With a Democratic Majority arising in both houses of Congress following the concession of Virginia Senator George Allen, many are wondering what this means for the Democratic Party. After all, through the last days of the campaign, Bush was on the defensive in red states- campaigning for Republicans who, under different circumstances, wouldn’t have had a problem winning. Bush campaigned in the Bible Belt, the Midwest and through the Old West, ensuring that the Republican turnout was sufficient enough for the GOP candidate to resist prevailing winds. This did not happen.

Not a single Democratic incumbent lost their reelection bid. In a country where the average incumbency rate is 96%, this last election saw tidal wave of new Democrats into the House and Senate- with a rate of about 93%. More people turned out for this midterm than any other in our nation’s history, and likewise, more money was spent in this midterm election, than in any others past.

It is amazing how the American people can essentially flush the toilet on corruption and Republican domination given these unprecedented facts. But were the new Democrats who were elected to the U.S. House & Senate necessarily “liberal?” I know Chairman Howard Dean would disagree when I suggest no.

The Democrats were on the offensive- plain and simple. The Republicans lost in districts, which before 2006 would have been considered strongholds. Fortunately, the circumstances regarding the unpopularity of a certain president shifted the tide of American thinking- and those Democrats who were once ignored in their congressional districts- were suddenly given a fair shake. As a result, in order to be competitive in their conservative districts, candidates were more moderate, and “Democrat-in-name” only. Sure, they support Medicare, Medicaid, affordable college tuition, and a potential rise in the minimum wage, but they aren’t proponents of social liberalism (gay marriage, abortion, or gun control.) They were strong on government helping people economically, while using the President and his ongoing War in Iraq to their every possible benefit. It was this strategy, coupled with Republican unpopularity that swept Democrats into the House of Representatives in districts where they never thought possible.

Now that DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel’s (D-IL) strategy worked, how will this play for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)? It is inconceivable that the Democrats wouldn’t try to push their agenda despite a Republican president, but would these new Conservative Democrats vote with the Democrats?

For instance, Jon Tester (D-MT) is Senator-Elect from Montana. I personally, love Tester’s genuineness. He’s a farmer from rural Big Sandy. He does like Washington lobbyists, nor resemble the stereotypical senator. He is a conservative in many respects, and opposed to gun control, gay marriage, and wants to keep abortion “legal, safe and rare.” By all accounts Jon Tester is emblematic of that rugged countryman, who works hard on his farm and knows the value of real hard labor; it appears his values match our conception. He supports helping the middle class, and finding an exit strategy in Iraq. However, he may be a senator whose votes will not always coincide with his party- and over the question of whether or not he’ll be a liberal Democrat is answered with a resounding no. He is a Montanan, and Montanans are fairly conservative people. He will represent his new conservative constituents, and if the Democrats are lucky- party lines.

This is true for so many Democrats who got swept up in the tidal wave of November 7th, 2006. With a new 230-some Democratic majority, there will need to be sufficient members who will vote with the majority. If anything on social issues, Republicans are benefited, and subsequently, Democrats will avoid controversial social issues. The main prospects these next two years will be on Iraq, the economy and securing America. This is how the Dems will maintain their majority, and this is how they will get bills through Congress. In 2008, all those districts where the Democrats got swept in by popular current will be prime territory to Republican attacks given their conservative nature. Hopefully, the forces of good will are able to prevail over the forces of Rove-evil, and keep the Reps on the defensive.

Congressman Emanuel, recognize that we have a new wing to our party- a conservative wing- and aid them in 2008 by avoiding bills that will be controversial in their reelection bids. I hate suggesting the delay of government action on the account of politics- but in 2008 Republicans will be on the run for several of their senate seats- and I am only thinking of what is good for my party, and within that dream, America.

Slaughtered. This is the adjective best to describe the Republican majority last Tuesday night. In just one day the twelve-year Republican majority in Congress evaporated in American anger and discontent with the War in Iraq.

