46 Comments - Skeeter - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 9:04 am: No, there will not be a massive landslide. The Democrats will win some seats. There is no question about that. However, the pick up will not be enough to change hands in either the house or the senate. With regard to the Senate, the Dems will have some real problems holding New Jersey. If they lose NJ, it will be tough to win enough elsewhere to make up the difference. Burns in Montana reminds me of Kentucky — looks like dead now, but Montana is still a tough place for Dems to win. Locally, the winds are moving “anti-incumbent” as opposed to “Democrat.” Blago will be the big loser there. With regard to Congress, I still think Bean holds, Duckworth wins, and the rest hold. Kirk is beatable, but probably not this year. However, in 2008 Rahm will recruit a stronger candidate and that seat will go back into the blue column, where it belongs. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 9:04 am: Name one incumbant that will lose. Now name enough losers to switch the Congress. Can’t come up with enough? Neither can the rest of the talking heads and blowhards claiming that there will be a switch in November. The Senate switches more than the House. But again, no one is claiming that the Senate will switch. All we are hearing is a lot of politicos and opinion makers spouting nonsense. Until someone comes up with a real list of competative House and Senate races that can make the switch, it’s all hogwash! - SilverBackDemocrat - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 9:12 am: I doubt that it will be “that” severe, especially with congressional districts so manipulated. However, I do think there will be some impact. I hope the Democrats take back both houses, but that would be very hard to accomplish. “Bush” has really be an adrenaline shot in Democrats’ arm. Unfortunately, there has been over 17,000 “maimed and disfigured” marines and soldiers and nearly 3,000 killed in combat. In addition to all the other stuff, like monitoring phone calls (spying on people), CIA contracting at the watergate “hooker-hooplah”, and CIA operatives being exposed, etc., etc. The list goes on and on. Yet, the right-wingers “will not” hold hearing and investigate, but when it brother “Bill” was President they investigated him for all kinds of stuff, like a bad-land deal in Arkansas. And the kicker of all, they attempted to impeach him for a “blow-job.” Give me a break. At a minimum the people should know “why” the right-wing lied about WMD, and the laundry list of lies, half-truths, etc. So, based on the above, there might be something to the generic congressional polling that shows Democrats increasing their numbers, albeit the redistricting. In Illinois, I have yet to meet more than a handful of people who like “W.” I think it will be reflected in Illinois during the general election. Furthermore, Ms. Topinka is a “Bush-crony”, AKA-Bush-lite because she is doing what he does and used to do, “Nothing.” If complaining equalled votes, she would not only be Governor, she would be Queen. Continuous complaining “stops progress.” Nobody wants to hear a person complain all the time, non-stop. Most people do enough of that themselves. But when a candidate complains and then complains some more without a firm grasp of the issues and without a “plan,” or forethought of what they would do, that candidate is in serious trouble. Therefore, I think the perception problems at the national level are going to effect our election in Illinois in November. Mostly to the detriment of Ms. Topinka. She will lose, but it will be fairly close. The November election will show how strong the Democratic party is in Illinois. - Skeeter - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 9:29 am: Vanilla, I’ve always suspected that you were short on facts. Here is a list: R Incumbents that might lose: Ohio 18 (Ney) PA 06 (Gerlach) Florida 22 (Shaw) Conn. 02 (Simmons) New Mexico 01 (Wilson) Indiana 09 (Sodrel) Kentucky 04 (Davis) I note that there are also several open R seats that might switch, including IL -6. See also: Col. 07 Iowa - 01 I could provide a lot more, but you get the idea. - Bill Baar - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 9:38 am: There are too many wild cards. All you need is some fellows caught like those in Canada. Worse, fellows like that successful. Or further mess with Iran. I have no idea how that would play out for Bush or the Congressional candidates. I think you would see Democratic response of muscular-liberalism from Democrats i.e. bomb the hell out of the [deleted] or Clinton’s Sudan bombing on a larger scale. I’m always amazed when talking with friends who voted for Kerry and how they can switch back and forth from pull-out from Iraq to bomb the [deleted]. (One reason why I think domestic fallout from Haditha will not be as grave as you would think). So like I say, alot of wild cards and Bush ends up having dropped the ball on National Security you could get a massive reaction against him… [edited by moderator] - Beowulf - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 9:45 am: On the national scene, I don’t forsee many major changes. On the state scene, if Blagojevich wins my guess is that it will be a “squeaker”. It won’t be because the Illinois voters want JBT as much as they want to get rid of