The 2010 Election

[WinePusher]

Ok, so what's everybodies predications on the upcoming 2010 congressional elections?

I think republicans will take a sweeping majority in the House, and will get huge gains in the senate (but won't regain the majority).

Key races to look out for are:

California Senate: Carly Fiorina (R) vs. Barbara Boxer (D)
Delaware Senate: Christine O' Donnell (R) vs. Chris Coons (D)
Nevada Senate:Sharon Angle (R) vs. Harry Reid (D)
Florida Senate: Marco Rubio (R) vs. Chris Cristie (I)

I also predict republican victories in every single one of these races, even though they are very tight races.

I realize there's nothing religious about this, but I thought it'd be an interesting discussion in light of the upcoming elections. If moderators feel this is inappropriate they can delete it or lock it.

[Lux]

No, actually I would not vote for her because she is a lesser of two evils. I would vote for her cause I agree with her on the issues. If she didn't pay her taxes, and it can be tracked as a case of fraud, then of course she shouldn't serve in public office. (Just like Timothy Geitner and how the democrats were so concerned about his tax cheats).

I didn't mean to imply you'd vote for her for that reason. Just that in a two-party system people sometimes find themselves voting for the lesser of two evils, because the alternative (voting for another party) seems to be essentially throwing their vote in the can.

[Kuan]

I hope that they tie and cant do anything...so both sides can be winners!

[micatala]

I'd say the chances the Reps take over the house are about 50%. Much lower for the Senate.

I agree about the House. And I don't really care about the Senate, and long as we get a big enough minority to filibuster Obama and prevent his agenda from getting passed.

I would put the races in order of likelihood the Republican wins as follows:

Rubio
Fiorina
Angle
O'Donnell

I don't think O'Donnell is at all likely to win. Angle would be double digits behind almost any other candidate besides Reid. Rubio and Fiorina are substantial candidates that could put up a good fight against anyone.

Angle will surely beat Harry Reid, she has just as good of a chance as Marco Rubio. I think O'Donnell will lose if she doesn't attack Chris Coons and his marxism, I'd rather have a witch over a marxist any day of the week.

As an aside, O'Donnell is a fundamentalist nut with no business in political office.

You would rather have a marxist?

I have seen no credible evidence, only ridiculous smears, that Coons is a marxist. To put the question to me in this way is spin of a high order of magnitude.

If the only way O'Donnell can win is to practice tactics like this, then she is truly a damaged candidate without merit.


Angle does have a chance. The polls are fairly even. But again, this only speaks to her incredible weakness as a candidate. If Rubio or Fiorina were running in Nevada, Reid would be toast. The Nevada voters have a bad choice. Someone with incredibly extreme views who is not really very competent, or a long time pol who, although rather more competent, is still rather short of what you would want in a Senator and who, like Arlen Specter and others, has become too attached to his own career. I don't envy them their choice.

Speaking just for myself, I would probably choose Reid as the lesser of two evils.

[cnorman18]

I hope that they tie and cant do anything...so both sides can be winners!

It's been said that "paralysis" in Washington is not a wholly bad thing.

Reminds me of the old Texas saying -- "Lock up your wives and daughters, the Legislature is in session!"

[WinePusher]

I have seen no credible evidence, only ridiculous smears, that Coons is a marxist. To put the question to me in this way is spin of a high order of magnitude.

The same can be said about Christine O' Donnell, can it not? Why bring this witch thing into the national dialouge if not to smear her.

If the only way O'Donnell can win is to practice tactics like this, then she is truly a damaged candidate without merit.

No, its simply showing the voters her opponents positions. If Christine O' Donnell can move her campaign on an offensive and force the voters to scrutinize Chris Coon's positions, she will and it won't be a smear tactic.

Angle does have a chance. The polls are fairly even. But again, this only speaks to her incredible weakness as a candidate.

How is she incredibly weak? The electorate isn't looking for old time, professional politicians. They're looking for fresh faces and new leadership from both parties, and Harry Reid represents that anti-establishment/incumbency attitude.

If Rubio or Fiorina were running in Nevada, Reid would be toast. The Nevada voters have a bad choice. Someone with incredibly extreme views who is not really very competent, or a long time pol who, although rather more competent, is still rather short of what you would want in a Senator and who, like Arlen Specter and others, has become too attached to his own career. I don't envy them their choice.

Speaking just for myself, I would probably choose Reid as the lesser of two evils.

Maybe you could list some of Sharon Angles extreme positions and views. The only reason Rubio, Fiorina and/or Arlen Specter would have a better chance is because the establishment has made it seem that conservatives and right wingers cannot be elected. Well, if we ran a Michele Bachmann or a Jim DeMint in every state I think that the voters wuold choose the conservative choice this november.

[Chuck_G]

I think republicans will take a sweeping majority in the House, and will get huge gains in the senate (but won't regain the majority).

I agree. I hope they gain the majority as well as it may calm people down a bit.

Really? I didn't think you supported the Republican party?

I don't support any party.

I predict that a staggering amount of people will not vote.

I think the turnout will be less because its a mid-term election, but there will be a sizable number of people who will turn out. Note that it is very funny how democrats are not running on Healthcare, or the Stimulus, or Cap and Trade. They are fleeing from this president and his policies.

And the republicans are running solely on slandering public option insurance, the stimulus, and cap & trade. Politics as usual.

One of the most unfortunate things about politics today is the overwhelming influence of opinion based "news" organizations. Their agenda is quite clear. It used to be that news was reported instead of opined and opinion talk shows were correctly labeled as such.

[Kuan]

I think its time to do away with both parties, Independent all the way!
I might be off topic here but I have lost respect for both parties...

[micatala]

I have seen no credible evidence, only ridiculous smears, that Coons is a marxist. To put the question to me in this way is spin of a high order of magnitude.

The same can be said about Christine O' Donnell, can it not? Why bring this witch thing into the national dialouge if not to smear her.

I would agree, the witch thing is pretty much irrelevant, given it was a while ago and a person going through a phase in their younger years should not be a big deal.

Why don't you give Coons the same evaluation, given the whole marxist thing is based on a toungue-in-cheek piece from 25 years ago? If you claim Coons is a Marxist based on that, then it is even more fair to say O'Donnell is still a witch by the same standard.


Now, what is not irrelevant is her financial dealings and her dishonesty regarding her college career. Her positions are also not irrelevant.

If the only way O'Donnell can win is to practice tactics like this, then she is truly a damaged candidate without merit.

No, its simply showing the voters her opponents positions. If Christine O' Donnell can move her campaign on an offensive and force the voters to scrutinize Chris Coon's positions, she will and it won't be a smear tactic.

Why don't you document the Marxist claim and then explain how on earth that is relevant while O'Donnell's witch background is not.

Angle does have a chance. The polls are fairly even. But again, this only speaks to her incredible weakness as a candidate.

How is she incredibly weak? The electorate isn't looking for old time, professional politicians. They're looking for fresh faces and new leadership from both parties, and Harry Reid represents that anti-establishment/incumbency attitude.

Is she anti-establishment, well sort of. I see she now is trying to bully the guy who claims to be the real tea party candidate out of the race with back room dealing.

I also note the following blurb from late last August.

Here's a striking statistic out of the Nevada Senate race: 68 percent of the state's voters said in a new poll that they would have preferred if the state's Republicans had nominated someone other than Tea Party-backed nominee Sharron Angle, according to a new Las Vegas Review-Journal/8NewsNow poll.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503544_162- ... z11ap4PrPP

Here are just some of her positions.

She’s both a fiscal and social conservative, who says the Department of Education is unconstitutional, the United States should withdraw from the United Nations, a flat tax should replace the income tax and a free-market alternative should be established to cut social security. Democrats say she once proposed a bill linking abortion to breast cancer.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/10/harry ... z11apWr2AS

She wants to "transition us out" of social security.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41235.html

That idea is way less popular than the Park 51 Project. It is way out of the mainstream.

The fact that she is trying to get her old pre-primary win website suppressed is evidence that even she understands her positions are perceived to be way out of the mainstream.

http://www.harryreid.com/index.php/news ... ron_angle/


See more at http://www.harryreid.com/index.php/news ... ron_angle/

Now, I am not saying she does not have a right to take whatever position she wants or even that I think none of her ideas have some merit. But she clearly is an extreme candidate and her behavior also does not bode well for being a good Senator.

If Rubio or Fiorina were running in Nevada, Reid would be toast. The Nevada voters have a bad choice. Someone with incredibly extreme views who is not really very competent, or a long time pol who, although rather more competent, is still rather short of what you would want in a Senator and who, like Arlen Specter and others, has become too attached to his own career. I don't envy them their choice.

Speaking just for myself, I would probably choose Reid as the lesser of two evils.

Maybe you could list some of Sharon Angles extreme positions and views.

See above.

The only reason Rubio, Fiorina and/or Arlen Specter would have a better chance is because the establishment has made it seem that conservatives and right wingers cannot be elected. Well, if we ran a Michele Bachmann or a Jim DeMint in every state I think that the voters wuold choose the conservative choice this november.

Certainly the fact that the Republican Establishment worked, sometimes forcefully, against many of these candidates, and others like Rand Paul and Miller, can make things more difficult for them.

Bachmann is ridiculous. The only reason she got elected last time was that she has a very conservative district. She is a demagogue and in my view dishonest. I don't think too much more of Demint. These two can continue to get elected in their conservative districts or states, but, like Palin, they would be deeply unpopular on a nationwide stage.


These candidates would by and large have zero chance of getting elected were the economy not struggling. It may not be fair, but the Dems are going to pay for what the situation is now, even though Obama did a lot to keep the situation from having been much, much worse and even though the situation is getting better, albeit slowly.

Those of this ilk that do get elected are only going to be further exposed for the extremists they are throughout their terms and will likely find voters not willing to put up with them for more than one term. They'll be in more embarassing than Roland Burris. Angle, if she does pull off the upset, will be a marginal, one-term Senator. Same for Miller or O'Donnell. Rubio and Fiorina have the wherewithal to last.

[Grumpy]

WinePusher


O'Donald will lose her race bigtime. She is not a serious candidate.

Angle will also lose to Reid, though I wish Reid was not the alternative.

The other two are really too close to call.

The Dems will probably lose around 15 seats in the House, and maybe about 6 seats in the Senate but will retain control in both houses. The Reps will not be able to continue to just say no, not if they want to get reelected for another term. They will have to learn how to compromise.

Grumpy

[LiamOS]

After having watched some American Campaign ads, I was appalled at how many were negative and at how 'first-year-film-school' they were.

In Ireland, we don't even have TV ads. You hand out fliers with your proposals and policies on them and debate their merits with opponents and talk-show hosts. Not ideal, but it beats mindless generic slander.