Reports CNN, when voters went to the polls they had two issues on their mind: Congressional corruption and the War in Iraq. It’s no wonder then that the “big tent party” of conservative values collapsed in an election landslide that is only preceded by a Democratic nightmare in 1994. Many Democrats, such as Paul Begala and James Carville, recall waking up the morning after and having a terrible feeling in the pit of their stomachs. Their versatile reaction the day after was vindicated by twelve-years of Republican dominance that proved GOP politics a failure.

So Americans vested the Democratic Party with the responsibility to fix this nation. While my happiness is indescribable, I fear that the Dems may not be able to make good on this promise. After all, we do have an idiot Republican President whose agenda under a united government was faulty at best. How can we expect them to increase the minimum wage, deliver employee benefits, push liberal social concerns or pull our troops from Iraq when we have an executive who is fundamentally against these policies? Simply put, it is impossible.

I don’t expect much from the Democratic Congress in these next two years. The only thing I do expect is that they use legislative power to call hearings on executive power. Aside from next February’s vote to confirm now U.S. Ambassador Jon Bolton, the Democrats will be incapable of asserting a comprehensive legislative agenda and flexing their political muscle. The political love fest we’re seeing in Washington only is a demonstration of bipartisan cooperation to prep for 2008. It also serves to ease the minds of Americans who think, rightly, that we will have another “do-nothing” Congress.

I will not argue that no major bills will pass their way through the 110th Congress, but I will argue that it will be far and few. Illegal immigration is an issue for this president where he wants to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. They passed such a law before Congress recessed, but Democratic representatives are already threatening to reverse it. This week the president approved of a Blue Ribbon Committee that would provide new suggestions for the U.S. strategy in Iraq, and while the results of that committee are unforeseen, it will prove one thing- “how will the Democrats and Republicans work under divided government?”

Congress will continue to bring home the bacon. By this I mean “pork-barrel” spending as it’s commonly called. When it comes to the 2008 election, representatives will want to tout the preservation of a military base, or the new seacoast of federally funded/created beaches that line their distinct. These are things Congressmen campaign on; so to say that it will “do nothing” is inaccurate. Congress will continue to look out for their interests (like getting reelected), but when it comes to the bread and butter issues of the economy, or the War in Iraq- there will be little done by a Democratic majority. Only bills that promise to deliver for Congressmen will be up for consideration, and maybe a bill here and there to make it looks like the Dems and the Reps are acting bipartisan will attempt to reestablish a connection with America.

It will be a great run, but interesting nonetheless.

For Democrats, the stakes are high. Many would argue too high, and if the Democrats perform less-than-expected this evening it will come as a major disappointment. Tonight, the Democrats are anticipating taking control of the United States’ House of Representatives, but the Senate remains in a plethora of possibilities.

If the Democrats seize control of even one house of Congress, it will be a huge policy blow to a Bush administration that has had six years to pass an agenda through a united government. Nothing has passed except a war that has cost millions of dollars, and no end in sight. Social Security privatization, immigration reform, and the president’s plan for lower taxes are among the plethora of items the president and his party has failed to pass through Congress. The religious right is disillusioned; the Bush administration has not been successful at passing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage- nor has any action been taken on Roe v. Wade. Fiscal conservatives are disillusioned; this administration has created the largest deficit in US history after inheriting an economy with a substantially low deficit. The main problem for fiscal conservatives: healthcare reform. The Bush Administration has passed the largest healthcare reform measure in US history, and fiscal conservatives are furious with President Bush’s large government strategy. But most visibly upset in this election- moderate Republicans. Bush’s positions on the Iraq War, gay marriage and concession to hard-line elements within the Republican Party disillusioned many, and caused concern among Republican congressmen who are relying on high voter turnout to be reelected.

