Riley and all,

I hope you are right but it looks closer than that!

Senate Dems 52 (with independent)  Reps 48

House   Dems 220 Reps 215

Cook now has the Dems at 217!

That said, I’m much more interested in the local races.

Bob Aegerter

I think the Dems will keep both the House and the Senate.  By how much is a tossup and trying to parse the field at this time is much akin to debating the number of angels on the head of a pin (and equally painful mentally).  😊

The Republicans will control the house.
(A younger Republican, will run for the Speaker’s position, against Boehner)

Neither party will control the Senate.

The Senate will be controlled by a small group
(counted on one hand), of independently minded Senators.

The Tea Party core principles will take over the
Republican Party, and the old Republican leaders
will be put out to pasture by a younger crowd.

The Tea Party will refine its core complaints and mission.

The Tea Party will offer up its solutions to “fix” this countries political problems.

The Tea Party solutions will involve Constitutional
Amendments for the following:

1) Term limits
2) Getting the money out of politics (public campaign
  finance)
3) Balanced budget

Tea Party Candidates will have to sign a pledge,
including those elected this cycle.

Government employee unions,big corporations, party hacks,
professional politicians, and a cadre of folks who make
a living off getting money from government in one fashion
or another, will find themselves allies in a pitched
battle against the common citizen;

Citizens well educated in the principles of our
government, and energized by an economy completely moribund, and no real hope in sight that government has either the
will, or the competence to change.

The American economy will have rebounded ever so
slightly with official unemployment hovering around
9% and the unoffical unemployment hovering around 16%.

Unemployment insurance will be extended to 200 weeks.

The Tea Party movement will continue to dominate
American politics through the 2012 Presidential and CONGRESSIONAL RACE. (The capitals are intentional,
because the Tea Party members are really reading the Constitution, and have discovered the importance of
the 2012 Senate races)

Great Britain will be enjoying an economic rebound
secured by cutting the size and burden of government,
while the White House will still be talking about
another stimulus, and stuck at high levels of
unemployment.

Paul Krugman the Nobel Prize winning journalist for the
New York Times will be fired, his job outsourced
overseas to a economist from India.

Paul Krugman will land on his feet as the “Stimulus Czar” for the Pike Administration, as it is forced to come up with
the third plan to revitalize the waterfront.

Krugman’s new plan for the Waterfront includes the Salish University, which specializes in social justice, as its
anchor tenant.

Huxley College formally changes its’ name to Salish
College.

Mayor Pike travels to Salish College to cut the ribbon,

and

look for money.

Costco declines to become a corporate sponsor for Salish College.

The American public will increasingly see government “stimulus” programs as a naked and desparate move
for those governing to stay in power.

President Obama will face a primary challenge from Hillary Clinton.

Obama loses, and so do the Democrats.

Democrats blame losses on a; “Failure to communicate” effectively.

Nancy Pelosi retires, and joins a “Think Tank” at a
reported $1,000,000 salary.

The “New Republican Party” wins a stunning victory,
and purges all the old big spending RINO’s.

Constitutional amendments pass. Unemployment spikes
temporarily, as out of work lobbyists and politicians
hit the streets.

Congress passed bill to not extend unemployment benefits
to out of work lobbyists or politicians.

Hope returns, and Change occurs.

And as the Lummi’s say; “This ain’t no ferry tale”

Doug,

Very humorous.  I especially like the Krugman / Pike connection.

Wouldn?t it be great to have real term limits, genuine campaign finance reform, and a truly balanced budget?  I?d like to be optimistic, but the ultimate catch-22 is the money in politics.

Currently, big money buys virtually every key seat in Congress as well as the White House.  Do BB, TLC and CFR mean anything to you?

If big money owns the majority of Congress AND the White House, how will those people vote against big money?  I?d REALLY like to be optimistic, but I don?t see the majority of Tea Party candidates being independent of big money. 

I can?t say I know a lot about Ron Paul, but his book, ?The Revolution: A Manifesto? is certainly an eye opener.  G. Edward Griffin?s ?The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve? is especially so.

Let?s pray for real campaign finance reform.  If we get that, there may be hope for the rest.

For what its worth, this website is one of the most accurate I’ve seen:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball

SENATE RATINGS
The Crystal Ball predicts a net gain for Republicans of 8-9 seats in the Senate. They must pick up 10 seats to control the majority.

HOUSE RATINGS
The Crystal Ball predicts a net gain for Republicans of 47 seats in the House. They must pick up 39 seats to control the majority.

