Could we possibly win the Senate but not the House?

[Nimrod2005]

Would that be better? I can't decide/know...Help!

[AX10]

1. We could stop all of his nominees for anything from being confirmed.

The Senate is known for it's "elitism" meaning that there are not "down and dirty" debates. The house would allow us this.

[Nimrod2005]

2. I just hope we win something...anything!!!

Or we can possibly win both...

[AX10]

3. It is looking more likely with each passing day that we will take both...

chambers. It also looks like we will have 28-31 Governorships too.

[kentjay]

13. i wish i shared your optimism dear.

[Selatius]

14. Don't be optimistic. Be realistic.

See post #8 below.

[Pushed To The Left]

29. That would be great!

There might be some more Supreme Court retirements in the next couple of years. We can't let Bush put another far right justice there!

[FrenchieCat]

4. Both would be best....

But one would be good.

The House is great....cause Senators have to keep entire states happy, not just possible partisan districts...so it is easier to "shame" Senators into doing the right thing. Plus, they have certain powers, even when in the minority.

The House can conduct investigations that might "accidently" end up giving us an Impeachment.

The Senate controls confirmations.

Either would be more useful than what we have now, which is Zilch, Nada, Zero!

[LSparkle]

5. House is better for just one reason: impeachment

Sorry, I had to say the "i" word ...

[Nimrod2005]

7. Not too worried about being able to "I"mpeach, I really want us/them

newly elected Dem majority to work hard to turn this sinking ship around...

[AX10]

11. Same here.

[INdemo]

18. As much as we all would like to see impeachment proceedings its not

practical..The process would consume most of the time congress needs to pass critical legislation that Republicans have ignored.By the time the process played out *'s term would be nearly over.Assuming Repukes would use strategies to delay most actions by the Democrats who wouldn't take control until January 2007. The Presidential primary campaigns will be off and running by then..

[LiberalFighter]

10. We don't need House to impeach if I understand from other posts

States can also forward impeachment

[tritsofme]

17. The House has the sole power of impeachment

Article I Section II

"The House of Representatives shall...have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Some think that a state can ask the House to impeach, but the House has no obligation to act.

[NewJeffCT]

6. No filibuster in the House

So, if it ends up 218-217 Dems, then we control all the committee chairs, what comes to the floor, etc.

The minority party still has a decent amount of power in the Senate, as evidenced by Harry Reid.

[Nimrod2005]

9. Very good point.......

You answered my question.

Thanks

[LiberalFighter]

12. Remember Dole when he was Minority Leader?

Did a fine job of blocking legislation.

[Ignacio Upton]

24. I'd rather have the House than Senate if I had to choose

Also if we gain 3-4 seats in the Senate, the Republicans won't have the votes for the Nuclear Option. So if Bush nominates another Supreme Court Justice, then we will be able to block him/her.

[Selatius]

8. At the current time, we won't win any chamber of congress

If the election where held now, that's what it looks like. Who knows what it will look like in November?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[kentjay]

16. that was a great site.to bad we can`t

turn the house to 218 dem 217 rethug.

[Selatius]

19. There's still a little over a month left; the numbers will change

Just reference the site to keep track of trends and multiple races.

I predict it will get slightly harder for Democrats as the anger over gas prices is being deflated by falling gas prices.

[kentjay]

20. how ironic,i live in

oxford.ms

[Zynx]

21. You base that on one set of predictions?

If we just hold NJ under that model we win the Senate and many more Republican House seats are vulnerable than most models indicate so I think we would win both chambers if the election were held today.

[paulk]

22. the problem with the predictions on that site

especially with the House predictions - is that too many of them are not based on current polling - they're based on the 2004 election.

[rep the dems]

30. Still, 50-50 would be much better than what we have now.

And New Jersey could still go for Menendez.

[Blue-Jay]

31. I wouldn't be too sure about their Webb-Allen prediction.

Allen has been getting savaged in the press lately (and rightly so). Give it another couple of weeks. By their own data, Webb was ahead a very short time ago.

[beaconess]

15. ANYTHING's possible!

[Eric J in MN]

23. I've donated to the DSCC and to Democratic Senate candidates, but...

...winning the Senate in 2006 is unlikely.

If we make gains in November, then taking the Senate in 2008 will be likely.

Donate to get Democrats elected to the Senate

[Ignacio Upton]

25. We also only have two vulnerable seats in 2008

Tim Johnson and Mary Landrieu. Of course, that's assuming we don't have anyone retiring.

[Awsi Dooger]

26. I've been considering that possibility the past few days

Seemed impossible a month or two ago. Now I think it's very feasible. The Bush approval upward trend and lack of a clear Democratic message is more likely to impact our House chances than senate, IMO. Less seats in play. But in the vital senate races the dynamics of the races have not changed, our opponents are generally very vulnerable, and it's a matter of picking them all off.

I always respect Ed Rollins' analysis, if not his politics, and he just said on Lou Dobb's program that he thinks the GOP will retain the House but have a much more difficult time keeping the senate.

I think we'll hear more and more about this as a possibility. On the betting sites the relationship has narrowed. Our House chances have dropped from 55% to 43% on Tradesports while the Senate chances have remained the same at roughly 17%. So this is not considered the favorite but IMO it's now in play. Remember, in 2000 the conventional wisdom was Gore could win the electoral college while losing the popular vote but of course it turned out the other way, via the garbage in Florida.

[Nimrod2005]

27. NY TIMES BREAKING...DEMS CHANCES IMPROVE

Re winning the Senate...Thursday's paper!!!

[TheWraith]

28. I would consider the other way around more likely.

Winning the House, but not the Senate. In the Senate we're limited by the number of races that are up this year (only about a third) and how many of those are relatively noncompetitive. But the entire house is up every two years, of course, so every seat is potentially in play. And with the spike in anti-incumbant sentiment, combined with Bush's low approval and the extent to which the Republican congress has been a rubber stamp for him, the odds are pretty good for the House.

[Nye Bevan]

32. Very unlikely

If we win the senate then things have gone so well for us that we will almost certainly also win the house.

Much more likely that we will win the house but not the senate.