home

Handicapping the Legislative Race

Every election in November will be important.

[T]he political handicapper Charlie Cook envisions Democratic gains of up to 20 House seats and 7 Senate seats, close to the 60-vote threshold in the Senate needed to break filibusters by the minority.

Frankly, it doesn't matter which presidential candidate has the best plan for health care or social security reform. Sausage gets made in the legislature. As long as a Democrat holds the presidency, a strong Democratic majority in the House and Senate will have a chance to repair some of the damage the Bush government has inflicted upon the nation. Perhaps it will even advance some planks of a progressive agenda.

Up and down the ticket, 2008 is the year to vote for Democrats. What do you think of Cook's prediction?

< Kerry Questions McCain's Judgment | Monday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    In my book (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:14:41 PM EST
    The better the prospects look for the Democrats, the more likely they are to play it safe and avoid taking a stand on anything that might matter to me.  That's the Democratic strategy as I see it.

    Bingo (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:34:30 PM EST
    Please forgive the sports analogy, but the Dems are the masters of the prevent defense.

    (For those who don't know American football: This is a very loose defense teams sometimes resort to when ahead very late in a game.  The idea is to give the other team short, easy, meaningless gains, and ensure they can't get a quick score on a single big play.  All too often it results in the opponent being able to move down field quickly and score anyway, or even getting the big touchdown play.)


    Parent

    Exactly.The prevent defense is notorious for ... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by cymro on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:16:22 AM EST
    ... preventing teams who adopt it they are ahead from actually winning. I think Nancy Pelosi is one of its foremost proponents.

    Parent
    According to the Iowa Independent... (3.50 / 2) (#71)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:31:05 AM EST
    Obama is taking over the state-wide machine and replacing it with his people - focusing on electing BO...not the downticket Dems.

    http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2556

    It looks as if this is happening in other states, too.

    50 state strategy?  Only if your name is Obama (and then it's a 57 state strategy!).

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by nr22 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:47:58 AM EST
    From that article:

    The staff of the state campaign was merely reassigned into new positions to accommodate Obama's campaign, Henderson said. He stressed that this is a good thing for Iowa Democrats, as get out the vote efforts for Obama will benefit Democrats at every level.

    "I personally haven't heard anyone who is angry with the moves," Henderson said. "I think everyone will end up in a similar position, and even if there are people who are let go, there are so many campaign jobs available right now that no one is going to go unemployed. There are more jobs than people to fill them."

    When asked about the effect the staffing changes could have on legislative races, Fischer said Obama will bring a lot of resources to the state, and Obama voters will support Democrats up and down the ballot.

    "I think we're going to see a lot of straight-ticket voting," he said. "This year there is a the potential for a Democratic landslide in Iowa and across the country.

    It doesn't look like your interpretation of the situation matches the facts on the ground. The focus is clearly on helping Democrats at all levels of the ballot.

    Parent

    You can get a lot done with 55 senators. (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:33:13 PM EST
    I disagree with the notion that you need 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done. If you can line up 55+ votes from your own party, you can push through broadly popular policies if you have a mandate for them.

    Heck, even George 28% Bush is getting his way on just about everything with 49 GOP senators.

    On the other hand, if you spent your campaign running on a Republican-lite platform, even 60 senators may not be enough to push truly liberal policies through.

    Different rules for Republicans. . . (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:35:48 PM EST
    You can play games with the budget and the Byrd rule. But when it comes to appropriating, 41 senators rule.

    Parent
    Hmmm. (none / 0) (#14)
    by pie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:38:50 PM EST
    But when it comes to appropriating, 41 senators rule.

    I hope you're not making excuses here.

    Parent

    For whom? (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:40:28 PM EST
    It's simply how the Senate works, and how the Democrats play.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#18)
    by pie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:41:19 PM EST
    Why do the democrats play?

    Parent
    A variety of factors (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:43:38 PM EST
    For starters, more Democrats represent Bush states than vice-versa. Also, Republican base groups are more potent and more threatening when it comes to primary time. The Club for Growth especially.

