Thread: Democrats headed toward big gains in House, Senate

This concernes me...

WASHINGTON – Democrats are on track for sizable gains in both houses of Congress on Nov. 4, according to strategists in both parties, although only improbable Southern victories can produce the 60-vote Senate majority they covet to help them pass priority legislation.

A poor economy, President Bush's unpopularity, a lopsided advantage in fundraising and Barack Obama's robust organizational effort in key states are all aiding Democrats in the final days of the congressional campaign.

"I don't think anybody realized it was going to be this tough" for Republicans, Sen. John Ensign, chairman of the party's senatorial campaign committee said recently. "We're dealing with an unpopular president (and) we have a financial crisis," he added.

"You've got Republican incumbent members of the Congress" trying to run away from Bush's economic policies, said Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who chairs the House Democratic campaign committee. "And they can't run fast enough. I think it will catch up with many of them."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California predicted recently that Democrats would win at least 14 House seats in Republican hands.

But numerous strategists in both parties agreed a gain of at least 20 seems likely and a dozen or more GOP-held seats are in doubt. Only a handful of Democratic House seats appear in any sort of jeopardy. They spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying they were relying on confidential polling data.

In the Senate, as in the House, only the magnitude of the Democratic gains is in doubt.

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, head of the Democratic committee, said his party would have to win seats in "deeply red states" to amass a 60-seat majority, but added, "We're close."

Obama's methodical voter registration efforts in the primary season and his current get-out-the-vote efforts are aiding Democratic candidates in several Southern races. They start with North Carolina, where GOP Sen. Elizabeth Dole trails in the polls, and include Georgia and Mississippi, where Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Roger Wicker respectively are in unexpectedly close races.

"Overall, I think Obama will help us in the South because, first, his economic message resonates with Southerners, both white and black, and obviously there will be an increased African-American turnout," Schumer said.

Also in a close race is the Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, although that is not a state where Obama has made much of an effort.

Compounding Republican woes, the same economy that has soured voters on their candidates is causing some of the nation's wealthiest conservative donors to stay on the campaign sidelines.

Freedom's Watch, a conservative group that once looked poised to spend tens of millions of dollars to help elect Republicans, had spent roughly $3 million as of midweek. Its largest single contributor is Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire with gambling interests in the United States and China.

Democrats hold a 51-49 majority in the current Senate, counting two independents who vote with them. In the House, Democrats have 235 seats to 199 for Republicans, with one vacancy.

It has long been apparent that Democrats would retain control of both houses of Congress, and in recent weeks, the party's leaders have mounted a concerted drive to push their Senate majority to 60. That's the number needed to overcome a filibuster, the technique of killing legislation by preventing a final vote. If Obama were to win the White House, it would be the Republicans' last toehold in power.

In reality, Ensign noted this week that even if Democrats merely draw close to 60 seats, they will find it easier to pick up a Republican or two on individual bills and move ahead with portions of their agenda that might otherwise be stalled.

Democrats are overwhelmingly favored to pick up seats in Virginia, New Mexico and Colorado where Republicans are retiring.

Additionally, GOP Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Gordon Smith of Oregon are in jeopardy. So, too, Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, whose fate may rest on the outcome of his corruption trial, now in the hands of a jury in a courthouse a few blocks from the Capitol.

Even if they win all four of those races — a tall order — Democrats would be two seats shy of 60 and looking South to get them.

In the House, Democrats are so flush with cash that they have spent nearly $1 million to capture a seat centered on Maryland's Eastern Shore that has been in Republican hands for two decades.

It is one of 27 races where the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has spent $1 million or more — a total that the counterpart Republican group has yet to match anywhere.

"We've had to hold most of our resources for the final two weeks and that's beginning to make a difference," said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, chairman of the GOP House committee.

Cole declined to make an overall prediction. "A lot depends on what happens presidentially in the next 10 days. We're very closely tied with John McCain and we got a lot of open seats and a strong financial disadvantage," he said. He predicted the party's Republican presidential candidate would mount a strong finish and help other candidates on the ballot.

Still, the party's campaign committee recently pulled back from plans to advertise on behalf of incumbents in Michigan, Florida, Colorado and Minnesota who face competitive challenges.

