Sunday, October 22, 2006

Today's Election Math

The House

According to the New York Times as of today, October 22, 2006, (NY Times election analysis) here are the election expectations. The current, Republican-controlled House has 202 Democrats, 230 Republicans, 1 Independent, and 2 Vacant Seats. According to polls and other criteria, here is how we are leaning as a nation:
Safe Dem 190
Leaning Dem 24
Toss up 15
Safe Rep 183
Leaning Rep 23
click to show/hide the rest of the post

Theoretically, then, either party can still win the House. For the Republicans to do so, though, given that the races leaning towards each party remain the same, they would have to sweep the toss up races. So, for Republicans to win the House at this time, they’d have to reverse trends in some races leaning Democratic, or win all the toss up races, 15 of them.

On the other hand, Republicans are conceded to have better organization at this time in history, including a better get-out-the-vote. Some Democrats, too, are afraid of voter fraud, a manufactured issue in my opinion. Plus, something could happen in these next few weeks that will bring the Republicans back, an October surprise like a terrorist attack. And, the Republicans might just campaign better.

Still, overall, it looks like the Democrats will win the House. Republican scandals and corruption seem to have fostered a tipping point. Plus, hardcore Republicans are deeply disappointed with Republican overspending and failure on such issues as immigration. The Iraq war looks like a mess. Some Republicans, therefore, are going to stay home and not vote, which is how elections are lost these days. It appears that even Karl Rove can’t fix all this.

The Senate

The current Senate has 44 Democrats and 56 Republicans. According to the New York Times here are today’s election expectations. According to polls and other criteria, here is how we are leaning as a nation:
Safe Dem 40
Leaning Dem 8
Toss up 4
Safe Rep 47
Leaning Rep 1
Theoretically, then, either party can still win the Senate. If things stay as they are now, the Senate might end up in a tie, 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans. This assumes an even split of the toss up races. Then, Vice President Cheney’s extra vote would still theoretically leave the Republicans in control. This control, though, would be flimsy. It would likely be a contentious, unproductive body.

The Likely Outcome

The Democrats will win control of the House. The Republicans will keep flimsy control of the Senate.

If this happens, Bush and the Republicans have brought this all on themselves. If this happens, the Democrats will strengthen their positioning for the 2008 election.

Of course, there could be an October surprise, favoring one or the other party. And, the Democrats could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by harping on voter fraud or other bogus issues while presenting no clear agenda on Iraq and the economy, for example.

Likely? No. Unless the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot, or go hunting with Cheney, they will at least win the House.


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

click to hide most of this post


charlie said...

You said it all in the first line, "ACCORDING TO THE NEW YORK TIMES". The rest of the data is of no matter since truth in not found in the New York Times. My wife, Miss Bee from sent me to this site because she thinks we share polotical views.

Rock said...

Charlie, what's your point? So, because the New York Times is biased, which I agree, this means you never read it? Despite its bias, it can approximate the truth on some issues. Its polls on the issue of voting trends seem to be in line with all the other polls right now. So, I repeat, what's your point? Are you in denial? You think the Republicans are really in the driver's seat for the upcoming election, and the polls are misrepresenting this?

It's the Republicans who are panicking, and the Democrats who are hiding sheepish grins. Are they all wrong? Maybe. I outlined the possible scenarios.

I didn't hear your thoughts on the matter.

I am conservative, but I believe in the truth, no matter where it lies. The Times is influential, if biased. It needs to be taken into account. Plus, if you're clever, you can use the Times when talking to liberals, because to them, that is the ultimate source.

I speak the truth to both sides of the aisle, so, I do use the Times as a source--either to back up a point to a liberal, as a sometime source of truth, or as a thing I ridicule. The truth is apparent in all these approaches.


Rock said...

What is going on with Blogger?! It was down yesterday 3 hours, and today for about 8 hours! You'd think they'd get their act together!

charlie said...

I may be in denial my friend but no I do not think the GOP is in the driver seat but I also do not think the blood bath will be as bad as reported in the Times. I have much more confidance in Americans than to believe they will throw out the baby with Foley. (my congressman fyi) I do not like what is happening today in Iraq but being a Viet Nam Vet I am not ready to subject those kids over there to the treatment I experienced in 1969. I am forever an optimist that believes we have the very best the world has to offer. It is not up to me to decide if we are on the right path in Iraq, that is what this election is about, but it is up to me and the rest of the USA to select leaders who will find the correct path to follow. I do not think the Dems have shown that they know the way, I hope Americans agree with me on election day.
The economy is great, regardles of what the Times prints, unemployement is the lowest in a generation, the only question left is Iraq and the war on terror, the Dems have no ideas to offer.

Rock said...

Charlie, I hope you are right, and I agree with everything you said except your present optimism. If you ever do read some of my previous posts, you'll see that I've stated your exact opinions on every other point you made, so I guess your wife was right.

On the other hand, I've seen the American people make wrong choices before. Plus, the Republicans have not satisfied me on immigration or on overspending.

