Official Mid-term Election Thread

[A Gunslinger]

The Great Divider
NYT Editorial

Published: November 2, 2006
As President Bush throws himself into the final days of a particularly nasty campaign season, he’s settled into a familiar pattern of ugly behavior. Since he can’t defend the real world created by his policies and his decisions, Mr. Bush is inventing a fantasy world in which to campaign on phony issues against fake enemies.

In Mr. Bush’s world, America is making real progress in Iraq. In the real world, as Michael Gordon reported in yesterday’s Times, the index that generals use to track developments shows an inexorable slide toward chaos. In Mr. Bush’s world, his administration is marching arm in arm with Iraqi officials committed to democracy and to staving off civil war. In the real world, the prime minister of Iraq orders the removal of American checkpoints in Baghdad and abets the sectarian militias that are slicing and dicing their country.

In Mr. Bush’s world, there are only two kinds of Americans: those who are against terrorism, and those who somehow are all right with it. Some Americans want to win in Iraq and some don’t. There are Americans who support the troops and Americans who don’t support the troops. And at the root of it all is the hideously damaging fantasy that there is a gulf between Americans who love their country and those who question his leadership.

Mr. Bush has been pushing these divisive themes all over the nation, offering up the ludicrous notion the other day that if Democrats manage to control even one house of Congress, America will lose and the terrorists will win. But he hit a particularly creepy low when he decided to distort a lame joke lamely delivered by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry warned college students that the punishment for not learning your lessons was to “get stuck in Iraq.” In context, it was obviously an attempt to disparage Mr. Bush’s intelligence. That’s impolitic and impolite, but it’s not as bad as Mr. Bush’s response. Knowing full well what Mr. Kerry meant, the president and his team cried out that the senator was disparaging the troops. It was a depressing replay of the way the Bush campaign Swift-boated Americans in 2004 into believing that Mr. Kerry, who went to war, was a coward and Mr. Bush, who stayed home, was a hero.

It’s not the least bit surprising or objectionable that Mr. Bush would hit the trail hard at this point, trying to salvage his party’s control of Congress and, by extension, his last two years in office. And we’re not naïve enough to believe that either party has been running a positive campaign that focuses on the issues.

But when candidates for lower office make their opponents out to be friends of Osama bin Laden, or try to turn a minor gaffe into a near felony, that’s just depressing. When the president of the United States gleefully bathes in the muck to divide Americans into those who love their country and those who don’t, it is destructive to the fabric of the nation he is supposed to be leading.

This is hardly the first time that Mr. Bush has played the politics of fear, anger and division; if he’s ever missed a chance to wave the bloody flag of 9/11, we can’t think of when. But Mr. Bush’s latest outbursts go way beyond that. They leave us wondering whether this president will ever be willing or able to make room for bipartisanship, compromise and statesmanship in the two years he has left in office.

[A Gunslinger]

Now hear this:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15533129/

[A Gunslinger]

And for High Lord Tolk:

Kerry did say something stupid. However, Bush said something even more dumb TODAY than Kerry did on Monday:

From ABCNEWS:
By TERENCE HUNT AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON Nov 1, 2006 (AP)— President Bush said Wednesday he wants Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney to remain with him until the end of his presidency, extending a job guarantee to two of the most-vilified members of his administration.

"Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them," Bush said in an interview with The Associated Press and others.

At least kerry was trying to make a joke. For Chrissake...nearly 3K dead and they are doing "fantastic jobs"? ! WTF?

Now you tell me...which is the more stupid statement?

[finn]

Generally lean with you Guns, but I actually think the daftest comment is that only 3K have been killed.........try 10X, life is life, does anyone really think archaeologists will spot or care which 3K were American?

One of the major dangers in the world today is this attitude that only American lives are worth a damn, when thousands upon thousands of people are dead...these were real people, with real lives and real families...just like Americans in fact! They were by and large not the enemy and their lives before they were taken, were no better and probably worse than under Saddam Hussein whose removal was the last ditch justification for invading Iraq.

