"Going into the last week of the campaign," Bob Novak writes, "there is no sign of a Democratic wave or a Republican wave. It still looks like a good day for Democrats looming on November 7, but not necessarily a catastrophe for Republicans." Charlie Cook, on the other hand, offers that this "looks to be a very ugly midterm election for the GOP." Cook sees a 20-35 seat loss in the House, and at best for the GOP, a four-seat loss in the Senate. Though Cook and Novak frame their predictions differently (Novak: "not necessarily a catastrophe for Republicans"; Cook: "a very ugly midterm election for the GOP."), their forecasts are not far apart. Both see a Democratic victory in the House, and the Democrats falling just short of capturing the Senate. I see it that way too.

If the Democrats had an appealing message, instead of just counting on the poor performance of their adversaries, this election might have had the makings of an historic drubbing. After all, the president is unpopular, his war is unpopular, his handling of the immigration crisis is unpopular, and the economy isn't booming. But all the Democrats have going for them is the Republicans. The GOP had the Democrats going for them in 1994, but they boosted their prospects by offering an appealing Republican agenda to the voting public.

The Republicans may just be due for a beating. After six years, teams trade players, bands break up, and spouses file for divorce. After six years, the public has Bush fatigue. Republicans won three elections in a row, including a mid-term election that they had no business winning--at least by the dictates of historical trends. There should be a Democratic smackdown of the GOP on November 7, no? No.

What, in an historic sense, is a "drubbing," a "beating," a "smackdown"? In 1938, the Republicans added 81 seats in the House and seven in the Senate. But the Democrats retained both houses of Congress. In other words, the Democrats won the election despite losing ground. Improvement isn't victory. Eight years later, the Republicans won the election--taking 55 House seats and twelve Senate seats--even though they added fewer total seats than in '38. They won the election because they elected more Congressmen than their opponents. That's real victory, as opposed to psychological victory or moral victory. Democrat beatdowns of Republicans include 1930, when they picked up eight in the Senate and 52 in the House, and in 1974, when they picked up 49 in the House and four in the Senate.

The beatdown mid-term elections--'94, '74, '46, '30--won't add a new year to their ranks. The Democrats may capture a handful of Senate seats, and a couple dozen House seats. But their victory, should they be so fortunate, will not capture a place in the history books.

Man, I am so nervous about the results of this vote.

I wonder how much the absentee military ballots will affect the results of this election. Since this Kerry flap has further exposed the Democrats as the anti-military weenies that they are, will the troops vote en masse and potentially tip the scales?

There's no way the Dems win the Senate (which, in my opinion, is more important to retain while there's a Republican in the White House). I think the House will be close, but I'm hoping Republicans hold on by a slim margin.

I too am hopeful that if the Dems recapture the house, that it'll be by a slim margin. That will help to curb some of their plans. Dan, my only point of disagreement with you is your calling it Bush's war. Now that we, the U.S., are in it, it makes it our war, as it's outcome will affect all of us.

Even if the church says it will disappear into oblivion, Missouri will lose a Republican senator this election.

ASDF,
From what I'm seeing on the news, I think the Kerry flap will have a significant impact on this election, and not just from absentee balloting. Something tells me there will be some major surprises come Tuesday.

On a side note: Laura Ingaram stated last night on O'Reilly that she has been privy to some elitist Dems that articulated precisely (albeit in private) what Kerry alluded to publicly this week: That military service to this country is for chumps and losers. If that's how the heavyweights in the Democratic party really feel then I'm glad Kerry has exposed that sentiment. As an independent it gives me more fuel to make an intelligent decision Tuesday.

The GOP will hold both houses of congress.

We can only hope that Kerry's gaffe has a positive affect for the GOP next Tuesday.

I'm also hoping that it has the desired affect here in the Republic because now that Mitt has checked out, it looks like his Lt. will not be elected and we're looking at four years with an ultra liberal Dem Governor who doesn't pay his taxes, (even though he loves the idea of raising everybody else’s), is pushing for drivers licenses and instate college tuition for illegal aliens, has no problem allowing hardcore criminals to go free and was a quota and affirmative action champion when in the Clinton administration. Exponentially scary for us.

Dan, you're right insofar as this election will not be as defining or long-lasting as the one in 1994.

But there are long term trends here are work too.

