Althouse: The Senate will end up 50-50.

October 7, 2010

The Senate will end up 50-50.

I predict, after clicking on the details to the 6 races counted as "Toss Ups."

83 comments:

Fred4Pres said...: That Delaware decision may ironically put Biden as the tie breaker.

Freaky.; 10/7/10, 8:34 AM
Scott M said...: First...find out how those around you are on their American civics and ask them how the Senate breaks a tie in a 50-50 vote. It will depress you, I wager.

Second...if this does happen, stand by with all of the sound bytes from the last time it looked like a 50-50 and all of the cries of powersharing from the Democrats. I'm fairly certain they won't be so amicable this time around.

Third...looks like the president is going to be out of the country for an extended state trip right after the election. LOL; 10/7/10, 8:34 AM
KCFleming said...: "The Senate will end up 50-50."

The economy will end up in 1938.; 10/7/10, 8:40 AM
MadisonMan said...: As I've said earlier, I don't care what happens really, but if Reid and Boxer both win re-election, sadness.; 10/7/10, 8:43 AM
Ann Althouse said...: @MM I'm seeing Reid losing but Boxer winning. The path to 51 is Boxer losing.; 10/7/10, 8:47 AM
Widmerpool said...: I'm thinking Murray loses Ann.; 10/7/10, 8:51 AM
SteveR said...: By any measure Reid and Boxer going would be good for America, although I think Boxer will pull it out.; 10/7/10, 8:51 AM
Scott M said...: @Ann

Gut feeling says Boxer looses too. It really will depend, almost completely, on whether or not her base stays home. Not a good bet considering legalizing MJ is on the ballot.

Anyone else think that "coincidence" was a Machiavelli to get out the Democrats?

Please return your tinfoil hat to the box near the door on your way out.; 10/7/10, 8:51 AM
tim maguire said...: It'd almost be worth it to see what Biden would do when he personally has to pass or fail Senate bills.; 10/7/10, 8:52 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/7/10, 8:52 AM
Anonymous said...: I am asked by my clients to not share things any more. They are concerned. So, my predictions the last time on this wonderful blog:

Nov. 2010:
- Senate 54 (D)
- House 224 (D)

Nov. 2012
- Obama/Biden (Victory)
[GOP ticket does not matter, N/A]; 10/7/10, 8:54 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Politico)

Do not worry, after my work in many Democrat Campaigns, and extensive list of Democrat contacts, I can attest Pelosi will be Speaker in January 2011 and Reid will be majority Floor Leader...

Obama/Clinto will win in 2012, and Clinton in 2016, and 2020, and then Chelsea will run...

Republican need to abandon all hope and convert to Democrat to ahve any impact on US policy of the public...

I knows all this from my many highly paid campaign jobs with Democrat. Thanx.; 10/7/10, 8:57 AM
Scott M said...: Joe

Either the EMP or the zombie apocalypse will prevent any further American presidents to be elected in 2012, thus forever frustrating one Hillary Clinton (Esquire).

On a serious note...I hadn't realized how old she's getting. Shades of Reagan should she ever actually try again.; 10/7/10, 8:59 AM
Big Mike said...: @Professor, I think that a lot of independents in California will split their vote, and with Whitman fading in the Governor's race I think we'll see Fiorina win in the Senate.

I had been nursing hopes of seeing Gillibrand or Blumenthal upset, but those hopes are fading.

My most pleasant daydream is O'Donnell winning in Delaware, following which all of the Democrats up for relection in 2012 or 2014 change parties.

But it won't happen. [sigh]; 10/7/10, 9:00 AM
Lincolntf said...: I'd say we take the Murray, Reid and Bennet seats if I had to pick 3out of 6 from the Toss-up column. I don't know if I'd be so bold as to predict more than that.
I'll take as many as we can get of course, and hopefully the next few weeks will send some more good fortune our way.; 10/7/10, 9:02 AM
lemondog said...: Can't locate video but the DSCC is running a funny 'Pat Toomey should run for Senator in.......Red China!' ad with the last frame showing Toomey pictured against a screen filling image of the red flag of the People's Republic of China with appropriate Chinese background music.

So who's the REAL commie/socialist/Marxist!

It made me laugh. Is that the sign of an effective ad?; 10/7/10, 9:03 AM
Jim said...: Fearless prediction #1: "America's Politico" will immediately slink away into the darkness on November 3rd after having hopelessly embarrassed himself with his astroturfing prediction failure.

