Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News What will happen in the 2006 mid-term elections?

  1. House: Democrats gain 1-5 seats

  2. House: Democrats gain 6-15 seats

  3. House: Democrats gain 16-30 seats

  4. House: Republicans gain 1-5 seats

  5. House: Republicans gain 6-15 seats

  6. House: Republicans gain 16-30 seats

  7. Senate: Republicans gain 1-3 seats

  8. Senate: Republicans gain 4-7 seats

  9. Senate: Democrats gain 1-3 seats

  10. Senate: Democrats gain 4-7 seats

Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Nov 12, 2005 #1
    Just gettin' early opinions to see who's good at predicting the future. You can vote multiple times, so vote for one result in the House, and one result in the Senate.

    Obviously, a gain of 3 seats by one side means a loss of 3 seats on the other side. Also, it should be obvious that we're talking about net gains. If Democrats pick up 7 Republican seats, but Republicans pick up 6 Democratic seats, the Democrats only had a net gain of 1. I shouldn't have to say that on a physics forum...

    I predict the Democrats will make modest gains, not because of a broad Democratic message or anything, just because of individual Republicans being succeptable to attack, and individual Democrats taking advantage of that and putting up a specific message that applies to their local constitutancy. The de-centralization of the Democratic party is what I expect to help them get back on their feet.

    If anyone is dead-on, they will be given an award by the CPO (Congressional Predictions Office) and taken to do secret remote-viewing work for the CIA.

    For easy reference, here's a list of the Senators up for re-election in 2006.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 12, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The ability to manipulate the borders of House Districts make it harder, proportionally, to pick up seats in the House. Still, I figure Dems to pick up at least 5 and maybe up to around 10.

    Being statewide, Senators aren't quite as hard to unseat. I figure Republican Senators will bear the brunt of the Bush fallout. I'd say 3 or 4 will go down (you picked a really awkward place to break categories). With only about 33 up for re-election each cycle, 7 would be incredibly high.
  4. Nov 12, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    For the Dems to achieve a 51% majority in the Senate they need to pick up 7 seats (though the 1 Independent is likely leaning toward the Dems so 6 may do), and in the House about 20 seats? Okay, that's what I'll vote for. :approve: Seriously it probably won't be that much, but improvement in balance of power is most important to me.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  5. Nov 12, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I picked 1-3 gain for Reps in the Senate, but I meant to select the same gain for the Dems. Sorry.
  6. Nov 12, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    How about the US gives Texas back to Mexico and they keep Tom Delay. Then the US offers the 50th state position to Puero Rico or Guam or . . .
    British Columbia.
  7. Nov 12, 2005 #6
    :rofl: Only if Bush and Rove are part of the deal.
  8. Nov 12, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Yeah, but that may sink the deal. I don't think Mexico wants them! :rofl:

    When was the last time Vincente Fox invited Bush for a visit? :biggrin: :rofl:
  9. Nov 13, 2005 #8
    Anyone got an exact outline of how you think the Senate will change?

    I'm fairly confident that Santorum (R. Pa) will lose to a Democrat.

    Bill Frist (R. Tn) has said that he will not run again, and Harold Ford, a popular Democratic Congressman from Tennessee's 9th District, announced a while ago that he'll be running for that seat. Ford is one of those Congressmen that's on cable news channels all the time, and from what I've seen of him, he's very articulate, intelligent and serious (even grave). I'm not sure that there's a prominant Republican running for that seat yet, and with Ford being African American, he shouldn't have a tough time getting elected.

    It sucks, but it also appears that Mike DeWine (R. Oh) and Lincoln Chafey (R. Ri) will both lose, even though they're fairly moderate, level-headed Republicans. Both are going to have to deal with loss of support from the extreme right, and possibly even primary challenges. In general, if there's a primary challenge to an incumbent official, the opposing party will win.

    Mark Dayton (D. Mn) is not running again, and it appears the Democrats have no one to run in his place, so his seat will go to a Republican unless there's another Jack Ryan type scandal.

    Robert Byrd (D. Wv) is up for re-election in 2006 as well, and he's liable to die any day now. But then again, many aincent Senators have a way of sticking around long after they should've died.

