I don't think Dems can take back the Senate in 2006

[ps1074]

Simply democrats have way too many seats to defend. In 2000 Dems picked up 4 seats, which means that in 2006 there will be 14 currently republican seats and 18 currently democratic seats for reelection.

In order to take back the senate, democrats need to gain 6 seats. Which means winning 24 seats and republicans winning only 8. That's if my math is correct :) I just don't see this happening...

Of course anything can happen - if dems hold all their seats and win the TN open seat (cat killer Frist), VA (Allen), RI (Chafee), PA (Santorum), MO (Burns) they will still need 1 more seat. Can Snowe (ME) and Ensign (NV) be defeated?

Looking further ahead to 2008, the story is much different. Republicans had a good night in 2002 but that means they will have to defend 21 seats in 2008 while democrats will have only 11 seats to defend.

2008 is a presidential year and some of the republican's seats are in battleground states - Allard (CO) won 51% last time, Coleman (MN) won 50%, Sununu (NH) won 51%, Dole (NC) won 54%, Alexander (TN) won 54%... These are winnable seats IMHO.

[benburch]

1. Nice attitude.

Not only can we win it, but we will!

[Imagevision]

26. Well then try something different --think positive, read, talk to people

[leyton]

41. It's an honest appraisal of the situation.

The situation is not good.

We need to try our hardest, but we shouldn't count on a landslide and then feel let down when we don't take back the Senate or the House.

I do think we'll make gains in the Senate though.

[jfern]

51. Not realistic

I'd be happy with a net gain of 3-4 Senate seats. 6 is not realistic.

[formernaderite]

59. 3-4 would be great and send a message :

momentum AWAY from Bush...

[SouthernDem2004]

2. Nothing is ever easy but it is still to far off to tell.

Being negative at this point is not productive. It can discourage people from donating their time and money.

[ps1074]

5. I am not being negative

I am just realistic. It will be very very hard if not impossible to gain 6 seats. And there are also seats that have to be defended - MN, FL the most visible.

My hope is in 2006 people will finally wake up.

[SouthernDem2004]

6. Realism is depressing sometimes. :) /eom

[losdiablosgato]

20. It is not beyond the realm of the possible

But to win the 24 seats we need the democratic party will have to wake up and fina a way to connect quickly with middle America. This country can ill afford the neocons packing the courts.

[emulatorloo]

8. Schiavo + Delay + Social Security 'Crisis' are starting to wake people up

so don't count the Dems out yet.

When I watch the Repugs on CSPAN I get a real sense of desparation -- that they are trying to cram everything through as fast as they can because they know the party is gonna be over sooner rather than later.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Let's look at history

before the 1932 election, Republicans had majorities in both houses of Congress and a Republican was President. In 1932, the Democrats took over everything, due to the fact that the Republicans had messed up everything and were offering unrealistic solutions for the massive problems facing our nation.

I think that people are watching in horror as Bush tries to dismantle Social Security. They are disgusted as family members and neighbors who are in the military are sent overseas again and again. And many are waking up to the fact that a right wing religious element is seriously whacko.

Republicans themselves have said they expect losses in the House this year-I wouldn't be surprised if some GOP Senators lost as well-enough to have us take back the Senate.

[0007]

32. In 1932 they didn't have electronic voting machines and butt

licking journalists.

[Mitt Chovick]

63. Well I guess there is no reason to vote then

Why dignify the farce with our participation?

[merbex]

4. I'm thinking positive about us winning.... I only worry about the

counting

[TheWatcher]

7. And Unfortunately, That Is The Bizarre Disconnect I Simply Cannot Grasp

So many simply want to dismiss the Voting Machine Issue, which would be the REAL reason why the Democrats won't win in 2006, if there is going to be ANY concrete reason at all. There shouldn't be any doubt about 2006, and if we had Free and Fair Elections in this Country, there wouoldn't be. As far as I'm concerned, we DIDN'T lose 2004.

Americans as a whole continue to ignore this issue at their peril.

I know there are many who want us all to Shut Up about it, but to strategize for 2006 without taking it into account is FOLLY.

We CANNOT Shut Up about this.