Fearless prediction #2: AP will return not long thereafter with another alt after David Axelrod returns to Chicago to head Obama's 2012 re-election campaign, and he starts cutting more checks for his army of paid astroturfers to infest blog comment sections once again.

Fearless prediction #3: The increase in paid campaign astroturfers will be claimed by Obama as jobs "saved or created" as a result of his policies and evidence of his ability to lead. You know, kind of like, his supposed ability to run a presidential campaign was supposed proof that he was of executive timbre. And we all know how that has worked out.; 10/7/10, 9:08 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
Who knew that AP would beat me in with his forecast?

ScottM, The Zombie Apocalypse will tend to skew the electorate even more Democratic, and so I believe elections WILL be held post -2012. I think the campaign ads and promises will be somewhat different though, “I promise a Brain in every pot!”; 10/7/10, 9:09 AM
Scott M said...: Joe,

Of course zombies skew heavily Democrat. I think the point you're missing with your campaign promises, though, is that they don't read billboards.; 10/7/10, 9:15 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: My most pleasant daydream is O'Donnell winning in Delaware, following which all of the Democrats up for relection in 2012 or 2014 are changed into newts.

Fixed that for you.; 10/7/10, 9:18 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
On though, is that they don't read billboards.

Oh Marketing people can get around that…the billboard would feature the smell of brains, and the smell of the candidate, linking, in the Zombie mind, the preferred candidate and BRAINS! GOTV efforts would be “interesting”…vans, slowly driving about with people strapped to the rear bumper, moving to the polling places, springs to mind.; 10/7/10, 9:26 AM
garage mahal said...: Must be frustrating for Republicans that even with 10% unemployment, a shit economy, and the worst President ever, they are still having a tough time in this election finding majorities.; 10/7/10, 9:27 AM
Big Mike said...: I think they'd much rather be newts than Republicans.; 10/7/10, 9:27 AM
KCFleming said...: Indeed, garage.

Why people favor Demcorats at all when they have screwed up so badly is a mystery explained only by the lasting appeal of socialism. As Freeman sez, everyone wants free ponies.

The Soviets gave it up, but it took 70 years.

The Chicoms gave it up, after a similar 3/4ths century.

Now even Castro is giving in capitalism, albeit the state-run sort.

I won't be around in 50 years to see how bad things get for us when we finally give up the ghost ourselves.

So in advance I say: Toldja so!!; 10/7/10, 9:32 AM
Scott M said...: Must be frustrating for Republicans that even with 10% unemployment, a shit economy, and the worst President ever, they are still having a tough time in this election finding majorities.

Sour grapes, Garage. It's very difficult to unseat an incumbent, no matter what the circumstances are. Just ask Mary Jo Kopechne. Oh, wait...

We'll see how difficult it is on November 4th. Maybe December 4th or so, given the contemporary penchant for post-electoral litigation.; 10/7/10, 9:32 AM
garage mahal said...: So in advance I say: Toldja so!!

We're a strong country, we survived the socialist policies from the 90's that crippled our economy. We'll survive again. It could be that historically our economy, by some strange twist of fate, actually does better under Democrats. I think that's hurting Republicans. Not fair, but true.; 10/7/10, 9:43 AM
Scott M said...: We're a strong country, we survived the socialist policies from the 90's that crippled our economy. We'll survive again. It could be that historically our economy, by some strange twist of fate, actually does better under Democrats. I think that's hurting Republicans. Not fair, but true.

What color is the sky in your world, Garage?; 10/7/10, 9:46 AM
traditionalguy said...: Ignorance...The mere thought of O'Donnell's victory causing a mass morphing of Dems into Gingrich clones should help Coons beat her. But again, that many Newt Gingriches on the loose could increase the incomes of divorce lawyers everywhere.; 10/7/10, 9:47 AM
Scott M said...: But again, that many Newt Gingriches on the loose could increase the incomes of divorce lawyers everywhere.

It would certainly help Janeane Garofalo's flagging career.; 10/7/10, 9:49 AM
ricpic said...: Dick Morris keeps saying that the Dem incumbents who can't poll better than 50% are dead in the water because undecideds always go with the challenger in those situations. Hope he's right.; 10/7/10, 9:55 AM
ricpic said...: I've always wanted a free pony but I know it comes with a shitload of trouble.; 10/7/10, 9:57 AM
garage mahal said...: What color is the sky in your world, Garage?

If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic. By virtually every economic indicator, historically Americans fare better under Democratic Presidents. Job creation, GDP growth, unemployment, even corporate profits as a share of GDP. Check out this eye-popping chart.

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.; 10/7/10, 10:00 AM
GMay said...: garage, you really need to stay out of the finance discussions. Presidents don't run the economy or the markets. Never have, never will. I'd explain it to you, but you can't even grasp what a bond is and what backs it.; 10/7/10, 10:09 AM
Scott M said...: If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic. By virtually every economic indicator, historically Americans fare better under Democratic Presidents. Job creation, GDP growth, unemployment, even corporate profits as a share of GDP.

I reiterate...what color is the sky in your world? Is it the same color as the sky over all those who still believe the NYT is an unbiased paper of record?; 10/7/10, 10:13 AM
garage mahal said...: That's the weird twist of fate I was talking about Gmay. Not fair is it.; 10/7/10, 10:14 AM
Stephen A. Meigs said...: What I have noticed and what I think tends to happen is that the party that seems more in favor of privacy protections tends to do better than polls suggest (the people who don't answer polls presumably tend to be the ones who care about their privacy greatly). Since Obama's administration wants ISPs to keep records of internet traffic and wants to make it difficult for people to encrypt communication, the Dems have evinced a contempt for privacy that will likely cause the Republicans to do better than expected. Looking at the individual candidates' positions on privacy in the tight races would yield more accurate predictions, but I have not done that.; 10/7/10, 10:19 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Nate Silver only identifies three states as close. (Nevada, Illinois for the GOP, West Virginia for the Dems.)

Silver still predicts the Democrats will have 51 or 52 seats.

Scott, the MJ issue is there to get the youth to the polls, if they can remember to get out of bed before the polls close. It's not unlike the same-sex marriage amendments that Rove deployed to get out the vote for his side.

If it is 50/50, however, and Delaware chooses Coons, then y'all can thank the purity primary for making Biden the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.; 10/7/10, 10:22 AM
KCFleming said...: "then y'all can thank the purity primary for making Biden the tie-breaking vote in the Senate."

Castle would have voted with the Democrats, so no difference at all.

That people still want to shove the nation's face in the toilet and hold its head under water until it drowns is a testament to the undying appeal of Freeponyism.; 10/7/10, 10:25 AM
Leland said...: Hate to spoil Garage's moment; but the GOP is looking to win a majority of the US Senate seats on the ballot. Whether that gets them 49 to 51 total seats is the question. But of the 37 seats up, the GOP already has a lock on 19 seats. 4 more seats are leaning GOP.

If your wondering what would happen if all the Senate seats were up for election; then you might check out what is happening in the US House.; 10/7/10, 10:41 AM
Roger J. said...: Makes little difference who controls the Senate as long as the Rs have a cloture proof vote. And that looks quite certain at this point.; 10/7/10, 10:47 AM
Unknown said...: My prognostication record over the years is about as good as Morris', but I think McMahon may pull it out - she seems to have nailed Blumenthal in the debate, although Rasmussen shows him pulling away (which seems counterintuitive to me, but it IS the state that gave us Lowell Wacko as a Republican). I also agree with Scott M on Babs, I think she's toast.

That said, the idea of Halo Joe as the Senate tie-breaker would provide some good comedy, although many of us would be watching it on somebody else's TV.

garage mahal said...

Must be frustrating for Republicans that even with 10% unemployment, a shit economy, and the worst President ever, they are still having a tough time in this election finding majorities.

Took the Demos 2 election cycles, too.

And that's 22% unemployment.; 10/7/10, 10:50 AM
GMay said...: garage mahal said: "That's the weird twist of fate I was talking about Gmay. Not fair is it."

Well, no, it's not fair because it's not accurate. Earlier you said:

"It could be that historically our economy, by some strange twist of fate, actually does better under Democrats."

A statement that is demonstrably false given the most recent economic collapse.

Your presidential "argument" was just fluff.; 10/7/10, 10:51 AM
Jon said...: Althouse said: @MM I'm seeing Reid losing but Boxer winning. The path to 51 is Boxer losing.