    Jon Corzine's (D. Nj) seat will be up for re-election in 2006, and presumably whomever he chooses to be his replacement will run for that seat. I don't know that anyone can really predict whether that guy'll turn out to be any good or not. Has anyone got a view on him?
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2005
  10. Nov 13, 2005 #9
    It's very difficult to predict what will happen a year from now. Assuming that nothing like 9/11 happens between now and then, it's probably a pretty safe assumption that the Republicans won't pick up any seats, and that the Democrats will probably pick up a few (at least based on the current poll numbers). How many seats they will gain is probably proportional to the number of indictments/convictions that happen from now until then.
  11. Jan 12, 2006 #10
    I guess I'll revive this thread 2 or 3 times in the leadup to November, just to see how people's opinions might've changed.

    I'm keeping my bets as they were, but it now seems possible the Democrats might actually pick up 5 Senate seats, though 3 or 4 seems more likely.

    Frist (R Tn.) is retiring, and Harold Ford (D Tn.) will win that state (so says I).

    Santorum (R Pa.) will just lose, since he doesn't seem to realize Pa. voted for John Kerry in 2004.

    Chafey (R Ri.) and DeWine (R Oh.) are still both in trouble from the right and left, and have at least 3 distinct ways to lose.

    And on top of that, Robert Novak put out a column saying Trent Lott wants to retire, and that Ms.'s Democratic Attorney General is best positioned to succeed Lott.

    Novak may have outed a CIA agent, but that's just all the more reason to believe him. The guy's got damned good sources.
  12. Jan 12, 2006 #11
    Rep Ney (R) Ohio will be gone as a result of the Abramoff scandal. He will likely be replaced by a Democrat. Remember the 2004 presidential race and issues of its being decided by goings on in Ohio?? Abramoff .... hum. There are a reported 11 House canditates running with Iraq war experience. 9 of the 11 are Democrats. They WILL be heard - and will have an impact in the entirety of the Democrat platform, and are expected to challenge Bush and the Republicans on their handling of the Iraq. Depending on what happens here, will then shape the 2008 presidential ticket. Republicans plan on stacking the U.S. Supreme Court with conservatives, not only for Roe vs. Wade, but to endow broad powers to the presidency. So count on them to put up a new offense to keep the White House in 2008.

    This all resembles a Super Bowl game! It's all about momentum and field position. Yet, the refereeing of late is lacking.
  13. Mar 17, 2006 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Time to bring forward, not for the poll necessarily, but for discussion of what is and will happen in the mid-term (presidential that is) elections this year.

    Already - US evangelicals warn Republicans !!! (from BBC)

    source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4815912.stm

    So a religious community warns or threatens an established political entity, despite the tradition of separating Church and State.

    What does it mean to "advance conservative values"? Who gets to decide what these values are? Are these values up for discussion in the public domain?
  14. Mar 17, 2006 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No, of course this is not a part of public debate. And we know the so-called "values" have nothing to do with true Christian premises, such as helping the poor, the elderly, leaving a better world for our children, etc. Gay marriage was already defeated with props on the ballots in 2004. Now it is full steam ahead to ban abortion with legislation state by state.

    In the meantime, as mentioned in another thread, the Republican party has chosen Tom DeLay to run in 2006 in Texas, and in the Republican straw polls for the 2008 presidential elections, Bill Frist came in first (and Bush came in second! :yuck: :eek: ). Now in her bid to become the next U.S. Senator from Florida, Katherine Harris has announced that she is putting $10 million of her inherited wealth into her campaign.

    If we aren't able to rid ourselves of these kinds of things, and these kind of politicians, our country will surely sink further into the sewer.
  15. Mar 17, 2006 #14


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The National Association of Evagelicals doesn't make a secret of their goals. You can read them right on their web site: http://www.nae.net/images/civic_responsibility2.pdf [Broken]

    In a short summary, evangelicals politically believe:

    Religious freedom: Believes people should be free to express their religious views in public. Separation of church and state doesn’t mean people should be protected from encountering religion.

    Nurture family life and protect children: Government shouldn’t interfere in how families educate their children (i.e. - pro school vouchers) and shouldn’t recognize same sex marriages as the equivalent of heterosexual marriages.

    Protect sanctity of human life: Seeks to outlaw abortion, euthanasia and stem-cell research.

    Justice and compassion for poor and vulnerable: Restore dignity to poor by making job training a requirement to receive welfare, encourage faith-based charity, and crack down on collecting child support payments. Encourage abstinence.

    Protect human rights world-wide: Urges United States to increase its commitment to developing democracy in former colonial lands, Muslim nations, and nations emerging from Communism. Correct lingering effects of US racist history through well-conceived efforts that foster dignity and responsibility.

    Seek peace and work to restrain violence: Work to reduce conflict by promoting international understanding and engaging in non-violent conflict resolution.

    Protect God’s creation: Encourage recycling, conservation and enjoyment of nature, encourage fuel efficiency, reduce pollution, and encourage sustainable use of natural resources.

    And, of course they're up for discussion in the public domain. That's what elections are.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  16. Mar 17, 2006 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think what Astronuc is referring to is public debate about what the above list of "values" should be. Obviously The National Association of Evangelicals has already determined what these are. While they have added issues regarding the poor and the environment (due to criticism in 2004), I question the sincerity. For example, in comparison to efforts to ban abortion, what pro-environment things have they done (protests, legislation, etc.)?

    In regard to the school vouchers, they want tax dollars to send their children to religious schools so they won't have to foot the bill on their own. This is a clear violation of Separation of Church and State and they know it.

    And obviously they support Bush/Cheney, who violate human rights by torturing prisoners in secret camps. What does spreading democracy have to do with human rights? Nothing. That is all just neocon BS.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  17. Mar 18, 2006 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    That's a great document, Bob. Here's a little piece of advice we could all take heed of:

    Neither the most vocal Christians (I have no clue whether or not they are members of the NAE), nor the most vocal of their critics, do any of this.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  18. Mar 18, 2006 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Given that the attention spans of media, politicians, and electorate are much less than that of a butterfly, predicting "issues" that people will have in mind 6 mos. from now is pretty much a crap shoot. The timing might be about right for adverse fallout from the DPW fiasco to bite just about every one of the incumbents. That leaves thirty-some plus the abstentions in the house to retain seats and the three hundred odd who put themselves on the record as opposed to be unseated. Probably not gonna be even back page material by then.

    So what might turn into issues between now and then? Jessica's Law? Levee levies? Foreign student admissions? CDC handling of the latest health scare, whatever it might be? SCOTUS botching another eminent domain case? War in S. America? Housing bubble collapses? Public school text book bid rigging scandal?
  19. Mar 18, 2006 #18


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Bush did say "America is addicted to oil" in his State of the Union speech (even if he did butcher the speech and even if the budget resulted lay offs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory).

    You need to read the section on protecting human rights to fully understand the "spreading democracy" part. Their interests happen to coincide with neocon interests, even if the motivation is different.

    I see your point about who decides what evangelical Christians believe in (versus who decides whether the nation embraces these values). This gets to the heart of the problem of religions forming political parties - or taking control of an existing party. There's not a lot of critical thought among the rank and file about what policies a religion should follow. The rank and file follow whatever policies religious authorities decide on - after all, they've been endorsed by God.

    That's also why evangelicals are such an attractive constituency to appeal to. They believe in faith and patience and will stick with their candidate much longer than the average voter - even if their candidate butchers his speeches and does a bad job of implementation.
  20. Mar 18, 2006 #19
    In the meantime, as mentioned in another thread, the Republican party has chosen Tom DeLay to run in 2006 in Texas, and in the Republican straw polls for the 2008 presidential elections, Bill Frist came in first (and Bush came in second! :yuck: :eek: ). Now in her bid to become the next U.S. Senator from Florida, Katherine Harris has announced that she is putting $10 million of her inherited wealth into her campaign.

    If we aren't able to rid ourselves of these kinds of things, and these kind of politicians, our country will surely sink further into the sewer.[/QUOTE]

    Let us not forget Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) & Ted Kenedy (D-MA). If you want to start singling out individuals, there are plenty from both major political parties that can be used as examples to make a given point.

    Please describe your idea of "the sewer". Liberals and conservatives both use the term but mean something completely different when doing so. Just curious what you mena when using the term.
  21. Mar 19, 2006 #20
    That was one straw poll in Tennesse. Frist literally had young Republicans from local colleges bussed in to vote for him. 40% of the delegates voting in that poll were from Tennessee, and Frist got less than 40% of the vote, so it's not really indivatory of anything other than people Bill Frist brings to Republican conferences like him.

    And Mitt Romney got 2nd place, Bush tied with George Allen for second, but that was only because McCain told all his delegates to vote for Bush to show support for him. So every Bush vote is really a McCain vote, plus there were a bunch of McCain votes that were listed as such. If you add the Bush and McCain votes, McCain got more than Romney.
  22. Mar 19, 2006 #21
    Alrighty, so my predictions on which seats will change hands have changed greatly.