Blagojevich. The Democrats should have run Lisa Madigan for Governor if they had wanted “a sure thing”. - Jechislo - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 9:49 am: If the Democrats had any real substansive ideas they may have been able to pull a switch in the House or the Senate. But, all they have done for the past 3 years is tell us why not to vote for the Republicans instead of why to vote for Republican.the Democrats. House, Senate both stay r - Why can't we address it - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 9:50 am: I am sometimes pejoratively referred to as a “hard-line Republican.” A more accurate description would be “hard-line conservative-libertarian.” I’m a fanatic on the rule of law: we have to obey the laws, no matter how unpalatable they are to us, if we are to remain a viable society. Don’t misunderstand, I firmly believe there are times when civil disobedience is the obligation of a good citizen. The illegal immigration situtation, however, is not one of them. Last Thurdsay night, Francine Busby, a Democratic candidate for the 50th Congressional District in San Diego, said something extraordinary while speaking before a largely “Latino” crowd. Listen how they try to create distrust and make up lies.Luis Guttierrez is part of this crowd. This is the Democrat agenda exposed — inadvertantly, of course — for all to hear: pandering to a group of voters and telling them that they don’t need to papers to vote. Democrats are the party of chaos and the party of destruction. Regardless of how upset you are at the Republicans in November (and I am VERY upset with quite a few of them) remember this sound-bite when you go into the voting booth. - ZC - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 10:16 am: There are enough winnable seats in the House and the Senate for the Democrats to flip control (to Skeeter’s excellent list, I could add AZ-8 (Kolbe), IN-8 (Hostettler), NY-24 (Boehlert) and so on …) What the Democrats really need, nationwide, is to catch a national wave that swamps the Northeast coast and takes out a handful of other Republicans as it courses westward. There aren’t that many New England Republicans left, but there are enough to flip control of the House. New York in particular could be the Democrats’ Texas in 2006, if Hillary Clinton and Eliot Spitzer romp there and no Republicans turn out to vote. That all said … NOBODY knows yet. There are no reliable, statistical models that can predict seat pickups with anything resembling minimal certainty. In our modern era of micro-targeting and redistricting, that’s even more a caution. A national wave may lift Democratic boats, but the Democrats’ hopes still succeed on the individual skill, energy and luck put into 30-40 races across the country. The fundamentals look good, but the Dems still have to execute their game plan. See: Roskam v. Duckworth. Bean should probably make it through on the strong anti-Republican wave, and I wouldn’t go napping if I were Jerry Weller. Otherwise, I don’t see any seats in Illinois in danger of flipping. - Ashur Odishoo - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 10:26 am: Pelosi and friends haven’t provided a case or alternative to the Republicans. She complains loudly, but needs substance to make an impact. I think Illinois is in a vacuum in this upcoming election. - zinged again - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 10:42 am: Ashur is right…the Republicans have unbelivable vulnerability, however, the Democrats show no agenda. In 1994, Newt orchestrated the ‘Contract With America’ a brilliant plan of communicating an agenda to the people. The present-day Democrats can only run so far on, “he lied.” The fact is that they have no more solutions than the Republicans and they cannot convince anyone that they care any more. When all is done and said, we know both the Republicans and the Democrats for what they are…business people looking to hold onto their jobs. unless the Democrats can convince the public otherwise - no changes. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 10:54 am: Your list of possible seats is too short and requires 100% wins. Get real. - Pat Collins - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 11:04 am: You are forgetting illegal immigration. That seems to be the driving issue nationally. It might help Repubs in the house, hurt in the Senate. - respectful - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 11:12 am: Dems make gains in the Congress and in the General Assembly. In any close race, the Republican is vulnerable if the bigger Dem turnout occurs as predicted. - ZC - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 11:15 am: I think we’ve listed 12 seats so far that could flip. You’re right, that is too short. OK, then let’s add: CT-4 (Shays), NC-11 (Taylor), OH-15 (Pryce), MN-06 (Kennedy), WI-08 (Green), TX-22 (DeLay), NY-20 (Sweeney). That’s 19 right there, more than enough to flip, and it would not take 100% wins. And we haven’t even mentioned CA-50 (Cunningham’s district) or IL-6 (Hyde’s), or CT-5 (Nancy Johnson’s), or IL-11 (Weller), or NV-3 (Porter), or potentially ANY Republican currently residing in New Hampshire or New York, if things just continue to go downhill over the next few months (8 more seats in play). That enough for you? And who knows what other corruption-shoe may drop between now and Election Day(Jerry Weller over in CA isn’t looking so hot just now … which Republican on House Appropriations will get busted next? How many Republicans will be named as partying with hookers at one of Cunningham’s soirees?) VanillaMan is right: it is still difficult to envision a scenario whereby the Democrats take back the House. But it’s not _impossible_ to imagine one. It’s rather easy. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 11:23 am: With Howard Dean now saying that the 2004 election was stolen, Congressional candidates claiming that they will make impeachment of both Bush and Cheney their number one priority upon election, and other moonbats claiming that there was a huge conspiracy to get us into Iraq, I am not suprised to hear that these same people believe it is not impossible to see the impossible happen and win in November. Fortunately the majority of voters are not insane. - Skeeter - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 11:27 am: Thanks for your “substantive” comments VM, proving once again that an uneducated voter is the GOP’s best friend. People here gave you facts, and you responded with the typical FoxNews report. No wonder you vote for those guys. - nobody sent - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 11:27 am: The Democrats are going to win big this year. In IL, Bean will be comfortably re-elected, Duckworth will squeak by, and Seals will be one of a few major upsets nationwide. I think this phenomenon will be limited to the federal races, with other safe Republicans winning by smaller than normal margins. Democrats will release a plan, but when the time is right. The “Contract with America,” didn’t come out until very late in the cycle. The minute a plan is released, the GOP gets to stop defending their own miserable records and the lame duck president and they get to go on the attack. Better to watch them tear each other apart than to wade into the mix. Democrats in the House and Senate have been effectively fighting the administration since day one of the second term. By defeating the centerpiece of the “ownership society,” in the attempt to privatize social security, Democrats set the stage for the Administration and the GOP congress current bumbling condition. - HoosierDaddy - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 11:40 am: The 1994 election was not about 1994 issues. It was more about systemic realignment. The GOP should have taken control of the House in 1984, or 1988 but the district structure at that time was not emenable to it. The redistricting in 1991-92 set the stage. I may be mistaken, but I think when Clinton won in 1992, he had no, or perhaps negative coattails. All Gingrich did was take (very effective) advantage of a pre-existing realignment. The problem the Dems have is that there is not a realignment to take advantage of. They (might) pick up a few seats, but it won’t be enough. The GOP does not deserve to retain control, but the Dems don’t deserve to take it away. The real contest in America is between the Evil Party and the Stupid Party. - Bill Baar - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 11:47 am: sorry Rich.. wasn’t thinking - VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 12:00 pm: I promise this is my last post so that others can have a chance. So, go ahead and bash me for saying it straight-up on this issue. I was not surprised to see the Republicans take control in 1994. I was also not surprised that our esteemed opinion makers and journalists were suprised. We all know that reporters and the hoi-paloi are Democratic. This meant that the 1994 election was presented with bias, just as 2004 and this year. I clearly remember how Gingrich was mocked by a number of media outlets for his Contract With America. He was mocked until it worked. What much of the media has done is make Republicans into sinners; unfashionable, stupid, mean and evil. Media people don’t want to be unfashionable. That would kill their career. As a result, Republican support is always under-reported. The 2004 exit polls were actually right. Voters told the pollsters they voted for Kerry, when they actually voted for Bush. Why? Because they did not want to be seen as unfashionable by the fashionistas they were speaking to. Voters feel completely comfortable lying to pollsters and reporters - wow! Talk about how far the media has fallen! Again, we are seeing that supporting the GOP is an immoral sin among the publically fashionable. Once again, we will be seeing that what voters say in public, is not how they vote in private. The airwaves will be filled with pro-Democratic sentiment and Hollywood and most celebrities will force voters to feel inferior because of their political beliefs. In 2006 with the GOP in control and the fashionistas fighting it, this bubble concerning how the GOP will lose Congress has made the news waves. Just like the Bush will lose re-election was touted in 2004. There will be no switch in 2006. With 96% retention rates, it ain’t gonna happen. - grand old partisan - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 12:05 pm: The Democrats need to pick up 31 seats in order to take back the House. It’s certainly not impossible, but it’s not exactly likely at this point, either. VM issued a simple challenge: “name enough losers to switch the Congress.” I can’t help but notice that nobody has been able to do that. The only one who tried – skeeter – only got the Dems 1/5 of the way there….and that isassuming, as VM pointed out, that ALL of those potential losses turn out to be real losses. One really has to wonder about the misdirected frustration going on here. What does skeeter objectively failing to meet a simple challenge have to do with FoxNews and GOP voters being “uneducated?” Skeeter: We don’t “get the idea.” If you really can “provide a lot more,” go ahead. There’s endless space for you to list them here. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 12:13 pm: GOP, I think the Dems need to win 15 or so seats to take over the House, not 31. - SouthernILRepub - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 12:23 pm: Im going to try and put a scholarly approach to this. If one looks at the current Congress the Republicans have the largest majority they have enjoyed since taking the House in ‘94. With that being said there is a large body of literature that says that Congress like the Presidency works in cycles, the Congress is likely to remain in Republican control for at least another 10-15 years. Democrats had control of Congress for 50 years prior to ‘94. The redistricting only creates a few competitive districts. Illinois is a prime example of that legitmatly there are only 1 or 2 seats that could possible change hands with the current situation. People may think Congress and the President are doing a pitiful job, but when you ask the average person, “What do you think of your individual Congressmen?” the ratings are often in the majority unless that member is controversial. The power of incumbancy is incredible. What does this mean for Illinois the question asked, not a darn thing because Illinois defies most conventional political models. There will be little shift in either chamber of the ILGA. Of course with that being said the Senate may have a larger maajority because the Watson crew could be spread too thin will all of the suburban seats to defend. I suppose the same could be said about Cross & Co. as well. - FactsofLife - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 12:42 pm: Well, if Skeeter wrote it, it must be true. I will admit though, that people who disagree with him must watch Fox or listen to Rush never gets old. - Bubs - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 12:49 pm: America is moving inexorably towards the End of the Reagan Era. The political discourse and direction of this nation has fundamentally shifted from Left of Center to Right of Center, and will not shift back anytime soon. But the voters are now looking for something Beyond Reaganism. The prize of Congressional control goes to the party that comes up with that vision. But not yet. Admittedly, the Conservative-controlled national GOP is an exhausted volcano, desperately trying to rally the “base” with gay bashing, flag burning and immigration. All things being equal, we should get absolutely creamed. Luckily, the Democrats are also flat out of new ideas other than whining, mainly because their leadership consists of antiquated Liberals or “Pseudo-Centrists” (definable as Liberals trying to make the best of a more conservative political environment.) The Illinois, in the 6th and 8th it is not surprising that two staunch Reaganites having trouble finding traction against two female, Democratic “Pseudo-Centrists.” But underneath the sheep’s clothing, Bean and Duckworth are both are Hard Left. The challenge is to demonstrate that fact. Because the Illinois GOP never went completely “Reaganite”, it can make a strong comeback in the next few elections, particulary if Topinka can win, and they can articulate a Reform and anti-Chicago Machine message. The GOP presently is nowhere near ready to take control of the legislature, because of (1) Bush’s approval ratings; and (2) the nationally vaunted “GOP infrastructure” does not yet exist in Illinois. When it does . . . - grand old partisan - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 1:17 pm: Rich, you are right. There’s a difference of 30 members, so flipping 16 would give the majority to the Dems. I’m a poli sci guy…..never very strong with math. Nevertheless, skeeter’s list of potential flips, even at 100% realized, would still only get them a little less than 1/2 of the way there, so I stand by my main point: No one has been able to answer VM’s challenge. All we have gotten is a failed attempt and some name-calling. - Skeeter - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 1:36 pm: Facts: If you are just tossing around FoxNews commentary, then I am going to say you are just tossing around Fox News commentary. If you add facts,then you don’t get the label. GOP, you should know me well enough to avoid challenging me. It only makes you look ridiculous. Not quite as your “31 seats needed” comment, but still, pretty ridiculous: Here is a list of 30. If you read my initial comment, you would note that I believe the odds are stacked against the Dems, but they sure will give it a run: 1. ILLINOIS-06 (Open-R) [Hyde] 2. COLORADO-07 (Open-R) 3. IOWA-01 (Open-R) 4. OHIO-18 (Ney-R) 5. PENNSYLVANIA-06 (Gerlach-R) 6. ARIZONA-05 (Hayworth-R) 7. ARIZONA-08 (Open-R) 8. FLORIDA-22 (Shaw-R) 9. CONNECTICUT-02 (Simmons-R) 10. NEW MEXICO-01 (Wilson-R) 11. INDIANA-09 (Sodrel-R) 12. KENTUCKY-04 (Davis-R) 