Republicans Expected to Lose 25-30 Seats in the House

[onedomino]

Control of the Senate is still in play, but Nancy Pelosi is really going to be Speaker of the House. The fact that someone like Pelosi will be Speaker emphasizes what Americans think of the Republican controlled Congress. The results achieved on issues such as immigration, deficit spending, and energy, have been shockingly dismal. But the alternative is Pelosi. It's like drinking hemlock to cure flu. The aches and pains are gone, but it is because you are dead. One Republican pollster calls this the “worst political environment since Watergate.”

Republicans Resigned to Idea of Big Losses

Complete article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/04/us/politics/04cnd-elect.html?hp&ex=1162702800&en=d65cda8b3e4dc408&ei=5094&partner=homepage

WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 - The battle for Congress rolled into a climactic final weekend with Republican Party leaders saying the best outcome they could foresee was losing 12 seats in the House, but that they were increasingly resigned to losing at least 15 and therefore control of the House to Democrats for the first time in 12 years.

Democrats and Republicans said the battle over the Senate had grown fluid going into the final hours before the election Tuesday. Democrats said they thought they were almost certain to gain four or five seats and still had a shot at the six they need to take control. Republicans were pouring money into Senate races in Michigan and Maryland this weekend to take advantage of what they described as last-minute opportunities, however slight, in states currently held by Democrats.

Party strategists on both sides, speaking in interviews after they had finished doing their last polls and making their final purchases of television time, said they were running advertisements in more than 50 Congressional districts this weekend, far more than anyone thought would be in play at this stage.

Nearly all of those seats are held by Republicans, underscoring the degree to which President Bush and his party have been forced onto the defensive two years after Mr. Bush claimed that his re-election had given him the political capital to carry out an ambitious domestic and foreign agenda.

As the final weekend began, the two parties made their final tactical moves as their candidates sparred over the war, the economy, corruption and competence and elaborate get-out-the-vote efforts campaigns were rolled out. At stake was not just control of the House and Senate, but potentially the course of the Bush presidency in its last two years and in particular the debate over how to proceed in Iraq.

Democrats bought advertising time in yet another House race that had long been considered safe for Republicans, that of Representative Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado. Mr. Bush appeared at a rally in Ms. Musgrave’s district on Saturday morning, part of a late flurry of campaigning by the president aimed at shoring up struggling Republicans in some of the reddest states in the country, including Nebraska and Kansas. In another bit of news that sent a chill through many Republicans, a University of New Hampshire Poll showed Representative Charles. Bass, a popular moderate Republican who had not been seen as vulnerable this year, trailing his opponent.

“It’s the worst political environment for Republican candidates since Watergate,” said Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster working in many of the top races this year.

Joe Gaylord, who was the political lieutenant to Newt Gingrich when Mr. Gingrich led the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, said that based on polling he had seen in recent weeks, he expected his party to lose from 25 seats to 30 seats Tuesday. That general assessment was repeatedly echoed in interviews by Republicans close to the White House and the Republican National Committee.

“It’s very grim,” Mr. Gaylord said. “Things are dreadful out there.”

 

[trobinett]

I don't belive it.

But, if it were to play out, it WILL be interesting to be the ones slinging the shit.:cof:

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah ive been hearing this every two years since 94. it hasnt happened.

 

[Dr Grump]

One Republican pollster calls this the “worst political environment since Watergate.”

Why do you think that is?

 

[onedomino]

Why do you think that is?

It is a combination of many factors: the fiscal irresponsibility of massive budget deficits (we owe 3 trillion more now than when Bush took office), failed energy policy (nation further than ever from energy independence), Congress ineffective stopping flood of illegal immigration, huge trade deficits especially with China combined with high quality jobs streaming offshore and replaced with burger flipping, failure to erase the insurgency in Iraq. Those are five reasons that would get anyone tossed and rightly so. The problem is that the Democrats offer zero hope and may well be even worse on the issues listed above.

