Currently the Democrats have about an 80% chance of taking control of the House.
Circumstances, of course, can always change rapidly in the days leading up to an election, but - based on the most recent polls - prospects do not look good for the GOP in that chamber.
Consider, for example, that no seats currently held by Democrats are leaning towards Republican challengers at this time, and only one is rated a toss-up.
By comparison, six Republican seats are leaning towards the Democrats and 34 are rated toss-ups.
If the Democrats were to win only 1/3 of the toss-up seats, and only 1/2 of their own seats that are currently rated as "Likely Democratic" and "Leaning Democratic," and the GOP was to win every other seat (including six of its own that are "Leaning Democratic"), the Democrats would still pick up a net addition of 20 seats, five more than they need to take control.
But while events are looking good for the Democrats in the House, their prospects for taking the Senate may be slipping away.
They would need to pick up six seats to control that chamber.
Three states still seem to be switching in their direction, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
However, that leaves contests for Republican seats in Montana, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia; and contests for Democratic seats in Maryland and New Jersey, all of which are too close to call, right at this moment.
This presents the Democrats with a major challenge to gain control. One way they could do it would be to retain their seats in Maryland and New Jersey and win three of the four close races for Republican seats in Montana, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia.
That would be a tall order, of course, but not impossible.
In any event, we'll know very soon.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 12
This year is little more than a return to normal.
One would wonder why Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in hiding on the eve of their victory?
Are they frightened that if the public understood who they were that there would be no victory?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Very insightful assessment on Kerry, Missy...
But what we have on Tuesday is simply an opportunity to somewhat put the brakes on the megalomaniac we have gotten stuck with in the White House. Hopefully, if the Democrats take the House, it will put a pin in Bush's balloon.
The Senate, meanwhile, seems to be slipping further out of the Democrats' grasp as Rhode Island appears now to have become a toss-up.
Not sure I follow you, but basically--because I have a bias? I basically agree with Tom's assessment, except that the word "stooges" connotes comedy and there is nothing funny about what these men have done. I didn't think either Bush or Kerry were worthy of the presidency--though on most issues [I vote on issues these days, as best I can] I could have lived with Kerry better than Bush for the following reasons, though not necessarily in the following order:
1) Kerry is basically more intelligent and stable and more apt to be deliberative in his decision-making than Bush and therefore better able to make wise decisions about his appointments and advisors [Bush has proven to be fatally inadequate in this regard].
2) Juxtaposing Kerry's tendency to deliberate to the point of hemming and hawing [I think the "flip flopping" on votes was pure political expediency] against Bush's rigidity and strong tendency to shoot from the hip, I believed Kerry to be the more stable candidate and better able to deal with volatile international issues over the long haul.
3) Kerry's personal experience under fire gave him a more realistic perspective on the exigencies of war in general, and the reality of the horrendous costs associated with same--particularly as to botched strategy.
4) Kerry's judicial nominees would be more centrist, more qualified, and less controversial for the country as a whole [this is one area where I like a little centrism--we have to live with them for a LONG time];
5] Kerry would take a more sophisticated approach to international diplomacy and global economics and to appointing advisers re same; Kerry would be able to look Putin in the eye--without seeing a soulmate.
4) For all the previously cited reasons, Kerry would be able to take a more sophisticated approach to dealing with world wide terrorism at home and abroad--without compromising our liberties and our reputation abroad--as opposed to just dumping "smart" bombs. You've heard the line about Tony Blair being Bush's poodle? On the contrary, I think it was the other way around. Blair knew Bush and company were itching to go to war and was only too happy to let them take the lead--and whatever fallout would come from it. I don't think he ever conceived that it could be so botched up!
6] And, yes, the environment--and why we can build smart bombs but can't build cars that are economical and efficient--and the reality of GLOBAL WARMING. Bush doesn't have a clue! I'm glad to see that Blair and Brown are not dropping that puppy on Bush's desk.
7] Almost forgot: "Guest Workers" Didn't trust either Bush or Kerry to think this through. Hopefully, Bush and Congress will take a look at how guest worker programs have turned out in Europe before doling out the pork and building border walls, virtual or otherwise.
On the polls/pundits--not clear to which you're referring vis a vis your original comment. I think the last couple of election cycles have shown that the polls and pundits are part and parcel of the overall process but need to be taken with a large dose of salt.
If I were to write a job description for the office of president, I would put some kind of experience in international diplomacy--and/or the ability make strong cabinet appointments--right at the top of the list. The world is way too complicated to do OJT and hope for the best.
Hopefully, we'll all wake up about mid-week and be able to hum a little "happy birthday to me" because at least some of our preferred horses came over the finish line.
Sorry so long winded, and you're probably sorry you asked. Guess I'm hyper about the elections.