[Sixstrings]

With unemployment still hovering close to double digits, frustration and dissatisfaction have been running high in the lead-up to the election. That's not been lost on Democratic candidates and surrogates, who, of late, have spent time on the campaign trail putting the electorate on the proverbial couch.

"People are angry," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday at a campaign event for Washington state incumbent Sen. Patty Murray. "But when you make a decision when you're mad – about anything, not just politics -- there's an 80 percent chance you make a mistake."
Clinton's suggestion that fear and anger can cause voters to make unwise decisions appears to go hand in hand with President Barack Obama's warning to Democrats that some voters are reluctant to accept rational political arguments because fear and anxiety are clouding their judgment.

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared," Obama told Democratic donors at a fundraiser in Massachusetts last week. "And the country is scared."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/19/5317600-democrats-plead-dont-vote-angry-

Ok, so the President is telling us voters that even though poverty is at a 50 year high and tens of millions are jobless with no jobs recovery in sight for decades, the President somehow thinks that us voters just aren't being "scientific" about things, we're not "rational," and we're just "hard-wired" to be scared.

[Ludi]

I'd like the Democrats to be MUCH more left-wing, instead of slightly to the right of Nixon.

[gollum]

I think Americans have every right to be angry, but a vote for republicans is sure a misdirection of that anger.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I think Americans have every right to be angry, but a vote for republicans is sure a misdirection of that anger.

Yes, let's vote for the dems instead, and hope for an instant replay of the last two years.

Let's see. More than a doubling of the unemployment. Way more than a doubling of the budget deficits. Constantly complain that it is all the GOP's fault.

Yes, that has all worked so well. Go for it.

[Plantagenet]

Many studies have shown that a large percentage of voters cast their votes AGAINST something rather then for something.

Given the utter failure of Obama and the democrats to keep their promises of 2008 to cut the deficit and create jobs, its only natural that many voters would now be voting against the democrats.

[Sixstrings]

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Publicly, Democratic campaign officials are putting a brave face on predictions of House losses, with House Campaign Chairman Chris Van Hollen claiming that the party might hold the chamber, meaning that they would lose fewer than a net of 39 seats. Other officials are pegging the expected losses at 50-55 seats, in line with consensus independent public forecasts, such as those of Charlie Cook and Nate Silver.

But within the last 12 hours I've spoken to two top Democratic consultants -- very active on the battlefield this fall and with 60 years of on-the-ground experience between them -- who told me some shocking news.

Separately, and privately, they each told me that they thought the Democrats could lose 70 seats on Tuesday. That would be a blowout of historic proportions.

(snip)

"A lot of incumbents are going to wake up on Wednesday morning and not know what hit them," one of the consultants told me. "Anyone who isn't at 50 percent in the final polling will lose -- and even some who are above that line will."

These consultants may be wrong -- but the fact that they are that grim, if not beyond grim, can have a self-fulfilling effect.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/31/democrat-house-losses-fea_n_776735.html

I'll go ahead and predict Democrats hold the Senate but lose the House. I ended up voting straight Democrat by the way, except for Senate (voted for an Independent). But that doesn't mean I'm happy with Dems, I just sure as heck wasn't going to vote Republican.

Honestly though, the Dems deserve to lose -- they turned their back on the liberal base and they've lost the independent vote. They've done nothing and will do nothing about unemployment... how you can just not address 20% unemployment during a depression is inexplicable.

[Asterisk]

Dems deserve to lose? Dems are doing all they can to clean up the mess made by republicans (as they always do). Obama's stimulus created 2 million plus jobs! What do you want him to do? His hands are tied behind his back by the sociopathic republicans that infest the congress.

[PrestonSturges]

Meh.

Dem pundits haven't been right about anything in decades regards elections.

You have to predict a blowout to get out the Dem voters, and the GOP has cooperated nicely.

Look at some of the web sites like Americans For Prosperity for videos of their rallies that are attracting lieterally dozens of people. Well maybe not dozens, but at least seven or eight people. http://americansforprosperity.org/national-site

There is a complete absence of tangible evidence of a GOP "wave." The GOP has made the mistake of listening to Newt's wild talk before, and that guy can't even hold a job.

That being said, there could be a blowout. Obama revived the careers of a lot of old Dems like Reid, who are crappy tacticians. Thinning them out wouldn't hurt. The GOP has gone through something similar, but they got stuck with all the r****rds.

[Pretorian]

Obama's stimulus created 2 million plus jobs!

For real? Name one. You are such a child astersik, how old are you--18?