For its part, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently invested in a race in the Lincoln, Neb., area held by Republican Rep. Lee Terry. Obama has a dozen or more paid staff as well as volunteers there hoping to win one electoral vote.

Democrats express confidence they will pick up at least two and possibly three Republican-held New York seats where incumbents decided against running again and at least one each in Illinois, Virginia, Ohio, New Mexico and Arizona. There are additional opportunities in at least a half-dozen other states.

Republican incumbents in greatest jeopardy include Reps. Don Young in Alaska, Tom Feeney and Ric Keller in Florida, Joe Knollenberg and Tim Walberg in Michigan, Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado, Jon Porter in Nevada and Robin Hayes in North Carolina.

Among the few Democrats in close races are Reps. Nick Lampson in Texas, who is in a solidly Republican district; Tim Mahoney in Florida, who recently admitted to having two extramarital affairs; Carol Shea-Porter in New Hampshire and Paul Kanjorski in Pennsylvania.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081025/...ongress_stakes

Democrats express confidence they will pick up at least two and possibly three Republican-held New York seats where incumbents decided against running again and at least one each in Illinois, Virginia, Ohio, New Mexico and Arizona. There are additional opportunities in at least a half-dozen other states.

These are states that could have a large number of undocumented voters.

Below are two Senators who are strongly anti-amnesty who are in very tight races and could use any financial assistance possible! Elizabeth Dole also played a major role in bringing the 287g program to sheriffs throughout North Carolina, but she may lose her race. Roger Wicker was a founding member of the "Senate for Border Security Caucus" this year.

Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) for US Senate
http://www.elizabethdole.org

Roger Wicker (R-MS) for US Senate
www.wickerforsenate.com

NoBueno wrote:

This concernes me...

It should be very concerning to all of us. That is one of the reasons I'm being forced to vote for McCain/Palin. It's a defensive strategy. A third party vote may give you a clean conscience but it won't change a darn thing. Mark my words, no 3rd party candidate will receive more than 3% to 4% of the vote.

IMO, the Senate doesn't need a 60 Democrat majority to cripple our efforts because there are already too damn many Republicans in the Senate that support a path to legalization for the illegals. Honestly, I think the poor economy is our only hope.

All we really need is the House to keep amnesty at bay. However, the potential of losing up to 45 Republicans will be very damaging to us. It would be naive to think that the Democrat replacements will keep things on an even keel or increase our strength in the House. Remember, we're also losing a few of our staunchest allies to retirement.

Like I said, the poor and/or worsening economy is our main strength next year (and hopefully the year after).

Originally Posted by MW

NoBueno wrote:

This concernes me...

It should be very concerning to all of us. That is one of the reasons I'm being forced to vote for McCain/Palin. It's a defensive strategy. A third party vote may give you a clean conscience but it won't change a darn thing. Mark my words, no 3rd party candidate will receive more than 3% to 4% of the vote.

IMO, the Senate doesn't need a 60 Democrat majority to cripple our efforts because there are already too damn many Republicans in the Senate that support a path to legalization for the illegals. Honestly, I think the poor economy is our only hope.

All we really need is the House to keep amnesty at bay. However, the potential of losing up to 45 Republicans will be very damaging to us. It would be naive to think that the Democrat replacements will keep things on an even keel or increase our strength in the House. Remember, we're also losing a few of our staunchest allies to retirement.

Like I said, the poor and/or worsening economy is our main strength next year (and hopefully the year after).

Sorry, I disagree. While it may not work in this present election cycle, it can certainly work in the long run if more Americans unite in this effort of voting third party. Can you imagine their reaction if there was a monumental shift away from the 2-party system? I think they would certainly sit up and take notice, don't you?

With all due respect, I feel that your way of thinking is just perpetuating this vicious cycle and we will NEVER break free of this corrupt two party system or Globalists leaders. It's more than just principle MW. I think it's only logical in defeating the Globalist agenda.

Please understand that we are all just pawns here and you are falling exactly in line with what they want. While your strategy does make sense, it is the EXACT response that they want from all of us! If the way we have been voting all these years is getting us nowhere, then logic dictates that we do the complete opposite. We will undoubtedly hit a few bumps along the way, but at least we would be headed in the right diirection. They are only allowing us two choices. Do you consider that a democracy?? So no matter who gets in office, THE GLOBALISTS WIN and Americans lose. That's why I firmly believe we MUST vote 3rd party.

Personally, I feel very strongly that Obama's going to win. (If there's no hanky-panky with the voting) You can thank Bush and the neo-cons for that (not us Independents!) The majority of Americans are just so disgusted right now with the Republicans (including Republicans themselves), that they feel the country needs to head in a different direction by electing a Democratic President.

If people are really concerned about Dems taking the majority, we should all be voting for Republican congressmen in our own states. I personally feel we would be better served that way.

chloe24 wrote:

Sorry, I disagree. While it may not work in this present election cycle, it can certainly work in the long run if more Americans unite in this effort of voting third party. Can you imagine their reaction if there was a monumental shift away from the 2-party system? I think they would certainly sit up and take notice, don't you?

I would like to see this happen since I changed my affiliation from Republican to Independant. Unfortunately I still remember the Ross Perot debacle and feel that it won't work in this election.

I can't help but feel that a third party should have been gaining strength for the past 6-7 years to be effective.

I feel that I should chose one or the other of the two top candidates and not waste my vote by trying to make a statement and use it to, if nothing else, cancel the vote of someone that is voting illegally. I am afraid that if I waste my vote I will wind up with something that I really don't think is good for my country.

I do agree that we should be working the State elections as hard as we can to avoid a liberal supermajority

It is a shame when our Presidential elections seem to come down to the lesser of two evils and to me they are equally repugnant.

Chloe wrote:

Sorry, I disagree.

As always, that's your prerogative and I will never think the lesser of you for having your own opinion.

While it may not work in this present election cycle, it can certainly work in the long run if more Americans unite in this effort of voting third party.

Right now I'm focused on the current election cycle.

Originally Posted by MW

It should be very concerning to all of us. That is one of the reasons I'm being forced to vote for McCain/Palin. It's a defensive strategy. A third party vote may give you a clean conscience but it won't change a darn thing. Mark my words, no 3rd party candidate will receive more than 3% to 4% of the vote.

Since you live in a battleground state I would have to agree with your decision to support McCain, as hard as that might be to do.

Bowman wrote:

Since you live in a battleground state I would have to agree with your decision to support McCain, as hard as that might be to do.

Thanks for understanding the position I feel I've been forced into, Bowman. I wouldn't vote for McCain if I thought there was any way around it. Obama was never a consideration and I don't see voting 3rd party as a viable option at this time.

Originally Posted by Newmexican

chloe24 wrote:

Sorry, I disagree. While it may not work in this present election cycle, it can certainly work in the long run if more Americans unite in this effort of voting third party. Can you imagine their reaction if there was a monumental shift away from the 2-party system? I think they would certainly sit up and take notice, don't you?

I would like to see this happen since I changed my affiliation from Republican to Independant. Unfortunately I still remember the Ross Perot debacle and feel that it won't work in this election.

Well, as I stated in my previous post, I never suggested that it would work in this election, but it would most certainly be something to build upon. I can certainly understand where you are coming from with regard to the Ross Perot campaign. However, Rome wasn't built in a day!

The Ross campaign was how many years ago? Sometimes the time isn't ripe for people to be open to such changes. But I firmly believe that we are witnessing the stirrings from the public who are more disgusted with our government than ever before:

"Congress' job approval rating has dropped five percentage points over the past month, from 19% in June to 14% in July, making the current reading the lowest congressional job approval rating in the 34-year Gallup Poll history of asking the question."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108856/Congr ... ow-14.aspx

Also, you can look at the enormous success of the Ron Paul campaign. He may have lost his presidential bid, but the movement is not going away any time soon: www.campaignforliberty.com (Where's Ross Perot now?) When Paul spoke of his concerns about our country's foreign and economic policies over 30 years ago, he was a lone voice out in the wilderness.

When he was urged to run in 2008, he was not at all optimistic about people willing to hear what he had to say. But he was pleasantly surprised to see how people were in fact much more receptive to him now. More encouragingly, was the fact that many of his new followers were college students. And as you know, you can't have a successful movement of the future without the younger generation leading the way. The time was ripe.