This stain on global history has killed more Iraqis that Saddam did and killed more Americans than 9/11 did.

I'm sorry to hijack the thread Guns and I know you are as appalled by this as I am.

[Avatar]

Thanks for making the thread Guns.

--A

[Trapper]

Great point Finn.

[sgt.null]

i always find it odd when a foriegn plane crashes our newscasters usually say such : "plane crashes in Ganjastan, one american killed, 300 Ganjastanians also dead."

300 dead and they get, "also dead" status?

[The Laughing Man]

well, if you don't like it, move to Ganjastania.....

[Avatar]

I'll have some Ganja.

Nah, it's the same in any country Sgt. The citizens of that country are the most important, at least in terms of news.

--A

[sgt.null]

there is also the dimissive attitude many americans hold for everyone else in the world.

[Avatar]

Well, it's true, but don't feel bad...the rest of the world holds a pretty dismissive attitude towards Americans.

--A

[A Gunslinger]

Yeah Finn. I mentioned only the soldiers, and thanks for calling me out on it. I am appropriately shamed.

eep!

[A Gunslinger]

BTW, my final prediction:

Dems take House by only 5-10 seats, but fall short of the Senate, taking only 4 of the 6 needed seats for the majority.

I am afraid the truly evil race-baiting in TN has worked.

[caamora]

Sgtnull said:

300 dead and they get, "also dead" status?

Maybe like Gilligan's Island - Professor and Maryanne were "... and the rest."

Av said:

I'll have some Ganja.

You bad boy. Don't bogart that joint.....

[A Gunslinger]

From Rightie Dick Morris in Today's NY Post:



A GOP MASSACRE: A BLOODY TUESDAY
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Allen: Incumbent GOPer under 50 percent — a sign of doom.November 6, 2006 -- THE latest polls portend disaster for the Republican Party tomorrow. The House appears to be gone; the Senate is teetering on the brink.

John Zogby's polling is tracking 15 swing House districts, and he finds Democratic leads in 13. Since Dems need only 15 to take control - and will doubtless pick up several not on Zogby's list - it seems we're in for several years of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

In the Senate, only Tennessee seems to be holding for the Republicans. (There's no justice: Rep. Harold Ford Jr., the Democrat now losing to Republican Bob Corker, is the best of the crop of Democratic challengers).

Other Senate races? Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island are gone for the GOP. Republican fantasies of a rebound in Montana are falling short. It's down to Missouri and Virginia: Democrats need to win both to take control. In these states, pollster Scott Rasmussen has GOP incumbents Jim Talent and George Allen below the 50 percent mark - usually a sign of doom. Rasmussen has Allen tied with Democrat Jim Webb at 49 percent and Democrat Claire McCaskill ahead of Talent 49-48.

Even with those nail-biters too close to call, 2006 will go down in history as one of the worst years for the Republicans.

Why the rout? President Bush let Iraq be the major issue of the election. He could have raised worries about North Korea and homeland security to the same level, but he insisted on focusing on Iraq, making changes in tactics and trying to sell them to a cynical America. Thus, he was left defending a failure rather than trumpeting his key successes.

Plus, the war in Iraq has divided the Republicans - the isolationist Pat Buchanans are abandoning an internationalist president.

But the GOP majority itself has to shoulder a lot of the blame for a session of total inaction on tax reform and Social Security, and just small steps on immigration and Medicare reform. With Republicans controlling Congress and the White House, voters were entitled to expect a whole lot more.

In the end, though, it was corruption that did the GOP in. In the '90s, Republican legislators were lean, ascetic and ideological - Reagan Republicans. Now they've grown self-indulgent and pecuniary.

