"Republicans likely to retain congress"

[PROGRESSIVE1]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=LON2DNUKWZIQOCRBAE0CFEY?type=domesticNews&storyID=6397453&pageNumber=0

-snip-

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Though polls show many Americans are unhappy with the direction of the nation, they seem likely in the Nov. 2 elections to keep Republicans in control of the U.S. Congress.

If Republicans hold on, they will have a major say in determining what the winner of the White House race -- Republican incumbent George W. Bush or Democrat John Kerry -- can or cannot do in the next four years.

For months, Democrats on Capitol Hill have been encouraged by surveys that show a deeply divided electorate -- troubled by the war in Iraq, rising health care costs and the economy -- believes the nation is on "the wrong track."

But other facts and figures, such as the power of incumbency and the relatively few competitive races, indicate Republicans are likely to hold onto their slim majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

I find this hard to believe. Democrats are in a very good position to take back the Senate.

[Ravenseye]

1. Dems may get Senate...

...but it's highly unlikely they'll get the congress. What, with all the redistricting fiascos, it might be a long time before we see the Dems take back the House.

Even winning back the Senate is going to be tough, but it can be done.

The most important thing though, I still think, is to get the presidency for at least 8 years, which will give us a chance to make sure the Supreme Court stays away from becoming an even more radical body.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. But we need one house of Congress. Without that, the Rethugs will....

have alot of power to destroy Kerry. They will try to "Clinton" him with investigations.

We need to work on the Senate.

[kentuck]

4. I'd say we have a good shot at Senate seats in IL, OK, and CO....

that are presently in Repub hands. If we could win those three and not lose any of our own, we would have the Senate. Seems very possible to me.

[mahina]

6. Not today baby...

nope.
That's what they are so freaked about, the Senate investigations that are around the corner. Let's see...Florida voting fraud, energy fraud, bogus war...they'll wish they were never born.
Not that I'm bitter. :)

[tech3149]

10. Don't discount a blowout

If the vote is a MAJOR majority (as I think it may be), we can lean on congresscritters. They can't get elected without votes. If they know the voters they rely on are paying attention, they'll turn around.

[RoyGBiv]

3. Sez Who ...

From electoral-vote.com

"If the Senate election were held today, the Democrats would take control of the Senate, 52-48 (counting independent Sen. Jeffords as a Democrat, since he caucuses with the Democrats). And this realignment does not take into account the possibility that Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) might pull a Jeffords and jump ship. He is from a hugely Democratic state and, like Zell Miller, would be much more appreciated in the other party. The only reason Chafee hasn't switched is out of a sense of duty to his late father, John Chafee, who was a respected Republican senator from RI. Here is the current polls. For more details about the individual races, see the Senate page."

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. Thanks for the encouragement. I see Democrats taking Ill, Alaksa, CO,

and loosing Georgia. Oklahoma is a bit harder, but it may be doable.

[RoyGBiv]

7. Carson is running ahead ...

It will be close, but Coburn's been taking a lot of shots lately that he's not been able to answer well.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

8. How is Carson a candidate? When everything is said, does...

Carson seem like someone that Oklahoma would elect?

[RoyGBiv]

9. Oklahoma ...

Yeah, he's someone "Oklahoma" would elect. He wouldn't get through a Democratic primary in Massachusetts or probably New York or most parts of California.

He's working the populist angle very well while at the same time being more "Republican" than the Republican candidate. The latter part is what I, personally, don't like about him or his campaign, but I try to maintain a practical perspective. If he ran on the platform I wanted, he wouldn't have made it out of the primary here.

His key will be building enough support in OKC and Tulsa so that the Republican vote there doesn't overwhelm the less populated parts of the state. That's what his campaign is trying to do now. He'll lose the OKC metro area, which accounts for at least four counties, but if he doesn't lose them by too much, he has enough support in the east and SE that he can get by. He is strongest with farmers and blue collar workers, and he's taken a position, again that I don't like, on so-called "moral" questions that doesn't negate this.

Coburn's only advantage is that he's Coburn, a folksy "country doctor" type image that really did very little while he was a Rep and so didn't piss anyone off. But, he's got some major negatives, some controversial statements on what should be done with doctors who perform abortions and his sterilizing poor young women without their consent.