Gawd, you need to be an attorney to figure this stupid thing out, but I will do so later.
OK, NY 24th congressional district, mine, is about 50-50. Of all the races in the US, this could be the closest, and I say it deserves special mention above, and the district is almost on the doorstep of Kingston geographically. Arcuri, a good guy for the democrats, and some schmuck recently paroled from the state prison at Attica is running for the republicans.

1. Senate: Republicans 50, Democrats 49, Lieberman 1.
2. House: Democrats 220, Republicans 215.
3. Procrastination
Invites loss of one's focus
And majority.
4. 67%.
5. Webb 49%, Allen 48.9%, others 2.1%.

This is one sort of style: President Bush said terrorists will win if Democrats win.

I think he really should come out and admit it. If you vote against his party you are clearly in league with Satan. But, given that Iraq is obviously anti-Iraqi, what can you expect.

This is the most psephological poll in which I may ever participate!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psephology

Oh, I don't know. It's kinda like when the Liberals hauled out the separatists in the last election.

Yes, people who don't like the US will take a distinct pleasure in watching the GOP go down in flames. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't necessarily be done all the same. Because the corollary of the argument is that we should have Republican administrations without end, amen. And that's just plain silly.

(I'm not sure about what I want the results to be; I'll vote Republican this time out, though my vote doesn't matter a damn in Cambridge MA.)

Just for the record, it is pretty clear that I love the US but have little respect for the current Federal administration. So I think that it would be better to say that "people who don't like the Bush administration will take a distinct pleasure in watching the GOP go down in flames" as many citizens of that fine state may have an opportunity to enjoy that pleasure as well. But your vote matters to me, Ben. Vote nutty. There must be a libertarian or kook of a kookier sort there to express yourself through. Post the slate. We'll pick for you.

I need to add a Jefferson County, NY sheriff race question.

Looking beyond 2006, I've found it interesting that Rudi appears to be the front runner (pollingreport.com) yet I don't think I've seen his face in the last few years - has anyone? Good strategy thus far it would seem.

It still weirds me out that the Sherriff is chosen in a contest. Sheesh.

I'm with Gordo on that one.

Alan --

Of course, people who like the US but don't like the GOP will enjoy seeing them go down in flames, too. By virtue of the fact that they don't like the GOP.

My point is (was) that just because a bunch of bad people will enjoy watching the GOP go down in flames, that's not a good reason to have Republican administrations until the end of time.

Anyway, my vote's going to be funny, simply because of the choices available (or lack thereof). For Congress, I have a choice between a liberal Democrat and the Socialist Workers' (Trotskyite) candidate. I may cast a write-in for myself. Or for Snoopy.

For Senate, I shall continue to vote against Ted Kennedy. (In other words, Republican.)

For the minor state jobs, whatever.

But in case you're interested: http://tigerinexile.blogspot.com/2006/10/my-personal-chirac-le-pen-election.html

Sherriffs and judges are both elected, in some places. It varies by state. Also, dog catchers, water guys, and a whole slew of other things: all get elected. Not sure how I feel about sherriffs and judges: you think maybe they should be professional and appointed by somebody and not have to campaign for election. But I think it may go back to anti-corruption reforms: hopefully if there is an election, the truth will come out and the candidate must be clean.

1. Senate: Republicans 52, Democrats 47, Independent 1.
2. House: Democrats 222, Republicans 213.
3. Dubya didn't earn that capital, John Kerry did. He's the gift that keeps on giving.
4. 61%.
5. George Allen 50.1%, Webb 47.9% others 2%. I would have given the nod to Webb, however, the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot this week. As well, Lynn Cheney scored some serious points for the Republicans in defense of her husband and her writings. Cheney on Webb after he attacked her writings: "Jim Webb is full of baloney"

OK baby, here goes. I don't want any of the usual junky prizes, a cold six pack of ale will serve me fine:
1) senate: Repubs 52, dems 46,
dirty dog independents 1,
other, good independents 1
2) house: dems 222, repubs 212
3) ahem, listen up please, a little haiku:

Dubya won it, sure.
With a smirk, grin, and swagger.
The worst pres. ever?