Speaker Dennis Hastert's son left his music store in Illinois to move to Washington to become the lobbyist for Google. Hastert himself used his position to fund a highway project that had a lot to do with a big profit on a land deal nearby. Then-Majority Leader Tom Delay put his wife was on his PAC's payroll; she made $300,000. Voters may expect this kind of corruption from Democrats (Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has four lobbyist sons) but not from Republicans.

First the Republicans lost their virtue; now they'll lose their majority, at least in the House. What's ahead for the next two years? Not new legislation so much as investigations, subpoenas, hearings etc. Washington will be as effectively paralyzed as it was during President Clinton's impeachment trial. And, let us remember that it was in that incubator that Osama bin Laden was able to plan the 9/11 attacks.

We needed a president who could act firmly back then, and we'll need one in the next two years. But we're not going to have one. President Bush will be dodging document requests, defending his administration's integrity and battling each day's sensational headlines supposedly uncovering scandal after scandal.

The Democrats will use their majorities to conduct a two-year campaign for the presidency. Most likely, it will work.

[High Lord Tolkien]

After a weekend of being home and listening to the phone ring with endless political related calls.........
Now I know why people don't vote.
It's tough to vote when you're so full of burning rage!!!


Is anyone actually influenced to vote a certain way by a *recorded message* or some slob reading off a card?

[A Gunslinger]

I doubt it. I think that baloney is designed to keep people mad and at home after being so sickened by the process... just another way to enforce incumbancy.

[caamora]

It's going to be close, folks...

Pew Research Center: GOP Cuts Democratic Lead in Generic Ballot (47%-43%)-- a TON of info here
Pew Research Center ^ | 11-5-06 | Pew Research Center


Posted on 11/05/2006 1:47:17 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative


A nationwide Pew Research Center survey finds voting intentions shifting in the direction of Republican congressional candidates in the final days of the 2006 midterm campaign. The new survey finds a growing percentage of likely voters saying they will vote for GOP candidates. However, the Democrats still hold a 48% to 40% lead among registered voters, and a modest lead of 47%-43% among likely voters.

The narrowing of the Democratic lead raises questions about whether the party will win a large enough share of the popular vote to recapture control of the House of Representatives. The relationship between a party's share of the popular vote and the number of seats it wins is less certain than it once was, in large part because of the increasing prevalence of safe seat redistricting. As a result, forecasting seat gains from national surveys has become more difficult.

The survey suggests that the judgment of undecided voters will be crucial to the outcome of many congressional races this year. As many as 19% of voters now only lean to a candidate or are flatly undecided. The Democrats hold a 44% to 35% lead among committed voters. But the race is more even among voters who are less strongly committed to a candidate; those who only lean to a candidate divide almost evenly between Republicans and Democrats (5% lean Republican/4% lean Democrat).

Republican gains in the new poll reflect a number of late-breaking trends. First, Republicans have become more engaged and enthused in the election than they had been in September and October. While Democrats continue to express greater enthusiasm about voting than do Republicans, as many Republican voters (64%) as Democratic voters (62%) now say they are giving quite a lot of thought to the election. About a month ago, Democratic voters were considerably more likely than GOP voters to say they were giving a lot of thought to the election (by 59%-50%). As a result, Republicans now register a greater likelihood of voting than do Democrats, as is typical in mid-term elections.

The Republicans also have made major gains, in a relatively short time period, among independent voters. Since early this year, the Democratic advantage in the generic House ballot has been built largely on a solid lead among independents. As recently as mid-October, 47% of independent voters said they were voting for the Democratic candidate in their district, compared with 29% who favored the Republican. Currently, Democrats lead by 44%-33% among independent voters.

Notably, President Bush's political standing has improved in the final week before the election. Bush's job approval rating among registered voters has risen from 37% in early October, to 41% in the current survey. Mirroring the GOP's gains among independent voters, Bush's rating among this crucial group of swing voters now stands at 35%, its highest point this year.

