2008 Majority

[MODU]

Ideally there should be split control in the three branches, but there's no way to force that to happen.  The Executive and Legislative branches are decided by the voters and the Judicial, for the most part, is decided by the Executive and Legislative.  So, there is no way to regulate who has control or not.

Never said we needed to regulate it.  It is just too easy for things to get out of control when one party has control of all three.  Fortunately, this doesn't happen too often in our history, and the voters fix it after a while. 

[Joe Biden 2020]

Ideally there should be split control in the three branches, but there's no way to force that to happen.  The Executive and Legislative branches are decided by the voters and the Judicial, for the most part, is decided by the Executive and Legislative.  So, there is no way to regulate who has control or not.

Never said we needed to regulate it. It is just too easy for things to get out of control when one party has control of all three. Fortunately, this doesn't happen too often in our history, and the voters fix it after a while.

I agree totally with everything you just said.

[MissCatholic]

I think it will depend on the result nationally.

i still suspect that kerry did well in colorado becasue opf ken salazaar. alot of senate races are going to be contested in battleground states. Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, Colorado, Louisiana, Virginia.

If the dems pick a moderate like Bayh and the right picks Guiianli or mccain, then i think the dems could contorl the senate as people like Landrieu, Warner,could keep and pick up a seat here and there.

if a bible basker gets picked then the reps will be in control. if demint can get elected then any republican can in a red state.

[Joe Republic]

Ideally there should be split control in the three branches, but there's no way to force that to happen.  The Executive and Legislative branches are decided by the voters and the Judicial, for the most part, is decided by the Executive and Legislative.  So, there is no way to regulate who has control or not.

Never said we needed to regulate it.  It is just too easy for things to get out of control when one party has control of all three.  Fortunately, this doesn't happen too often in our history, and the voters fix it after a while. 

True, but the voters had the opportunity to break that domination in 2004, and failed to take it.  The next shot is 2006, but it so far looks like pretty much the status quo party breakdown for then.

[TheWildCard]

It will be the Libertariiiiooooons!

No really I think the Democrats will, or at the very least come very close to, gaining control of both houses of congress in 2006. Dean is going to motivate the base and in mid-term elections all that must happen for a party to do really well is to lightly fire up their base. It will be '94 in reverse.

2008 is different. The democrats believing that their way is really hitting chords with Americans will nominate a very liberal candidate while the Republicans nominate a moderate. I say the Dem.s will have the Senate the Republicans will have a slim majority in the house and they will also landslide into the Presidency.

[AkSaber]

I think the Republicans will maintain the majority. But that doesn't mean the Dems won't wage a strong war to regain control.

[PBrunsel]

Prohibition Party of course!

[Hitchabrut]

Republican

[zorkpolitics]

Democrats probably have less than a 50:50 shot at winning control of the Senate (net +5 seats if they win the Presidency in 2008).
In 2006 Democrats have a chance to win Republucan seats in PA, RI, TN, MO, MT, VA,  but they will need to defend MN, NJ, MD, VT, FL, MI, and ND.  So if the Democrats are at all successful, they might win a net 2 seats.
In 2008 the Democrats seem to have the numbers on their side: 21 Republicans will be up, but only 12 Democrats.  However, 6 of the 12 Democrats are in Red States, while only 4 of the 21 Republicans are in Blue states.  So it will be very hard for the Democrats to win control of the Senate in 2008, unless their Presidential candidate has a huge margin of victory.

[Keystone Phil]

I just realized that this was about 2008. And this whole time I was wondering why this was on this board. 

I still don't see the Democrats winning back any house of Congress in 2008. They'd need some big gains in 2006 to regain power.

[MODU]

Unless the Democrats start doing some major "participating" between now and the 2006 election, they will not be picking up any seats.  Yes, they have to make a stand on some issues as to not be bullied around by the Republicans, but if they do not get any positive press coverage for trying to help and come up with fresh ideas, they will easily be labelled as obstructionists and lose.  We already know statistically the Dems cannot win back the majority in 2006, but if they lose more seats in 2006, they've lost 2008 as well.

[Joe Republic]

Unless the Democrats start doing some major "participating" between now and the 2006 election, they will not be picking up any seats.  Yes, they have to make a stand on some issues as to not be bullied around by the Republicans, but if they do not get any positive press coverage for trying to help and come up with fresh ideas, they will easily be labelled as obstructionists and lose.  We already know statistically the Dems cannot win back the majority in 2006, but if they lose more seats in 2006, they've lost 2008 as well.

Well said.  The Dems really have to focus more on making themselves look like an alternative congressional majority, as opposed to just the whining opposition minority.

[MODU]

... making themselves look like an alternative congressional majority, as opposed to just the whining opposition minority.

I like the sound of that.