Our Future as a Country, if there is to be one, depends on us not doing so.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

9. There is opportunity in that as well.

Frankly, manipulating the vote in a congressional election, all those discrete data points, is gonna be a lot harder than the last time. That creates more opportunities for detection.

We have to develop the detection systems now. Have them ready for election day, ramped up and rocking.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ET Awful]

14. I'm not exactly sure how someone who has only been here a short time has

any inkling of what "every serious discussion" on this board is comprised of.

Why didn't Bush win in a landslide? Because it would have been too obvious. If you want to steal an election, you do it in a way that isn't blatantly obvious under casual scrutiny. If all you're after is a victory and there is a very close margin, you only need to manipulate 1-2% of the votes to gain twice that amount in difference between candidates. If your opponent would have won 51-49% and you alter 2% of the votes, that's all that's needed and it can pass by the scrutiny of the apathetic masses.

[wmills551]

16. I am not sure how someone who has been here as long as you have

has failed to notice that the voting machine boogie man is brought up in every thread that attempts to analyze why we lost in 2004. As I said above, it is impossible to disprove. It doesn't help us mobilize for 2006. Why discuss political strategy if the system is rigged?

[ET Awful]

18. That's why it's brought up my neophyte friend (and no, it's not brought

up in every thread). If you can not have verifiable voting then you can not have a legitimate discussion of strategy.

Until all votes are cast and tabulated in an entirely auditable and verifiable manner, then you can not discuss a valid strategy.

[wmills551]

22. well at least we are friends!

[TheWatcher]

45. Why so hostile?

One thing that I notice is how defensive and angry some people get when this Issue is brought up, and I always wonder why? What are you so afraid of if it's all just conspiracy?

Why so angry?

Why so hostile?

Or maybe you answered your own question when you asked "Why discuss strategy if the system is rigged?"

If it scares you it should. But no amount of browbeating and shouting down others who realize what has happened in our last two elections is going to CHANGE the dangerous precedents set by those elections and the consequences of failure to address them in future elections.

Wishing something wasn't true and trying to convince yourself it is a conspiracy does not make it untrue, nor will it stop them from stealing another election.

You might want to try and do some research on the Four Companies that control the Electronic Voting Infrastructure in this country before sticking your fingers in your ears and Screaming "Stop Talking About The Bogeyman!"

All four Companies are PRIVATE CORPORATIONS with major Financial and Business ties to the GOP. Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel was the head of, and continues to own part interest in one of these companies, ES&S. You should also check out all four Companies' ties with the Christian Reconstructionist Movement.

The biggest problem is that there is NO PAPER TRAIL WITH THESE MACHINES, so it is IMPOSSIBLE to do an audit and find out how people voted. The perfect Crime. No Evidence.

"But There's NO Verifiable Proof" you would Scream.

THINK About it. There is NO PAPER TRAIL. No Verifiable Proof Of Fraud IS THE WHOLE POINT.

Of COURSE Political Strategy should be discussed for 2006, and no one ever said we shouldn't.

However, to discuss it WITHOUT addressing the Voting Machine issue makes no sense.

You can go back to sleep now, but I hope you will instead awaken and pay attention to this issue.

[wmills551]

64. Which is it?

You say in your original post that to discuss political strategy for 2006 is folly. Now you say; "Of course political strategy should be discussed for 2006" I agree with your second post!

[losdiablosgato]

23. We need a strategy that works

And whether you like it or not it does not matter if the election was rigged, you can not prove it. There is no smoking gun. Yes we need to demand a paper trail for the future to keep all sides honest. But we also need a strategy that will get us the middle class again. Because in many former safe areas of this country they have been trending rethug for years. The south, the west we need to win at least some states there to win nationally.

[ET Awful]

25. Unless there is verifiable and auditable voting, then NO STRATEGY

will work. You can't have one without the other.

If the vote is not completely auditable and verifiable, you can have a perfect strategy and actually win by a huge majority, but if the voting is not verifiable, the strategy becomes moot.