The Republicans are disillusioned and Democrats are energized. Sensing the great possibility of recapturing both houses- Democrats have mobilized their forces across several battleground districts. What is unique to this election? The districts the Democrats are prepared to take over are primarily conservative constituencies- indicating Republican voters have had enough. Republicans are scrambling forces across solid red states- places where they thought they were most safe. These places include senatorial campaigns in Virginia, Missouri and Tennessee with congressional campaigns in northern Florida, Nebraska and all across the Bible Belt. Liberal Republicans are about to take a hard hit, as Northeast Republicans prepare for the toughest reelection campaign in their careers. Sen. Lincoln Chaffe (R-RI) is a perfect example; Chaffee voted against Bush in 2004, does not follows the Republican agenda, and is about to be unseated for his mere association with the Republican Party. It appears the Democrats have Liberal Republicans on the run.

This election has many analysts with high expectations for the Democrats- and should they fail to meet those expectations, it will come as a major disappointment. I have made my predictions, and I hold to them. As of right now, Virginia and Missouri remain battleground states for the US Senate. The only factor left out of my predictions was the voter turnout rate; when polls are conducted there is no way to determine if everyone surveyed will actually turn out to vote. Therefore, the polls do not reflect the actual election results. A lot of what Republicans and Democrats will be battling over today will be getting out the vote.

Today is Armageddon in Washington. Just watch as the firestorm begins- Live starting at 8:00 PM EST. It will be a good one.

It’s time to state the obvious: the Republicans screwed up. As a result, the effects on the U.S. Senate will be something like this:
There are 100 Seats in the U.S. Senate
- Currently: 55 Republicans / 44 Democrats / 1 Independent (retiring)
- Democrats need at least 7 seats to regain control of the US Senate
- 33 Seats are Open in 2006
- 18 Safe Democratic Seats
+ 4 Republican Seats
+ 1 Independent Seat
= 23 Democratic Seats
- 9 Safe Republican Seats
- 2 Tossup
- 26 Democratic Seats not open + 23 = 49
- 40 Republican Seats not open + 9 = 49
Missouri and Virginia to decide balance of power

PENNSYLVANIA: DEMOCRATIC PICKUP
Senator Rick Santorum has been trailing in the polls for the past several weeks. As of right now, he’s still trailing Democratic challenger Jon Casey 9 to 15 points. Sorry Santorum, you’re gone.

RHODE ISLAND: DEMOCRATIC PICKUP
I didn’t illuminate it as one of the “eight races that will change America” because Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee has been performing miserably. Compared with Democratic challenger Sheldon Whitehouse, he’s been trailing anywhere between 10 and 13 points in America’s smallest state. It’s unfortunate for Chaffee, because he was among the most liberal senators in Congress, but Rhode Island is prepared to throw him out.

MONTANA: DEMOCRATIC PICKUP
Jon Tester has had a lead on Conrad Burns for months. Acknowledged, Burns has been catching up to Tester in recent weeks- be he maintains between a 5 and 6 percent lead going into Election Weekend. Last week, Burns appeared with Vice President Dick Cheney at a rally- because Cheney’s approval ratings are lower than the president’s, it’s unforeseen whether or not this strategy will hurt the incumbent senator, or drive out the Republican vote. Nevertheless, Tester has the advantage.

OHIO: DEMOCRATIC PICKUP
The Republican Party is part of the reason why incumbent Mike DeWine is going to lose. Since he started slipping in the polls, the RNC has stripped him of his funding, and diverted it to Missouri and Virginia. As a result, Sherrod Brown has an eleven-point advantage going into Election Weekend.

MARYLAND: DEMOCRATIC HOLD
It was long thought that the Republicans can pickup Maryland. They after all run a masterful campaign with African-American liberal Republican Michael Steele, however many in the RNC underestimated how liberal Maryland really is. Going into Election Weekend, Steele trails Democrat Ben Cardin between 5 and 7 points.

NEW JERSEY: DEMOCRATIC HOLD
Like Maryland, Republicans thought they could swipe New Jersey from the Democratic column; how wrong they were. New Jersey does have a liberal population but an unpopular Democratic governor led the Republicans astray. Democratic Senator Bob Menendez quelled the Republican revolution and will hold his seat against Republican Thomas Kean since he leads going into Election Weekend between 6 and 7 points.

