Skip to comments.US Senate Predictions for 2006 (Republicans maintain majority with help of Joe Lieberman!)
Posted on 10/29/2006 10:55:26 AM PST by charlie5
Well with one week away from the 2006 elections, I would like to share with you my prediction for control of the US Senate.
49 dems, 49 rep, 2 independents.
Brown -- Ohio, Whitehouse -- Rhode Island, Casey -- Pennslyvania, McCaskil -- Missouri, Ford -- Tennessee, Tester -- Montana, Lieberman -- Connecticut, allen -- virginia, kyl -- arizona,
In my prediction, you then have a 49 Dem, 49 Rep, 2 Ind in the US Senate.
Lieberman votes with the Republicans for Majority Leadership positions, Sanders of Vermont votes with Democrats, thus allowing V-P Dick Cheney the unique opportunity to cast vote in favor of Republican Control of the US Senate for 2007-2008.
There you have it. Remember my thread on Election Day.
Sincerely, the Predictor.
We won't lose all of (MO/TN/NJ/MD).
I agree generally with this assesment, but Lieberman will only caucus with the GOP on Iraq and WOT issues
on most other issues he will be with the dems
Lieberman will caucus with the Dems, giving them a majority, in fact I wouldnt be surprised if he switches back to D after the election.
What indications do you have that Lieberman will vote with the Republicans for Majority Leader? It wouldn't surprise me either way, but I haven't seen anything about what he might do.
By the way, last time I looked at TradeSports, the betting was running 75% that the GOP retains control of the Senate, 33% that it retains controlof the House.
Lieberman would posture, express "serious concerns", maybe even crack a tear or two, but he'd still vote for Democratic leadership. Regular Stockholm syndrome.
That's my prediction.
With Cheney as the casting vote, the majority is maintained.
I do think, however, you are being unduly pessimistic.
Okay, but why should Lieberman vote with DEMS for majority leader position, when he was pushed out of party? If it comes down to this 49-49-2 situation, believe you me that DEMS will be wishing they treated Joe alot nicer than in the primaries.
Ford -- Tennessee
You really think so???
Lieberman has a more liberal voting record over the course of his Senate career than Harry Reid. He is ONLY a moderate on Iraq and War on Terrorism issues due to his conservative Judaism. At every campaign appearance he has reiterated that he will caucus with the Democrats if elected. I do not expect him to change his mind unless the Dems stripped him of Seniority. If the Senate was 49-49-2, the Dems would NOT strip Lieberman of seniority. I see no scenario where the Dems would stip him and give the Republicans another vote.
Lieberman will, he is still very much a dem, but Steele is going to win in Maryland and Burns will hang on in Montana. I'm more worried that Allen will lose Virginia (he won't) than Ford will win Tenn (he won't).
Steele wins Maryland
Burns keeps his seat
Corker wins Tennessee
Allen squeaks by in Virginia
Talent keeps Missouri
Senate: R 52, D 48 (includes Lieberman and Socialist Sanders)
no way Lieberman would vote with the Republican!
Nor do I think Talent will lose, nor Ford win.
"Ford -- Tennessee
You really think so???"
I don't think so. Somebody has been hitting the crack pipe to come up with that prediction.
No way Steele wins Maryland!
I agree, Hendrix - Corker will win Tennessee.
I don't think Ford will win Tennessee. He has a new worry. The "sistas" are mad at him now. As an African-american woman, I visit many black message boards. People are posting threads about "Ford's white fiance". They say he is courting black women for their votes but if he wins and has a victory speech, he will introduce his "white" girlfriend. That doesn't sit to well. Many black women are threatening not to vote for him.
Lieberman has been clear and unambiguous in saying he plans to caucus with the democrats.
My sister (caucasian) is married to an African-American man. On more than one occasion, she has felt the chill of eyes of icicles being shot at her by "sistas" (your term...)
Steele has a better chance than any other republican, and he is strongly pro-life
he is close
Tester is going to take Montana (not because of any love for the liberals---just because Burns is a jerk in public) and I predict McCaskill will win in Missouri
Lieberman said he was going to caucus with the dems. Why would a republican vote for him anyway? He is using the republicans for money and votes and if he wins he will run right back to the demoncraps.I think the money and votes should go to OUR guy. Casting a vote for Lieberman is assuring a closer and more than likely democrat victory. It's crazy.
