Prediction Thread

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:16:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Democrats will gain Senate seats in November. As the economy continues to decline, voters will walk into voting booths and think or whisper or yell "I'm not going to take it any more!" And they will vote against Republicans because they understand that the economy functions well when Democrats run the government and not so well otherwise.

In the best case, Mitch McConnell is unseated, Ted Stevens is defeated, and Democrats control 60 seats, giving them a filibuster-proof majority. Since a few Republicans (particularly those facing reelection in two years) will discover a bipartisan spirit, Democrats might be effectively filibuster-proof with numbers in the high 50's. How many Senate seats do you predict Democrats will gain this year?

[more ...]

In the House, Michele Bachmann landed on the "abandoned Republican" list after accusing Barack Obama and some members of Congress of being anti-American.

National Republicans have yanked TV advertising for Minnesota GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann's re-election bid .... Bachmann is one of four at-risk Republican incumbents left to fend for themselves by a cash-strapped House campaign arm in the crucial final days of the campaign amid a tough political environment for the GOP. The National Republican Campaign Committee has also canceled planned TV ads to help GOP Reps. Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado, Tom Feeney in Florida and Joe Knollenberg in Michigan, spokeswoman Karen Hanretty confirmed.
Musgrave, Feeney and Knollenberg are extremely vulnerable and Democrats — who are eyeing double-digit gains in their House majority — have been targeting them heavily. Bachmann, whose district is solidly conservative, has only recently emerged as a prime target after her controversial remarks on MSNBC's "Hardball," which sparked a flood of campaign contributions to her Democratic opponent and have reshaped the race.

What's your prediction in the House?

< A Prophecy for November 4 | 'Soft On Crime' Makes a Comeback >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Prediction Thread | 52 comments (52 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I predict (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by CST on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 11:00:28 PM EST

100 senate seats will be filled. And we will have a new president in January. How's that for a bold prediction?

Oh - and Matt Cassel leads the Patriots to a superbowl victory :)

Seems to be all about those coattails (none / 0) (#1)
by hitchhiker on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:21:17 PM EST

What I want is to see Jean Shaheen defeated. I want to see Al Franken win. I want my own district WA 08 to get a Dem for the very first time . . . come on, Darcy!

I think the last 12 days will tell how big the sweep is. I hope McC and Palin continue in their tragic meltdown, and that HRC and Bill continue to work the trail with Obama and the other surrogates.

I hope the momentum just crushes the Republicans.

Isn't Jean Shaheen the Dem (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by litigatormom on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:24:24 PM EST

trying to unseat Sununu in NH? I think you mean Mean Jean Schmidt.


: BTW (none / 0) (#5)
by litigatormom on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:25:42 PM EST

a memo supposedly leaked by the GOP House caucus suggests that the Goopers are expecting a loss of at least 34 seats in the House, but expect to hold 44 seats in the Senate.
I hope we get closer to 60 than that.

: Yes (none / 0) (#16)
by CST on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:57:13 PM EST

She is.

: My bad (none / 0) (#26)
by hitchhiker on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:39:02 PM EST

Of course I meant mean Jean. So sorry.

Jean Shaheen is a Democrat (none / 0) (#24)
by NMvoiceofreason on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:11:24 PM EST

...and my personal prediction is 63 Democrat seats, less one when Lieberman returns to the Republicans.

Republicans will struggle like a fish on a hook, unable to give up the Rove style character assassination and smears. They will discover for progressives, moderates, independants, and such that they have becomes the messengers of hate, when all the people want to hear is some glimmer of hope for the future.
Jeanne
Shaheen
(D)


There isn't enough individual seat polling (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:25:22 PM EST

for me to make a comfortable House prediction. To a large degree, we're flying blind. I think given the political environment and cash disparity, the Dems are guaranteed to pick up a fair number of seats, though.

Florida and Ohio should give 2-3 seats each to the Dems, with Reublican gerrymanders unraveling.

Before I go out on a limb (none / 0) (#7)
by CoralGables on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:33:40 PM EST

I want the jury to come back in Alaska. A jury will decide the fate of the Senate seat there.

: Yup, I agree (none / 0) (#29)
by denise k on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:59:52 PM EST

If he loses, he loses. If he wins, he wins. imo.

I will predict (none / 0) (#8)
by Steve M on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:38:56 PM EST

58 seats in the Senate.

Sounds about right (none / 0) (#10)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:41:37 PM EST

That's enough IMO.


: 58 is probably right (none / 0) (#12)
by s5 on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:45:49 PM EST

Though I had originally predicted 55. 55 feels right in my gut, but the polls are leaning towards 58.

: 58 (none / 0) (#39)
by cal1942 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:55:45 AM EST

would be enough. The GOP has more seats at risk than Democrats again in 2010, so we can possibly expect some help from jittery GOP incumbents. If Obama gets a big win that would help soften some election anxious GOP Senators as well.
We reached our low ebb in 2002/2004 so we don't appear to have any weak incumbents on the line in 2010.
But I just can't stretch past 7 and it really seems that 4 or 5 is more realistic. CO, NM, NH, OR and VA. I'll believe NC when I see it (that goes for Obama as well in NC) and MN is closer than I would have thought some time back. Minnesota may be more proof that it's awfully hard to get rid of an incumbent.
I just don't trust Alaska. A couple of weeks ago Stevens was up 1 point and that was before the judge clobbered the prosecution. That arrogant, beligerant old guy is on trial and still he's hanging around.

You think Hagan will win? (none / 0) (#9)
by lilburro on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:39:58 PM EST

I'm a little nervous, because I feel like undecideds are going to go to Dole (since the undecideds at this point are "coming home" to McCain).

But I'm a new resident of North Carolina, so my feel for local politics is weak. I don't think Kay Hagan is that well known to the entire state (I am far from her hometown Greensboro).

Jim Martin looks like he owned a general store about 60 years ago.

Is it possible for Hagan to win (none / 0) (#15)
by lilburro on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:54:25 PM EST

without Obama winning? I can't imagine someone voting Obama, then Dole. But I wonder who would vote McCain, then Hagan. Here in Coastal NC, I don't get the impression she is well known enough in her own right. She does a good job fitting into the Obama change scheme though, right down to the campaign colors.


I would be good money (none / 0) (#17)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:57:37 PM EST

that there will be more McCain-Hagan voters than Obama-Dole voters.

Three guesses why. (There are at least two correct answers.)


: oo (none / 0) (#20)
by lilburro on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:03:16 PM EST

fun. 1. Dole's complete lack of achievement. 2. Dole's not having lived in the state for 40 years before her first run. 3. Ummm...race?

All correct (none / 0) (#21)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:05:01 PM EST

I would add Kay Hagan's NC accent.


And Elizabeth Dole (none / 0) (#22)
by lilburro on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:08:04 PM EST

seems not to have realized she had to run for reelection until recently.

I guess there could be a few PUMAs out there too. But I don't think they're a big force here.


Schumer chose his target well (none / 0) (#23)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:10:04 PM EST

he saw how incompetently Dole ran the NRSC in '06.


: And to give Hagan due credit (none / 0) (#28)
by denise k on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:58:57 PM EST

I have heard she is very able legislator and campaigner in her own right, though I have nothing concrete to base this on.

Just to clarify. Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill (none / 0) (#47)
by DeborahNC on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:38:36 AM EST

are the cities that constitute what is called The Research Triangle area. The Research Triangle Park itself is not a residential area; rather, it is primarily comprised of research institutions and businesses.

I, too, think that Hagan will win in NC. North Carolinians have strong opinions on insiders vs. outsiders, and Dole is looking more like an outsider. I think that she will be voted out. Also, I think that since the Dem Candidate is a female is a positive in this race.

It will be a closer call for Obama. The ground game will be the deciding factor. If African Americans vote in large numbers, he will probably win. I hope so.


I'm very late jumping in on this (none / 0) (#44)
by CCinNC on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:56:32 AM EST

but the latest numbers are even better:

Dems 56%
Reps 27%
Other 17%

Compared to 2004

Dems 48%
Reps 37%
Other 14%

About 1,800 voted each day in Winston-Salem Thu, Fri and Mon. My husband and I voted Monday. There wasn't a long wait (15 mins or so) and it was a very efficient procedure with wonderful volunteers @ the BOE. However, there was an article in the newspaper yesterday (IIRC) saying that the other polling places in the county were having problems processing voters, and that people should vote on Election Day.


the real question is.... (none / 0) (#13)
by sef on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:53:21 PM EST

How many GOPers will switch parties following the elections is the question I have in my mind these days. This is not merely a "change" election, this is a "realignment" election much like '94 was. That GOPers will be switching to dem in the northeast or northwest (that means you Senator for now Smith), that is not in doubt, the question is the number. There is more than one way of getting to 60.

Definitely 60 (none / 0) (#14)
by StevenT on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:54:20 PM EST

I'm confident that we'll have 60 in the Senate. The question is whether the 60 is with or without Joe Lieberman.

60, yes. High 50s (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Cream City on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 11:07:56 PM EST

is tepid, whether it's the weather or the Dems in the Senate. It had better be 60, and without Lieberman.

He is hardly alone in being a human waffle. There's such a stack of 'em in the Senate that they ought to just put a pat of butter on 'em and spread the maple syrup.

This thread is so deja vu of 2006, it would be funny if it was not so sad.


I dont care if we only get 1 pick up... (5.00 / 0) (#38)
by Thanin on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:54:01 AM EST

I want joe out.


We don't need Joe. (none / 0) (#31)
by NMvoiceofreason on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 11:01:00 PM EST

We have 39 seats, plus 18 easy wins = 57 seats. In addition, I predict the following squeakers: Arkansas, Kentucky, BOTH Mississippi seats, and Rothfuss in Wyoming-A. Also Georgia and Minnesota are very tight but going our way. So that gets us to 64 seats (Less one DINO).


Arkansas (none / 0) (#40)
by cal1942 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 01:01:42 AM EST

a squeaker?

Pryor is running unopposed.


Fantasy Island (none / 0) (#41)
by cal1942 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 01:27:59 AM EST

Cochran is an incumbent running for his sixth term. Musgrove has a chance but I wouldn't bank on it and Wyoming. Are you on something?

64 seats?

There have been 60 Senate seats or more for one party in only 11 Congresses in our history; all Democratic.

The Roosevelt landslide in 1932 (73rd Congress) didn't give us 60 seats.

Those 11 Congresses all came in streaks. Four straight during Roosevelt's tenure. Five from 1958 through 1966 spanning from the time of another Eisenhower recession until domestic turmoil and Vietnam ended the streak. The last two in 1974 and 1976 in the aftermath of Watergate and the election of Jimmy Carter.

We have only had both Houses of Congress for two years since the end of the Dixiecrats in the 1994 election.

And what's this about 18 "easy" wins.


OK, no facts, only statistics (none / 0) (#42)
by NMvoiceofreason on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:03:25 AM EST

Electoral Vote has the basic polling data facts. Arkansas was just a bowser to see if anyone was paying attention. Thanks for paying attention.

No cal1942, I'm not on anything. This is what the polls say. The eighteen races (19 with AR) include: AR. CO, DE, IL, IA, LA, MA, MI, MT, NH, NJ, NM, OR, RI, SD, VA, and WV. In most of these races, they aren't even campaigning in their own state anymore, but are out tilling the fields for Obama. It's like in football where their secondary has completely failed and you can throw all the passes you want. The air game is racking up so many yards the ground game is supposed to be irrelevant.

New registrations this year top 3.5 Million, with a 3 to 1 Dem to Repub ratio in many places. Obama has a ground game on a scale that dwarfs the Clinton's (I worked on both, so I know).

Actually the correct prediction (from earlier in the thread) is 62, less Lieberman, =61. That presumes we might not get the two squeakers. But yes, this will be a historic landslide election for the Democrat Party.


Democrat-ic Party (none / 0) (#43)
by WS on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:38:40 AM EST

Democratic Party. Lets get used to writing and saying Democratic Party.


I don't belong (none / 0) (#48)
by NMvoiceofreason on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:52:25 AM EST

to any organized party. I'm a Democrat. - Will Rogers.


Yes but (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by WS on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:00:14 PM EST

please, when you mention the Party, make sure to say Democratic Party. That's what the Party wishes to be called and I think Democrats and non Democrats should honor that.


We can go round and round (none / 0) (#51)
by NMvoiceofreason on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:09:20 PM EST

What party is Obama? (D) - Democrat, not (R) Republican. Democrat is a party. Democratic is a process. You don't get to own the process.