    Parent
    Baloney. (none / 0) (#26)
    by pie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:49:38 PM EST
    For starters, more Democrats represent Bush states than vice-versa. Also, Republican base groups are more potent and more threatening when it comes to primary time. The Club for Growth especially.

    Bush cheated in Florida and was crowned by the Supremes in 2000.  He barely won after election troubles in Ohio.

    Don't talk to me about Bush states.

    Parent

    oh please... get over it (1.00 / 2) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:58:20 PM EST
    Every recount showed that Bush won.

    This says it best.

    Justice Scalia, a conservative justice who was appointed to America's highest court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, said he and the other justices had no option but to intervene once Mr Gore sought to overcome Mr Bush via the lower courts.

    He said that he "of course" regretted that the Supreme Court had become involved. "But I don't know how we could have avoided it. Could we have declined to accept the case on the basis that it wasn't important enough?......

    And you know bear in mind that the issue wasn't whether or not the election was going to be decided by a court or not. It was whether it was going to be decided by the Florida court or by the United States Supreme Court, for a federal election.




    Parent
    Hilarious. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by pie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:04:06 PM EST
    Really.

    And the Supremes said the decision would not set a precedent.  A one shot deal.

    Another shot heard around the world.

    Parent

    untrue on both counts (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:36:52 PM EST
    Most scenarios show Gore won.

    And Scalia - Bush is the one who went to the Fed'l courts. Gore asked for recounts in FL courts, the proper jurisdiction for counting votes administered by FL state.

    Parent

    No, that is not true (1.00 / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:08:36 PM EST
    Recounts of computer tabulated votes (none / 0) (#52)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:40:19 PM EST
    are not really recounts.  They're just a reaffirmation of the results of election fraud.

    See Black Box Voting.

    Parent

    hehe (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:09:39 PM EST
    Uh, if I remember correctly the issue was hanging chads... no computer involved.

    Parent
    Ok, you're not even responding to my points (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:52:05 PM EST
    so I'm ignoring you now.

    Parent
    Oh, stop with this nonsense. (none / 0) (#31)
    by pie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:55:54 PM EST
    What are Bush states?  You wouldn't be calling them that if the elections had played out without massive cheating.

    We wouldn't be having this converstion.

    I don't like Obama.  I couldn't care less about Bush states if he wins them.

    He's not the kind of democrat that I can back.

    Parent

    I agree TChris (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:05:40 PM EST
    I think this is going to be a big Democratic win.  60 in the Senate may be hard to achieve but I didn't expect the big sweeping wins we got in 2006 and the climate is even more negative towards the GOP right now.

    A fillibuster proof Senate plus a Democrat in the White House can do a great deal to undo what Bush and his cronies did.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:01:30 PM EST
    Flyerhawk, 60 is probably too optimistic, but possible.

    On your 2006 point, I remember agreeing with those like BTD and Steve Gilliard (RIP) that we were going to whoop some Regressive *ss and everyone just needed to quit peeing themselves about them.  The Regressives simply didn't have a focal point on which to attack, except for the Pelosi/Reid angle, who were a bad target in a slew of local races.  This year they will have Obama (and I would say the same thing if it were Hilary, so I'm not bashing him) to target alone, which is a much easier assault to engage in if you are them.  I'm not saying that it will work for the Regressives, but it is a concern.

    (BTW, I'm still PO'ed at the M$M for the way they just shrugged away such a momumental defeat for the Regressives, even in '94 a couple of R incumbents lost, not one Dem lost in '06, either in Federal or Gubernatorial races.  It was an epic beatdown, which of course got us basically nothing as the craven Dem Leadership slunk into their mile-wide yellow spines.  GRRRR!)

    Jackson

    Parent

    I smell (none / 0) (#66)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:19:04 AM EST
    socialism!

    Parent
    I think you are confused (none / 0) (#70)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:57:18 AM EST
    Socialism isn't a a 4 letter word here.  

    Parent
    You would be (none / 0) (#82)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:43:47 PM EST
    correct, individualism is.

    Parent
    I dont' know (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by ccpup on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:14:23 PM EST
    I think in order to get big Democratic wins in the House and Senate, it's important to have a strong Top-of-the-Ticket candidate.  So far, Obama has raised many doubts in that respect.

    Oftentimes, many more voters vote in Presidential Election years than Midterms.  But if they're not excited about the Presidential Candidates, there's a threat of those numbers going down (a la 1972 and McGovern) and whatever Dem wins we have being muted, somewhat.

    I don't know if the historic nature of Obama's candidacy will be enough to lift him across the finish line into the White House in light of all the baggage via flip-flopping and the inevitable unfortunate info we'll undoubtedly learn come September-October about his "past" or what-have-you.  Add to that the eventual knee-capping of the Dem for the Republican from the Media and people may be turned off come November.  

    For many voters, it's not enough that he's the first black candidate running.  He's going to have to show he'll be better in Office than McCain and, so far, he's failing miserably.

    If our Top-of-the-ticket Dem is weak, it may effect down-ticket Dems.

    I like that prediction (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:39:28 PM EST
    and the more dems the better. That way the republican president, which ever one it is, won't do anything too harmful. snark.

    Well, No (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Petey on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 02:17:21 AM EST
    "Frankly, it doesn't matter which presidential candidate has the best plan for health care or social security reform. Sausage gets made in the legislature."

    Basically false.

    Obama's opposition to universal healthcare means that the likelihood of a universal healthcare bill reaching his desk is close to zero.

    Sausage gets made in the Senate, but big new entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have always been authored by the executive branch.

    By opposing universal healthcare, Obama has given the store away during what is likely to be the best Congress for passing Democratic legislation in over 40 years.

    News flash (none / 0) (#73)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:58:20 AM EST
    Now he's FOR universal health care or at least hat he told a Roanoke Times person.

    Of course, I wouldn't hold my breath. e changes his positions more often than regular folks change their underwear.

    Parent

    But TChris, we can't rely on Democrats, (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:15:38 AM EST
    as a whole, to supply the votes we need to advance a Progressive agenda. Heck, we can't even rely on a certain bloc of them to vote for what I used to consider a "standard Dem" issue.

    I, too, think that this year will be favorable for the Democratic Party in terms of seats gained in the House and Senate; but, time and again, I have watched many of them vote for legislation that was antithetical to my political positions and personal values, so now I don't get my hopes up too high anymore. At first, I was so excited about the big Dem win in 2006, but it didn't take very long for me to recognize that both the House and Senate were not going to capitalize on the many opportunities available to the Majority party. I know, the Republicans proved to be an effective Minority, but I frequently ask myself and others why the Dems can't execute such clever maneuvers--Majority or Minority?

    And now, Obama, after only a few weeks as the presumptive nominee, starts turning his sights to the Right. I just don't know where I fit politically anymore, and that's very disconcerting. I've voted for Democrats--no Republicans--since my first vote in ??; let's just say a long time ago. (Usually I'm not sensitive about my age but tomorrow's my birthday, so I guess that explains my hesitancy to talk about age.) I just don't feel comfortable with many of the votes, actions, and decisions made by the Dems in Congress as well as the Party leaders. I'm quite a bit further Left than most Dems I know, yet I know that I haven't moved any further Left over time; it's the Democratic Party that's changed.

    I want the Democrats to win elections this year. I'm just not certain that it really will advance positive changes for the country.  I still hope that the Dems will find their spines, minds, and hearts and use them when making future decisions that affect my future.


    Well, I think that's largely right (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:11:33 PM EST
    I would say that the House picture is somewhat more volatile, and Democrats could pick up even more "under the radar" seats than that.

    But I will disagree with you on the power of the President's plans. Only a President will likely have the clout to make the kinds of deals that might break a Senate logjam. After all, 41 Senators can block almost anything, and Republicans are quite willing to do just that.

    I don't know ... (none / 0) (#3)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:21:00 PM EST
    if that will hold true when there are only, say, 43 Republicans plus Lieberman.  It might be much harder for frightened Republicans, with no president to lead them, to maintain their ranks.  Of course, Democrats haven't been great at maintaining their own ranks, but in numbers there is strength.  I'm optimistic that Democrats will start governing together when they realize that voters no longer support Republican policies.

    Parent
    Oh, all the Dems that have consistently (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:52:57 PM EST
    voted with Bush and the Republicans on major issues will all of a sudden remember that they are Democrats. Also, why would they think that the voters no longer support Republican policies when Obama and the Dems are advancing Republican policies like the Bush Cover Up and Elimination of Constitutional Rights (FISA) bill, expanded faith base initiative program, watered down support of women's right to chose complete with Republican talking points, Social Security on the table, Reagan foreign policy complete with Republicans in major cabinet positions and god only knows what other Republican positions will suddenly become the Democratic position between now and November.

    I wish I did share your optimism but I do not.  

    Parent

    If, at the end of the day, there are (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:24:27 PM EST
    41 Republicans after you subtract Olympia Snowe, and maybe even with her, they will block with impunity. (BTW, that's a really good reason to take out Susan Collins this cycle).

    Parent
    Don't forget about the Blue Dog Dems--dangerous (none / 0) (#80)
    by jawbone on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:24:55 PM EST
    to progressive/lib causes.

    Anyone placing bets on universal healthcare in the next Congress?

    Parent

    sigh. (none / 0) (#4)
    by pie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:23:06 PM EST
    But I will disagree with you on the power of the President's plans. Only a President will likely have the clout to make the kinds of deals that might break a Senate logjam. After all, 41 Senators can block almost anything, and Republicans are quite willing to do just that.

    What political "clout" does Obama have?  None.


    Bush had no clout until 9/11.

    OMFG.

    Parent

    That's simply wrong (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:25:26 PM EST
    Check when Bush got his massive tax cut passed with essentially no majority in the Senate.

    Parent
    The model you are looking for (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:48:10 PM EST
    is the 57 Senators and Democratic President that we had during the 1993-94 period, when the Republican minority set the filibuster record.

    The Republicans have been up to the exact same tricks during the current Congress, and they will keep it up until they pay a political price.  If it were up to me, I'd center the Democratic campaign this year around Republican obstructionism, pointing out that their "just say no" attitude is stopping us from bringing Democratic solutions to people who need them.

    But instead, we have a nominee who has refused to call out Republican obstructionism and has said the problems in Washington are due to excessive partisanship, full stop.  Indeed, both sides are equally capable of pointing the finger at each other.  The only solution is to run on the issue and get a mandate for Republicans to stop the obstruction.

    Parent

    I would love it if the Dems got a mandate (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:51:02 PM EST
    for their issues.

    Parent
    We can only get a mandate for our issues (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:55:59 PM EST
    if we run on our issues. Obama seems more intent on advancing Republican issues and that is the mandate he will have if he becomes president.

    Parent
    Hear, hear! So sadly true. (none / 0) (#81)
    by jawbone on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:26:14 PM EST
    Ah... (none / 0) (#29)
    by pie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:51:28 PM EST
    The only solution is to run on the issue and get a mandate for Republicans to stop the obstruction.

    Clinton did that successfully.

    Parent

    You tell me. (none / 0) (#7)
    by pie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:27:28 PM EST
    Was that with a republican majority, btw?

    What's your point?

    Parent

    It was passed in June, just (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:28:41 PM EST
    before Jeffords switched parties. My point? It directly refutes your claim that Bush had no clout before 9/11.

    Parent
    Bush was a joke. (none / 0) (#10)
    by pie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:35:35 PM EST
    It directly refutes your claim that Bush had no clout before 9/11.

    He had no clout when the Chinese brougt US spy plane down, and we watched him botch that one.

    Badly.


    Parent

    Well, you can pretend that passing (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:37:31 PM EST
    a massive and questionably popular tax plan required no clout, but you'd be wrong.

    Parent
    Let's not credit. (none / 0) (#16)
    by pie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:40:30 PM EST
    Let's discredit.

    Who's first on the list?  

    Parent

    I have no idea what you're talking about (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:41:14 PM EST
    So the republicans (none / 0) (#20)
    by pie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:42:51 PM EST
    passed that without any help from the dems?

    Parent
    No, Max Baucus helped (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:45:28 PM EST
    and essentially undermined any attempt by the other Dems to stand up procedurally. But it wasn't a Democratic idea--it was Bush's plan.