 

[onedomino]

Yeah ive been hearing this every two years since 94. it hasnt happened.

That is one of the main Republican pollsters quoted above. Tell me what you think Wednesday morning.

 

[jillian]

It is a combination of many factors: the fiscal irresponsibility of massive budget deficits (we owe 3 trillion more now than when Bush took office), failed energy policy (nation further than ever from energy independence), Congress ineffective stopping flood of illegal immigration, huge trade deficits especially with China combined with high quality jobs streaming offshore and replaced with burger flipping, failure to erase the insurgency in Iraq. Those are five reasons that would get anyone tossed and rightly so. The problem is that the Democrats offer zero hope and may well be even worse on the issues listed above.

You're leaving out a few things, I think. When asked, voters have responded that Iraq is the most important issue facing us this election day. The economy (although you're right about quality jobs streaming offshore) comes in second.

But there's more. You have a president who panders to the furthest right of his party and a Congress who rubber stamps him. Many of us, including libertarians and true conservatives, believe that Bush has made a power grab for the executive branch which needs to be put in check; most of the country believes that Iraq, even if one forgets about the reasons for going in, has been handled incomptently and sees the president as being unwilling or constitutionally unable to adapt to circumstances or to modify his "course".

As a result of the divisive policies pursued by this admin and this congress, you have half the country who can't wait to defang this admin and curtail its power grab and a solid 2/3 of the country who disapprove of the job he's doing. How that transfers into votes on Tuesday... well, we'll see on Tuesday. But I tend to agree with the political analyst who said if Dems can't take the House on Tuesday, they need to seriously re-evaluate their machine.

 

[Avatar4321]

That is one of the main Republican pollsters quoted above. Tell me what you think Wednesday morning.

I will. i think its going to be quite entertaining watching the Democrats make excuses for why they didnt win.

 

[Avatar4321]

You're leaving out a few things, I think. When asked, voters have responded that Iraq is the most important issue facing us this election day. The economy (although you're right about quality jobs streaming offshore) comes in second.

But there's more. You have a president who panders to the furthest right of his party and a Congress who rubber stamps him. Many of us, including libertarians and true conservatives, believe that Bush has made a power grab for the executive branch which needs to be put in check; most of the country believes that Iraq, even if one forgets about the reasons for going in, has been handled incomptently and sees the president as being unwilling or constitutionally unable to adapt to circumstances or to modify his "course".

As a result of the divisive policies pursued by this admin and this congress, you have half the country who can't wait to defang this admin and curtail its power grab and a solid 2/3 of the country who disapprove of the job he's doing. How that transfers into votes on Tuesday... well, we'll see on Tuesday. But I tend to agree with the political analyst who said if Dems can't take the House on Tuesday, they need to seriously re-evaluate their machine.

If the President was pandering to the right, we'd have the border sealed off and immigration under control.

Its because the President hasnt been listening to his base that he and the Republicans have been having problems.

Oh and Democrats need to reevaluate their machine period. They have nothing to offer the voters. The fact is if the Democrats win its because the Republicans didnt show up to the vote, not because they have offered any new solutions to bring people out to vote FOR them.

 

[pegwinn]

I think when it's all said and done the balance of power will teeter on a seat or two overall. It will be very difficult to get a simple plurality or majority, but doable. It will be dang near impossible to get a supermajority.

Regardless, the people are going to get what they deserve no matter who wins.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think when it's all said and done the balance of power will teeter on a seat or two overall. It will be very difficult to get a simple plurality or majority, but doable. It will be dang near impossible to get a supermajority.

Regardless, the people are going to get what they deserve no matter who wins.

I dont think its going to be as close as the media says it will, simply because the media says it.

In fact, I still think Republicans can gain Seats in the Senate.

 

[onedomino]

You're leaving out a few things, I think. When asked, voters have responded that Iraq is the most important issue facing us this election day. The economy (although you're right about quality jobs streaming offshore) comes in second.