Actually, the most realistic path to 51 is Murray losing, not Boxer.

To reach 41, the GOP needs to win 5 of the 6 tossups. The RCP polling averages have the GOP ahead in 4 of the 6 (CO, WV, IL, NV), behind by 3 in WA, and behind by 5 in CA. Also, the most recent poll from WA has Murray behind, while there are no recent polls showing Boxer behind. Hence, WA (my state) is more likely to be the 51st seat than CA.; 10/7/10, 10:54 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Leland, surely you don't have a problem with the Founding Fathers' judgment in making the rules re. Senate elections, do you?

As for the House, gerrymandering will keep the GOP from a sweeping victory that they ought to have this year.

Pogo, Castle voted against health care reform. But I guess that's not good enough for you.

Freeponyism? As if Republicans don't play that game, too.

What was Medicare, Part-D if not free ponies for old people?

It worked out pretty well for the people who wrote the bill, too.

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group.

Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.

A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.; 10/7/10, 10:56 AM
Jon said...: in my post above, "to reach 41" should be "to reach 51"; 10/7/10, 10:57 AM
Roger J. said...: To further Peter Hoh's comment, it seems to me the issue in incumbent irrespective of the letter behind their names. Last I looked the republican caucus couldnt reach a conclusion on earmarks.; 10/7/10, 11:01 AM
KCFleming said...: "What was Medicare, Part-D if not free ponies for old people?"

Absolutely. Another nail in the economic coffin.

As for Delaware, if they want an avowed communist for Senator over a witch dabbling doofus, well, hell, you can't stop people intent on suicide.; 10/7/10, 11:07 AM
Peter Hoh said...: It's a good year to be a Republican incumbent, in part because most of the Republicans in competitive districts lost in 06 or 08.

I think Cao in LA-2 is the only incumbent Republican facing a tough race.; 10/7/10, 11:09 AM
Lincolntf said...: Liberals never acknowledge it when their ideas are vomited up by the public that has had them rammed down their throats. This year isn't about anti-incumbent sentiment, it's a wholesale rejection of the collectivist, America-last mindset that crested in 2008.
The rejection will be decisive and hopefully permanent.; 10/7/10, 11:12 AM
Peter Hoh said...: As for Delaware, if they want an avowed communist for Senator over a witch dabbling doofus, well, hell, you can't stop people intent on suicide.

As for Delaware Republicans who voted in the primary, if they want a dabbling doofus over a guy who is a shoo-in for the general election, well, hell, you can't stop people intent on suicide.; 10/7/10, 11:12 AM
Jon said...: Peter Hoh said: Nate Silver only identifies three states as close. (Nevada, Illinois for the GOP, West Virginia for the Dems.)

Silver should not be giving WV to the Dems. The GOP candidate is ahead there by 4 points in the polling average, and 6 points in the most recent poll. I suspect he will finally be moving WV into the GOP column in his next update.; 10/7/10, 11:14 AM
Roger J. said...: Lincoln--I hope you are right, but from my perspective the republican establishment is as untrustworthy as the democrats.; 10/7/10, 11:15 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Jon, yes, the recent polls show WV trending to Raese. Silver's model takes a while to catch up when there's been a late swing like that.; 10/7/10, 11:20 AM
KCFleming said...: Peter:
Yep, suicidal is the word.

[Ed.: I thought "Grease" was the word, the word that you heard. It's got groove it's got meaning.]; 10/7/10, 11:23 AM
garage mahal said...: Liberals never acknowledge it when their ideas are vomited up by the public that has had them rammed down their throats.

Conservatives haven't won anything. They haven't won anything for a long time. They aren't going to gain control of the Senate, and there isn't even a guarantee they gain enough seats to gain control of the House. If they can't gain control of any chambers with 10% unemployment and a horrible economy I don't know when they ever will. So much for the wholesale rejection of liberalism. Democrats even seem to be surging in many polls. Uh-oh!; 10/7/10, 11:35 AM
Lincolntf said...: The old models are falling away. The best part is that Repubs are truly throwing the bums out this time, not just shuffling them around.
If the Dems were able to do a similar thing and wrest their Party out of the hands of the radical activists in the Frank/Pelosi/Reid/Obama/Jery Brown category then they might have a comeback. I have a feeling that people are not going to be buying the far Left spiel any time soon. They've seen the results, so hopefully they won't get duped again. A decent and honorable Democrat Party would be a novel, and welcome, change of pace for the country.; 10/7/10, 11:38 AM
Chennaul said...: He also voted against the stimulus.

