Races & Projections

[nacho]

Senate:

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2006.html#senate

House:

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2006.html#house

Gov:

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2006.html#governors

[Cassander]

usually i do the "intelligent voter" thing and vote for who I think could best do the job on the state and local level.  If I didn't find out info about a certain race or position, I didn't vote for either candidate.  That's all out the window this year.  I always railed against the blind stupidity of it, but this year I'm checking that "Straight Democrat" box. 

[Tatertots]

It warms my heart to see the blue colors on those maps.

Also: apocalypse!

[fajwat]

So Dems are making progress yet aren't projected to win the house (or senate) as had been hoped.  Green Party (etc) candidates (Kevin Zeese for MD Senate) aren't yet listed, nor did I find any hard current poll data -- what I saw was all based on "trending" from previous elections.  They also hadn't yet removed Duncan's name.  (It might have been too late to officially withdraw but he's not expected to get votes.) 

Looks like all the House votes are "weak", whether GOP, Dem, gain, or hold.  So everyone go visit http://moveon.org/ and http://www.dccc.org/ and help make sure the appocalypse hits while the Dems are on watch, so they can get blamed for it.

[nacho]

Yeah, those Green Party folks.  Hopefully they'll get their 17 votes this year.

[RottingCorpse]

I voted for Nader in '00.

[Cassander]

Like the old onion headline over a picture of a guy wearing a nader t-shirt: "Vote, Voter Wasted"

[nacho]

RC, Bush is your fault.  Just FYI.  Especially now that we're all sucking Gore's dick.  Man, kids, you all had your chance.

[fajwat]

Bush is not RC's (or my) fault.  Stop that fallacy.

And um, that's just yoghurt on my blue shirt.

[nacho]

Oh, mr. literal.  You need sarcasm lessons.

[Reginald McGraw]

No, RC is off the hook!

I voted for Michael Badnarik instead of Bush.

Of course...Maryland's electoral pot almost always is a blue one.

The landslide of '84 being an exception.

[fajwat]

Oh, mr. literal.  You need sarcasm lessons.

Sorry, that's a sore spot with me.  Well, the sarcasm detection but also the mass anti-Nadar hysteria and how the Democratic party was somehow born with my vote taken for granted.

[nacho]

Here's some shit I stole from the inneresting innernet (from August 1st):

The tally stands like this:

U.S House

Republicans - 231
Democrats - 201
Independent - 1
Seats Vacant - 2

U.S Senate

Republicans - 55
Democrats - 45
Independent - 1 (Sen. Jeffords votes with Democrats)

With fewer than 100 days left before the Nov. 7 election, certain assumptions can now be made, contingent upon the absence of a cataclysmic event.

First, the political climate will be extremely hostile to Republican candidates. Second, while Republicans benefited from turnout in 2002 and 2004, this time voter turnout will benefit Democratic candidates. And third, the advantages that the GOP usually has in national party spending will be significantly less than normal.

In terms of the political climate, the facts are clear. All of the traditional diagnostic indicators in major national polls taken in the past 10 days show numbers consistent with an electoral rout.

In the latest Cook Political Report/RT Strategies poll, conducted last Friday through Sunday among 809 registered voters, only 27 percent said the country was headed in the right direction and 63 percent said it was off on the wrong track. In polling for NBC and the Wall Street Journal, conducted July 21-24 and for CBS and the New York Times, taken July 21-25, the right direction numbers were 27 and 28 percent, respectively, while wrong track results were 60 and 66 percent respectively. These numbers are about the same as they were at this point in 1994 and going into Election Day that year [...]

Among those with the highest level of interest, Democrats had a 19-point lead on the generic congressional ballot, 52 percent to 33 percent. In the NBC/Journal poll, among those who chose 10 on the scale of interest, Democrats led by 14 points. These are very strong showings [...]

In the House, where Democrats need a 15-seat gain to win a majority, Republicans have 15 seats that the Cook Political Report currently rates as tossups. No Democratic seats remain in that column. Another 21 GOP seats are rated as leaning Republican.

In a very large tidal wave election, as this one appears to be, it would not be unusual to see all tossups go to one party, along with a few out of the leaning column as well. Republicans might lose their House majority just in the seats in which they are behind or in which their edge is within a poll's margin of error.

In the Senate, while it is easy to get Democrats to a four- or five-seat net gain, six is tougher. But keep in mind that in the last four non-"wave" elections, between 67 and 89 percent of the races rated as "tossups" in the final Cook Political Report pre-election ratings broke toward one party each time, a domino effect, with the close races breaking toward the party with momentum.

[fajwat]

It feels like it's not enough.  Too bad there aren't more seats up for election.  I'm tempted to try convincing people that Alaska's dog has a couple of senate seats up for vote.  *sigh*