But there's more. You have a president who panders to the furthest right of his party and a Congress who rubber stamps him. Many of us, including libertarians and true conservatives, believe that Bush has made a power grab for the executive branch which needs to be put in check; most of the country believes that Iraq, even if one forgets about the reasons for going in, has been handled incomptently and sees the president as being unwilling or constitutionally unable to adapt to circumstances or to modify his "course".

As a result of the divisive policies pursued by this admin and this congress, you have half the country who can't wait to defang this admin and curtail its power grab and a solid 2/3 of the country who disapprove of the job he's doing. How that transfers into votes on Tuesday... well, we'll see on Tuesday. But I tend to agree with the political analyst who said if Dems can't take the House on Tuesday, they need to seriously re-evaluate their machine.

It is easy to list reasons why the Republicans are up the creek with no paddle. But for conservatives there is no place to go. I am not talking about the religious right wing. They are extremists who want to inflict their absolutist view on everyone. They are not conservatives. What I find most disturbing is the unbelievable amount of overspending authorized by the Republican Congress and President. At $8.6 trillion we owe a staggering 54% more than when Bush took office 6 years ago. That is, we owe $3 trillion more; developed by an average of $500 billion per year in overspending. Bush and this Republican Congress have shown a complete distain for the economic viability of future Americans. We are going to pay Big Time sometime in the future for this reckless behavior. Even if we were to admit that it is ok to overspend by the colossal amounts of the past few years, we are forced to ask: what have we obtained for our money? A paltry 2 or 3 percent economic growth? A burger flipping utopia? For God’s sake, back in 2000 we could have grabbed the first person walking by on the street, given him the $3 trillion, and obtained more economic growth than Bush did with our as yet unearned dollars. It is the most dismal economic performance in US economic history.

 

[onedomino]

I dont think its going to be as close as the media says it will, simply because the media says it.

In fact, I still think Republicans can gain Seats in the Senate.

So all the polls, even the Republican commissioned ones, are just wrong. Or do you have your own double-secret polling data that you are not sharing with anybody? Why do you say the results are going to be opposite of what the polls predict?

 

[Said1]

Does it matter which party the speaker of the house is from....or what their political leanings are?

 

[onedomino]

Does it matter which party the speaker of the house is from....or what their political leanings are?

The Speaker of the House is 2nd in line to be President after the Vice President.

The Speaker is the head of the majority party in the House of Representatives, outranking the Majority Leader. He is responsible for ensuring that the House passes legislation supported by the majority party. In pursuing this goal, the Speaker may utilize his or her power to determine when each bill reaches the floor. He or she also chairs the majority party's House steering committee. While the Speaker is the functioning head of the House majority party, the same is not true of the President pro tempore of the Senate, whose office is primarily ceremonial and honorary.

The Speaker holds a variety of powers as the presiding officer of the House of Representatives, but normally delegates them to another member of the majority party. Before any member may speak, he must seek the presiding officer's recognition. The presiding officer may call on members as he pleases, and may therefore control the flow of debate. The presiding officer also rules on all points of order, but his rulings may be appealed to the whole House. He is responsible for maintaining decorum in the House, and may order the Sergeant-at-Arms to enforce the rules. On the floor of the House, the presiding officer is always addressed as "Mister Speaker" or "Madam Speaker" (even if the Speaker him or herself is not the individual presiding). When the House resolves itself into a Committee of the Whole, the presiding officer is addressed as "Mister Chairman" or "Madam Chairman."

The Speaker's powers and duties extend beyond presiding in the chamber. In particular, he has great influence over the committee process. The Speaker selects nine of the thirteen members of the powerful Committee on Rules, subject to the approval of the conference of the majority party. (The remaining four members are chosen by the leadership of the minority party.) Furthermore, the Speaker appoints all members of select committees and conference committees. Moreover, when a bill is introduced, the Speaker determines which committee shall consider it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

 

[Said1]

The Speaker of the House is 2nd in line to be President after the Vice President.

Much like the Governor General here, only they're the Queen's rep. So their politics do matter? I think they do here, somewhat.....in a 'it's who ya know kind of way'.

Our present GG is female and Hatian. The former liberal gov pick her...I think???

 

[jillian]

It is easy to list reasons why the Republicans are up the creek with no paddle. But for conservatives there is no place to go. I am not talking about the religious right wing. They are extremists who want to inflict their absolutist view on everyone. They are not conservatives. What I find most disturbing is the unbelievable amount of overspending authorized by the Republican Congress and President. At $8.6 trillion we owe a staggering 54% more than when Bush took office 6 years ago. That is, we owe $3 trillion more; developed by an average of $500 billion per year in overspending. Bush and this Republican Congress have shown a complete distain for the economic viability of future Americans. We are going to pay Big Time sometime in the future for this reckless behavior. Even if we were to admit that it is ok to overspend by the colossal amounts of the past few years, we are forced to ask: what have we obtained for out money? A paltry 2 or 3 percent economic growth? A burger flipping utopia? For God’s sake, back in 2000 we could have grabbed the first person walking by on the street, given him the $3 trillion, and obtained more economic growth than Bush did with our as yet unearned dollars. It is the most dismal economic performance in US economic history.

OK, fair enough re true conservatives having no where to go. But I think you're wrong about that. We hear most from the liberal wing of the dem party, same as we hear most from the radical wing of the repub party. For the record, while I'm a social liberal, I believe in balanced budgets and responsible spending. The problem you're identifying is that Bush is the first leader in history, as far as I can tell, who has cut taxes in wartime. You can't operate with a blank check and bankrupt the government.... unless your goal is to starve government. The more honest (albeit radical) members of the right told you they wanted to "starve government until it could be drowned in a bathtub". What you're seeing is that people are running government who HATE government. That's a bad combination.

Also, Bush told you his base is the "haves and have mores". I'm not sure why conservatives didn't believe him. Republicans complain that he isn't listening to his base on the issue of illegal immigration... but he is. Those haves and have mores need cheap labor and he knows the religious right has no where else to go. The effect of these policies on our middle class and fiscal circumstances is horrendous. The middle class is being destroyed. Our children are now born with about $30,000 to $40,000 worth of debt, but they complain about spending money on scientific advances that can benefit humanity. They shun research on alternative energy sources which could jumpstart our economy. China holds our debt and can use that in an incredibly destructive manner if, and when, it chooses. Heck, even Mexico owns some of our debt (I think it's 10th in holders of our paper).

I hate to say this, but you do have somewhere to go.... the right likes to say that Clinton only balanced the budget because he had a republican congress forcing him to do so. Having seen what that republican congress does, unchecked, I think we can safely say that's not true. I'd wager any dem coming in, so long as he's a moderate dem, is going to work toward balancing the budget and getting spending in check.... or at least making sure we're not spending more than we're taking in.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This is where you want to go with Pelosi as Speaker? Here's her record:

The San Fransicso Liberal has a very left-wing record:

• Pelosi voted against every Republican tax cut.
• Pelosi voted for the largest tax increase in history.
• Pelosi voted 19 times against eliminating the death tax.
• Pelosi voted five times for raising gasoline taxes
• Pelosi is so pro-high taxes she was one of only 27 members to vote against tax relief for poor neighborhoods in the inner city (presumably including her constituents in San Francisco ).
• Pelosi voted against the historic Welfare Reform Bill and later voted against its reauthorization.
• Pelosi voted against protecting the right to say "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
• Pelosi voted against requiring that voters be identified so we could ensure only legal citizens are voting.
• Pelosi voted against requiring English on ballots.
• Pelosi refused to side with homeowners against the Kelo decision that allows cities to seize private property for profitable ventures, even though 365 members voted to stop cities from taking private property.
• Pelosi has voted at least 12 times against the death penalty.
• Pelosi was one of only 67 House members to vote against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
• Pelosi has voted at least eight times against banning partial-birth abortion, at least three times against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Laci's law), and scored a perfect 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
• Pelosi voted against a bill that would "ar the transportation of a minor girl across state lines to obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent, guardian or judge."
• Pelosi voted at least 31 times for using local or federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.
• Pelosi voted against building a fence on the border to protect America from terrorists.
• Before 9/11, Pelosi repeatedly voted to cut intelligence (in 1993 by $500 million) and after 9/11 she has still voted to cut intelligence (in 2004 she voted to withhold 25 percent of intelligence funds).
• When you ask why we were not more prepared for 9/11, remember that six months before Sept. 11, 2001, Pelosi voted to decrease proposed defense spending by $65 billion.
• The next time you think about North Korean nuclear tests and North Korean efforts to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile to reach the United States , remember that in 2002, Pelosi voted for an amendment to the FY 2003 Defense authorization that would block FY 2003 funding for space-based missile defense programs.
• Pelosi led a faction of 124 House Democrats who voted against final passage of the Patriot Act's reauthorization.
• Pelosi voted against the $87-billion Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental that included extra money for body armor for our soldiers.
• Pelosi voted against creation of Homeland Security Department.
• Pelosi was one of only 33 members to vote against prohibiting U.S. citizens and companies from conducting any financial transaction with countries that have been identified by the State Department as active sponsors of terrorism.
• In 2004, Pelosi voted against House passage of the intelligence overhaul bill, which reorganized 15 intelligence agencies under one Director of National Intelligence.

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2006/10/left-wing-pol-to-become-speaker.html

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Yep, screaming eagle, Pelosi represents her district well. She's in true-blue PA campaigning for the local candidates, representin' the San Francisco democrats. I'm down with that.

So all the polls, even the Republican commissioned ones, are just wrong. Or do you have your own double-secret polling data that you are not sharing with anybody? Why do you say the results are going to be opposite of what the polls predict?

Well, it's not as though polls are often accurate. The NYT is cherry-picking their quotes, for example:

In the final days, in what some senior Republican strategists said was something between a long-shot and a Hail Mary pass, Republicans were spending money in an effort to win an open seat in Maryland, hoping that African-Americans in the state would desert the Democratic Party and vote for Michael Steele, a black Republican running for the seat

Wrong, all of a sudden the MD seat is wide-open, there's actually a chance Steele could win in this heavily-Democratic state. But the writer tries to imply desperation?

Another:

That general assessment was repeatedly echoed in interviews by Republicans close to the White House and the Republican National Committee.

“It’s very grim,” Mr. Gaylord said. “Things are dreadful out there.”

Now that's a direct quote from someone in the loop...from last summer.

The equivocating appears to be coming from the left:

“If the Democrats end up with 53 percent of the national vote and still don’t get a majority in the House, which is conceivable, it’s a clear sign that this Republican structural advantage has really kicked in,” said Gary C. Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego.

The national vote? WHAT national vote? Here's some more:

Officials in both parties said more than 20 House contests remained very tight, which is why Democrats could end up capturing a total of 30 seats or more seats or falling short of the 15-seat gain they need to take control, depending on turnout and last-minute shifts. A number of respected independent analysts, including Stuart Rothenberg and Charles Cook, have predicted that Democrats could gain 35 seats or even more.

When you wish upon a star........

Aides to both parties said that at least 20 races were close enough that struggling Republican incumbents could be pulled to victory by the party’s sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation. Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s chief political adviser, has assured nervous associates that the Republican turnout operation would help save the party from electoral disaster.

'Nuff said.

 

[Avatar4321]

So all the polls, even the Republican commissioned ones, are just wrong. Or do you have your own double-secret polling data that you are not sharing with anybody? Why do you say the results are going to be opposite of what the polls predict?

Quite frankly. yes. There is only one poll that matters. The actual poll one tuesday. And Republicans will win easily.