The final pre-election survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted among 2,369 registered voters from Nov. 1-4, finds that voter appraisals of the national economy also have improved. In the current poll, 44% rate it as excellent or good, compared with 36% who held that view in mid-October. Republicans and independents have a much better view of the economy than they did just a few weeks ago. Among independent voters, 41% rate the economy as good or excellent, compared with 29% in mid-October.

In addition, Sen. John Kerry's "botched joke" about the war in Iraq attracted enormous attention. Fully 84% of voters say they have heard a lot or a little about Kerry's remarks ­ with 60% saying they have heard a lot. By comparison, just 26% say they have heard a lot about President Bush's statement that he will keep Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense until he leaves office in 2009. Most voters say Kerry's statement is not a serious consideration in their vote, but 18% of independent voters say it did raise serious doubts about voting for a Democratic candidate.

For months, Democrats have expressed more interest in the election and enthusiasm about voting than have Republicans. The 'enthusiasm gap' was dramatic in Pew surveys in early October (18 points) and late October (17 points).

These differences have narrowed considerably. About half of Democratic voters (51%) say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting, little change from Pew's two previous surveys. By contrast, 42% of Republicans say they are more enthusiastic about voting; that is fewer than the percentage of Democrats more enthused about going to vote, but 10 points higher than just a few weeks ago.

Moreover, Republicans have gained ground in recent weeks on measures aimed at assessing a voter's likelihood of voting. So while Pew polls in early October and mid-October showed virtually no change in the Democratic advantage between all voters and those most likely to turn out, the current survey shows the Democrats' eight-point lead among all registered voters narrowing considerably among likely voters. In this regard, the current campaign more closely resembles previous midterm elections since 1994, when Republicans also fared better among likely voters than among all registered voters.

While Republicans have become more engaged in the campaign in recent weeks, an increasing number also say that the issue of which party controls Congress will be a factor in their vote. Currently, 65% of Republicans say partisan control of Congress is a factor in their vote, up from 58% in early October and 54% in June. The percentage of Democrats who view partisan control of Congress a factor in their vote has remained more stable; 73% say that, up slightly from early October, but largely unchanged from June.

Compared to past campaigns, many more voters, regardless of party affiliation, say partisan control of Congress matters in their vote. Fully 61% of registered voters now express this view; fewer than half did so in November 2002 (48%) and November 1998 (46%).

The situation in Iraq remains the top issue of the midterm elections. Roughly half of voters (48%) cite the situation in Iraq as either the most important (or second most important) issue in their vote. Roughly four-in-ten (42%) cite the economy as a major issue in their vote, while 35% say health care. These opinions have changed very little over the past month.

The situation in Iraq is by far the top issue for Democrats (60%). About half of independents (46%) cite Iraq as an important issue in their vote, but 41% mention the economy and 36% health care. Among Republicans, comparable percentages view terrorism (41%), the economy (41%), and the situation in Iraq (38%) as the top issue in their vote. Immigration is a much more important issue for Republicans (31%) ­ and independents (26%) ­ than it is for Democrats (15%).

The overall level of voter interest in this campaign is much higher than it has been for recent midterms. Fully 61% of voters say they have given a lot of thought to the election, while 33% say they have followed campaign news very closely. This far surpasses interest in the 2002 and the 1998 campaigns, and even the historic 1994 election, when the Republicans gained control of Congress.

At the same time, more voters feel that this election season has seen more "mud-slinging" than past elections. Overall, 65% of voters ­ 72% of those who live in congressional districts with competitive contests ­ say this campaign has been marred by more negative campaigning than in past elections; only about half of voters expressed this opinion at the end of the 2002 (51%) and 1998 (52%) midterms.

This is one issue on which there is little partisan division. Two-thirds of independents (67%), and nearly as many Democrats (65%) and Republicans (65%), say there has been more negative campaigning than in past elections.