"democrat
8 dictionary results for: democrat
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
dem·o·crat ˈdɛməˌkræt Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dem-uh-krat] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1.    an advocate of democracy.
2.    a person who believes in the political or social equality of all people.
3.    (initial capital letter) Politics.
a.    a member of the Democratic party.
b.    a member of the Democratic-Republican party.
4.    Also called democrat wagon. a high, lightweight, horse-drawn wagon, usually having two seats. "


Obama (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by WS on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:17:58 PM EST

is a Democrat and a member of the Democratic Party. There is a differentiation with small d, democratic, with big D, Democratic. No one is trying to own the process. That's just the name when referring to the Democratic Party.


When I write (1.00 / 1) (#53)
by NMvoiceofreason on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:27:24 PM EST

to the Headquarters of the Democratic Party, I'll let you know. Until then, I'm a Democrat, and you can take you PC police goon squad off to meet in your little rubber room. No one who can't read a dictionary should get up in arms about a definition.


: You're response to WS, (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by cal1942 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 03:20:57 PM EST

who is correct by the way, was nasty and arrogant.

Um (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by TChris on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:40:02 PM EST

If you actually read the definition you cited, you would note that "democrat" refers to a person (defs. 1 and 2) as distinguished from the "Democratic party" to which democrats belong (def. 3).


: Darnit TChris! (none / 0) (#55)
by NMvoiceofreason on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 03:20:22 PM EST

Don't confuse me with the facts when I'm in the middle of a good argument!

Enough to dump Lieberman (none / 0) (#19)
by mmc9431 on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:03:00 PM EST

at the least I expect a clear majority so that the Democrat's can take away Lieberman's chairs and let the chips fall where they may. He's been a terrible chair in homeland security and with his campaigning and convention antics, he needs to be ousted.

: Lieberman loses chairmanships (none / 0) (#32)
by denise k on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 11:02:14 PM EST

I think/hope it is a safe bet that his chairmanship goes bye bye when the Dems have the votes. He might keep it if they are on the cusp for 60, otherwise -- so long, Joe Blow.

59 seats in the Senate (none / 0) (#25)
by Makarov on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:19:06 PM EST

including Lieberman and the Ind from Vermont.

More importantly, Phillies will win the WS, and Penn State will win the BCS. Eagles will finish 3rd in the NFC east, and miss the playoffs. Fans will still love McNabb and Andy Reid.

So far your WS prediction looks (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:52:54 PM EST

solid (bottom of the 9th, Phillies lead 3 to 2). Let's see if Penn State beats OSU.


: And the Phillies win! n/t (none / 0) (#33)
by caseyOR on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 11:02:30 PM EST

: I'm not worried (none / 0) (#46)
by Makarov on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:30:21 AM EST

about OSU. My only concern is AL and TX remain undefeated, and PSU gets shut out of the National Championship like we did in 94-95.

Go Phillies! (none / 0) (#34)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 11:03:00 PM EST

heh


I predect we reach 60 in the Senate, (none / 0) (#36)
by Joelarama on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 11:12:46 PM EST

without Lieberman.

Hope.

Prediction possibilities (none / 0) (#37)
by denise k on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 11:20:08 PM EST

Bare minimum pickup: NM, NH, CO, VA, AK (only if Stevens is convicted).

If it is a good night add: MN, NC, OR.

If they "run the table" add: GA, MS and KY.

I expect the Dems will have a "good night" so I predict 7 or 8 seats depending on the results of Stevens' trial.

Predictions.... (none / 0) (#45)
by kdog on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:58:47 AM EST

Dems take the WH and the Senate...we keep on keepin' on with our foreign occupations, keep on keepin' on a prison population to rival any totalitarian nation...but working stiffs get some extra coin in their tax returns...aka a payoff to keep on keepin' quiet about it.

Beats all of the above without the payoff in our tax returns I guess...but "real change" it is not, sorry.

Whatever the Senate Numbers, (none / 0) (#50)
by bob h on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:04:11 PM EST

a first priority must be to invoke the nuclear option (or just as good, threaten to) on judicial filibusters. The Republicans must be taught that what goes around comes around, and that there are enduring consequences to breaking with long traditions.