final Rothenberg Ratings for House, Senate and Governor

[Nym90]

Wow. I'm quite surprised Rothenberg would predict this large of a gain, but he's pretty much the best in the business. It's not to be taken lightly. Time will tell if he ends up with egg on his face or right on the mark but he must be pretty confident to predict that large of a pickup.

[okstate]

I think Rothenberg and Cook will ultimately be proven correct on the "Cat 4/5 wave" subject.

We're seeing decisive movement away from, most importantly, Anne Northup, whose district is continually listed as a "bellwether" in the conventional wisdom. Plus candidates like JD Hayworth, Jean Schmidt, Nancy Johnson, Charlie Bass, and others are stumbling in the polls. Even less than a week away now we are still seeing the playing field expand, so to speak. IL-10 is giving Dems hope and so are KY-02 and KS-02.

Sure there are positive signs... TX-22, Barrow's seat in Georgia, and Chocola making his race closer.

A loss of seats by the GOP of less than 20 seats would be very surprising. 30 is about what I'm guessing now. By Election Day I might be persuaded into the same viewpoint as Rothenberg.

[Nym90]

If there's one thing we can agree on, it's that the polls are kinda screwy right now. We have people like Rothenberg and Cook predicting massive waves, but Sam Spade who I very deeply admire and follow his predictions closely actually saying the odds of a wave have decreased, implying some movement toward the GOP side. I guess that's the thing about wave elections; they are far harder to predict than a more normal environment like 1998 or 2002.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

There are two REAL reasons for tax cuts -

1. It's electorally popular

2. It puts more disposeable income into the market.

- I don't say tax the rich at a higher level, I say tax the people with lower and middle incomes at a lower level.

- The issue is, when you have a massive increase in government (the biggest since FDR) - WHATEVER the reason may be - the cost of the government will go up. Tax cuts when you are running record deficits is economic irresponsiblity.

I have always been supportive of targeted tax cuts, across the board cuts may be popular, but what happens is the lion's share of the returns end up with the wealthiest... since they pay as an amount, the most. But the rich have wonderful ways of avoiding taxes, as you pointed out.

You naturally assume that I'm a tax and spend liberal. Which is not true, I believe in proportional taxation and not investing in unsustainable programs, because when the money runs out... who's going to get hurt? I also don't believe in trickle down economics, since it pretty much is the beginning of a Plutocracy.

[AuH2O]

Well I don't believe in fiscal irresponsibility either. But my point is that "trickle-down" economics is a myth. It just doesn't exist... that's not how economies work.

Usually, even when it looks like costs are being born by one group, they really are being paid for by everyone, it just isn't immediately obvious.

I support a sales tax because then you pay taxes based on how you consume. Make a lot of money but live like a poor person? You pay taxes like a poor person. That's still good for the economy because the money has to go somewhere, and so people will save more and pay taxes in a fair system.

[Nym90]

Oh, and on the topic of worst defeat in a Congressional election ever, it's hard to top the beating the Democrats took in 1894. The GOP gained 130 House seats that year. They more than doubled the number of House seats they held.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_election%2C_1894

[Gustaf]

If we don't limit it to a single election though, the Republican collapse 1930-1936 is probably unbeatable. They went from large majorities to almost nothing at all, losing something like two thirds of their seats.

[gorkay]

I will be astonished if the Democrats pick up more than 20 seats in the House.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh, and on the topic of worst defeat in a Congressional election ever, it's hard to top the beating the Democrats took in 1894. The GOP gained 130 House seats that year. They more than doubled the number of House seats they held.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_election%2C_1894

Well, sure the GOP may have gained 130 seats, but they lost their only seat in South Carolina.

[angus]

"Well, as they say, Wolf, 'Revenge is a dish that is best served cold.'  Now, I'm not quoting him, and I haven't spoken with him, but I have to think that Joe Lieberman can't wait for some of those Democrats who served with him for 18 years in the senate but who couldn't wait to campaign against him in his own state, including Chris Dodd..."
          --Jeff Greenfield, CNN

No, I didn't vote.  Yes, I am watching CNN right now with great interest.  No, I didn't sell or buy any stocks based on all this electioneering.  Yes, my stocks are doing just fine, thankyouverymuch.  No, I don't think the GOP will hold both chambers of congress.  Yes, I figure Barbour probably was re-elected governor with or without my vote.  I'm not too worried 'bout that.  I'll let you know whether I feel sleazy in the morning, being as how for the first time in my 39 years I didn't bother to vote in an even-numbered year.  Full, disclosure, when I was 18, and 20, and 22, I felt very strongly that it was one's civic duty, even civic responsibility to vote, and would lecture to any one who didn't, and never missed an opportunity.  But I must admit I felt more directed toward the welfare of my family and my stocks than toward ideology and voting.  Guess that's what they call growing up.  Or growing old.  Or growing cynical.  Or whatever.  Well, anyway, I mostly just wanted to share with youze one of the most quotable moments I've seen so far on the dissapointingly unsensationalistic broadcasts.  It was a great quote, don't you think?  I'm flipping around.  And at close of market the public didn't seem to jumpy about the Big Pharma market, presumably because an pharma-friendly congress seems like the norm, whether it's D or R.  that is, this year's crop of Democrats don't seem like 70s democrats to most of the talking heads, and those are the folks who influence the American middle-class investor.  Also, apparently, Fox, MSNBC, and CNN are a bit timid this year, and all seem a tad unwilling (with the exception of Matthews and Scarborough at times) to go out on any ledges with hard prognoses. 

Still, although I didn't vote for Lieberman for VP in 2000--I voted for a third party for president and VP that year--I'm very much hoping Lieberman pulls off a victory--and I also have to think he's having a major middle finger moment.  I'm here.  I'm queer.  And screw all you DNC bastards.   Ha.  good for him.

Best served cold.  Man, what a great line.  Didn't like the bastard much in 2000, but I have to admit I'm glad he's beating Lamont just now.  You too, dazzleman?

[dazzleman]

Yes angus, I'm glad that Lieberman beat Lamont.  I loved to see the voters of Connecticut give the middle finger to those Daily-KOS left-wing blogger nutcases.

There was some discussion on a news show about what a dumb move it was for Lamont to have Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton standing behind him on the podium when he won the primary.  They're not residents of the state, and it's bad enough that he soiled my county by bringing them here to campaign for him.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes angus, I'm glad that Lieberman beat Lamont.  I loved to see the voters of Connecticut give the middle finger to those Daily-KOS left-wing blogger nutcases.

Yeah, we're deeply upset that  Barbara Boxer is getting 2 votes from Connecticut to be Chairwoman of the Environmental Committee.

[Rob]

Pro-Lieberman Republicans are funny.