Roughly six-in-ten voters (58%) say they have been contacted by candidates or political groups, either over the phone, in person, or by email. That represents a modest increase from early October (49%). Somewhat more Republicans (63%) than independents (58%) or Democrats (54%) say they have been contacted by campaigns. One-in-five Democrats (20%) say they have been urged to vote for a Democratic candidate. About the same number of Republicans (21%) say they have been urged to vote for one of their party's candidates; more Republicans than Democrats volunteer that they have been encouraged to vote for both GOP and Democratic candidates (19% vs. 14%).

All year, Democrats have been much more bullish than the Republicans regarding their party's electoral prospects. The gap has widened in the campaign's final days. Fully 72% of Democratic voters say they think the Democratic Party will do better this year than it has in recent elections, up slightly from last month.

Meanwhile, more Republican voters feel the party will do worse than it has in recent elections (29% now vs. 21% last month). A plurality of GOP voters (48%) say the party will fare about the same as it has in recent elections, while just 17% think the Republican Party will do better than it has in recent years.

I've even read that Pelosi and others on the left already saying that if the pubs win, then they cheated. They are against voter fraud but don't want people to have to show id to vote. They question the electronic voting and they are threatening legal action if they don't win.

[A Gunslinger]

It's going to be close, folks...

Pew Research Center: GOP Cuts Democratic Lead in Generic Ballot (47%-43%)-- a TON of info here
Pew Research Center ^ | 11-5-06 | Pew Research Center

I've even read that Pelosi and others on the left already saying that if the pubs win, then they cheated.

Iraq helps election winds favor Democrats, analysts say
POSTED: 9:57 a.m. EST, November 6, 2006
By Mark Preston
CNN Political Editor

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democrats began the 2006 election cycle hoping to capitalize on Americans' discontent with the Iraq war. Heading into the closing hours before the midterm elections, the minority party continues to play on this dissatisfaction.

Many analysts predict Democrats will take back control of the House for the first time since the GOP charged into office following the 1994 Republican revolution. Across the Capitol, the GOP has better odds this year of retaining a majority in the Senate.

"There are no signs that the wave is ebbing," Amy Walter, senior editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said of the sweeping changes she predicts will occur in the House on Tuesday. "The reality is, the list of vulnerable Republican seats continues to grow."

A CNN poll of likely voters released on October 30 showed 53 percent of Americans favoring a generic Democratic candidate in the election, while 42 percent prefer a Republican. The poll was conducted for CNN by Opinion Research Corp.

ALSO: Look at this in-depth anlaysis of the latest PEW research that the AP cited:

2006 bottom line: A ‘wave’ broken by storm walls


By Columnist Morton Kondracke


This looks to be a classic six-year-itch election — bad for the party holding the White House — tempered by some Republican structural advantages.


Since 1946, the average net loss for the president’s party in his sixth year in office is 31.5 House seats and six Senate seats — double the 15 seats Democrats need to take the House and just what they’d need for control of the Senate.

That level of loss for the GOP this year is by no means out of the question. In fact, some analysts think Democrats could pick up 40 seats, though they add that smaller numbers are possible. I think GOP losses will be on the smaller end of the range.

The pattern of sixth-year elections is that mistakes pile up — often, bad mistakes — damaging the president’s popularity and driving the public into a mood for change.

So in 1946, with President Harry Truman’s approval at 33 percent, Democrats lost 45 House seats and 12 in the Senate. In the recession year 1958, President Dwight Eisenhower’s popularity sunk to 52 percent — for him, that was low — and the GOP lost 48 seats in the House and 13 in the Senate.

In 1966, Vietnam War weariness sent President Lyndon Johnson’s approval rating down to 44 percent and the Democrats lost 47 House seats and four in the Senate. After Watergate in 1974, President Gerald Ford was at 47 percent approval and the GOP lost 49 seats in the House and four in the Senate.

The past two sixth-year midterms were anomalies. President Ronald Reagan’s approval still was in the 60s — though a month after the elections, the Iran-Contra scandal brought it down to 47 percent — and the GOP lost eight Senate seats, though just five in the House.

