I believe the GOP has now siezed the BIG "MO," well maybe it's just a little "mo." But nonetheless, I believe when everything is said and done the GOP will have maintained it's majority only having purged a few RINO's in the liberal Northeast. But who needs them anyway, if they're only going to vote with the Dem's 60% of the time?

Posted by Nathan Wilkerson at October 26, 2006 09:37 AM

Republican support naturally rises to 60% unless it is artificially suppressed. The MSM is a current major suppressant, but campaigning offsets that somewhat. Unless the Democrats have another suppressant as an October surprise, the Republican vote will slowly rise.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at October 26, 2006 07:17 PM

Democratic hypocrisy. Graphic porn written by Jim Webb, a Democratic candidate for the Senate from Virginia, is "not a legitimate concern" to Sen. Chris Dood (D-Conn.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiZNGOMqw5U The Democrats always have to hope that the election occurs before they are exposed for what they are and what they want. It's coming out just in time.

Posted by Woody at October 27, 2006 07:14 AM

GM, I voted today. Yep, though here for ten years, this is the first time I've done the Early Voting deal. Dunno, maybe in my semi-subconcious I thought Mayor Daley (of Chicago fame for your younger folk) was involved. At any rate, the polls were well organized, very efficient and the poll workers (I did that myself about 12 years ago in another state, just to see how it worked from the inside) seemed, well, solid. I have confidence that it is run correctly. I did note, of course, that very many local political offices had no Republicans running. Well, that's what we get when we have our version of PRI on this side of the border. Another note: Most of the people voting were oldsters. Yep, despite all the hoopla some years ago AND the changing of the Constitution..few 18 year olds vote. Actually, I believe that stats would show that around 35 or so, is when people start voting regularly.

Posted by tad at October 27, 2006 10:11 AM

"Graphic porn written by Jim Webb, a Democratic candidate for the Senate from Virginia, is "not a legitimate concern" to Sen. Chris Dood (D-Conn.)"

Actually, its a general concern to most of us. Knowing what a candidates moral fiber & character are helps to make the decision in the voting booth. This isn't some unsubstantiated smear based upon some unprovable accusation about something that allegedly happened 25 or 30 years ago, but hard, concrete fact, which any one of us can go get a copy of the book from Barnes & Noble or Amazon and read the passages ourselves. This is no smear campaigne - Its hard, demonstrable fact, and thank goodness its so very timely!

Posted by Vulgorilla at October 27, 2006 10:17 AM

"Republican support naturally rises to 60% unless it is artificially suppressed", says AVI.

You, sir are quite mad. As to your thesis of the MSM
suppressing Republican votes, pfffft. Give people (well, some people) a little more credit.

Posted by jim hitchcock at October 27, 2006 05:46 PM

Jim Hitchcock,

Three sentences, three insults. You're batting 1000 there, Jim.

Posted by DRJ at October 27, 2006 09:57 PM

Vulgorilla,

Why does the United States Marine Corps RECOMMEND Webb's books?

Posted by me at October 30, 2006 10:48 PM

Hey Guy, I voted Monday, and I want to give you a moment to rejoyce. I actually voted for one republican. Yep, I voted for Carol Strayhorn. I know you all will say she's not a republican, but she is running as a indie. I guess the reason you repubs. didn't give her the primary wwas because she actually has a program that she will attempt to enact. Any way, she is the best of a poor lot.

Aren't you posters' and commenters just a bit embarrased about p[ushing to reelect the sorry set of republican congressman? I guess I know that your response will be that they are better than the democrats. But exactly how do you know? Don't tell me it's the speeches they make, or the promises they make, because you and everyone knows that there is no correlation between what a politician says and what he does.
It's as though a republican tells us that he will go for a balanced budget, a smaller government and high morals in the congress. Yeah, sure, do you actuslly believe that? Take even our senator Kay Bailey Hut.'s promise to run only two terms? Truth or fiction?
Think on it.

Posted by James S Melbert at November 2, 2006 05:02 PM

I was only in the 5% -- keep both houses and increase our Senate margin.

J. Hitchcock -- ever since the lead-up to the 2000 Presidential elections, the MSM has far outstepped its boundaries in an effort to see GOP defeats in every election and in a "no matter what it takes" operating mode. The only people who don't see that are those on the political left who don't want to be bothered by "inconvenient" thoughts, or those who are either so obtuse, dumb or just plain fanatically left that they believe everything they read in places like the NYT.

Posted by Seth at November 4, 2006 04:42 PM

James --

The Democrats have said they will raise taxes, made it plain that they will push to cut and run from Iraq, made it plain in their voting records that they are for open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, almost unanimously endorse same sex marriage and abortion-on-demand, have supported proposals, legal decisions and public disclosure of intelligence operations that jeopardize our national security....

The overwhelming majority of Republicans on the Hill have not.

I hope that answers your question, LOL.

Posted by Seth at November 4, 2006 04:50 PM

I believe Tester is in trouble in Montana. The Democrats put this in the win column months ago, but now Conrad Burns has the momentum. Tester is still ahead in most polls, but one shows a tie. Even if the left wins VA and MO, it could be up to Montana to decide the fate of the Senate.

Posted by PoliticalCritic at November 4, 2006 08:34 PM

I checked the nation's weather forecast for Tuesday, and it looks like a lot of rain throughout the nation. Oh, I hope that it doesn't keep the Democratic voters away, as it usually does.

Posted by Woody at November 5, 2006 03:17 PM

Due to tonights polls the democrats are saying their own prayer: Lord, please let someone give Bush a BJ so we can impeach him, nothing else works. Amen

Posted by Scrapiron at November 5, 2006 11:23 PM

Seth, I listen to a fair share of Limbaugh and Hannity, and I have to say that critical thinkers everywhere just don't buy into their conspiracy theories.

You guys consider any criticism of Bush to be a matter of `left wing bias'. That's purely a cop out, of course, but no one will ever convince you of that.
Not when you have `fair and balanced' Fox News telling you otherwise, LOL.

Some of the earliest criticism of Bush, pertaining, for instance, to Iraq, came from the likes of Scott Ritter. Are you really going to tell me he's a left winger?

A couple of examples of incurious George's thought processes tell quite a story. What can you say about a president who invades a foreign country having no clue as to the sectarian divisions of the country? Sunni? Shia? Huh? Wha?

Or how about a guy who receives a report from the CIA station head in Baghdad in 2003 warning of a growing insurgency, and responds by calling the station chief a `defeatist', and has him reassigned.

This is really the kind of guy you want in charge?

Beleive me, it's not the fault of the media that America has turned against him.

Posted by jim hitchcock at November 6, 2006 07:06 PM

Jim, everyone has an ax to grind or a failure to cover-up, Scott Ritter included.

Posted by Woody at November 6, 2006 08:10 PM

Bloggin Caesar is painting a rather grim picture for the Republicans. At first glance, he seems to be projecting all the close races to break Democratic. Well, the polls have spoken, and now it comes down to the poll that counts - the voting booth. Then we will have to suffer through the interminable post-mortems. I not looking forward to the next few days, no matter how things end up. Even less if we end up with court fights that leave control of Congress in the balance...

Posted by civil truth at November 6, 2006 08:54 PM

Jim, actually, an awful lot of criticism of Bush and the Republicans has come from this site, everything from over spending to Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond.

That an awful lot of the "people's" disdain for Bush and company comes from the media surely cannot be gainsaid. The majority of the media has crapped on him and the republicans incessently up to and including looking at the economy and saying how bad things are (when in full actuality, the economy is literally booming).

Has Bush and company been remiss and such? Sure! Has he goofed when he didn't take into consideration the sectarian violence in Iraq? Of course! Has the left wing section of the media played that for all it is worth? You betcha! But, honestly, couldn't you have said the same after two years in north africa and the south pacific for Roosevelt? Couldn't you have said the same for two years after Korea? Couldn't you for damn sure said the same for 7 years of Vietnam? And shouldn't you have mentioned the role the media played after the disasterous Tet Offensive (disasterous for the VC which were decimated and for the NVA which was shredded but which was interpreted in the media (led by Cronkite) as a total defeat for America?)

Bush is culpable for many things, but not the nay-saying of the Democrats and the left wing of the MSM.

Posted by GM at November 6, 2006 09:13 PM

Civil Truth, no kidding about the lawyers. I read that the Democrats have activated over 7,000 lawyers ready to file complaints with sympathetic left-wing, activist judges, and Republican have 1,000 lawyers hoping to keep them honest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/04/us/politics/04lawyers.html?ei=5090&en=2662d2337c08335b&ex=1320296400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Posted by Woody at November 7, 2006 10:41 AM

Woody, Iheard a report stating it was 10,000 dem lawyers to 7,000 repubs.

What in the world is wrong with this picture?

Posted by jim hitchcock at November 7, 2006 07:22 PM