[knight_of_the_star]

56. It can

It's easy to rig a close election because it would have been expected to be close anyway. If we can manage to win the races that we do by large margins and we still somehow lose, that will raise eyebrows and people will demand a re-vote. The only way the elections can be stolen are if they are close. If we make it impossible for the elections to be within a 3% margin, then we win.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wmills551]

17. Ohio was not stolen, we lost.

Now what are we going to do about it, swami?

[TheWatcher]

46. It appears that you will continue to stick your fingers in your ears

And Scream "Conspiracy LA LA LA LA LA LA!" and browbeat everyone around you without attempting to educate yourself about this issue.

Which is a shame.

Hopefully you will learn something during your stay here.

But your attitude is definitely off to a poor start.

By the way, I'm SURE you have all the verifiable proof that we lost Ohio legitimately, and I'm sure you will share it with us Post Haste and put this "conspiracy" to rest so that we can all get back to strategizing and stop paying attention to Fairy Tales. :eyes:

Here's some more help for you:

Go to www.whiterosesociety.org and download Mike Malloy's Show from November 3rd, the day after the election. Also, if someone knows the date of the Show that Greg Palast was on a week before the election, please Post that one as well. Listen to them both.

Learn.

[liberaltexas]

27. Read these studies and tell me you think there's no proof

http://electionarchive.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

If you don't want to read the whole study or even if you do, I reccomend you start with the executive summary found this link:

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_summary.pdf

This group is working hard to demonstrate in a scientifcally sound manner that there was voting fraud.

They are also comitted to establishing checks so that it becomes more difficult to perpetrate this fraud in the future.

To say there was no fraud indicates a lack of research into the issue.

Cheers.

[wmills551]

30. Thanks for the links!

[TheWatcher]

47. Only by actually following them, READING them

And learning from them will do you any good.

I certainly hope you will.

[Skarbrowe]

13. I have to agree. It's pessimistic ,sure, but it's a reality we face.

It doesn't mean that I won't vote or give some money or even go out and canvas. It's just a big reality hanging over our heads that no matter how many mistakes the repubs make, or how many people appear to be "waking up", if the voting tabulators can be manipulated, the only positive thing we have going is that it appears ridiculously obvious that the vote is wrong. Unfortunately, Rove has his invisible voter base thing going and unless someone tears into every controversy in every precinct across the U.S., 2006 still looks shaky to me.

Hopefully by 2008 people will "wake up" to the voting fraud. We might be living in a complete theocratic dictartorship by then. Oh, I'm doom and gloom, doom and gloom. I'll start thinking positive after I see the results of 2006. :)

[TheWatcher]

48. Don't Give Up On 2006

While everything you said is true, we must never give up and discourage people not to vote or not participate. One of the fallacies that gets perpetrated against people who try to raise awareness about this issue is that we are trying to "discourage people and get them to give up"

Our little friend earlier in the thread screamed "Why talk Political Strategy if the system is rigged?"

This misses the point completely. Even if the system is rigged, that is all the more reason to raise AWARENESS about it so people will react with OVERWHELMING resistance to confront the issue and get something done about it. We shouldn't stop strategizing, but we must face the fact that we are going to HAVE to address this issue sooner or later or we will NEVER have another Free Election in this country again.

Maybe some are so fearful of it because they think if the system is rigged there is nothing we can do.

That is nonsense. There is ALWAYS SOMETHING we can do, even if it is just raising awareness and calling attention to the problem.

America as a whole needs to stop being so fearful of this.

Because it isn't going to go away if you ignore it.

[Skarbrowe]

61. I agree! We have to get even more people to vote Democrat.

I didn't mean to give up at all. It's just that awful thing that hangs at the back of my mind when I hear that Democrats should start taking back House and Senate seats because of all the crap the Repubs have been pulling. Obviously, I know like everyone on this board and the many, many Democrats in the whole country, that something is very messed up with how we vote and count our votes.

We have to make sure we get more and more and more people to the polls to make it damn obvious that something is stolen WHEN not IF the Repubs do this again in 2006. Rove, Cheney and Bush were the driving force behind a lot of people voting, maybe what you might call the "church vote" in 2004 that helped make a theft possible. In 2008, they might not have that same pull in whomever they select as their candidates. It's the 2006 elections that worry me. But not in a discouraging don't vote way, in a "we have to fight this harder" way.