    Parent
    Andgarden... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:13:32 PM EST
    I must pick a small nit with you here.  It is hard, when the Govt. was running a bursting surplus (all thanks to that racist, awful Bill Clinton!) and the Economy is going along decently, for a politician not in a very safe seat to vote against a tax cut.  Remember, this was before Shrub put us in a financial pinata and let the rest of the world swing away.  Those were the salad days of the Republic, I hope that we all enjoyed them.  As Hunter Thompson said, "Big Dark come soon."

    Jackson

    Parent

    I think a 7 seat gain is overly (none / 0) (#13)
    by kenosharick on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:37:35 PM EST
    optomistic. Five is probably closer. Best news is even with 5, they can tell lieberman where to stick it! Hopefully they would stand up to any poor judicial picks a pres. mccain would make.

    And will Kennedy and Byrd be back? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:58:13 PM EST
    Two powerful votes and voices, and it could end up close enough that two votes matter -- and these voices.

    Parent
    I think the chances are decent (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:22:43 PM EST
    that they will, by this time next year, have been replaced by other Democrats.

    Parent
    4 Dems Guaranteed (none / 0) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:42:07 PM EST
    I'm not so sure the huge Senate gains are there but I do see four that are almost guaranteed. I see no Dem loss in the Senate and locks on Dem pickups in Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Virginia.

    Interestingly, three of those four states (CO NM VA) went to Bush in 2004 and look to go Blue in the presidential election this year also.

    Faith-based politics. (none / 0) (#22)
    by pie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:44:28 PM EST
    Interestingly, three of those four states (CO NM VA) went to Bush in 2004 and look to go Blue in the presidential election this year also.

    God bless you, my son.

    /snark

    Parent

    Mmmm (none / 0) (#32)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:55:59 PM EST
    Mary Landrieu is holding on by her fingernails in Louisiana (to a guy oddly enough named John Kennedy.

    Parent
    Surprisingly (none / 0) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:54:31 PM EST
    Mary Landrieu(D) has a bigger lead in Louisiana than Ted Stevens(R) in Alaska, and also bigger than Wicker(R) in Mississippi. I just left Mississippi and Alaska off my list because that would be like wishing upon a star to have those two states swing...but both are possibilities and probably more likely than the Dems losing Louisiana.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:05:47 PM EST
    about Alaska, only because of their monumental corruption scandals up there.  I think we may have a real chance.

    Mississippi I think is too far gone in its social conservatism, but I hope that you are right.

    Jackson

    Parent

    You could be right (none / 0) (#67)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:43:26 AM EST
    But LA has a pretty popular Republican governor right now who might be influential in a McCain Administration.  Plus the whole atmosphere of getting rid of anyone connected with Katrina might come into play when people are really paying attention to election stuff in the fall.

    Parent
    Katrina (none / 0) (#69)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:32:39 AM EST
    You bring up a good point about Katrina and also the popular governor. On the Dems side in Louisiana though, it really is the only Senate seat they are defending, so resources can go there rather than be divided elsewhere.

    The DEM tide this year could and should be enough to keep her there another six years. I guess if there is one Senate seat the GOP has an outside shot at changing it would be in LA. I have no real knowledge of the how the people in LA feel but my gut says when it comes to government incompetence, most see what the federal government has failed to do since Katrina and also remember the picture of the Bush flyover.

    The only two Louisiana Senate polls this year have Landrieu up between +3 and +6. I guess the next poll done there will tell us for sure wheer this one is headed.

    (am I the only one that when typing LA for Lousiana I confuse myself thinking Los Angeles instead of Louisiana?)


    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:59:45 AM EST
    Just re-read my own post and was curious as to why I wrote about Los Angeles!  :)

    Parent
    With $4.00 gas and approaching (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:50:05 PM EST
    $5.00....

    I think Charlie Cook's "visions" have been enhanced by some of Kdog's favorite.

    ;-)

    I'm not (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:44:15 PM EST
    necessarily disagreeing with you, but if historical trends mean anything I would bet the price of gas will go down after Labor Day, perhaps as low as 3 dollars, but 3.25 is a more reasonable estimate.  The oil companies can take a three month hit to try to game the election now that McCain has flipped on off-shore drilling.  If gas does get that high, then you're right.  Even with the lower prices though, the Regressives will lose seats anyway, their brand is that tarnished.