And in 1998, GOP threats to impeach President Bill Clinton kept his approval rating at 66 percent and Democrats ended up gaining five House seats and held even in the Senate.

This year, of course, the Iraq disaster is at least as much a liability to President Bush as Vietnam or a recession was in the past, and possibly as much as Watergate. But on top of that, House Republicans have proved the adage that power corrupts — and they’ve been running things for only 12 years, not 40.

Bush’s approval rating is below 40 percent — RealClearPolitics.com’s average of the latest polls is 38.5 percent — and the generic Congressional ballot shows that the public favors Democratic candidates for Congress by a margin of 53.5 percent to 38.5 percent.

The average of late-campaign generic polls is historically a highly accurate predictor of the national vote for House candidates. In 1994, Republicans won 54 percent of this vote and picked up 52 House seats.

And the latest Pew Research Center poll offers yet more evidence that a big wave is about to crash on the GOP. All kinds of swing voters who helped Republicans win the 2002 elections have defected in droves to the Democrats.

They include working moms, who split evenly in 2002 and who now favor Democrats, 52 percent to 34 percent, as well as independents, seniors and Midwesterners, all of whom tilted slightly Republican in 2002 and who now favor Democrats by 16 points.

And yet, if a wave is crashing, Republicans do have some structural bulwarks to weaken its force. The key one is terrain; others are money, the GOP voter-turnout machine and the virtual absence of a positive Democratic message.

As the nonpartisan reform group FairVote has reported, there are far fewer competitive seats — especially open seats — in these elections than there were in 1994, meaning that a 54-point Democratic advantage should net far fewer House seats.

The 1994 elections featured 52 open seats, 37 on what basically was Republican turf, while in 2006 there are 30 open seats and only 11 of them in Democratic-leaning districts. Republicans won 22 open seats in 1994; FairVote figures it will be hard for Democrats to capture more than eight or nine this year.


And in the current Congress, Republicans have only three incumbents representing districts that tilt heavily Democratic and only 17 in districts that tilt even slightly Democratic, whereas in 1994, the GOP ousted 34 Democratic incumbents, 27 in GOP-leaning districts.

The Senate terrain also favors Republicans. Democrats should win two GOP seats in states that Kerry carried in 2004 — Rhode Island and Pennsylvania — and another seat in a state that he barely lost, Ohio. But Bush won in the four states where Democrats need to pick up three seats to take over — Missouri, which Bush won 53 percent to 46 percent; Montana, where he won 59 percent to 39 percent; Virginia, where he won 54 percent to 45 percent; and Tennessee, where he won 57 percent to 43 percent.

Meanwhile, the GOP candidates and committees have been able to rely on $46 million more than Democrats and its vaunted “72-hour program” to get out the vote, which outstripped Democrats’ efforts in 2004.

Bottom line, I figure that Democrats will pick up 25 House seats and five Senate seats. It’ll be a wave, but not a tsunami.

From Guns

As I have said, I think Dems pick up enough to have a 5-10 seat majority, and as many a four of the Senate seats needed. So they'll fall short of a super majority.

In reality all that is needed for some oversight and some hearings is the house. That in addition to the addition of more Governorships, means a HUGE year for the Donkeys even if the Senate is not completely taken.

As for cheating, I applaud the GOP their tactics..at least in a MAchievellina sense. The machine has been doing a fine job of placing barriers in front of voting blocks they know are unfriendly to them. If the Dems were tough enough to assure the proper counter measures were taken, it wouldn't be an issue. They have, however, been mamby-pamby and have tried to rely on the media for help..thereby allowing the known irregulartities to occur.

So the calls of possible chaeting are justified, but in my mind, a lot of chin music, as the opposion ought to be proactive enough to prevent or counter any chicanery that is all too likely to occur.

They need to toughen up their knuckles and get in the fight rather than rope-a-doping.