Nope. Never give up!

[dweller]

19. nor 2002

"Rob Georgia"


dp

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JerseygirlCT]

24. I don't think so at all

being overly optimistic doesn't help us at all. Let's go into this with wide-open eyes. It WILL be tough. Facing that now is far better than finding ourselves surprised and once again in the minority.

[ps1074]

29. Do I really?

You are the first to tell me so. If you really think I am a troll, feel free to add me to your ignore list.

[JNelson6563]

12. Whether you say you can or you can't

you're probably right.

Julie

[Stevepol]

21. Unless the voting machines are audited, it's a certainty

that the Dems will lose a few more seats regardless of who's running. It's a lead pipe cinch the Dems will also lose in 2008. All these posts debating the propects for Dem success at the ballot box are just drivel, totally meaningless, unless there's a fair vote count.

[liberaltexas]

28. Not just voteing machines here are some objective numbers for you.

This information was taken from the following statistical study on the 2004 election:

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

In the most detailed study I've seen it is clear that anything other than paper ballots had SIGNIFICANTLY higher error rates.

Black box voting machines aren't our only worry. Any technology that aggregates the votes to be reported en mass is a risk. With most being on average ~7 times more likely to be incorrect than paper ballots.

Paper ballot: -0.9
Mechanical Voteing Machine: -10.3
Touch Screen: -7.0
Punch Cards: -7.3
Optical Scan: -5.5

these numbers are WPE (within precinct error) and is defined as follows:

Definition of WPE: "Within Precinct Error" is the average of the difference between the percentage margin between the leading candidates in the exit poll and the actual vote for all sample precincts in a state. The sign of the WPE gives the direction of the error. A negative number means that the exit polls were more favorable to Kerry than the actual election results, while a positive number means the exit polls were more favorable to Bush than the actual election results. WPE can be roughly thought of as the percentage discrepancy between election results and exit poll results within sampled precincts.

[BlueInRed]

31. Exactly and it looks like it will be years before

enough elected Democratic officials realize what's going on to stop it. I'm tired of seeing us waste millions on campaigns when the voting machines are the real key. I wonder how many years of "upsets" it will take before the real powers in our party wake up and smell the coffee. (Dean and a few others excepted; I think he gets it, along with Conyers, Boxer, the CBC, Kucinich and a few others.)

[jsw_81]

33. Never say never

The Senate, unlike the House, has made some wild shifts in recent years. Remember when we knocked off five GOP incumbents in 2000? It could definitely happen again under the right circumstances.

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. Snowe won't be defeated here in Maine. Even those of us who aren't wild

about her keep her just for her seniority on the Hill.

[nickinSTL]

35. MO (Burns) ?

Talent is the MO Senator up for reelection in 2006.

I don't know who Burns is.

[newfaceinhell]

37. Think he meant Conrad Burns of Montana n/t

[newfaceinhell]

36. Sadly, I tend to agree

If we can just hold the line, maybe even win one or two seats in 2006, then the big oppurtunity will come in 2008.

[Bleacher Creature]

38. Ensign is not going to lose.

I was going to say that he's not beatable, but that's not true. What is true is that he and Reid are now buddy-buddy (despite the fact that they ran against each other a few years ago). Rumor has it that Reid is going to all but give him a free pass.

So unfortunately, I have to agree with the original poster.

[Awsi Dooger]

40. I'll say it, Ensign is unbeatable

As a Las Vegan I think we're stuck with him for at least two more cycles. Probably more. He is well positioned as a Republican in this state because his base is from Las Vegas. He'll always siphon more Democratic votes than a typical GOP nominee here and, of course, northern Nevada is Republican. Ensign can always show warming pictures from his old career as a veterinarian if he's in a tough race. He's done that before. Plus there is a lack of high caliber Dem challengers. Oscar Goodman won't take on Ensign and neither will Shelley Berkley. Those are the only two legit name brand Dems who could make it a close race.