And, I believe we ought to win wars, like we used to, in WWII, when we weren't politically correct, and we did whatever we had to do to win. I think the Vietnam war was micromanaged by civilians. The soldiers were not allowed to fight to win. This war too. I agree with you on what happened to Vietnam vets. I honor you for your service.

So, there will be conservatives, I believe, who will stay home and not vote. This is where the Republicans are vulnerable.

Who can I vote for in California? Arnold? He's so far left now that he ought to switch parties. He's smart in a way, because this way he's a winner. Yet, he is not leading, not teaching his true beliefs, which are conservative. He is being touted as the model for the new Republican, who can win by going moderate.

Maybe so.

I'd prefer someone conservative who could persuade people to his views, rather than one who changes to get elected.

charlie said...

It is obvious to me that you are well read and your opinions are well founded, however, I do not know anyone who is staying home on election day. I think we agree that a modorate has little core values and we surely we have problems on our borders, and plenty of things to complain about, Arnold, spending, ect. The question we must answer is who is best equiped to solve these problems. To me, the failure of Air America is far more telling than anything the Times has to say. There is not a market for what they have to offer, this sparks my belief that we are being misled by the media and that we have the ability to turn the BS filter on and find our way to the polls on elelction day. By the way, Barron's is reporting that the GOP will hold both houses.

Mary said...

Hunting with Cheney...why didn't I think of that? Of course...all Dems please report to the VP's office for a last minute field trip!! LOL

Rock said...

Charlie, I'm not here to prove you wrong and me right. If you're right, I'll go with you. I hope you're right.

I like your logic too. On the other hand, what has happened to the Republican Party? They've made a mess of a few crucial things, and given the voters an excuse to toss them.

I halfway believe they deserve to be taught a lesson, although you're right, I would hate for the country to be put in the hands of Nancy Pelosi to teach that lesson. These guys could seriously hurt the country. You're right too that I trust the Republicans more to steward the nation, even when they're imperfect. An imperfect person of reason will take better care of us than a demagogue any day.

Even with Arnold you're right. I'd rather have him than Angelides. Yet, I don't want Arnold being held up as the model for conservatives. I'd prefer a toned down Goldwater, a Reagan, or a more conservative and more eloquent Bush.

I also agree with you on another issue, the wisdom of the voters. I said they make mistakes. Yes, they do. Still, they are capable of rejecting Gore and Kerry and choosing Bush, even though Gore and Kerry were far more eloquent.

I do disagree with you about the value of not voting. I think there are three kinds of votes you can choose. Yes, No, and Abstain. Staying home is a vote. It means, "I don't like any of the candidates or choices you've offered me." In fact, according to most political advisors, getting out the vote is the key lately to winning. Your candidate must be sufficiently exciting and/or representative of your values that you will make the effort to leave your home and vote for her.

That's why Arnold is interesting. If I vote for him, I'll have to hold my nose. My choosing not to vote for Arnold will send a message. He'll still win, but he'll get fewer votes, and at least feel that conservatives are unhappy with him.

Arnold, though, arouses passion because of the force of his personality--so, he'll have people passionate about him for reasons other than politics. He will win, and he'll have people very committed to him. After all, the Los Angeles Times, another liberal newspaper, has endorsed him, as well as the San Francisco newspapers. Unheard of for a Republican.

What can we do in California? I guess we have to be as optimistic as you seem to be. That's the way Reagan did it.

Thanks for your comments, Charlie. You do seem to grasp an important reality, and again, I hope you're right.


Rock said...

Mary, nice to hear from you. We could issue hunting licences without requiring ID's, since the Dems think ID's are a bad idea.

charlie said...

Well Mr Rock, it seems we are reaching some common ground. Actually we had common ground to start with and I think our discourse is healthly. I missed a point in my last comment where I should have agreed with you. Can you imagine that a Gen Patton would have discipliend (forced retirement) a Lt Col for fireing his pistol next to an enemy combatnant in order to obtain information that saved lives. Not in his lifetime.
We have reached almost total agreement my friend, however I cannot agree that a none of the above is a good vote. Maybe in California but not in the Nationals. A none of the above will produce a Speaker Pelosi. That is something I do not even want to think about.
Would I like a George W with the ability to better express himself, sure, but the fact is he is there for two more years and no one will change that. He has my respect because he is honest, dependable, and won the highest office in our country.

Rock said...

Charlie, I do feel we agree on a lot. I still believe a No vote is valid, but you're right, Pelosi is disaster.

Can you imagine that a Gen Patton would have discipliend (forced retirement) a Lt Col for fireing his pistol next to an enemy combatnant in order to obtain information that saved lives. Not in his lifetime.

Right. Plus, what do you think Patton would have done to the CNN reporter that recently went on a drive-along with the enemy and filmed and commented on the murder of an American soldier by a gleeful sniper? He would have pistol-whipped the reporter, at the least.

Take care, Charlie. Have a good day.