[A Gunslinger]

NOW Look at this:

By JOHN YANG

Nov. 5, 2006 — A Democratic House and a Senate that is virtually tied — that's the consensus of political analysts canvassed by ABC News, who also predict two years of confrontation and gridlock.

"This election will not produce a mandate," says James A. Thurber, a political scientist at American University. "It will produce deadlock."

"It's been difficult to govern, really, since 2000," says ABC News' Cokie Roberts, a long-time observer of Congress. "The country has been split down the middle and the Congress has been split down the middle. There's no reason to believe that that will really change after Tuesday unless there's a huge Democratic wave."

All the analysts ABC News talked to predict a slim Democratic majority in the House, which would make running the chamber difficult for the person poised to be speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Her task would be further complicated by the fact that many of the new lawmakers who will have given the Democrats their majority will be moderate-to-conservative Democrats from the South and West — more conservative that the Democratic caucus as a whole.

In addition, Democrats have not run on a unified national platform — other than opposition to the war in Iraq. But even then, there is no agreement on a plan for the future of U.S. troops in Iraq.

"If the Democrats gain control, does the war end tomorrow?" says Roberts. "Do the troops come home? Of course not."

Much will depend on President Bush's response to the changes in Congress, analysts say.



Analysts' Predictions for Midterm Elections
Democratic Gains in House Democratic Gains in Senate

Donna Brazile, Democratic strategist (H) 23 (S)5

Charles Cook, Editor, The Cook Political Report (H)20-35 (S) 4-6

Mark Halperin, ABC News Political Director (H) 21-40 (S) 3-6

Thomas E. Mann, The Brookings Institution (H) At least 30 (S) 6-7

Cokie Roberts, ABC News (H) 23 (S) 5

Stuart Rothenberg, Editor, The Rothenberg Political Report (H) 34-40 (S) 5-7

George Stephanopoulos, Anchor, "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" (H)25 (S) 5

James M. Thurber, American University (H)23 (S)4

George F. Will, Columnist, ABC News Analyst (H)25 (S)5


"If he proves as flexible and adaptable as President Reagan," who had to deal with a Democratic House for his entire eight years as president, "he could do some business with a Democratic Congress on issues ranging from immigration to national security," says Thomas E. Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "But smart money says he will stay the course in style and substance."

"When President Clinton has a similar situation, divided party government, he reached out and worked with Republicans," notably on overhauling the nation's welfare system, says Thurber. "This president has to do that. But he doesn't even work with his own party at this point, so that's a big leap for this president."
Pelosi says she will reach out to Bush; congressional Democrats are likely to flex their investigative and oversight muscles to grill administration officials and their policies in hearings.

"One of Congress' chief jobs is overseeing the executive branch," says Roberts. "We have seen very little of that, whether it's on the Food and Drug Administration or the conduct of the war. I think you can expect to see a lot more attention paid by a Democratic Congress to what's happening in a Republican administration in the same way that you saw a Republican Congress overseeing a Democratic administration" during the Clinton presidency after Republicans took control of Congress in 1994.



"People like [Rep.] Henry Waxman [the California Democrat poised to be chairman of the House Government Reform Committee] already has an agenda," says Thurber, the American University political scientist. "He's going to have oversight hearings on contractor fraud and abuse in Iraq. Secondly, he's going to look at contractor fraud and abuse in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Third, he's going to look at the dysfunctionality of the Department of Homeland Security."

That could mean lots of subpoenas flowing from Capitol Hill to the White House and other administration departments. In at least one office, though, they're not likely to be obeyed.

"We'd sit down and look at it at the time," Vice President Cheney told George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview, but he would "probably not" testify under subpoena. "The president and the vice president are constitutional officers and don't appear before the Congress."


From Guns

If you look at the anaylysts, even the conservative ones, the certainty is the house falling to the big blue wave, with the Senate not likely, but not out of the question. Again, taking the house IS HUGE!!! Something nearly unthinkable hjust a few months ago.