I don't think have realistic opportunity at regaining senate control for several cycles. The numbers just aren't there. We couldn't afford to blow all the close races in 2002 and 2004 plus the forfeited Southern incumbents. When you see inept GOP bozos elected like in Oklahoma, South Carolina, Alaska and so on, it's obvious we have a underlying problem in federal races right now. It's called 9/11 and fear. A small but decisive block of white women and Hispanics have detoured to the GOP due to national security concerns. That has derailed or delayed the "Emerging Democratic Majority" realities. Plus we have lost our ground game advantage from 1998 and 2000. If anything, that is now even or slight GOP advantage. My focus is on the gov races, specifically 2006. The 9/11 factors are not as signficant in statewide races, and I'd love to see us quietly gain control of statewide seats and groom potential national candidates for 2012 and beyond.

[LittleClarkie]

39. Repeat after me...

I think I can... I think I can... I think I can... I think I can...

('Cause I got... HIGH hopes. I got... HIGH hopes. I got HIGH APPLE PIEEE in the SKY hopes... )

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

42. What's the breakdown of seats by party / year of election?

OK, so 2000 is 18 D and 14 R. What about 2002 and 2004?

[WI_DEM]

43. '06 will be much different from '02

'02 was too close to 9/11--most of the country (according to the polls) supported Bush on the Iraqi resolution. But '06 can be very different--Bush fatigue will be in BIG TIME. Iraq will still be a nightmare with more soldiers dying. Inflation will be a major problem for the GOP--if gas prices are still as high as they are now it will be tough. Interest rates are up and there are signs that unemployment might be creeping up again. There could very well be a huge reaction against the "in" party like there was against the Democrats in '94.

[eridani]

44. 2002 was the first successful test of Rethug election theft by DRE

Cleland was the most prominent victim. There were five separate races across the country that Rethug candidates won by exactly 18,181 votes. And not one peep from Dem officialdom.

Yes, there may be an anti-Bush reaction in 2006, but it will not make the slightest bit of difference as long as unauditable voting machines made by Rethugs do the counting.

[TheWatcher]

49. Another great piece of evidence that gets ignored

[OzarkDem]

54. Lame Duck admin

with low approval numbers is going to make keeping R seats much more difficult.

Anti-incumbency sentiments are starting to show up, too.

[calimary]

50. Well, I'm gonna work for it ANYWAY.

If you give up before you even fight, the bad guys automatically win. Again.

[jfern]

52. You are right

We probably will be lucky to get a net gain of 3-4 Senate seats and a few House seats, and have little chance of taking two chambers back. Don't despair for the following reasons.

1. We look a lot better than we are now once we have some real net gains
2. We set ourselves up to possibly take everything back (House, Presidency, and Senate) in 2008
3. We need fewer moderate Republicans to go along with us to get a majority
4. It's a lot easier to fillibuster when you have 48 or so instead of 45 when some of those 45 are DINOs. For example, Gonzales would have gotten at least the required 60 to votes to end a fillibuster if all the Republicans were there, but a couple of votes different and he could have been fillibustered.

[rpannier]

53. Sadly, I must agree.

The ones we can, and probably will take are Pennsylvania and Tennessee, maybe Nevada. Chafee is way too popular as is allen and Snowe (I like Snowe so it doesn't bother me). Unless a serious crisis hits these are some of the elite in the puke party. I think we take 3 maybe 4. Your assessment is probably correct.

[blondeatlast]

55. What difference does it make? We have to GAIN, period. There are

enough disgusted clear-thinking Republicans that with some 2006 gains, we can keep the nice Nazis from completely destroying the country.

Why I even clicked on this, I'll never know.

[RUMPLEMINTZ]

57. I think we can pick up 2 seats but

we have to work hard on those vulnerable seats we have to protect.

I can see us picking up Santorums seat and we've got a shot at cat killers seat

Let's work hard for the following:

Maria Cantwell (Washington)

Kent Conrad (North Dakota)

Open seat in Minnesota (not usually a good sign when the incumbant resigns/decides not to run again)

Ben Nelson (Nebraska)

Bill Nelson (Florida)

Debbie Stabenow (Michigan)

It will be nice to pick up those two repugs seats but if we lose any of these seats it won't do us any good.

[Al-CIAda]

58. RIGGED machines and Election FRAUD make all this moot. n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

60. unless we demand & get paper trail voting machines elections will forever

be rigged

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.