    Right now, Pennsylvania is the only Senate seat that will definately go to the Democrats.

    Montana is very likely to switch to Democratic, since Senator Burns is the most unpopular Senator in the nation.

    Missouri is a possible pick-up for the Dems; Senator Talent isn't horribly popular, and the state is evenly divided enough that general anti-Republican sentiment could drive him out. However, Talent could whip up a good campaign and skim by with 3 points or so.

    Rhode Island is interesting. Lincoln Chafee, the Republican incumbent, is the most liberal Republican in the Senate, and didn't vote for the President in '04 (he voted for George Bush Sr. in protest). He faces a significant primary challenge by a more traditional Republican. If he loses in the primary, then the Democrat will definately win, and even if he wins his primary, he may be defeated, despite his liberalness.

    NJ could go either way, the latest poll had Kean (R) at 32% and Menendez (D) at 30%. Though it will probably stay Democratic, just cause it's NJ, and Republicans are sucking extra hard this year, while Democrats only suck as much as they always have. This is, sadly for them, the Republicans best chance at a pick-up.

    So I'm sticking with my vote of Democrats gaining 1-3 in the Senate, and 5-15 in the House. It'll probably be closer to 5-8 that they end up gaining in the House, though. Gerrymandering's a *****. Either way, the Congress will be nearly evenly split after '06, with Republicans barely able to do anything.

    A Congress paralyzed is better than one that's actively harming the nation.
  23. Mar 21, 2006 #22
    The Dems keep getting handed opportunities and squandering them. They are making very serious national tragedies, failures, and forshadows of doom in "potitical discussions." Those Democrats who continue to respond to the numeous Repubs and Bush White House screw-ups with their eye on their careers are NOT reacting from the "gut" with sincereity, the American public will read into this, and discount their efforts as has happened since Katrina.

    How about some Democrats just plain getting ANGRY. The two I can recall in recent months (Murtha and ? man who took over Senate floor for one full day) got everyone's attention. Right now, the pacifism in many Liberals make-up has become their own handycap. We're in tough new times. Say it - and mean what you say. And the Dems have been handed enumerable opportunities!

    It's still too early to say what might change in the Fall elections. I still don't see enough solid initiative and passion ouf of the Dems. They should organize a similar effort as to what the Repubs did in 1994 with Newt's "Contract with America" that won them the House.
  24. Apr 11, 2006 #23


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Has anyone seen this?

    http://www.ontheissues.org/ - pick your favorite or least favorite.

    I listened to an interview this morning with Chrisite Todd-Whitman. I hope she gets back in.


    She has written a book -"It's My Party Too".

    It's My Party, Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America (Hardcover)

    Haven't read it yet, but it sounds interesting.

    Christine Todd Whitman: Battle for the GOP Core (Jan 2005)

  25. Apr 11, 2006 #24
    If the republicans use the same type of tactics they have used in the past, specificially the New Hampshire 2002 phone line jamming scheme described below. They may pull of a 2006 six surprize.


    The method used to disrupt voting was to hire a telephone solicitation company to flood the phone lines of a Democratic "get out the vote" telephone campaign. This smells like Karl Rove big time.

    The administration now has the NSA intel gathering machine to assist them in their dirty little scandals. This type of activity is totally disgraceful. There has always been a certain level of underhanded dealings in politics, but the current administration has set a new low.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2006
  26. May 1, 2006 #25
    Be Advised Democratic Party: Illegal Immigration Could Costs Fall '06 Election

    Be advised Democratic party: If any of you voice any substantial support for today's "Illegal Immigration" rally - you WILL costs the party anticipated gains in the Fall '06 election.

    The Democratic party presently is looking a girft horse in the mouth. American support for the Republican controlled House and Senate in April 2006 is reported to be at historic lows. All the Democrats need do to capture seats in the Fall '06 election is keep clear of "unpopular political issues," and offer proposals on key domestic issues (oil, jobs, health care, and the budget) and the war in Iraq.

    Should there be any substantial Democratic party support for undocumented workers and today's demonstrations - it WILL diminish be you against the party by the Republicans in the Fall '06 election. In 2004, it was the party's support for "gay marriage" that was successfully pushed by Republicans to maintain seats in the House and Senate.

    The "illegal immigrant" issue in 2006 is far more divisive than gay marriage was in 2004. Do not squander this opportunit!"
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook