The US elections in November, 2010.

[Robert_S]

All I know is I'd be more than happy to be singing this again instead of having Meg Whitman in office.

Sorry, I compulsively post this video on the slightest provocation.



Carry on.

[Posse Comitatus]

Makes me feel lucky to live in a country where party policy is virtually interchangeable (the main difference when one exists being language used to frame policy decisions rather than the actual policy itself) and all elections are fought on the centreground, the party staking the most convincing claim to it being, as a general rule, the one that wins.

It's not exciting, not very glamourous and there's very rarely a clear choice, (the last truly decisive election that genuinely did change the direction of British political history forever IMO being 1979, and before that 1945), but by (figurative) god it's comforting.

[Ian]

Makes me feel lucky to live in a country where party policy is virtually interchangeable (the main difference when one exists being language used to frame policy decisions rather than the actual policy itself) and all elections are fought on the centreground, the party staking the most convincing claim to it being, as a general rule, the one that wins.

It used to be that way here, for the most part. 2008 was arguably something of a return to the older ways, but 2000 and 2004 were not too much about the middle ground. I lay the blame squarely at Karl Rove's* feet, who went for a "rally the base" strategy over a "win the middle" strategy.

(Karl Rove, aka "the Architect" aka "Turd Blossom" aka "Bush's Brain", was George W. Bush's chief demographer and political strategist)

[Posse Comitatus]

It used to be that way here, for the most part. 2008 was arguably something of a return to the older ways, but 2000 and 2004 were not too much about the middle ground. I lay the blame squarely at Karl Rove's* feet, who went for a "rally the bas

Perhaps. Even so, the US understanding of middle-ground bares little relation to UK middle-ground, either seeming to the other probably really rather extreme. I look over there and feel an undeniable surge of pride because it's just that they all look so insane.

You have Sarah Palin, we get, at very worst, Widdecombe (who incidentally could never, ever have come even close to a leadership contender). They have Beck and Limbaugh, we have umm... Adam Boulton.

It sounds like I'm being horribly dismissive of the US. I probably am. I'm sure however the feeling is (or at least would be) mutual, though I do doubt that most US voters have no idea where our parties stand in relation to theirs, (Conervapedia for example during the election was singing the praises of David Cameron, and in the process of doing so demonstrated a utter inability to grasp exactly what he stands for- which in most cases are far to the left of Obama or the mainstream democratic party, who Conservapedia and others regularly denounce as anathema to everything they stand for).

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama - not helping: http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

52% now disapprove of his job performance.

Voter enthusiasm highest among conservative Republicans: http://www.gallup.com/video/142211/Vote ... icans.aspx

Republicans continue to lead Democrats in midterm voting preferences for the U.S. House, and the GOP's current 50% to 43% advantage among registered voters is the largest Gallup has measured to date in its weekly tracking of the 2010 vote.

Independent voters favoring GOP: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141086/Indep ... cking.aspx

[Warren Dew]

The Senate currently has 48 Democrats + 2 "Independents" (Lieberman, conservative democrat - and Sanders, socialist) who "caucus" with the Democrats, and 49 Republicans.

Slight correction: the senate has 58 Democrats and 40 Republicans. Edit: doh, 57 and 41.

I think the Republicans will make gains in both houses - a fairly safe prediction given that the President's party almost always loses seats in off years. They will not gain a majority in the Senate, but will gain enough seats that filibusters will be much harder to break, which will herald a return to bipartisanship in the Senate. That's a good thing if it means laws become more moderate; it's a bad thing if the compromises are done by giving more pork to both sides.

In the House, where all the seats are up rather than just a third of them, Republicans might regain control. I give it about a 50% chance.

[Coito ergo sum]

Edit OP - Revised

What do you think will happen in what we in the US call the "mid-term" elections?

For those that aren't too familiar with the system, the US Congress is broken up into two halves, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. The House of Representatives contains 435 members who represent "districts" within the state. Districts change from time-to-time as populations shift, because the number of representatives in a state is proportional to its population. California has a lot of representatives in the House, because it has lots of people. Wyoming only has one representative for the whole state, because they have such a low population.

