Experts say that barring the unexpected, Democrats will win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Barring an unexpected and big event, Democrats will win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November and conceivably the Senate, too.

[...]

Democratic insiders ... say winning the House is a lock, and the Senate is within reach.

"We have to go back to 1974 (during Watergate) to find such a favorable environment,'' says James Carville, who ran Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. "If we can't win in this environment, we have to question the whole premise of the party.''

More telling is that the smartest Republican political minds agree. "The issue matrix and political dynamics are not good for us,'' says Representative Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican. "Only some big national or international event before the election can change that.''

[...]

Privately, Republican congressional leaders are bracing to lose 20 to 30 House seats -- more than the net 15 gain that Democrats need to take control of that chamber -- and to barely hold on to their Senate majority.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=was...id=aHczjrHrbtxo

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I guess one of the "unexpected" is of Dems doing internecine shenanigans (such as shooting off incumbent Joe Liebermann--it's generally a voter's job to tell the incumbent to leave, not the party's).

:lol:

Edited August 28, 2006 by CherryXS

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

it's generally a voter's job to tell the incumbent to leave, not the party's

I take it you don't believe in primaries?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

it's generally a voter's job to tell the incumbent to leave, not the party's

I take it you don't believe in primaries?

More like don't understand the idea (I've had experience voting in elections--all in Canada, but never followed how they picked candidates). Still, I believe it's voter's job vs party's (how about bribing voters in a "safe" riding to by-elect a party-leader/premier who got defeated in his own, as happened in 1990 in Alberta--as another good reason for it?).

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Still, I believe it's voter's job vs party's

The people who vote in primaries are voters. It's not like the party bosses decided to throw Joe out. Democratic voters of the state didn't think he represented them any more, so they threw him out.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Barring an unexpected and big event, Democrats will win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November and conceivably the Senate, too.

'bout time.

[I'm Gone 60]

"We have to go back to 1974 (during Watergate) to find such a favorable environment,'' says James Carville, who ran Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. "If we can't win in this environment, we have to question the whole premise of the party.''

James Carville, now there's an unbiased opinion. LOL

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Barring an unexpected and big event, Democrats will win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November and conceivably the Senate, too.

'bout time.

hold onto your wallet the democrats are coming

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

hold onto your wallet the democrats are coming

So true. Unfortunately that won't work since they take taxes out before the money can even get into my wallet

[ChristinaM 0]

Better tax and spend on bettering the country than run up a (rather large) deficit by trying to have your finger in everybody's pie, IMO.

(And I'm pretty fiscally conservative.)

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Fiscal conservative has been an oxymoron since this president took office

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Still, I believe it's voter's job vs party's

The people who vote in primaries are voters. It's not like the party bosses decided to throw Joe out. Democratic voters of the state didn't think he represented them any more, so they threw him out.

That's how I always understood the primaries too. It seems much fairer than in other countries where the parties and their delegates decide on a candidate and let the voters only choose between different parties on election day. The Dems supported Lieberman until the primary, and only dropped him after the voters decided against him and Lieberman attacked the Dems.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

hold onto your wallet the democrats are coming

So true. Unfortunately that won't work since they take taxes out before the money can even get into my wallet

Yeah, good thing we have such a fiscally conservative Rebulican mass spending our kids and grandkids money at a pace that makes me dizzy.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Fiscal conservative has been an oxymoron since this president took office

Fiscal conservative has been an oxymoron for much longer. Republican presidents have historically presided over higher deficits while cutting taxes. While they are well known for cutting public services, the arms and defense budget has usually ballooned.

But yeah, this administration is even an abnormality compared to previous conservative admins.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"We have to go back to 1974 (during Watergate) to find such a favorable environment,'' says James Carville, who ran Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. "If we can't win in this environment, we have to question the whole premise of the party.''

James Carville, now there's an unbiased opinion. LOL

He's a great political strategist - too bad he's not the Chairman of the Party.

hold onto your wallet the democrats are coming

So true. Unfortunately that won't work since they take taxes out before the money can even get into my wallet

Yeah, good thing we have such a fiscally conservative Rebulican mass spending our kids and grandkids money at a pace that makes me dizzy.