    Jackson

    Parent

    Prophecy (none / 0) (#41)
    by koshembos on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:46:03 PM EST
    According to Jews tradition: "after the destruction of the Temple, prophecy was given to the fools." I ignore predictions, even polls don't work.

    I wish Cook had written more (none / 0) (#42)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:47:13 PM EST
    about his predictions for the House races. (Specifically, which seats will turn.) If Obama wins the WH, then a 20-seat win in the House is great. That would be a very powerful position for reps to start legislating from. But if McCain wins, 20 seats is still not enough to be veto-proof. And we can assume the Blue Dogs will still be gnawing on their little bones of special interest.

    The Senate minority... (none / 0) (#48)
    by mike in dc on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:11:29 PM EST
    ...is already setting a record for filibusters.  The only way to shut that down is to get to 60, or as close to it as possible.  With 60 seats in the Senate and 250+ in the House, and a Democratic President, they could theoretically enact everything on the progressive/liberal wish list in the first six months.  If we don't reach that level in 2008, we can probably hit it in 2010.  

    with a big majority (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:03:34 PM EST
    they better deliver before 2010, or that big majority could go away.  in troubled economic times, the voting public expects results.

    Parent
    To be fair... (none / 0) (#75)
    by sj on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:50:05 AM EST
    ...they could also be shut down or, at a minimum, dramatically reduced by actually having to publicly filibuster and paying a price for the obstruction.  

    I'm not convinced anymore that having a veto-proof majority will mean that anything "on the progressive/liberal wish list" will even make it to introduction much less enactment.  

    Parent

    So depressed in 2004 (none / 0) (#50)
    by Lil on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:33:16 PM EST
    I couldn't imagine we'd turn it around so fast. Hopefull we get a majority everywhere and save the country from further ruin (sorry that sounds so dramatic). Let's hope Cook is right and Obama starts to pick it up a bit; I'm all for a sweep, but Obama is still not making some of us believe.

    I think you have your majority (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:48:26 PM EST
    Bush is the biggest Democratic draw this election season. The Indy's are switching to Dem and the Republicans are switching to Indy because of the Bush disaster.

    Like every other business Bush was ever involved in, he bankrupted the country and the Republican Party in a grand way. Now it will be up the Dems to turn things around because this election is going to be a Dem landslide across the board.

    Parent

    I think we're much better off with a tight race (none / 0) (#55)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:00:10 PM EST
    because down ballot losses will occur if the youth voters aren't fired up again (and educated on down ballot importance).

    Oregon's Gordon Smith should be fired, but Oregon's progressive electorate will flake out if they think the Obama win is in the bag.  


    Parent

    I Think Gordon Smith Stays (none / 0) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:29:32 PM EST
    I've always thought the moderate republicans would be the toughest to beat, a theory that hasn't held up. In this case, I'd still be surprised to see Smith lose. His approval rating in Oregon isn't awful.

    Other Senators that get mentioned in the potential GOP loss column are Collins in Maine, Coleman in Minnesota, Dole in North Carolina, and McConnell in Kentucky. If any of those lose then we really are looking for a run at 60, because if one of those lose the floodgates are open.

    Parent

    I have a feeling he'll be narrowly defeated (none / 0) (#63)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 02:47:12 AM EST
    Merkeley is well liked and shown an ability to make up poll deficits in a short period of time.  His approval rating isn't awful but I think most Oregon voters are in an anti GOP mood.  I also think Obama will have coattails.  

    Parent
    Except (none / 0) (#68)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:53:00 AM EST
    Last I saw, all those GOP Senators you mention are ahead or way ahead. Of course, anything can happen between now and then.

    Parent
    Why would they flake out? (none / 0) (#61)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 02:38:49 AM EST
    In Oregon, all voting is done by mail so it's not like there's any great difficult for progressives to vote.  

    Parent
    If the polls look good in September (none / 0) (#77)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:17:45 AM EST
    and October, the youth vote won't even be registered.  Their summer addresses won't match their fall mailing addresses.  