[americandream]

Dems deserve to lose? Dems are doing all they can to clean up the mess made by republicans (as they always do). Obama's stimulus created 2 million plus jobs! What do you want him to do? His hands are tied behind his back by the sociopathic republicans that infest the congress.

The Republicans and conservatives worldwide with each term, take us further down the road to Victorian inequity. Liberal and Social Democrats come along and sweeten us during rest breaks.

[topcat]

Democrats brace for the worst; could lose 70 seats in House

From your lips (or fingertips) to God's ears.

[Tanada]

Democrats brace for the worst; could lose 70 seats in House

From your lips (or fingertips) to God's ears.

I won't limit God to 70, if every politician with more than 1 term gets thrown out that gives us 380 or so new faces who might actually have a few outside the beltway ideas.

Are you aware that 200 or more of these people have held office over 20 years? What good have they done us?

[Expatriot]

I'll go ahead and predict that Democrats and Republicans will maintain control of both the House and Senate.

[WyoDutch]

Once again, the revolving door spins madly.

The Tweedledumber Party exits stage left while the Tweedledumbs enter stage right.

[Pops]

'Dems had to know they were going to lose no matter what they did, I just wish they had done something...
I really do think there is a difference in ideology, it's just that dems, by and large, don't have that certainty and conviction that comes from truly believing God is on your side and therefore everyone else is not only wrong but morally inferior.

Pollster.com says house is likely pub and senate likely dem.

[TreeFarmer]

I'll go ahead and predict that Democrats and Republicans will maintain control of both the House and Senate.

Well said:
Democrats like: Big government, high taxes, control of your economic life, and war.
Republicans like: Big government, deficit spending, control of your social life, and war.

Two branches of the same party.

I had "some" hope for the Tea Party folks but that ended up where I thought it would, they are distracted from the real issues and now seem to be stuck on God, Guns, and Gays.

TF

[Daniel_Plainview]

I had "some" hope for the Tea Party folks but that ended up where I thought it would, they are distracted from the real issues and now seem to be stuck on God, Guns, and Gays.

I have a nagging feeling that the Tea Party will finally get their act together by 2012, but by then it will be too late ...

[TreeFarmer]

I had "some" hope for the Tea Party folks but that ended up where I thought it would, they are distracted from the real issues and now seem to be stuck on God, Guns, and Gays.

I have a nagging feeling that the Tea Party will finally get their act together by 2012, but by then it will be too late ...

You could be right. It most likely won't be the Tea Party, what it will be is those in the Tea Party that understand the real issues and who chose a name that will help them to stay on track.

I know there is a peak oil problem but our more immediate problem is a financial problem. As stated on The Automatic Earth, finance moves faster than peak oil. The financial problem is that all of this bailout stimulus has done nothing about all of the unpayable debt that is clogging the system. My opinion is that if you were a capitalist on the way up, you have to be a capitalist on the way down. We should have put all the bankrupt banks and GSE's into receivership (that way they keep functioning and people and business can do their banking) and cleaned up this mess, via bankruptcy (stock and debt cancellation). By now, we would see new banks and buinesses rising from the ashes instead of this continuing zombie walk to hell.

TF

[Daniel_Plainview]

I had "some" hope for the Tea Party folks but that ended up where I thought it would, they are distracted from the real issues and now seem to be stuck on God, Guns, and Gays.

I have a nagging feeling that the Tea Party will finally get their act together by 2012, but by then it will be too late ...

You could be right. It most likely won't be the Tea Party, what it will be is those in the Tea Party that understand the real issues and who chose a name that will help them to stay on track.

Agreed. Perhaps a better name for what we have in mind would be the "Reform Party" or some such name.

We should have put all the bankrupt banks and GSE's into receivership (that way they keep functioning and people and business can do their banking) and cleaned up this mess, via bankruptcy (stock and debt cancellation). By now, we would see new banks and buinesses rising from the ashes instead of this continuing zombie walk to hell.

TF

Amen.

[ian807]

So, republicans win the house, and in two years, maybe the presidency.

Like the dog who caught the car, what do they do with it now?

Here's the budget obligations we've got: http://pries.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2009-Federal-Budget-Breakdown_.jpg

Cut the budget? There's social security, health care and defense. Republicans won't cut defense, so guess where the money is coming from? They'll try and privatize social security, and won't that be popular, particularly when it hits the tea party base where it hurts?

They'll repeal the healthcare laws, but won't actually allow the market to work either (allowing insurance purchase across state lines, allow legal importation of drugs and medical services from abroad), thereby slowly pushing the health care train wreck further down the tracks. It'll free up some money, but not nearly enough.

I'll predict that the republican majority will be short lived. What comes after that, I don't know.