Just as in 1994 we saw a realignment of Southern House seats to the Republicans, this year will see a simalar realignment in the Northeast.

The Republicans stand to loose up to 7 seats in New York, 3 in CT, 4 in PA, and Charlie Bass just might go down in NH. Dems will probably get about 75% of those seats, and WILL NOT LOSE them. This is a realignment we're talking about here.

Simalarlly, there is an outside possibility that a realignment will occur in the mountian west, where 2 CO seats, 1 NM seat, 2 AZ seats, 2 NV, 1 WY and 1 ID [sic] seats are in play. If the Democrats sweep these races, it will be an indication of a regional realignment to the Democrats and will most likely hold.

Early voting returns out of AZ show Jon Kyl going down. If he does, you can be sure a realignment is under way.

Now, on to your diss of the Democrats as 'only' being able to manage a few dozen House seats.

Comparing this election to 1938 or even 1994 just doesn't work. Silicon enhanced gerrymandering has reduced the number of competitive districts so that even big waves make minimal impact. Although both sides do it, this redistricting has tended to favour Republicans in recent years because they contoled more statehouses after the 2000 census.

Personally, I find the process odious and anti-democratic. But Democrats are poised to make huge gains in state legislatures this year, and after 2010 do not at all be surprised if dems redistrict in their favour.

For this reason, a Demoratic house may be with US longer than you think.

BTW if you really want to judge a "wave election", don't look at the seat totals. Look at the percentage of the vote each party gets nationally.

AM, I can tell you're one of those independents who registers that way just to soothe themselves for being so partisan. A la Bil O'Rielly.

Asdf, as for the gaffe I really hope it won't make a differnce. It is, after all, rather trival compared to the mismanagement of the war, which to me is the ultimate F*you to the troops.

My gut says a few competetive house districts in deep red territory might be affected. ID-1, NB-3, NC-8, and TX-22 come to mind. It will ramp up a point or two of the base. But it won't change anybody's minds, and it certainly won't dampen turnout amongst the Democratic base, which is the Republicans' real problem. In fact by putting Iraq back on the table in the last week of the Campaign it just might up Dem turnout in a few key places like NY,PA, and NJ.

As for the troops' vote, aside from the fact that fewer of them vote republican than they did in 04', their bases are all located in non-competitive districts.

I think West Point might be in play, but that's about it. And you better believe that the officers are much more Demoratic than the enlisted.

Turning our attention to the Senate, I'm as shocked as anyone when I say that it is legitly in play.

Indications are that DEMS pick up OH, RI, and PA. MT is almost a sure thing.

They need two more: MO, TN, and VA are the possibilities.

TN is pretty much done. Corker's ad was brilliant.

MO is neck and neck, with a slight edge for the Dem.

The real surprise is in VA. Webb is kicking arse down the stretch. Every recent poll has him surging, up by at least 5. That's a shocker.

At this point it comes down to MO. If Talent goes down, Repubs loose the chamber.

Now, there are some outside shots on both sides.

NJ was once considered a top pick-up opportunity for the Repubs. They sunk a lot of money into the race for a final push. Polls though, have NJ coming home to the Democrats. Most have Menendez by five or six. It'll be ugly, but dems hold NJ.

MD is a strange race. Very democratic state, 25% black. The dem nominee defeated a black challenger in the primary, and the Reps nominated a black candidate. Steele is a nutjob. But he's run a good campaign, and will get enough black votes to play with Cardin. I say Cardin wins, but again closer than it should have been.

AZ is the real shoker. Pederson was always a good candidate, but Kyl was also a good Senator and AZ a Republican state. Polls have Pederson down by 7, but early voting returns have him up by 3.

DSCC just made a gigantic ad buy for the final week, and that may just be enough. For now I say Kyl hangs on, but watch this race. If NJ, MD, or even MT fall early in the night, AZ might just be the shocker that gives dems control of the Senate.

As I wrote earlier in another post, at least Bush had the balls to make a potentially politically crippling decision when one needed to be made. Kerry and his ilk (read: the majority of the Democratic party) calculate everything for the purposes of political expediency. It's real easy to criticize an action after the fact, isn't it? Especially when you supported the initial action and then, when it goes bad, you use it to make yourself look superior. What pieces of $hite these people are.

"The GOP Will Hold Both Houses of Congress"

Perhaps you're right, but given the fact that your predition flies in the face of every pollster, pundit, and Congressman in the nation, would you care to explain your position?

