All the Muck That's Fit to Rake

All the Muck is a blog that will look at a host of issues: politics; rhetoric; environmental problems; education; social justice; urban planning (or lack thereof); music; sports; and the beauty of living one's life via simplicity and taking it easy.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Joe-mentum

Lieberman losing the Democratic primary yesterday wasn't a big shock, as Ned "I got lots of money to spend for tv ads" Lamont did quite the rhetorical hatchet job on old saggy-faced Liebs.

One thing for sure, if you're a current Democrat in D.C., I'd stay away from kissing distance from Dubya. Perhaps it was a compassionately conservative kiss o' death.

It's hard to gather what will happen with that race in CT with Liebs now out in the political wilderness, with no party to back him. A lot of pundits see Liebs fading away in the race, but I kind of disagree. The wild card, obviously, is whether traditional Democratic voters will switch to an former "Democrat" and now Independent. Hard to gauge. I don't see it happening because Lieberman has the charisma of a turnip, but we'll see.

Some of the liberal intelligentsia seem to think that a strong anti-war message and/or general displeasure about Iraq is going to swing a number House and Senate seats toward the Democrats, possibly even making the Democrats win the majority in the House or Senate.

The professional odds-makers disagree though. As related in the most recent issue of The Atlantic, the folks at www.tradesports.com give a 54% chance the GOP keeps its majority in the House, a 81% chance the GOP holds its majority in the Senate, and a 48% chance they win the presidential race. In particular, the rationale is that the Dems won't garner a majority in the Senate because "swinging six seats, with just thirty-three in play, is a tall order. And because senators are usually better known to their constituents than are House representatives than are House representatives, they tend to be less vulnerable to negative perceptions of the party or the president" (39).

Nevertheless, the Republicans should be on the defensive in November. If Claire McCaskill's tactic of seriously questioning Iraq War related graft, as related in an interview last night, is any indication of how some Dems might approach their campaigns, they might not win a majority in either of the two chambers, but they could make it fairly close.

Even if it boils down to the fact that a number of Americans are fed up with the ways things are going at home and abroad, the party in power of all three branches of government could become the scapegoat, or so some hope.

2 Comments:

At 11:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As related in the most recent issue of The Atlantic, the folks at www.tradesports.com give a 54% chance the GOP keeps its majority in the House, a 81% chance the GOP holds its majority in the Senate, and a 48% chance they win the presidential race.

If I had any balls at all I would jump on those Congressional bets. The gerrymandered advantage in the House is huge for all incumbents. Given the current Republican edge of 29 (you don't fool me Sanders) it is darn near impossible for the Democrats to gain the needed 15 seats.

In the Senate the Democrats have a disadvantage in that they have more seats to defend than the Republicans. Basically the D's have to win all of the 10 most competitive races to get to 51 senators.

I think it is silly to bet on the Presidential race right now without knowing the actual candidates, let alone tieing up your money for 2 years.

I predict slight Democratic gains in both houses of Congress, but Republicans retain control of both chambers.

 
At 9:20 PM, Blogger Quintilian B. Nasty said...

The Dems' odds on president by those folks was at 49%, with the 3% given for a "third party candidate" (laugh now).

If the Dems nominate Clinton, the GOP's odds go up, in my amateur opinion.

QBN

 

Post a Comment

<< Home