Then there's this weee, tiny little issue of the courts......

How many seats do judges from Delaware get on the Third Circuit?

That's just for starters, federal judges are approved by the Senate and appointed for life.

Any Senator can put a hold on any judicial appointment from their state.

That's why it's important to try to get at least one Republican Senator and even better to cut of the recruitment of activist Liberal judges from a blue state.

This week, the federal courts marked an important milestone when United States District Judge Joseph Farnan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware retired after a quarter century of dedicated service.

Judge Farnan's action means that the judiciary has 100 openings out of the 858 appeals and district court judgeships and the District of Delaware has only two judges. These vacancies, which are eleven percent of the positions nationally and half of the Delaware seats, erode the delivery of justice.

Before the Senate leaves for its August recess on the 9th, it must confirm Magistrate Judge Leonard Stark to the Delaware District Court.

After the Senate returns from recess, President Barack Obama should promptly nominate, and the Senate must expeditiously confirm, lower court judges, so that the bench will be at full strength.

Since the 1987 fight over Judge Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination, Democratic and Republican charges and countercharges as well as non-stop paybacks have plagued judicial appointments. Although Democrats presently control the White House and the upper chamber, they should work closely with Republicans to halt or ameliorate this counterproductive cycle.

Read more: McClatchyDC; 10/7/10, 11:40 AM
Phil 314 said...: Garage;
Now there's the perfect ad script for any Republican running against and incumbent Dem:

(Actor looks directly into the camera and in slightly irritated voice says:
"You mean even with 10% unemployment, a shit economy, and the worst President ever, you're still going to vote for _____________."

And no "hickey blue collar" actor needed; 10/7/10, 12:19 PM
Glenn Howes said...: If I were betting it, I would say the most likely outcome (at the moment) would be a 51-49 split because of the coin flips of Illinois and Nevada. If the Republicans win both of those it will be 50-50, if they lose both it will be 52-48, and if they split it will be 51-49.

So I would say the odds would be around:
51-49 - 40%
50-50 - 30%
52-48 - 20%
some other grouping - 10%

as I do think that at this moment the Republicans are slight favorites in Nevada and Illinois.

While it's possible that the Republicans could win in Washington or even California, it's also possible they could lose in West Virginia, so it's somewhat of a wash.; 10/7/10, 12:46 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Garage, it’s entirely possible that the US House will flip like it did in 1894…over 100 seats to the Republicans. In the US Senate, only 1/3 of the seats are up for election, and of those a majority are already Republican…

And you want to crow about how “we” should be doing better? In the Senate WE CAN’T DO BETTER, and in the House “you’re” options are bad, Speaker Boehner or WORSE, Speaker Boehner, with 140 Democrats! And you think some how you can twit us about this? You’re facing a car wreck, the only question of what magnitude…dood/doodette I’d be a little more circumspect in your case.; 10/7/10, 12:48 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Glenn, not going to lose in WV, Republican is up 6%...plus Manchin is popular, as Governor. Paradoxically it hurts him. By voting Republican they keep their popular Governor, AND oppose Obama. By voting Democrat they lose their Governor and get one more Obama voting Senator….Bottom-Line: WV is going “R”, this year.; 10/7/10, 12:51 PM
garage mahal said...: Yes I suppose it could turn out like it did 1894. Or not. My guess is Dems lose 35 seats in the House and 51-49 in the Senate.

*muted trumpet*; 10/7/10, 12:56 PM
Anonymous said...: The real news is that.. if 18 months ago you would have stated that Obama's approval would be below 50% that the Rep's were going to take control of the House and that the Senate was in play..you'd have been asked what you were smoking.

All the sneering an jeering about the Tea Party...guess who's laughing now?; 10/7/10, 12:59 PM
Scott M said...: Our resident goal-post mover won't admit defeat regardless of what happens in the House, let alone the Senate. It's gotten to the point now that not winning the Senate is going to be failure. That's despite the inside baseball that this cycle, at least in the Senate, is just a precursor for 2012.

Whether the GOP ends up with a 51-49 minority or a 51-49 majority, the only real difference is committee chairmanships, is it not? The amount of actual work getting done will creep along at the same pace, ie, slower than snail shit.