13. INDIANA-08 (Hostettler-R) 14. NEW YORK-24 (Open-R) 15. CONNECTICUT-04 (Shays-R) 16. NORTH CAROLINA-11 (Taylor-R) 17. OHIO-15 (Pryce-R) 18. MINNESOTA-06 (Open-R) 19. WISCONSIN-08 (Open-R) 20. TEXAS-22 (Open-R) 21. NEW YORK-20 (Sweeney-R) 22. CALIFORNIA-50 (Open-R) 23. PENNSYLVANIA-07 (Weldon-R) 24. PENNSYLVANIA-08 (Fitzpatrick-R) 25. VIRGINIA-02 (Drake-R) 26. WASHINGTON-08 (Reichert-R) 27. CALIFORNIA-11 (Pombo-R) 28. CONNECTICUT-O5 (Johnson-R) 29. OHIO-O1 (Chabot-R) 30. COLORADO-04 (Musgrave-R) - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 1:56 pm: The incumbents chose their voters more carefully in the last redistricting (hat tip to technology). More gerrymandered now than in 1994. Unlikely GOP loses control of either House in D.C., but likely to lose enough seats to send a wake up call about the serious lack of leadership. But in Illinois, IL GOP likely sees the biggest disaster yet. All the signs point to it. Repubs here are so turned off there will probably even be some candidates who don’t bother to go out and vote for themselves. - grand old partisan - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 2:00 pm: Skeeter, That’s a fair list. Depending upon many variables both nationally and locally, those seats could all very well flip. But, like you, I don’t think that enough of them will to constitute of landslide or change control of the chamber (particularly the House). In regards to my defense of VM, perhaps you’d care to cite the “facts” you have listed. Because, far as I can tell, either that is either (a) a list of seats that, in your OPINION, might be flip-able, or (b) a regurgitation of some other ANALYSIS. Which, while perhaps better than FoxNews commentary, is hardly fact. - Mathematician - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 2:08 pm: Grand — check your math. Remember that every R loss is a D gain. The GOP had 232 votes to 203 Dems before Cunningham and Menendez. Holding the Menendez seat plus 15 gives the House to the Dems, 218-217. - Mathematician - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 2:10 pm: Oops, sorry for the redundancy, forgot to refresh. - Boone Logan Square - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 2:19 pm: My best guess is the Republicans will maintain control of the Senate (Democrats would have to have everything break right to get above 50 seats) but will lose about 30 seats in the House. Illinois seats to watch include Weller’s, Kirk’s, and Shimkus’s (as well as the vacant Hyde seat). - bomber91 - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 2:41 pm: If we’re going to take Rich’s question to the next level, shouldn’t we be listing endangered Democrat seats? This would give us more to work with and allow us all to make a more accurate estimate. - ron - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 2:47 pm: i see a listing of vulnerable republican seats. are there any democratic seats out of 435 considered to be vulnerable? if there are, i would think a rational and prudent analyis would include them to determine net gain or loss. the colorado 3, georgia 8 and 12 and louisiana 3 or vulnerable democratic seats, becuas of local issues. when boone logan square starts calling the shimkus seeat one to watch, you know the blogger has no concept of political reality. - Lovie's Leather - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 2:50 pm: It’s way too early to be talking about this yet. When late August and September roll around, I will be much better equipped to answer this question. Right now though, the house looks like it will be about even. The senate will remain GOP, probably by a 52-48 or 53-47 margin… not that the Senate does anything in particular… (just to let you know, I think Senators are the most useless things on this planet). Either way, you will still have a Republican president and senate… not much to be excited about for either side. I know the Nancy Pelosi as the next Speaker if frightening to some, but in the end, a Pelosi Speakership would almost guarentee a GOP-friendly 2008… - Please - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 2:56 pm: Can I get a job where Skeeter works? - Skeeter - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 2:57 pm: Bomber, Maybe the Republicans here can give you a few names. At risk of sounding biased, I don’t see many Democrats at risk. I will toss out Barrow and Marshall in Georgia (Georgia 8 and 12). Georgia is just too red now. It will be a fight for those two, but I think they will hold. People here think Cong. Bean is in trouble. I don’t think so. She’s a good fit for that district. The Republicans did the right thing by not nominating Salvi, but they still face an uphill battle there. The real issue will be how many the Republicans can hold and not how many they will pick up. As I noted in my first post, I find the Kentucky example to be what probably will happen. A lot of unpopular Republicans will hold, but the Dems will definitely have gains. I am predicting a Dem gain of 8 - 10. In the Senate, I would be thrilled if the Dems can pick up two. I doubt it. Santorum should be packing up his office, but other than possibly in Montana (see my doubts in the first post) I am not seeing much more. The Dems may actually lose a seat, if they manage to lose both Minnesota and New Jersey. I would not be shocked in the slighest if