Well it's certainly going to be an important day in the US for both President Bush and the Democrats. My gut feeling is that the Democrat Tsunami isn't going to happen and that while they will make substantial gains in the House they won't win the 6 seats they need to take control of the Senate.
Perversely it may be in the Republicans long term interests for the Dems to take the House. The new Speaker would be left wing firebrand Nancy Pelosi, who's bound to get Republican voters returning to their natural roots in 2008. So what do you all think? Make some predictions on the more interesting gubernatorial races in the Comments section.
[18DS plug] We're running a six hour programme on the US midterms tonight on you know where. Tune in from 8pm through till 2am. [/18DSplug]
33 comments:
That will disapoint the BBC, who have been promoting the Democrats for weeks.
Yet another example of BBC bias.
Nope, you're wrong on this one Iain. The Democrats will take both House and Senate with tidy margins. Would be landslides, except people have lost faith in the voting system itself, and for good reason.
Did you hear that the Republicans have actually been phoning registered Democratic voters in Virginia, telling them they'll be arrested if they show up to vote? Yup, it's on Kos, including the recording.
I agree ( http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/cdoidge/entry/tonights_midterms_mean/ ) - unless Pelosi can hold back on the attack dogs, she'll make the whole party look bad before 2008. The sooner they find a credible leader to act as a sensible figurehead, the better.
Come on Iain, every US newspaper knows they'll not clinch the Senate.
I think you're probably right. The Republicans have a good record of getting the vote out.
I know nothing of US polling techniques, but it seems likely to me that Republicans will be less likely to admit to it right now.
As a Liberal I look on US politics with absolute dismay... For the country which was founded on a wave of individual rights and freedoms and equality under the law (with one glaring exception) to have no main-stream liberal party.
Republicans and Democrats in Washington constantly grab power from the States to the Federal government...
It really is the lesser of two evils...
I agree. The GOP will retain control of the senate. Pelosi as speaker and consequently third in line to the Presidency should be a hoot!
Just six seats needed? Well, here's six republican senators fighting for re-election who support the persecution of gays, criminalisation of abortion and the teaching of intelligent design:
* Jon Kyl (Arizona)
* Jim Talent (Missouri)
* Conrad Burns (Montana)
* Mike DeWine (Ohio)
* Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania)
* George Allen (Virginia).
Kick 'em out, America! Fight the faith
Iain
I really hope this prediction is going to prove more accurate than your "people are turning against the LibDems in Bromley" post a few months ago.
My prediction is that whatever the result, the BBC will put a left- wing (Bush whacked) or anti-American spin on it (corrupt and complicated voting systems prevents the poor from voting for the BBC-endorsed candidate)
Interesting view Iain. This chimes with what Mike Deaver's (Edelman's Global Vice-Chairman and more pertinently President Reagan's Deputy Chief of Staff) analysis. His view was that Kerry's comments in recent days have given the Republicans a poll bounce but this will not be enough to beat the anti-incumbancy feeling across America. Edelman are predicting the Republicans will lose the House but hold the Senate. Watch Mike Deaver's analysis video on Edelman's blog www.despatchblog.com
Let's hope the Republicans are given a good kicking by the American electorate!
Just wondering, Iain, do you actually support the Republicans? They're pretty far removed from Cameron's Conservatives.
Iain - you may well be right. Judging by raincoaster's (12.16PM) comments, the left are already getting their excuses in early.
I think raincoaster should post his phone number on the web. Then I can phone him up, tell him my dad's a policeman, and that if he posts again he'll be arrested.
- He seems to think that sought of thing would work in the USA I'm therefore sure it would work on him.
Considering how gerrymandered most House seats are these days, even a modest swing to the Dems would be impressive. Not on the scale of '94, of course, but enough to worry the GOP for 2008.
Pelosi might be liberal by American standards but she's also a shrewd operator. Any radicals (or "radicals") in the Democratic Party are going to kept firmly on the leash for the next two years.
to: Raincoaster.
Oh, if the daily kos carries it, then it must be true. No more proof needed.
You idiot.
As one who lives in America:
1. Iain..not sure that is your gut feeling...more like conventional wisdom.
2. Love it when people assert anti-republican claptrap...then cite Kos as authority...kind of like denouncing Thatcherism using Socialist Daily Workers News as authority
3. Yes...beeb democrat cheerleading just ridiculous. One more reason I like Blair, despite my better judgment. Remember him telling Murdoch that he did not care for BBC coverage of America? Me too...
4. For those dismayed at American un-liberalism...as between a country that criminalizes free speech with "no glorification of terrorism" laws, that overturns 800 years of "rights of Englishmen" (trial by jury, no ex post facto law, no double jeopardy ) in a single House of Commons vote...that detains people for 28 days [90?] without charge...other antiterrorism things...that is the surveillance capital of the world, is going to have national ids with all kinds of private info ramroded thru HoC...between all this and the US, I will take US any day!! Much good presence of "liberal" parties have done UK given such illiberal goings-on...