I still say the House is the key.; 10/7/10, 1:01 PM
MadisonMan said...: Garage, it’s entirely possible that the US House will flip like it did in 1894…over 100 seats to the Republicans.

Here's an interesting question: Of those 100+ seats that flipped, how many were won by a majority, rather than a plurality?

Things really were different then.; 10/7/10, 1:04 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Scott, I would be shocked if the GOP doesn't win the House.

This election as a precursor to 2012? I doubt it. The GOP won big in 1994, but that didn't help them in the 1996 presidential election. And the Dems took seats during Reagan's first midterm election, too, but it didn't help Mondale in 1984.

Lars, it's not a major surprise that the party of the president is taking a beating in the midterms. This happens, all the more amplified by the Dem gains in 2006 and 2008.; 10/7/10, 1:19 PM
Glenn Howes said...: Joe, I'm not disputing that the Republicans will likely win in West Virginia, I'm just saying that it's as likely as the Democrats winning both California and Washington, so in terms of predictions it's a wash.

Basically, the Republicans have to nearly run the table in the Senate and even if every individual race is 80% theirs, you are eventually going to lose one of those.

From data on Nate Silver's blog:
Colorado 79%
Nevada 56%
Illinois 54%
W.Va. 37%

I'm going to guess that tomorrow, Nate will move W.Va. to somewhere around 78%. And he might move Nevada up a bit due to recent polling, and he might move Illinois up due to changes in professional forecasting or whatever voodoo he puts in his model, but let's just stick with a W.Va. upgrade.

Well the odds of the Republicans winning all these races are 1-(.79*.56*.54*.78) or around 18% which is doable but not something I'd bet the mortgage on, and that's just to get to 50-50. Now it's possible there is some non-zero possibility of picking up Washington or California and having multiple paths to 50-50 but the odds aren't going to improve very much, and then you have to worry about the Republicans not picking up Wisconsin or some other improbable event.

Again, my opinion is that as of now, 51-49 is the most probable outcome and I would not be surprised at 52-48.; 10/7/10, 1:20 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Pogo, what's happening in Minnesota's first congressional district? I would have thought that this would be a good time for a strong GOP candidate to beat Walz.

What's the scoop on Demmer?; 10/7/10, 1:21 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Rossi up by 6 over Murray,, IIRC, correctly. R's take Washington, I'd agree no R take-over of the Senate, but I just dispute some of your particulars.

Whilst I can't believe it, it IS possible Fiorina will take Boxer...FIORINA?? After her disaster at HP?

OK who knew that Obama and Boxer could be so bad as to make Fiorina a palatable alternative?; 10/7/10, 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: "Whilst I can't believe it, it IS possible Fiorina will take Boxer...FIORINA?? After her disaster at HP?

Fiorina tried and fell short meanwhile Boxer has advanced the interests and solvency of the US how?

Boxer is a close second to Patty Murray as the Senate dunce.; 10/7/10, 1:53 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
Boxer is a close second to Patty Murray as the Senate dunce.

Wow, that must be a race to the bottom. Lots of competition, from both parties….; 10/7/10, 2:26 PM
dbp said...: I don't think the Senate matters very much: Neither side will have 60 seats and that is the magic number.

The House can control the agenda by passing a series of short, popular and easily understood bills. The Senate and President can go along or see their popularity fall even further.; 10/7/10, 3:42 PM
Calypso Facto said...: Well, VP Biden, that soon-to-be deciding vote, closed down traffic to my business this morning and afternoon as he made his way across Madison to stump at a fundraiser. Hot on the heels of his boss' visit last week. Please guys, your administration's policies have done enough damage, there's no need to personally come inflict any more...; 10/7/10, 4:04 PM
Big Mike said...: @dbp, when the President is from the other party, the magic number is 67. That's not possible until after 2012, by which time it should probably be a moot point.; 10/7/10, 4:08 PM
Cedarford said...: The Senate will be better if Harry Reid is gone. Reid acted as Pelosi's puppet and poisoned the well. I think though he is gun-ban crazy and a NYC progressive Jew - Chuck Schumer can do a better job. The guy can build coalitions and might help block Obama from further damaging the Dem Party and the nation.
Unlike Pelosi, he recognizes his neck of the woods is different than the rest of America and unlike the Pelosi cabal or the purity squads of the Republican religious right - understands that electing politicians in Florida or Delaware takes finding people that fit the values of the home state. (while SanFran Nan believes the rest of the country would take SanFran values if they were better educated or a court ordered them to).