Wrong! We surely win in TN and MO. Maybe we add Kean in NJ. As to Lieberman, he is and will be a "Rat".
I cannot believe the GOP has put so much effort into helping Lieberman. It is ridiculous. The poor republican has been shunned like Kat Harris. It is sickening
This is like libs trying to protect terrorists---it will blow back in their faces
MO will remain Republican. Talent is a strong candidate, an outstanding legislator and many Missourians are pleased to support him in his upcoming campaign for re-election.
Doom and gloom vanity predictions from a newbie.
Your predictions are ridiculous. Back to DU with you.
Sorry, Charlie. We won't need Smokin' Joe. We won't lose anything, net. The only two I'm at all worried about now are Santorum and DeWine, but we'll gain Steele and Kean for a wash. If the trend continues, however, we very well might be looking at Bouchard and Kennedy sneaking in wins, along with DeWine and Santorum, in which case Smokin' Joe could actually give us . . . (gulp) 60, and cloture.
I agree, but the democrats are going to pull out all the election fraud stops on this one, so that is what worries me. If the fraud can be mitigated, the republicans will keep MO.
No ay that we're goping to lose OH, RI, PA, MO,TN and MN. It'll be a bad night if we lose 2 of those...Ohio and PA. And there's no reason to suspect that Lieberman will caucus with the GOP..he's said that he'll caucus with the 'Rats and I suspect that if he wins he'll rejoin the 'Rats officially as soon as he can.
Lieberman would caucus with al-Qaeda before he ever voted for Republican committee chairmen.
I would add Kean to that list. I think he will win.
I am sticking with my prediction. Very little turn over.
This will be very much like 1990.
"By the way, last time I looked at TradeSports, the betting was running 75% that the GOP retains control of the Senate, 33% that it retains controlof the House."
Almost the same thing Bill Kristol said, earlier today on Fox News.
I think he said 4 to 1 the House is lost. And 3 to 1 to keep the Senate.
Maybe Kristol gets his predictions from the gaming biz. Probably FAR MORE realistic than the overweighted biased polls in the media.
Lieberman is still a Democrat. He will never join the GOP except for a couple of votes.
There isnt any dopubt of that in my miond or the minds of Democrats. Of course Leiberman will be a Democrat.
OK...please refresh my memory for l990?
Forget it - this analysis is totally wrong. No way are we going to suffer a massive defeat like this.
You are not the Amazing Kreskin. McCaskill goes down in Mizzou as does Tester in Montana. Lieberman will ALWAYS vote with the dems. You don;t need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict that!
If everyone else votes either Democrat or Republican, it won't matter whether Lieberman votes Democrat or abstains. If the vote for everyone else is 50R-49D, the Republicans will win regardless of what Lieberman does; if it's 49R-50D, the R's will lose unless Lieberman votes for them. Consequently, I wouldn't be too surprised if Lieberman votes for neither party.
What if the reps and Lieberman win?
Willhe caucus with the reps to get a chairmanship?
The only change in Senate was Wellstone(D-MN). It was the election on the eve of the Gulf War I.
Your predictions are sound except for the farfetched notion that Lieberman will become a Republican. He's using the gullible conservatives in Connecticut to vote the same party line hes voted for the past decade.
Bingo. Loserman will give a speech complaining Harry Reid is too partisan and needs to work with the President, then Loserman will "reluntantly" cast the tie-breaking vote to deliver the Senate to the Dems.
Dems will then act like they did when Dachle took power and treat the GOP "minority party" like sub-humans.
The Loserman supporters on FR will pop the champaign and tell us how much better it is that Conn.'s senator is "only" 90% liberal instead of 95% liberal, so it's a "symbolic victory" over Daily Kos.
The only way we'd end up with a 49-50-1 makeup is if Lamont somehow has a last minute surge in CT or hell freezes over and Sanders loses in VT.
Otherwise there will be two "independants" when the Senate conviences in 2007 (Lieberman, I-CT; Sanders I-VT), both of whom support the liberal position 90% of the time and have pledged to support Reid for majority leader.
In a 49-49-2 scenario, Lieberman casts the deciding vote to hand the Senate to Reid.
He could just as well abstain with the exact same effect.
Corker will win by 5+. Does anyone out there recall Jr. being invloved in a physical altercation over yard signs, or something involving a campaign of one of his relatives? I think it happened in '99 or '01.
What do you make of these predictions?