TENNESSEE: REPUBLICAN HOLD
The Democrats and the Republicans have spent a ton of money in Tennessee. Before 2006, Republican senatorial candidate Bob Corker was a virtual unknown throughout the state. His political experience was only being the mayor of Chattanooga, but the national Republican Party has elevated him above Democratic Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. Ford’s campaign has been based on Christian values- making him a conservative Democrat in a staunchly Republican state. While Ford ran a fantastic campaign, and put up a great challenge in Tennessee, polls indicate that in the race’s final stretch, Ford is trailing Republican Corker 5 to 6 points.

Like Virginia, Missouri is an intensely close race. Three-term Republican incumbent Jim Talent is fighting for his political life against Missouri State Auditor and Democrat Claire McCaskill. McCaskill is not a novice to Missouri politics; she lost a primary battle against the Democratic governor in 2004, and has since has served as the auditor of the state. Unlike Virginia, the political mud slinging hasn’t been as profound, but this is not to say that Democrats and Republicans haven’t poured millions into this crucial race.

Democrats believe that Talent is vulnerable. Polls justify this assumption as since September of 2005 when McCaskill entered the race- polls have shown each with remarkably close numbers (often within 2-4 points of one another). Now in November of 2006, it seems that McCaskill is polling no differently than she was last year at this time; last November a Rasmussen poll showed McCaskill with 47% of the vote, as opposed to Talent’s 45%. The most recent Rasmussen poll of October 30 has Talent trailing McCaskill 48-47%.

The very fact that polling agencies have been monitoring this election is evidence of how long Democrats have sensed Talent’s vulnerability. One would assume that Talent would have understood this last year, and subsequently have taken more moderate stances on the issues in order to swing moderate votes. Instead, he voted for legislation banning stem cell research, and against a raise in the federal minimum wage. Talent’s opposition to these issues may hurt him at the ballot box, as both are regarded as Propositions A & B in a Missouri referendum.

Talent in recent days has received tremendous support from the National Republican Party. Despite his remarkably low approval rating, President George W. Bush appeared with Talent just this morning in an effort to drive the Republican support on Election Day. The Democrats have responded by flooding Missouri with their resources as well, but given the unpopularity of the Republican Congress, their need to project their message has been replaced by a simple disdain of the status quo.

Missouri is one of the few states where stem cell research has taken center stage; actor and Parkinson’s disease sufferer Michael J. Fox aired in a campaign commercial criticizing Senator Talent for opposing federally funded research. The Republicans remained quiet regarding the commercial, but conservative talk-show radio host Rush Limbaugh described Fox’s movements during the ad as “[…] exaggerating the effects of the disease […]” Limbaugh later apologized while adding that “When you wade into political life you have every right to say what you want, but you cannot in turn argue that no one has the right to take you on.”

Whatever the impact single issues will play November 7th, I find it remarkable that presently Senator Talent has a warchest of $19,602,725 plus $6,921,577 of his personal finances to run his campaign as opposed to McCaskill’s $4,572,707 campaign dollars and only $2,684,766 of personal finances. Talent has outspent McCaskill, and despite the amount of money he’s spending to keep his seat, the race has only been within one or two points of each candidate. Missouri is as good as a coin toss- heads or tails folks- and we’ll see on Nov. 7th since it’s definitely a battleground state for control of the US Senate

The race in Virginia is an insane contest of mudslinging and name-calling. It is without a doubt one of the most contested races in the nation, with Republican incumbent Senator George Allen fighting for his political life against former Secretary of Navy and writer, Democratic challenger Jim Webb.

It is difficult to even describe the insanity of this race. Perhaps this quote is a good place to start:
This fellow here over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. He’s with my opponent. He’s following us around everywhere. And it’s just great. We’re going to places all over Virginia, and he’s having it on film and it’s great to have you here and you show it to your opponent because he’s never been there and probably will never come. [...] Let’s give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia

This is but one aspect of this race that is so profoundly nuts. During a speech before an RNC crowd, Senator Allen pointed out a Webb campaign staff member who was monitoring the Allen campaign. The guy’s name was Sidrath; he was an African-American man who wore a baseball cap and had a Mohawk. Reports from the Allen campaign in the subsequent days of his remarks explained that Allen got the word “macaca” from his staff. Evidently, in Tunisian francophone culture “macaca” refers to a monkey and it happened to be that Sidrath was French Tunisian. Allen responded by saying that the word must have morphed among his staff members from “Mohawk” to “macaca”- but the press did not buy it. In the following week after the controversy, Allen apologized on numerous occasions even calling Sidrath to apologize in person. Webb’s campaign responded by labeling him as a racist.

This is not to say that Webb has a monopoly on mudslinging. Allen’s campaign recovered some excerpts from several of Webb’s published works that seem to be suggestive in nature and reveal his position on woman in combat operations written during his time as a navy officer. Webb responded to the “suggestive passages” by saying that they were real-life occurrences that he was documenting as a writer while serving in the armed forces. (Some of his passages contained such demoralizing acts as sodomey of a father and a son, among others.) His response to memos regarding woman in the military was the he simply participated in a navy discussion at that time about woman. Webb reemphasizes that this does not currently represent his opinion of woman in the military. Allen labeled him a sexist.

Webb has painted Allen as racist, a proponent of big business and a proxy of special interests. Allen has painted Webb as immoral, sexist and crude. Nothing has been left unsaid- from Allen’s alleged racial slurs in college to his religious affiliation.

Dead Heat
It shouldn’t be a surprise that this race is tied. There is no definitive poll that shows either of them outside of the margin of error. www.electoral-vote.com within the past week has been calling Virginia interchangeably for Webb and Allen since many polls throughout October show a dead-heat for the senate seat. The most recent poll has Webb slightly ahead by 1%, 48-47. Virginia is a state that Democrats feel is vulnerable, and consequently has dumped millions of dollars into Webb’s campaign. Allen likewise has been receiving tremendous support form the RNC for his endeavor to keep his seat. Where Ohio was the tossup state that determined the control of the presidency in 2004, Virginia may very well be that state for the US Senate in 2006. It will be interesting to watch this race evolve as we get within days of the election.

It’s long been referred to as a microcosm of American society. When we look at the State of Ohio, we see that it’s long been a battleground for the political parties. Its people have been an unpredictable pain for pollsters and the parties alike. This election however, offers a welcome change. Ohio is considered by some to be a competitive senate race, though many have already called it for Congressman and Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown.

Republican incumbent Michael DeWine is in the fight for his life. A recent Rasmussen poll puts Brown ahead of DeWine 54% to 42%. Other estimates show Brown’s lead over the incumbent senator between eight and fifteen points. It’s a no brainier than that the Republican Party has conceded this race by diverting funding to other more contested national races. Reports Adam Nagourney of the New York Times on Oct. 16, “[…] top Republican party officials on the national level have determined that DeWine will probably be defeated […]”

Democrats are dead set on Ohio delivering one extra seat into their possible majority on the 7th of November.

Republican incumbent Conrad Burns has been labeled the second most vulnerable senator in Congress (next to Santorum). However, if polling is any indication of a candidate’s performance, Burns has been performing much better than previously thought. Just a few weeks ago polls across Montana indicated that Burns trailed Democratic challenger Jon Tester by 10 points. Now, a recent Rasmussen poll of October 26 puts Burns trailing only 4 points 47% to 51%.

No Democrat or Republican thought Montana would be in play, but it is. Traditionally, we’ve often considered it to be part of the “grand ol’conservative west” because of its rugged lifestyle and rural pastures. Demographically, Democrats have preformed terribly in rural areas, which comes to many as a surprise that Montana is actually a swing state. It was only Bill Clinton who could last pull off a victory here in 1996 (but remember that Clinton beat Dole by a large margin). So what Democrat has the moxy to swing Montana? Jon Tester.

Jon Tester is the current President of the Montana State Senate. Born in Big Sandy, Montana, he earned his Bachelor’s Degree in music from the University of Great Falls. Many distinguish Tester from his haircut, or missing three fingers and his image conjures that of the tough woodsman.