4) Spitzer 72, Faso 28
5) Webb 50.2 Allen 49.8

BONUS: Arcuri wins NY 24th house seat 51-49
DOUBLE BONUS: there is a recount in both Virginia senate race, the NY 24th house, and a few other close races
I want extra six packs for those predictions, Alan.

Sorry missed one: house dems: 222, repubs 213

"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses,"* Bush told a raucous crowd of about 5,000 GOP partisans packed in an arena at Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, one of his stops Monday. "That's what's at stake in this election.** The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq.*** The Republican goal is to win in Iraq."****

* Correct.
** Correct.
*** Correct.
**** We can only hope. There is quite literally no alternative.

I am not going to answer your post's questions with specific numbers as this would be too close to gambling and meteorology (i.e. a form of witchcraft). The Republicans will retain control of the Senate and may retain control of the House by a three-seat margin. Then cut to inevitable squeaks of vote-rigging, selected-not-elected, etc. and so forth from the usual poltroons.

After the 2004 election, President Bush stated: "Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style." Did he spend it well? Did you like his style? Write an essay of under 100 words in response. Extra points for haiku.

<p>I bite:</p>

<p style="border: 1px solid silver;text-align:center">This political,<br />
capital the president<br />
earned. He spent it all.
</p>

What Flea said.

My only add-on is that I've become pessimist about the future of Iraq because if you're not fighting to win, you're going to lose. In particular, this was probably an excellent opportunity to say "smell ya later, buddy".

Since whatever happens, the next President _probably_ will be just doing what the Democrats want to today next Wednesday, it may be better to start losing this sooner than later as a matter of consquence mitigation (i.e. the sooner to get to the next guy who wants to win while the enemy is weaker).

I agree with David's pessimism, however, I am waiting until Wednesday to see if that concentration of carrier groups in the vicinity of the Gulf has something in mind for Iraq's next door neighbours once the voting is done. I have not quite given up hope on this all too touchy-feely President.

But the Rummy plan was not to have to win, it was Paris liberated again. We can't rewrite history to give us comfort. When was it ever being fought to win after Powell's advice on the needed strength was rejected by the minimalist Chicago School of warfare? How is it that the party that botched the planning gets praise for having the right plan?

Anyway, if you don't play you can't win. Numbers gentlemen.

No, we can't rewrite history to give us comfort ... nor to make us the subjunctive victor though; too many troops, too few troops ... who knows?

I have taken lessons (for what it's worth, since I shall marsall few armies except across a Risk board): short (hot) wars are all the West are willing to accept, always maintain tempo, time is never on our side.

Quite right, especially as that was all that we had prepared for. There was no capacity massed for the suffocating war of conquest - and that had been long abandoned by the ideologists in any event. I would think we are quite willing to accept the long war if it were to be fought which would include actual allocation of resources and, if long enough, the lot of us eating cabbages in order to be free. It was not the West that failed at making that decision. It was the leadership. If I have learned anything is the capacity we have as a culture, watching my local US news of Fort Drum's daily losses (and hearing the news of my own old hometown in the Upper Ottawa) and how they deal with the losses, but realizing it is only borne by a few communities.

H'm. Flea's annotation does have a point.

But does a marginally better Republican foreign policy make enough of a difference for them to deserve to be kept in the game?

I say, not enough to keep both chambers.

I can't buy the footnotery (however advanced the HTML-ery that created it...and will them to be created) given that very point, Ben. If it were a choice between great leadership and bad leadership it would be one thing. But it is at worst between the flop-artists and those feared worse and buying into the first asterisk's veracity against all facts is required. You have to accept that the Democrats wish the terrorists to win. That makes no sense but it is necessary for the rest to be true.

Not quite. They just have to have a policy that ensures that it is much more likely the terrorists will win.

Again, however, as the GOP is only marginally better on the issue, I don't think it's enough.

