Yeah, a completely useless post!

Not that I'm surprised in the least, but so far it looks like a good night for the Dems and a rout for the Repubs.

(Not that anyone needed me to make that premature and annoying observation.)

I'm nursing a god-awful cold right now and not terribly in the blogging mood. Frankly, the damned Sudefed (for which I had to stand in a long line and fill out a federal form) doesn't help my brain all that much.

I might weigh in later.

Or maybe I'll get Coco the Republican to weigh in. She's not on anything.

MORE (08:58 p.m.): FWIW, I just heard James Carville on CNN refer to the war in Iraq as "the dead elephant in the room" -- and as the driving force behind the thus-far impressive Democratic numbers.

One of the downsides of being a democracy at war is that the voters can vote against the war.

IMO, Bush and the Republicans have done a piss poor job of selling the war to the American public, and while Bush has cocooned himself (and the Republicans have distanced themselves from him), the other side has hammered the war -- and Bush -- relentlessly.

Can't win wars that way.

FINAL PREDICTION: Glenn Reynolds links Wizbang's predictions:

Surprisingly, there seems to be a general consensus in the room among the bloggers (both liberal and conservative) that Democrats will take control of the House and fall short of taking control of the Senate.
That's been my answer to Glenn's earlier polls, all three times I took them, so color me very unsurprised.

I do hope Carville is wrong about opposition to the Iraq war driving these results, though.

MORE (10:05 p.m.): I don't know whether incumbency in Pennsylvania is indicative of any "trend," but right now it appears that Democrat incumbents are doing well, while Republican incumbents are doing poorly.

HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL: One of the few signs of hope I have seen this evening is a simple reminder from La Shawn Barber that people can be on opposite sides of acrimonious issues and yet be civil to each other -- maybe even friendly!

I've long been proud to consider La Shawn a friend.

MORE (10:55 p.m.): Anderson Cooper just pointed out what's on the minds of many -- that the Democrats who are winning are conservatives.

In this election, at least, triangulation works for the Democrats, but not for the Republicans.

Of course, the opposite of triangulation doesn't seem to work for Republicans either. (Santorum and Harris didn't triangulate at all, and both lost resoundingly.)

Of course, there's always Ahnold...

A lot of people on both sides would rather he not exist at all.

UPDATE (11:09 p.m.): DEMOCRATS WIN HOUSE. CNN just called it, and while that's not official, it's enough for me to end this useless post and get some sleep in the hope of surviving this cold.

I'm tempted to predict that this clinches the White House for the Clintons, but I do want to sleep.

In this regard, I tend to agree with John Batchelor:

President Clinton is a man on a mission to install his wife in the Oval Office and to vindicate his marred presidency with a remake.
So far, it seems the strategy is working.

posted by Eric on 11.07.06 at 08:12 PM










Comments

This was also my prediction about a month ago.

Jon Thompson   ·  November 7, 2006 10:04 PM

I am also not convinced that the war is driving these numbers. It is very rare for midterm elections to go in favor of the sitting president. People are pissed off about immigration, healthcare, and education (thee areas where we have too much government). You might argue, and I'd at least agree in theory, that Republicans are better, but people usually just vote against if they hate what is going on.

Of course, on the other hand, Democrats have to do twists and flips to present the economic numbers as anything other than sterling.

Jon Thompson   ·  November 7, 2006 10:07 PM

Jon I hope you are right. Everyone talks about "the polls," and now they'll get to talk about "the results." It's interesting to note that the anti-war (Republican) Chafee is out, while the pro-war post "DINO" Leiberman is in.

There's a generalized disgust with Republicans for a lot of reasons. But will Republican unity arising from this rout? Or will the intraparty warfare increase?

(I suspect a lot of angry Republicans will take the opportunity to claim that this is all because their favorite issues were ignored.)

And what if "Mark Foley" wins in Florida?

Eric Scheie   ·  November 7, 2006 10:37 PM

I voted so I'm pretty much avoiding election coverage. It's an off year with a MSM that has spent months acting like the PR wing of the Dem party.

I'm hoping that the screamer Dems (Dean, Pelosi, Carville) keep dancing about how they are going to "get the troops home NOW"

Indeed, they are loudly saying what they denied all the preceeding months

They are ready to surrender in Iraq.

And the Islamists who are publically cheering this strategy were right all along.

I hope all those that pulled the "D" in the voting booth are taking a second look at what they wrought.

The only thing standing in the Surrendercrats way is President Bush, who is still CinC.

Darleen   ·  November 7, 2006 11:47 PM

Darleen-We have to wait a few days to find out exactly who won, but from our preliminary view, it really looks like the only people who came out ahead were the Democrats who were prowar. Pelosi can spin as hard as she wants, but the Dems picked up 20 or so seats, and at least ten of those are in the hands of conservative (on defense, anyway) Democrats. Murtha, Pelosi, and Dean get attention, but they really don't speak for all Democrats.

Jon Thompson   ·  November 8, 2006 5:31 AM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits