2006 US elections

[pacino]

The countdown commences. McKinney(D-GA) is out, Lieberman is now independent and in a 3-way race for the CT senate seat, and Pennsylvania has several important seats in the house and senate up for grabs, including the seat of the Republicans #3 in command Rick Santorum.

[noetsi]

One of the strange anomolies of this race is that while the great majority of the public clearly would prefer democratic canidates according to polls, they will likely gain few seats. The public is loyal to incumbants and the Republicans have fewer open seats. Also the House is so gerrymanded that only about 30 seats are actually in doubt in most elections.

So the Republicans will retain control of both houses, and continue policies most Americans clearly disagree with. The problem with that, aside from its anti-popular elements, is that the views of most Americans will be ignored until things blow up.

And of course only about half of Americans who can vote actually do.

[Bucky]

those issues don't apply to senate races russ

[noetsi]

Well the preference for incumbants does although its less. You are right gerrymanding seats, which both sides do, does not apply there. That is why in most polls, democratic chances of picking up seats are greater in the Senate.

I dont think there is any chance on earth that the democrats will pick up 6 senate seats or 15 house seats. Yet even very conservative publications like the Weekly Standard talk about that. They confuse the general unpopularity of some policies (and public responses generally on what party they like now) with how seats will be determined and they are not the same.

I can see the democrats, if they hold on to Conn, picking up say 2-3 Senate seats and maybe 5-6 house seats but that is all. Republicans will continue to run Congress. The more interesting issue is what will happen by 08. Trends suggest that the public is moving to the left (relatively) on many issues. For instance minimum wage increases are imensely popular with the public and there is significant unhappiness with income disparity and with Iraq.

If the war continues till 08 and median wages dont come up then the Republicans could face real problems then. In the long run I think lefties like me are in the same situation righties were in the late seventies. Things were not good, but the tide was coming in for them. We shall see, I have been wrong often before.

[1perry]

pacino said:

Lieberman is now independent and in a 3-way race for the CT senate seat,

Two way race.

P.S. Cool!!! A spell check that actually works. I certainly can get good use out of that!

[noetsi]

Why would it be a two way race? There is a Republican, Democrat, and Independent. This helps the Republicans in two ways. First they may pick up a seat they had no chance to win other wise. And second Lieberman supports Bush far more than the democratic canidate, which of course is why he lost the democratic primary.

[noetsi]

This is why most Americans dont like either party.

When U.S. Rep. Gary Miller (R-Diamond Bar) sold 165 acres to the city of Monrovia in 2002, he made a profit of more than $10 million, according to a financial disclosure form he filed in Congress. Ordinarily, he would have had to pay state and federal taxes of up to 31% on that profit.

Instead, Miller told the Internal Revenue Service and the state that Monrovia had forced him to sell the property under threat of eminent domain. That allowed him to shelter the profits from capital gains taxes for more than two years before he had to reinvest the money.

But there is a problem with Miller's claim: Monrovia officials say that Miller sold the land willingly and that they didn't threaten to force him to sell.

Miller, whose 42nd Congressional District includes chunks of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties, claimed the same exemption in two subsequent Fontana property transactions, allowing him to continue sheltering his profits from the Monrovia sale. And in each of those cases, the purchasers say eminent domain, which allows a government agency to force a sale if it's in the public interest, was neither used nor threatened.


www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-miller13aug13,0,2223572.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[1perry]

noetsi said:

Why would it be a two way race? There is a Republican, Democrat, and Independent. This helps the Republicans in two ways. First they may pick up a seat they had no chance to win other wise. And second Lieberman supports Bush far more than the democratic canidate, which of course is why he lost the democratic primary.

The GOP has no chance at the seat. Their best bet is Lieberman not voting with the Dems as far as power goes if it comes to that. I'd even fund him if I was the GOP to ensure it.

Lieberman supported Bush in one area only. That is why he is still going to win his seat back.

[dlb]

Actually, the Democrats best chances are in the House. The Senate is almost completely out of reach.

[LTBF]

If Miller is lying he is an idiot. Did he htink the IRS would just take his word about a $31 million dollar land sale profit. Did he not think the IRS might ask for, oh I don't kinow, a letter from the city's lawyer saying they were going to use eminent domain?

[noetsi]

Well so far he has been right. The IRS let him get away with it.

I think the Republicans won't lose either house but I can see a lot more gains in the Senate than 15 in the House.


Liberman, 1perry, votes with Bush on tax cuts as well. For instance on the vote to push through dividend tax cuts he broke with his party who firmly opposed them.

[noetsi]

President Bush did not do Lieberman any favors by refusing to endorse his Republican opponent. It makes comments that he is a de facto Republican more credible.

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060820/pl_nm/lieberman_dc

Lieberman says he has criticized the President on Iraq - by calling for more troops. That is like saying your opposed to a war, you want to accelerate the level of violence He votes with the President not only in support for the war - but on his tax policies as well.

Democrats argue that his primary defeat shows American opposition to the war. I think it reflects democratic opposition and only at the voter level. Democratic leaders are hardly anti-war, many of the key ones such as Lieberman and Clinton (Hillary that is) are as firmly supportive of it as the President. They exploit anger over the war, they don't actually plan to leave.

[sam]

noetsi said:

Why would it be a two way race? There is a Republican, Democrat, and Independent. This helps the Republicans in two ways. First they may pick up a seat they had no chance to win other wise. And second Lieberman supports Bush far more than the democratic canidate, which of course is why he lost the democratic primary.

There are many CT Republicans that are planning to vote for Leiberman since thier own candidate is so weak. Independants in CT are in larger numbers than either the DEMOs or REPs and they tend to sway elections.