After Senator Kerry's latest farce, I cannot fathom the logic of a Democratic alternative being only marginally worse. There are millions of lives in Iraq at stake and so many would trust their fate to the same people who through the Vietnamese to the wolves.

What happened to the October bogeyman? There's supposed to be a big publicity stunt to scare the populace back into Republican arms?

Does anyone know if Cape Vincent, NY still blows their air raid siren at noon? They started after 9/11.

So Alan I bought this stereo and I the bass end isn't as rich as I hoped it would be given the sound-environment in my living-room. I was wondering what to do about it but after reading your post I realized the best thing to do was throw it into the swimming pool. Now I won't have to be constantly affronted by that not quite rich enough bass-tone. Thanks!

I missed my coffee yesterday. I am in fact about 46 hours from my last one. So here is my stab at analogy. I hire a guy to run my shipping department. He ends up costing my business 400 times what he ought to and provides my competitors with huge opportunities to advance their interests against mine due to what he calls his special system. Do I fire him and hire the guy at the door who looks like a goof ball?

Flea,

Hey, <i><b>I'm</b></i> supposed to be the unrepentant right-winger, here. :-)

I'm figuring that the Democrats won't actually behave that way in power.

***

On the other hand, I bet that's what a lot of voters thought during the 1974 midterms...

Dammit! I really don't want to have to support the GOP again on this...

*sigh* *holds nose*

"Do I fire him and hire the guy at the door who looks like a goof ball?"

Not if the goofball's pitch in job interview is to hand the keys over to guys who keep raping and beheading your staff (usually in that order) (which might account for some of the current manager's cost management difficulties, btw).

But the current guy himself is subcontracting out international branch operations to guys leveraging a split in the international division through hiring their own murdering rapists rather than sensible marking types and there is no evidence of the goofball actually doing that other than the current guys slander campaign aimed at keeping him in office. So you have the choice between a record of incompetence or a goofball that is being characterized by the current guy as likely to do what the current guy is actually doing. It is like a script from <i>The Office</i>

I have never claimed your current manager is doing a great job. Only that it is better than giving up and moving back to the once safe suburbs.

FYI, you may be interested in DemocraticSPACE's projections, which are being updated as new poll data comes in. DS has pages for every senate and govenors race and close house races, so you can add your own comments). Here's the frontpage:

http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/usa2006/

Current projections:

HOUSE
Democrat 224 (+22)
Republican 211 (-19)

SENATE
Republican 50 (-5)
Democrat 48 (+4)
Indepedent 2 (+1)

GOVERNORS
Democrat 29 (+7)
Republican 21 (-7)

See, I toldja 2 independents in the senate. You people forgot about VERMONT.

Forgot about Bernie!!

Amend my entry:

Senate -- 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, Lieberman, Sanders.

Hey - I just followed up on Ben's unlinked link and found that in Massachusetts you can find out what your ballot will look like next Tuesday. Let me see if I can find the same for New York.

No ballot but a list of candidates is available. Here is the listing for Watertown, NY.

To gorked out on pain meds to do full blown numbers. Republicans keep a majority of +5 in the Senate. Dems take back the House, narrowly, +10 majority there. (Question for gr: Who's the dirty dog independent? Jeffords or Lieberman?)
So, we can expect a post excoriating the race, gender, and class hustlers soon, then? A full article on the rhetorical excesses of socialists claiming that voting for republicans is voting for the devil maybe?

something I keep noticing is that this seems to have reverted back to an older style. This is the politics of my youth. Republicans are the War Machine. Democrats are the Give Everyone a Hug and Thousand Dollars party. Republicans accuse the dems of being crypto-socialists, soft on military matters, and secretly in league with America's enemys. Democrats claim republicans want to put everyone but the richest 1% into slavery, eat babies, and raped your grandmother. Sigh. wake me up when it's over(and could someone pass me the pill bottle. Ow.)

I like to change my senate predictions to:

Senate -- 51 Republicans, 47 Democrats, 2 Independents.

RY: DIRTY DOG INDEPENDENT=LIEBERMAN BLECH!