So O'Donnell's voters pay have paved the way for the reign of Schumer.

===================
" garage mahal said...
Must be frustrating for Republicans that even with 10% unemployment, a shit economy, and the worst President ever, they are still having a tough time in this election finding majorities."

I agree Garage. One thing the Republicans lack is a coherent plan for govenance. Their 32-page "Pledge" was a disaster. Too cumbersome, too worshipful of rich people's perks. Nothing about the great destruction of jobs caused by free trade making the 3rd world the lowest wage source for maximum wealth and profit going to America's richest. Nothing about entitlement cutbacks or cutting medical costs.

They'd be better off shucking "The Pledge" which maybe 1 in 150 Americans bothered to fully read or stopped halfway thinking it was the same old establishment Republican crap.
Better they go "What Mitch Daniels said! What the Tea Party is screaminh about. And what Romney said, too!"; 10/7/10, 4:15 PM
Cedarford said...: Pogo - "As for Delaware, if they want an avowed communist for Senator over a witch dabbling doofus, well, hell, you can't stop people intent on suicide."

The point is that the moderate to slightly left Delaware residents were deprived of the guy they really wanted to vote for, a moderate Republican.
What is left is the dregs.
The problem is voters do not go solely on ideology, they want someone they believe has the background and character to be fit to hold the office.

The "purity" voters that now skew both Party's ranks have given us many such O'Donnell-like disasters.
Such as the last two Presidential elections. The 1st was an unelectable John Kerry against a President that people knew in 2004 deserved to be a one-termer, when 5-6 other Dems would have won. Then the 2008 debacle with Parties nominating 2 people unfit for the office, with the winner Obama winning only because people were less sure he would be a disaster than the treacherous, incoherent, emotionally unstable McCain.; 10/7/10, 4:51 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Cedarford, I'll always wonder what might have been had Bob Kerrey been the 2004 nominee. Oh well.

We need a better way of picking nominees.; 10/7/10, 5:15 PM
Peter Hoh said...: First question for potential nominees: Do you want to be president?

If they say yes, send 'em to the back of the line.; 10/7/10, 5:19 PM
Cedarford said...: "peter hoh said...
Cedarford, I'll always wonder what might have been had Bob Kerrey been the 2004 nominee. Oh well."

Yeah, it's all pointless speculation -- but I think the sense was amongst Dem leaders the Party had royally messed up.
Bob Kerry, Evan Bayh, even Howard Dean would have won over the disaster Bush was showing himself to be by summer 2004.

2008 is even a worse Party primary debacle, because though Obama stands revealed as a slick-talking clueless BS artist, I can STILL defend by vote for him over McCain.; 10/7/10, 6:53 PM
Leland said...: Leland, surely you don't have a problem with the Founding Fathers' judgment in making the rules re. Senate elections, do you?

I don't have a problem with what the Founding Father's did. However, I think you have a reading comprehension problem. Why would you read my comment and think that I would take issue with the Founding Fathers? I took issue with Garage's simplistic comment that the GOP can't get a majority in the US Senate as a whole, when anyone who knows basic US civics knows that roughly 1/3rd of the US Senate is up for election in a 2 year period.

Peter, are you suggesting Garage is a Founding Father?

wv: fooel hoh... I'm mean, heh.; 10/8/10, 10:32 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Sorry that I didn't make my comment clear enough. I didn't think you were confused about the way the Senate works. I was taking a gentle jab at the possibility that you were disappointed that all of the Senate was not up for reelection.

And while it's not there in my comment, I was thinking about the idea that the Founding Fathers most likely expected that the House would be swept clean in a year like this. Gerrymandering and safe districts -- which I'm guessing they did not intend -- prevent that kind of House cleaning.; 10/8/10, 4:13 PM
Leland said...: Peter,

Fair enough. I think I can understand you now. Sad I missed the humor.; 10/9/10, 2:18 PM
Peter Hoh said...: I miss the humor sometimes, too. It's hard in text. Would be easier to pick up on those cues if we were all sitting around a big table.; 10/9/10, 3:29 PM