The Senators technically represent "the State" that elects them. Each state has two Senators, regardless of the population of that state, for a total of 100 Senators. The Vice President serves as President of the Senate and breaks tie votes.

Each half of the Congress has theoretically equal power. Proposed laws must pass in both the House and the Senate to become law.

Senators serve 6 year terms. Representatives serve 2 year terms. 36 of the 100 Senate seats are up for reelection in November, 2010. All 435 seats of the House of Representatives are up for grabs.

EDITED: The Senate currently has 57 Democrats + 2 "Independents" (Lieberman, conservative democrat - and Sanders, socialist) who "caucus" with the Democrats, and 41 Republicans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_Unit ... s_Congress

The House has 235 Democrats and 198 Republicans.

So, what are the predictions? Will the House change hands? The Senate?

[Coito ergo sum]

The Senate currently has 48 Democrats + 2 "Independents" (Lieberman, conservative democrat - and Sanders, socialist) who "caucus" with the Democrats, and 49 Republicans.

Slight correction: the senate has 58 Democrats and 40 Republicans.

I think the Republicans will make gains in both houses - a fairly safe prediction given that the President's party almost always loses seats in off years. They will not gain a majority in the Senate, but will gain enough seats that filibusters will be much harder to break, which will herald a return to bipartisanship in the Senate. That's a good thing if it means laws become more moderate; it's a bad thing if the compromises are done by giving more pork to both sides.

In the House, where all the seats are up rather than just a third of them, Republicans might regain control. I give it about a 50% chance.

Good call - I screwed that up.

[Warren Dew]

Good call - I screwed that up.

Heh, so did I. And I'm from the state where that critical 41st Republican was elected.

[Warren Dew]

No argument can be made that the economy is back. An argument can be made that the economy bottomed out and is turning around. But, to suggest that it is "back" is just ludicrous.

An argument can be made that "this is as good as it gets", though.

[Coito ergo sum]

“Democrats kept thinking: ‘We’re going to get better. We’re going to get well before the election,’” said one of Washington’s best-connected Democrats. “But as of this week, you now have people saying that Republicans are going to win the House. And now it’s starting to look like the Senate is going to be a lot closer than people thought.”

A Democratic pollster working on several key races said, “The reality is that [the House majority] is probably gone.” His data shows the Democrats’ problems are only getting worse. “It’s spreading,” the pollster said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/08 ... z0xiWnPyqW

They had hoped Obama’s popularity – and appeal with base voters and donors – would help at the edges. “The concern I have is that the president is doing poorly in places you need him to perform strongly with your base,” a state party chair told POLITICO. “You need to have confidence in your leader.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/08 ... z0xiXWScry

Several House Democratic sources said they are furious with the White House for keeping the debate over a New York mosque in play for two weeks – and then announcing Obama will use a prime-time address next week to discuss Iraq, not the economy. By the calculations of House Democrats, this means that by Labor Day they will have spent nearly nine weeks this summer beating back negative or unhelpful story lines instigated, in part or in total, by the White House.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/08 ... z0xiXhGUMd

Indiana Rep. Joe Donnelly, a second-term congressman from South Bend, is airing a new TV ad in his South Bend-area district pointing out that he voted against “Nancy Pelosi’s energy tax on Hoosier families.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/08 ... z0xiXwfWoy

It’s a spot that is strikingly similar to one Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Altmire is running, which features supporters praising the second-term Democrat for “stand[ing] up” to Obama and Pelosi.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/08 ... z0xiY5TYTc

[drl2]

It will be interesting to see what happens on the republican side when the dust settles after the primaries... how many only-kind-of-crazy candidates will win out over their Tea-Party-Approved certifiably batshit opponents, and will the tea party folks be willing to back the "not conservative enough" candidates in November with any kind of enthusiasm?

[Coito ergo sum]

Democrats face mid-term meltdown: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/44d4b1c4-b52f ... abdc0.html

[Coito ergo sum]

GOP to take House, maybe Senate in November: http://politics.usnews.com/news/washing ... ction.html

[drl2]

I'd have posted those last two links in the "financial meltdown" thread.