Tester’s campaign in Montana has been successful firstly just because of that image. When you look at Tester you think of a person who is all but a U.S. Senator, and his campaign has even made a slogan of it, “Shouldn’t the Senate look a little bit more like Montana?” Secondly, he has run a common sense campaign painting Burns as “out of touch with Montana.” This is poison; Montana preserves a whole culture that is separate from the country. It is isolated in many regards, explains Governor Brian Schweitzer on CNN, “We don’t bring big name politicians up here namely because they don’t understand Montana and Montana doesn’t understand them.” So it is easy to see how Tester’s campaign can be so successful when Burns was connected with the Abramoff Scandal (Burns did after all take Abramoff’s money).

Finally, Tester is successful because of his positions. Like other Democrats in this election cycle, he is taking more mainstream views, and reconciling his beliefs with those of Montanans. For abortion, Tester is pro-choice but his campaign website states that it should be kept, “legal, safe and rare.” He is a proponent of alternative energy, a critic of Iraq, and against the Bush Administration. It will be interesting to see if Burns can catch up more in the coming week- but given the momentum of Tester’s campaign, I definitely see Burns retiring to his Helena ranch for a long winter.

This will without a doubt be a close race. Current projections put Tennessee in Republican Bob Corker’s column however his lead is slim (within the margin of error in fact). A current Rasmussen poll puts Corker at 47% and Ford at 45%. Unfortunately, the tricky part about polling is that you never know which poll is most accurate; some have Ford ahead by as much as 9 points, others have Corker demonstrating the same lead. The brunt of these polling results has been in the middle, with Ford and Corker between 3 to 5 percent of one another. Indeed, Tennessee is actually in play for the Democrats, and some are asking, “How?”

First consider the State of Tennessee and than the candidates’ stances on the issues. Corker is a traditional conservative with basic values that match Tennessee’s conservative culture. Likewise, Ford is a conservative Democrat with conservative social positions and liberal economic ones. It has only been through his centrist campaign that he has been able to appeal to Tennessee voters (lets admit that a traditional liberal couldn’t otherwise win in Tennessee). I was watching CNN the other night and Ford appeared on the Situation Room to defend his campaign. While listening to him I wouldn’t have otherwise known he was a Democrat had the little “(D)” not appeared on the bottom of the screen. Ford discussed how he uses his faith to guide his personal beliefs and morals. As a result, he’s against gay marriage, euthanasia and “after witnessing something several years ago” partial birth/late term abortion. He even went as far to say he was a “follower of Jesus”; something that would be shunned in any liberal culture but is respected in Tennessee.

I do wonder how he would be as a U.S. Senator? How would a Democrat from a fiercely Republican state vote on the Senate floor? I mean if the Democrats do regain control of both houses, would they be able to count on Ford’s vote when pushing their agenda? It’s an interesting question- and it further fascinates me that just six years ago he contested Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic Minority position. I suppose he is loyal to his party, and if anything he would be a centrist, independent voice in the U.S. Senate

Interestingly, Corker is refusing to debate him. In a Corker press conference just a few weeks ago Ford showed up and challenged his opponent to a debate. Many in Tennessee criticized him for “unstatesman-like” activity, but you know what, he has balls and I praise him for doing something so gutsy. It is stupid for Corker’s campaign not to agree to a debate; what do they want to accomplish? Deny the voter the opportunity to hear two people in a forum of open ideas? Not draw the distinctions between the two candidates? Perhaps Corker’s campaign is compensating for Corker being weak on the issues. After all, it doesn’t even make strategic sense. In Pennsylvania, Casey isn’t debating Santorum because Casey has nothing to gain (he’s up 9-15%). Corker is neck and neck- and in an election you should be willing to do anything to get elected. How dare the Republicans pounce on Ford’s character? How dare they distract voters from the issues? Tennessee ladies and gentleman: a state where Corker wants to spew smack, and Ford wants to talk to issues.