The kicker here is that 10 house seats are in play because of personal scandals alone. In PA we have a Congressman who beats his mistress. In FL we have a Congressman who has gay sex with pages. In OH we have a crooked member who took bribes. In NY we have a domestic violence dispute and Tom Renyolds, who urged Foley to run in 06 well knowing he was a child molester. In TX-22 we have Tom Delay- disgraced former majority leader- on the ballot. And the list goes on and on.

Are people really gonna tick off Mark Foley on their ballots, cuz some old news Senator misspoke?

I don't think so.

There are no democratic seats under threat in the House, and about 50 republican seats in play. Dems need only to win 36 percent of them to win the chamber.

Its possible they'll loose.

But what's you're theory as to how?

A good debate asdf. I have no love for the Democrats who voted for the war.

I think you misunderstand the way we went to war though.

Bush did not "have the balls to make a potentially crippling decision".

He just didn't see that potential at all. He drunk the Kool-Aid Paul Wolfewitz and Dick Cheeney were feeding him about how the oil would pay for the war, and we'd be greeted as liberators.

They didn't couragously make a bold decision and stick to it. They stupidly made a mistake and refuse to change course.

As for the Democrats, its obvious that their vote for the war was a cynical ploy to look "tough on security." They deserve a lot of blame for being weak and giving in to a war they didn't believe in.

But the Republicans deserve blame too for politizing Iraq and the "war on terror" in general. There was a reason we started sabor rattling in Iraq in the fall of 02, and not the spring of 03 when we actually invaded.

There was an election then. And the Republicans used the fear of terrorism and war to buck historical trends and pick up seats.

Its an old trick, and its worn out this year.

Yeah and as for the dems at leat they have the balls to admit they were wrong.

Not all of them- John Kerry- for example was a little fag**ot about Iraq during his campaign.

But guys like Murtha and Biden you gotta respect cuz not only do they admit they were wrong, thay offer plans for the future.

Bush just says "stay the course".

He's all slogan, no policy.

A few thoughts:

It is a shame what the left wingers have done to the great state of Mass. I only hope the people there will someday elect officials who have the best interest of the state at heart and the balls to implement some much needed reform.

For the record I was a Democrat for my entire (voting) life before I registered as an Independent. If the party hadn’t been co-opted by such a bunch of boneheads I would probably still be a Democrat.

I doubt John Kerry loses here in AZ. AZ is still very much a conservative state.

In 5 days all will become clear.

Who’s that trip-trapping on my bridge?

Bite your tongue AM, you don't even want to mention Kerry's name mistakenly. You mean McCain, right? Wouldn't wish our pain up here in the Republic and any other state. btw...thanks for the support, but we're screwed. ;-(

Correction: I meant Kyl, not Kerry. Thanks for the catch ASDF, you da' man!

Mass has been led by a Republican for the past 4 years. And a Mormom at that.

As a former resident of Mass. I can say that the Bay State has its problems, but it is an enviable place to be compared to most places in the US.

We'll see about Kyl. He shouldn't loose. But like I said, if he does it's the result of a regional realignment that will most likely put the Rocky Mountain west in play for 2008.

AZ repubs are conservatives, but not Terry Shiavo conservatives.

Two things:

I was on board with our government's decision to go to Afghanistan primarily to route terrorists there and to cut the gonads off of OBL. I was not necessarily in agreement with its decision for further action with regards to invading Iraq. But as there was some evidence that there were WMDs being stockpiled by Saddam and proof was necessary, reinforced by his refusal to allow inspections, I bought into the second invasion. As I’ve said, the problem I have is that the reasons for the mission morphed and we’ve ended up staying there too long. But right or wrong, in retrospect, some decisions had to be made and we needed a leader to stand up and make them. Kerry could never have been that guy.

And it’s a damn good thing that Mass. has been led by a Republican of Mitt’s caliber (not sure what his being a Mormon has to do with the price of hammers) because we have a full time phony boloney Democratic legislature that would steal the eyes out of a dead man and 16 years of Republican Governors has kept them somewhat in check. If “Free em’ All” Devil Patrick ends up in the corner office, the larcenous Democrat weasels in the State Legislature will run amok and Mass. will be tax and spent back to the bad old Dukakis days.