the net result is Republicans pick up one net (with changes only in PA, Minn. and NJ). The Dems could also pick up 8 seats there though, if things continue in the present direction. If Webb wins the VA. primary (currently behind), then he will give Allen a huge battle, and Tenn. could also go blue since Ford is a good candidate and I’m not sure that the Republicans will run anyone for Gov. It is still early. - ZC - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 2:57 pm: I also think, this being largely a state politics blog, that Rich was curious about how a Democratic wave might affect the Illinois House and Senate. Can anybody in that loop (I am more knowledgeable about D.C.) compile a list of possible upsets on the stateside? Of course it’s all speculation, but it’s fun to try. Which Republican in Springfield might get blitzed out of the blue come Election Night 2006? - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 4:50 pm: Why can’t …, Can you say schizophrenic? Are you a fanatic about the rule of law or a libertarian? A libertarian believes in the supremacy of the individual, thus, no government to make laws. People can come and go as they please, no artificial, government-created borders. To paraphrase Lloyd Bensten, seems to me that you are no libertarian. - Lovie's Leather - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 5:14 pm: No anon 4:50, libertarians don’t believe in what is essentially anarchy. They believe in a weak government that is still a government (protects itself). There are many small-gov conservatives out there who do border more on libertarianism than modern-day George W conservatism. I thought I would actually pull up a quote from the log-cabin Repub website (I am not gay), “We are loyal Republicans. We believe in low taxes, limited government, strong defense, free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty.” That is the basis for being a Republican… atleast it is for me. It does border on libertarianism whereas the democrats border on socialism: closed markets, no defense, big government, no responsibility. You say thay we are not libertarians? To quote William Shakespeare, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” - SenorAnon - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 5:22 pm: “…whereas the democrats border on socialism: closed markets, no defense, big government, no responsibility.” Parroting sad, cookie-cutter, dittohead arguments doesn’t exactly bolster your credibility. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 5:26 pm: OK, kids. Yellow card. Everybody go to your corners. When you’re ready to move beyond semantics and name-calling, come back out and try to GET BACK ON POINT. Thanks. - Disgusted - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 8:01 pm: It doesn’t matter what the party or who the candidates are. It will only take a couple of years, if that, in DC and Springfield and they will be the same as the crew that we have now. There is not difference in the end. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. - anon - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 8:02 pm: Whatever it would take to get Bush impeached has my vote. - Been There - Monday, Jun 5, 06 @ 11:22 pm: The level of voter frustration is very high and seems to be growing. I don’t think either party to date has a very well defined platform that is going to excite the electorate. The public’s frustration and generalized mood for “change” puts it all up for grabs and very unpredictible in my opinion. Nothing is out of the question, including majority changes in the US Senate and House under these conditions. The combination of frustration and desire for change can result in many just simply sitting this out (voting won’t make a difference attitude), which changes the complexion of individual races, but probably helps individual incumbants the most in the off election year. If these moods (frustration/change) combine and motivate voter turnout in a “throw all the bumbs out” attitude, there is going to be a very long election night before we see what has been wrought. The foul mood of the public is further demonstrated by good economic numbers, low unemployment, yet a vast majority saying we are on the wrong track, wrong direction. Folks are downright sour. As noted earlier in the comments, I would expect Rahm to be pulling from the Newt playbook and having something similiar to the “Contract with America” around Labor Day. Remains to be seen what is in there and how well party discipline can be imposed to follow the “plan/contract” in a Democratic party deeply divided on their own direction. As for the Republicans, if they wait that long (Fall) to come up with their vision, it is going to be too late. I think they may have missed the opportunity to get back on the right track by not implementing fundamental ethics reforms in response to the growing number of scandals that make the party look like the Democrats in 1994. The mea culpa, lets get back to our fundamentals, moment has probably passed. This (along with the Bush/traditional Presidential drag in off year elections) will make for tough sledding come November regardless. Long way till November (and potential intervening events loom large), but all in all, the Dems currently have the advantage and the edge. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.