I really do think that the Dems will capture the Senate. The polls are really running against Allen in Virginia and even Ford in Tennessee seems to be having some last minute momentum behind him.
Think I'll be watching the US networks coverage tonight. I'm not sure that the coverage of any UK based service will tell me anything I don't know already.
the BBC have been salivating over this for weeks now, pushing the "its the iraq war" line.
oh to see Jim Naughtie's face when the GOP wins both houses.
50-50 senate
dems 233 reps 202
Charming.
Gentlemen, I can see you don't know A) I'm not a man and B) there's a long history of these kinds of actions in the South. Heck, I live in Canada and I had a ballot worker reach out and seize my ballot, open it up, read it, and throw it in the trash. All illegal. It took four hours for me to hold that woman accountable, and there were at least 26 other voters at that polling place who registered complaints along the same lines.
Voting is not a dainty event. It's dirty and big-money business. The Republicans pull a dirty trick and somehow it's the Democrats' fault? You're right, it does sound like somebody's getting their excuses in early.
Both Democrats and Republicans seem to like spending money rather too much. Money that doesn't belong to them.
"Let's hope the Republicans are given a good kicking by the American electorate!"
The alternative is a bunch of closet socialists - hardly much of an improvement. I know many Democrats are to the Right of the Tories but they also contain many lefties who belong in the Labour Party.
Best bet is the US Libertarian Party.
Scuse me, raincoaster, who said you were a man? 'Idiot' isn't gender-specific, just leftie specific.
chris, sweetie, tone made me do it referred to me as "him." I'm happy to clarify this for you, and unfortunately obliged to, as it's obvious your schools don't teach that whole "reading for comprehension" thing over there. Nor, apparently, that whole punctuation thing.
You're welcome.
Perhaps we better stick to predicting UK elections...
Ah, and here we have the report that the FBI is investigating the phonecalls made to voters in six Virginia cities. It is the numerous sworn statements filed with the Board of Elections that have brought about this investigation.
And Floreat Aula, just because Kos carries it, doesn't mean it's false. QED. You can google that.
Iain, I love the idea that the Republicans might benefit from a heavy defeat, it's the same logic that says struggling football teams would benefit from being relegated, ans is, I'm afraid, complete nonsense.
If I were you I'd ignore your natural favour for Republicans. The Bush administration has seen huge increases in state spending (Not exactly a Conservative aim), and besides, a huge anti-war political swing over here would still benefit the Tories, despite your somewhat delicate position on the issue.
As in 1992 with the Tories, this mid-term is a good one for the Republicans to lose - and in both houses. Losing puts all the onus on the Democrats to "do something". Unfortunately for them - and Bush - as far as Iraq is concerned, in the short term there's no realistic alternative to staying put. The US economy is relatively robust at the moment but there's no way there'll be a sharp improvement in the short term (rather the reverse). So, whoever is the Republican candidate for President in 2008, s/he can point to 2006-8 and ask "well what did the Democrats do?" "Not a lot" is the answer. An analogous question to the one which, whoever would have been Conservative leader in 1997 after a Tory defeat in 1992, would have been asked of Kinnock/Old Labour. No-one likes losing elections but worse things have happened.
Having spent a great deal of my business life in the USA, much of it in Texas and California, I have been quite shocked at the extreme right wing stance of the majority of self-made and selfish business types that this country produces. Just recently, during a commercial gathering of our international association in Oslo, I was stunned by the total arrogance of these people who have absolutely no compassion for their less fortunate fellow citizens and continue to be Bush/Republican supporters for the simple reason that it is financially good for them, so screw anybody else! For rank and file UK Conservatives to align themselves to the Republican cause is for me absolutely unacceptable and alien to what is being championed by Dave Cameron currently. Don’t misunderstand; I am certainly not in favour of Cameron as a leader due mainly to his wet and misguided Mickey-Mouse half arsed policies, particularly towards the criminal elements in our society. I do however support a genuinely caring government that helps those who really deserve it.
"I do however support a genuinely caring government that helps those who really deserve it."
No, what you support is a government that forces people to surrender their money so that the government can spend it on other people. If you want to help the poor, do it yourself and let me do it myself - don't tell the rest of us how we can and cannot spend our money.
no longer anonymous wrote,
'If you want to help the poor, do it yourself and let me do it myself - don't tell the rest of us how we can and cannot spend our money'.
What an attitude! So you want the very underprivileged to depend on your charitable whims. I'm not speaking about state spongers and malingerers. I'm talking about those who, for one reason or another, cannot look after themselves or their families properly. What would you do with them? Gas them perhaps so that they don't again cross your path and upset your comfortable existance!
The 92 election a good one to lose? Indeed, for an amusing counter-factual account of an early 90s Kinnock government, see chapter 16 in 'President Gore...and other things that never happened', Duncan Brack ed, published by Politico's.
Note to self: Disregard Iain Dale's election predictions in the future, or at the very least expect the opposite to what he predicts.
Post a Comment