After the 2006 midterms...

[nickshepDEM]

Just looking for your opinion/guess...

[Ezlivin]

1. Voting? Huh? We'll be under martial law

And our Glorious Leader will be singing hymns!

[AX10]

2. Assuming that we have a fair vote....

I see the Democrats taking the House back (219-225) seats and a 50/50 Senate.

[prodigal_green]

5. I think that is a ridiculous assumption

that we have a fair vote that is.

Regardless of how the people vote, these bastards won't give up power. The public has already allowed vote-rigging and fraud to go over twice, they won't even blink in '06.

[SteppingRazor]

3. Though filled with self-loathing, I must choose the first option

First, we have no chance of taking the House in 2006. It's mathematically impossible, so rule it out right away. As for taking back the Senate, leaving the Republicans the House .... the way many Dem leaders have become GOP-mewling puppy dogs, I somehow doubt it.
The only way we get back the Senate is, not just to show that our candidate is by far the best man for the job (of course, we must do that too), we must also utterly destroy the GOP competitor. By the end of the campaign, they have to be so beat up that they'll never run for office again. I haven't seen that kind of willpower on the Democratic side yet.

[Independent_Liberal]

4. We're taking back the House and Senate!

I know it will happen! I can hardly wait!

[DaveinMD]

6. there

are not enough competitive seats to win back the house. The margin is too big in the Senate.

[nickshepDEM]

7. Thats what I was thinking.

CD's are just to gerrymandered these days, and our best case scenario (hold all of our seats and pick up MT, MO, PA, RI, TN) for the senate would only leave us with a 50/50 tie.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. You forgot Ohio, which would give us 51

But that is an absolute BEST case scenario. Texas is a definite no, now that Jabba the Hutch is running for re-election, Nevada is looking like a no, and Arizona is looking like a no as well. Our only other shot is Mississippi if Lott retires.

[nickshepDEM]

22. Im beginning to think OH is out of reach too.

Strickland was our best shot, but he is now running for Gov.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. DeWine has low approval ratings and the fundies hate him...

Because of the fillibuster compromise. We'll see what happens with this one.

[fujiyama]

27. I saw a poll for RI

which showed Chafee comfortably ahead.

And we have some vulnerable seats of our own that I'm not too happy about.

[FightinNewDem]

23. Precisely, Dave

Barring a 1964/1994 magnitude votequake, it will take at least two cycles to reclaim both Houses. The numbers are just too tough to do it in one shot.

Now, having said that, the Democratic Party has to be extremely aggressive in contesting every potentially vulnerable seat in 2006. Too often, the DCCC picks a dozen "targeted" races and pumps all of the party's financial resources into those camapigns. The problem with this approach is that it leaves no margin for error; if we don't sweep the targeted races, we don't make any headway.

If we are going to win back the House, we need to knock off some Republican incumbents who aren't on the current short-list. My own congressman, Jeb Bradley, would fall into this category. NH's 1st District went narrowly for Bush, but Kerry did very well, as did Gov. Lynch. Bradley is increasingly out of synch with a moderate, suburban district, and with a New Democrat opponent, he could be in trouble.

[truebrit71]

8. The Dems will take over congress and impeachment hearings..

...will commence immediately therafter.....

At least in a perfect world......

[JHBowden]

10. Republicans will control both houses.

Look at it district by district, state by state. We might be able to obtain a few pickups (Santorum's seat for instance) but not enough to get a majority back. 2008 looks much better for us.

If anyone disagrees, let me know specifically which seats you think the Dems will take back.

[PAdem2]

14. The real story of 2006 elections

will be how "progressive" vs. "traditional" democrats do in their individual races and how that will propel the party into the 2008 presidential election. I think there will be a significant battle for control of the party immediately after the 2006 election.

[bonzotex]

20. I agree, we stay in the minority until 2008 at least

The Democrats will never win back both houses until we have rebuilt ourselves as a truly Progressive party distinct from the repugs.

This is our time in purgatory for trying to stagger to some non-existent magical middle ground. We do best when we stick to our core principles and stop compromising with and even pandering to the right wing.

It will take other steps too: fair verifiable voting, active full time party orgs in every state, non-partisan redistricting and holding our own leaders accountable when they fail to uphold Democratic party values. We are a big tent party, but we also have to pick our battles and then not back down. We can't be everything to everybody and we won't win back power in one swoop.

[CatholicEdHead]

17. Pretty much true

redistricting is doing what is was supposed to do. Can't win without gerrymandering.

[quinnox]

11. Depends on some points

If the Bush administration keeps pushing the social security scam and still pretends Iraq is going fine and dandy there is a good possibility of them being swept from power in the congress.

Knowing the stubborness of Bush administration has the signs point to some good news finally for Democrats in 2006.

[MoonRiver]

12. I'm being very optimistic by saying that Pukes won't control the Senate

but will still own the House. Somehow I think that the Northeast is going to put some Dems in and oust their moderate Repubs. Here's to hope.
:toast:

[AntiCoup2K4]

13. I'll settle for the Republicans controlling none of the Democrats.

n/t

[Poppyseedman]

15. Anybody who voted for the 4th option

Please email me. I have a bridge to sell you in New York. It's a little old but well traveled.

The repugs will at least keep the house. Minimum

[KingFlorez]

16. We've got to be optimistic here

Saying we won't win is not helping us any. I think we can take both the House and the Senate if we run a strong enough campaign. One of the problems we are not contesting the seats that really do favor us and we are letting the Republicans retain seats in liberal areas, like the 3 they hold in CT, and the districting certainly doesn't favor them there. I look at the map and I see a lot of oppurtunities. So lets keep upbeat about this, because we can't afford the Republicans to retain either branch of Congress.

[bonzotex]

21. Let's be realistic too

I'm an optimist. I won't be dejected, however, if we don't clean up in 2006. We have to contest every race, put forward our best candidates, fight like hell. This is a given. I can look at the congressional maps just like you can. The deck is stacked against us. It would be a big win to gain seats in both houses in 2006 then take back one house or both and the Presidency in 2008. That's realistic.

[Telly Savalas]

25. I'm with you.

The goal in 2006 is to pick up some seats and try to narrow the margins in red areas. Make 'em work for it. Anything more is gravy.

If we have pie in the sky dreams, then we'll wake up Nov. 8, 2006 demoralized.

[Geek_Girl]

18. I voted for the 4th option

I'm trying to think positive these days

:D

[AlGore-08.com]

19. One thing I haven't seen discussed is the polls show anti-incumbency

Is running very high - - for most people it's not a question of throwing out the GOP, it's a question of throwing out whichever bum is warming the seat in Congress. How that will translate into individual races is tough to say - - it's possible for an incumbent with a very low re-elect percentage still win, because their opposition looked like an even worse bet. (This was the case with Gray Davis in 2002, where his re-elect and approval ratings were in the basement, but he masterfully ran ads in the GOP primary attacking so-called moderate who was polling ahead of Davis, and the GOP ended up nominating a wing nut with no experience who made an @ss of himself during the campaign.)

I do know that Santorum is in trouble in PA, due to his re-elect numbers, but so is Rendell (Dem Governor, for those who don't know).

(edited to add the stuff about Gray Davis in 2002.)

[fujiyama]

26. More of the same shit

I'm not optimistic, despite some recent polls showing pukes to be losing ground.

I'd be happy if Dems WON'T LOSE ANY SEATS. That's all I'm hoping for. Anything above that is just icing on the cake.

I'd be thrilled though if Santorum, among others, is defeated though.