US elections

[Gladstone]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10740963/

If they gain control of congress this could spark invetigations into the Bush case for war, abuses of the patriot act etc...

I hope they return the favour and try to impeach the bastard.

It would at least create a balance of power in the US for the first time since Clinton left.

[Seabird]

Gladstone,

That would be the best thing that could possibly happen to this country. We are tired of his sh*t, he needs to be held accountable for his actions.

[meriwether]

I still think the Republicans will regain control. The Democrats have, well, no-one besides Hilary as a figurehead. And she isn't too popular with the floating voters.
If Iraq improves (which I think it will) and US troops start to come home (which I think they might), Bush's rating will rise again. They are also about to dump Tom Delay (Newt Gingrich came out against him today, said its time for him to vamoos) which will also help.

[coconut]

The biggest spike in approval here is when Bush promised revenge for 9/11 - a rather Reichstage Fire-esque turn of opinion in the American people, I think.

[AndrewM]

I still think the Republicans will regain control. The Democrats have, well, no-one besides Hilary as a figurehead. And she isn't too popular with the floating voters.
If Iraq improves (which I think it will) and US troops start to come home (which I think they might), Bush's rating will rise again. They are also about to dump Tom Delay (Newt Gingrich came out against him today, said its time for him to vamoos) which will also help.

Iraq wont be Bushs saving grace, it will be the economy, the the Dow at a 4 1/2 year high, and unemployment falling below 5%. Also, there are more Democratic seats in the Senate in the '06 cycle then Republican..
Only having Hillary as a figurehead isn't a problem, because it isn't true. These elections are far more local, and at a local level the Dems aren't doing that bad. In Pennsylvania, their candiate is Robery Casey Jr, the most popular politician in the state, son of the most popular governor, running against the least popular Senator in the country. In Virginia, they have outgoing Governor Mark Warner as a figurehead in their race against Sen. Allen. And in the house, they've dozens of Iraqi Vets as candidates.
But what we're really missing in this debate is the statehouse elections.Ohio, Florida, California, Mass. and New York all currently are held by the GOP with the chance of the Dems winning them. Certainly with the first two, they'll have major impacts on their chances of winning in '08.
As for impeaching Bush, it's not worth it. After the midterms he'll be even more of a lameduck President. And like in '98, the houding of a President doesn't go well with the Public. If the Dems take either house, they'll do far more damage to him and his coalition if they spend time holding up his agenda and passing bills popular with the public but unpopular with his base.

[AndrewM]

Here's a piece on the US elections by Charlie Cook that I urge every interested poster to read. Hat tip to Political Wire.

The bottom line: Under these scenarios, a Democratic gain of between two and four seats in the Senate, and between four and nine seats in the House, would result in a real fight for control of those chambers in 2008, coinciding with the presidential election that year. More importantly however, Republicans in recent months have had a very difficult time with their legislative agenda even without such losses. If their current Senate and House margins were cut in half, their majorities would only be formalities, with no one in control on Capitol Hill.

Under that scenario, with neither party in control of Capitol Hill and a president who is either a lame or crippled duck, there is a very strong chance that in terms of national governance, this country is likely to be drifting for the next three years until one party or the other manages to secure some kind of working control over the process through congressional elections or a fresh president comes into office with the honeymoon period and fresh start that inevitably accompanies a new occupant of that office. Until that time though, the drift seems almost inevitable.

[blue33]

The Democrats lack leadership, lack integreted policy, their only message is "Bush bad, us good," is that enough to get them in?
Its hard to imagion them winning back their traditional support in the South in a time of war, they'd need to mak inroads there if they wanted to win back control.

[WyldeOne]

Bush impeached? Such silliness. While his approval numbers still are not the highest, they are climbing back up. It's not as though he can run again. Hillary Clinton is the only nationally recognized Democrat and, as has been repeatedly said, not liked by the center. Therefore, the Democrats do lack leadership. The "anybody but Bush" campaign did not do all that well in 2004. The Democrats have stated over the last six months that they needed to define who they were and what they stand for.

These elections are far more local, and at a local level the Dems aren't doing that bad. In Pennsylvania, their candiate is Robery Casey Jr, the most popular politician in the state, son of the most popular governor, running against the least popular Senator in the country.

I agree with the local part of this statement. If we don't vote locally, we can't bring change locally or really affect change at the national level either. However, the rosey colored glasses about Robert Casey Jr. is really reaching. Casey is hardly the "most popular" politician in the state. I have to assume that you are talking about Santorum as "the least popular Senator in the country" and I'd love to know where you get that? Is it because he's a Republican or because he is a Conservative Republican?

[AndrewM]

Bush impeached? Such silliness. While his approval numbers still are not the highest, they are climbing back up. It's not as though he can run again. Hillary Clinton is the only nationally recognized Democrat and, as has been repeatedly said, not liked by the center. Therefore, the Democrats do lack leadership. The "anybody but Bush" campaign did not do all that well in 2004. The Democrats have stated over the last six months that they needed to define who they were and what they stand for.

I wouldn't worry too much about not having a clear leader other then Hillary at this stage. The primary battle is enough for any candidate to establish strong leadership credentials. That being said, the likes of Frm. Sen. Edwards, Fmr. Gov. Warner, Fmr. VP Gore and Gov. Richardson are already establishing or are established as national leaders.
You're right, Dems need to define themselves. But here's the crux: they want to expand into the south, but the only popular measures they can define themselves on are health care, job security and education. These, however, will resonate far stronger around the great lakes. This is also the area where the can pick up state [Ohio, Iowa] and drop states [Michigan]. I suggest the Dems drop the southen obbsession and concentrate instead there. Sen. Bayh would be the obvious choice for this.

[quote:1hy1agjr]
These elections are far more local, and at a local level the Dems aren't doing that bad. In Pennsylvania, their candiate is Robery Casey Jr, the most popular politician in the state, son of the most popular governor, running against the least popular Senator in the country.

I agree with the local part of this statement. If we don't vote locally, we can't bring change locally or really affect change at the national level either. However, the rosey colored glasses about Robert Casey Jr. is really reaching. Casey is hardly the "most popular" politician in the state. I have to assume that you are talking about Santorum as "the least popular Senator in the country" and I'd love to know where you get that? Is it because he's a Republican or because he is a Conservative Republican?[/quote:1hy1agjr]

My claim that Casey Jr. is the most popular politician because he was elected state Treasurer with the highest number of votes than any other candidate for statewide office in Pennsylvania history.
My claim about Santorum is based on the SurveyUSA polling which gives him the lowest 'net approval' rating of the current Senate.

[Gladstone]

Alot of you are confused.

The democrats do know what they stand for.

The thing they don't ahve a unified message on is Iraq, and lets face it, the reason was they didn't wanna seem unpatriotic.

I think the Americans are starting to compare US DOMESTIC policy under republicans 2000-2006 to what it was under demorats before 2000.

Having a republican congress after 94, may americans say, was very good as it balanced things out.

Now maybe if they elect a democatic congress Bush will finally be forced to veto something.