fray. You came under a grueling attack on the use of pre-war intelligence, on the Iraq policy itself. And the response that — the administration was remarkably passive for a long time. Why was that?

BUSH: I just came off an election, and we're trying to elevate the debate and put politics behind and see if that couldn't happen. It didn't happen. But I've always felt like one of my jobs is to try to change the tone in Washington, D.C., to bring people together for the common good. To the best of my ability, it was just that dragging the presidency in the name-calling and the finger-pointing and the blaming — but no, you're right.

And we took a blasting and have begun recently to make the case in a more forceful way to the American people, first of all rejecting this notion that, you know, we lied about intelligence, reminding people that some of those people making those accusations looked at the same intelligence I looked at and voted for use of force in Iraq.

I restate my comment...

cnredd said:
It's already been made public that Bush intentionally chose not to be aggressive after the elections to calm this country down from it's bickering...Unfortunately, this led to the Democrats gaining an upperhand in the media due to GWB's passive reactions...This led to the low poll percentages...He countered starting with his Veterans' Day speech...And "Yes"...it was very late...

galenrox said:
Dude, as much as you dislike it, and as oversimplified as it is, to a large degree republicans are judged by other republicans, just as democrats are judged by other democrats. Just as some republicans might be corrupt, most democrats weren't as spineless as Kerry, yet they were considered guilty by association.
And they're reaction?...

Silence...

galenrox said:
Politics is as much a battle as policy and ideology as it is one of public perception, and right now a lot of people are starting to perceive republicans as being corrupt. It's an oversimplification (only MOST republicans are corrupt, and it's also ignoring that most democrats are corrupt too), but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So you admit that it's more about the perception than the reality...Which means the media decides on how the politicians are portrayed...:shrug:

galenrox said:
My guess is the democrats gain 3-4 seats in the senate in 2006, 8-12 seats in the house.
I don't have any guesses...
 
FinnMacCool said:
Very good. . .

Why?

Delay, Abramoff, etc. People are sick of Republican scandals. It's going to take a lot of scare tactics to get people to vote Republican again.

So far scare tactics are all the Democrats have and it isn't helping them/

From Prof. Larry Sabato's outlook

Current breakdown: 231 Republicans, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent, 1 vacancy
Current "Dirty Thirty" Outlook: 12 Toss-ups, 12 Lean Republican, 6 Lean Democratic

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2006/house/
 
hipsterdufus said:
A lot of it has to do with the release of the new party platform in March.

Wait, the dems are going to get a platform? :lol: Wow, that's kind of radical for them, isn't it?
 
hipsterdufus said:
I think at the very least Dems will make significant gains in both The House and The Senate, it's too early to tell if they can gain the majority in either.
Momentum is certainly on their side. A lot of it has to do with the release of the new party platform in March and the GOP's continued implosion.

Another big factor will be the forthcoming SCOTUS ruling on Delay's redistricting trial in Texas.

Interestingly, it actually would actually help the chances of winning the presidency in 08 to not have won back Congress in 06. I think the public in general sees the danger of one party rule and no checks and balances.

One big problem in your reasoning:

Momentum?

It's February. Once it hits August, then we can start talking momentum. Until then, we've got 6 months where the only thing that happens to affect peoples views is minor news stories and ADVERTISING. Guess who's got more money to advertise?
 
Stinger said:
So far scare tactics are all the Democrats have and it isn't helping them/

From Prof. Larry Sabato's outlook

Current breakdown: 231 Republicans, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent, 1 vacancy
Current "Dirty Thirty" Outlook: 12 Toss-ups, 12 Lean Republican, 6 Lean Democratic

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2006/house/

Be careful, looking at it with that info makes it seems as if the reps have an advantage. It would help to know that of the "dirty 30", 21 are currently reps, compared to 9 dems.

That means that what is currently

21 reps
0 tossup
9 dems

is looking

12 reps
12 tossup
6 dems

That a loss of 9 for reps, 3 for dems. If it splits even, we've got a 3 seat swing. Not much.
 
The dems have very little chance in taking back the House or the Senate.The main reason is Americans think the dems are weak on the war on terrorism.............They don't think it should be handled in a kind and sensitive way or should be treated as a police action.........They have their differences with this president but they trust him much more then they would any dem on this issue.............

In the Senate 1 Republicans seat is in danger..That is Senator Santorum in Pa.

There arwe 2 democrats in danger of losing their seats in the Senate...Robert KKK Byrd is way behind in the polls in West Va. and Senator Ben Nelson in Nebraska is in deep kimchee in Nebraska becasue one of the most popular men in the state Ex Cornhusker Coach Congressman Tom Osborne wants that seat........Senator Nelson is one dem that I like but I am afraid he is on his way out......
 
KCConservative said:
Wait, the dems are going to get a platform? :lol: Wow, that's kind of radical for them, isn't it?

Not really, the platform comes out every two years: take a look if your curious.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=active&q=Democratic+Platform+2004

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=active&q=Democratic+Platform+2002

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=active&q=Democratic+Platform+2000

Here was Dean giving a preview today on Face The Nation

DEAN: I can tell you what our agenda is for the '06 elections which we've agreed with Senator Reid and Leader Pelosi and others. One, we want honesty and openness back in government again. Two, we want a strong national defense, first of all, based on telling the truth to our citizens and our soldiers before we send troops abroad to defend America. Three, we want American jobs that will stay in America using energy independence as a new industry to create millions of construction and manufacturing jobs. Four, we want a health care system that works with everybody just like 36 other countries have in the world. And five, we want a strong public education system so we can have optimism and opportunity back in America. I think that's a pretty good agenda and that's one that could win it for us in '06.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/02/dean_on_face_th_1.php
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
The dems have very little chance in taking back the House or the Senate.The main reason is Americans think the dems are weak on the war on terrorism.............They don't think it should be handled in a kind and sensitive way or should be treated as a police action.........They have their differences with this president but they trust him much more then they would any dem on this issue.............

In the Senate 1 Republicans seat is in danger..That is Senator Santorum in Pa.

There arwe 2 democrats in danger of losing their seats in the Senate...Robert KKK Byrd is way behind in the polls in West Va. and Senator Ben Nelson in Nebraska is in deep kimchee in Nebraska becasue one of the most popular men in the state Ex Cornhusker Coach Congressman Tom Osborne wants that seat........Senator Nelson is one dem that I like but I am afraid he is on his way out......

Ousting Man on Dog Santorum is a top priority for the Dems, especially since a pro life Dem, Casey, is running against him.

W.VA is a lot closer to Kansas philisophically than PA, so any Dem is in trouble there. That's why Byrd broke ranks and voted for Alito. His KKK past probably helped him keep his Senate seat longer than he should have.

I hope Nelson loses - then he can run again as a Rep next time around. :roll:
 
hipsterdufus said:

You have a platform hips but the leaders in your party are all going in different directions like Hillary is a Hawk and Dean is a dove and God knows what Pelosi , Reid and Kerry are..........
 
Navy Pride said:
You have a platform hips but the leaders in your party are all going in different directions like Hillary is a Hawk and Dean is a dove and God knows what Pelosi , Reid and Kerry are..........

There differences aren't as big as they seem. They all agree that Iraq is a mess, the debate is over how soon to leave. I wish I knew the answer too my friend!

Dean is hardly a dove, but he wouldn't have invaded Iraq in '02. It took the general public three years to catch on to the lies, but they're on the same page as Dean now.
 
RightatNYU said:
One big problem in your reasoning:

Momentum?

It's February. Once it hits August, then we can start talking momentum. Until then, we've got 6 months where the only thing that happens to affect peoples views is minor news stories and ADVERTISING. Guess who's got more money to advertise?

With heavy corporate donors and Jack Abramoffs galore, the RNC will probably always out fundraise the DNC, but Dean raised 20% more money than McAuliffe did in 2003, and McAuliffe was an excellent fundraiser for the DNC. The interesting thing is the high number of donations that individuals continue to make to the Dem party.
 
RightatNYU said:
Be careful, looking at it with that info makes it seems as if the reps have an advantage. It would help to know that of the "dirty 30", 21 are currently reps, compared to 9 dems.

That's why I linked the entire article. We would expect the Rep's would lose seats in an off year election, but as this shows there's just not enough to lose to make much difference. The point I made in an earlier post.


That a loss of 9 for reps, 3 for dems. If it splits even, we've got a 3 seat swing. Not much.

Meaningless
 
hipsterdufus said:
There differences aren't as big as they seem. They all agree that Iraq is a mess, the debate is over how soon to leave. I wish I knew the answer too my friend!

Dean is hardly a dove, but he wouldn't have invaded Iraq in '02. It took the general public three years to catch on to the lies, but they're on the same page as Dean now.

You know that is just spin..........When it comes to Iraq I don;t know how they could be further apart when Dean says we are losing there and should cut and run and when Hillary says we need to stay the course and finish the job......

If you think that is similar thinking ok But I think they are 180 difference..........

You mean the lies that Kerry and Clinton sad that Saddam had WOMD?:confused: or when Clinton said there should be regime change.......
 
hipsterdufus said:
With heavy corporate donors and Jack Abramoffs galore, the RNC will probably always out fundraise the DNC, but Dean raised 20% more money than McAuliffe did in 2003, and McAuliffe was an excellent fundraiser for the DNC. The interesting thing is the high number of donations that individuals continue to make to the Dem party.

Do you have a source for that? I've seen some claims of this, but a lot more angry grumbling that Howard Dean is falling drastically short on raising cash. And last I saw, the RNC had the DNC beat by a margin of 6 or 7 to 1 in cash on hand.
 
47% of Americans want the Democrats to take over the country again. While only 37% want the Republicans to maintain power.
 
The democrats will definitely pick up seats for the reasons that most have expressed here (republican ethic scandals).
But probably not enough to carry either the house/Senate.

They would probably pick up a lot more, however, the Republican party is already starting to play the "politics of fear" card and will continue to do so up until the election.

The sad thing about this is that there are people in this country that will actually know that they are doing this, but nevertheless will fall into the trap.
 
Back
Top Bottom