    If Obama is continually criticized for moving right, the GOTV registration drive will be hampered by a lack of volunteers.  Campaign money might make up the difference, but volunteers hitting the streets are essential this year.

    Parent

    You say... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Lena on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:56:51 AM EST
    "if Obama is continually criticized for moving right..."

    The best way to stop that is if Obama stops moving right. So far, he seems to have no intention to stop moving to the right. If he can't get volunteers because he's so far right, that ought to tell him something.

    Parent

    He has to move right to try to balance (none / 0) (#83)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:37:08 PM EST
    the loss of votes in the Dem base.

    If Hillary supporters want Obama to move left, they have to get on board the campaign.  

    I don't see that happening.

    Parent

    Even if Obama loses (none / 0) (#62)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 02:42:41 AM EST
    the GOP will be routed legislatively.  It means McCain will not be able to pass any of his legislation, go to war, or appoint right wing justices.  

    Obama will drive up black turnout which will help us gain several congressional seats and Senate seats.  I'm thinking already of competitive Senate races in North Carolina, Missisippi, and Texas.  Sure, John McCain will likely take these states but increased turnout of African Americans, a Senate candidate who runs ahead of the Democratic nominee will have a good shot at winning.  

    Parent

    They can do wih a minority (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:56:12 AM EST
    what the Democrats can't do with the majority so excuse me if I am unmpressed.

    Let's see the GOP has managed to get FISA through(with the Dems help), call Iranian soldiers terrorists(with the Democrats help), condemn MOVEON(with the Democrats help), ontinue to fund Iraq(with the Democrats help),and a whole host of other garbage.

    The one thing I am sure of is until you get the Dems to 67 they will whine and moan about how HARD it is to get their agenda through.

    Parent

    My prediction (none / 0) (#60)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 02:37:44 AM EST
    The presidential race will be decided either way by a few percentage points and will be very close.  The Democrats however will absolutely rout the Republicans and romp to victory in House and Senate elections.  Cook predicts 20 House seats and 7 Senate seats but that's a current prediction.  At this time in 2006, I think it was predicted the Democrats would win 14-15 house seats and about 3 Senate seats.  We won 31 House seats and 6 Senate seats.  We can probably do even better than that.  

    Now why am I this bold?  Because the Democrats have won three special elections this year in heavily Republican seats.  The public is more disgruntled than ever.  The public is in the mood for the Democrats.  But more importantly is the money issue.  The DSCC and DCCC have significantly outraised their Republican counterparts.  They have a huge cash advantage.  And because of Obama's massive fundraising edge, the RNC's cash is going to go into helping McCain.  I would assume that pretty much all of it is.  They know that the presidency is their one shot left.  So even if McCain does defeat Obama, the Republicans will likely see massive defeats anyway at the legislative level.

    Let's look at Ohio.  According to the latest SUSA poll there, Obama leads 48-46 and according to the latest Rasmussen, McCain leads 44-43.  This polling shows us that Obama could potentially lose this state.  However, there are a number of GOP held congressional districts with large black populations like OH-1.  Let's say Obama loses Ohio but does so with a record turnout of African Americans.  That turnout could propel the Democrats to take OH-1 even as they fail to take the state.  

    The youth vote will also be quite high and I think Obama will win 60% or more of young voters.  This might not be enough to win him the general election, however these additional voters will likely vote Democratic at the lower level.  I'd like to point out the anti gay marriage ammendment on the Wisconsin ballot in 2006.  It passed by a 59%-41% margin.  However, the high turnout of young voters who voted against the ammendment also voted Democratic and the Wisconsin GOP was defeated, losing the state legislature and a congressional seat.

    You misreport Wisconsin results (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:51:15 AM EST
    in that it is not Nebraska with a unicameral legislature.:-)

    The Repubs still have the Assembly, so there is deadlock on a lot of liberal issues.  (Not that Dem control of the Senate has meant courage on a lot of issues here, either -- when it is Repubs who have come out first for collective bargaining rights for all state employees, for example.  As one of those in the last group still barred by state law from collective bargaining, you can bet that I watch which Dems are gutless on this.  And it's most of them.)

    Parent