There are 116 competitive House races as of today. Democrats currently hold 99 House seats that are rated as in play, while the GOP is defending only 17 endangered seats.

GOVERNOR RATINGS
The Crystal Ball predicts a net gain for Republicans of 8 governorships. The currently hold 24 governorships to 26 held by Democrats.

Doug,

I think you are being overly optimistic on the tea party and the Republican party.  So far, the tea party only wants to follow the constitution and balance the budget, they have never even come close to broaching the real issues of term limits and money in politics.  The Republican leadership does not get it and this election is not going to help them get it.  There are still too many people in the tea party and the Republican party that thinks this election is about regime change, and if we simply put the Republicans back in charge everything will be better (it will not). 

In the long term I think you may be right, but what you are talking about is still 4-8 years away.  The fact is that right now neither political party (and I could include the tea party in this statement as well) has a clue how to solve our current problems.  The Republicans ?Contract with America? is woefully short of any substance or anything that suggestions they actually understand the problems.  I have yet to hear a Republican candidate that can articulate anything of substance on how to solve our problems (or even what the real problems are).  Our local Republican candidates continue to tout getting the state out of the liquor business and outsourcing IT as their approach to solving the states problems.  Frankly, those issues do not even make the top 100 problems that need to be dealt with at the state or national level.  The continual call for a balance budget is never followed up with any substance of how they would actually do it (they have no idea).  Under 6 years of Republican leadership under Bush, spending in Washington DC went up dramatically.  Many on the left claim the budget problems caused by the Republicans was caused by the tax cuts, but again, the reality is it was not a revenue issue that caused it, but a spending issue (those same people will continue to lead the Republican party for the next few years).

I suspect that as a society we will have to have a knee jerk reaction and go back to Republican leadership and then sometime in the next decade the people on the right will realize they are as devoid of any ideas and principles just as they currently claim the Democracts are.  I also suspect the only real solutions will have to come through a third party.  I still believe the only way to promote real change in government is for the far-right and far-left to unite.  If the true progressives were to unite with many of the tea party people then you would have enough of a majority to make a difference (I would define the true progressives as those that are currently leading the sustainability efforts, people like Dave Ewoldt who ran for county council when I did and has since moved to Tuscon and is running for the Arizona State Senate as an independent against an incumbent democrat, locally we have David MacLeod, Rick Dubrow, Tom Anderson and many of the founders of Sustainable Bellingham and Transition Whatcom, these are the true progressives).  I have spent enough time with the far-right and far-left to know that they have similar values and concerns and goals and it is not that much of a stretch to get them together.

In terms of predictions, it does not really matter.  Unemployment is going to remain over 8% for at least 5 more years.  Despite all of the talk, the budget deficit will remain over $500billion a year for the foreseeable future because neither party wants to demonstrate the leadership to really fix the financial problems.  Immigration, health care, poverty, housing crisis and many other critical social issues will not see any meaningful reform under either party because they do not know how to solve them and the leadership does not really care, they only care about retaining party power so they will do the bare minimum to do that and engage in a scorched earth policy to keep the other party out of power, which will only further infuriate the electorate and finally open up the possibility of a third party.

Craig,

Thanks for your insights.  Though somber, I find I agree with most.  I believe the bottom line is still money in politics.  There are many good people with many good ideas who don?t support the status quo.  Unfortunately, the status quo is financially backed by big money.  Is it possible that a critical mass of these underfunded potential candidates could get elected and make a difference legislatively?  Do we even have enough time for that?

Thanks especially for the update on Dave Ewoldt, who I greatly respect.  I found his 5-minute You Tube video / interview very enlightening.  Here are links to his video and website if others are interested:

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0ByFt9dTh8

Website:
http://www.daveforarizona.org/

Again, Craig, thanks for taking time to share your thoughts.

Thank you all for your predictions, they really span the whole realm of possibilities here. I can’t wait to see how this all will turn out.

P.S. Vote Jean Melious for County Council

First off, Riley I am definitely voting for Jean Melious. I thiI I think this is the most important race on the ballot.

I think Craig’s comments here are on the money…and money
is what we’re talking about. 

Craig wrote: “If the true progressives were to unite with many of the tea party people then you would have enough of a majority to make a difference (I would define the true progressives as those that are currently leading the sustainability efforts”

Very interesting thought.  A number of progressive thinkers
have acknowledged that tea partiers are angry for good
reason. David Korten, for example, reminds us of what we
have in common: an interest in feeding, housing and clothing ourselves and our families, and in sharing these pleasures with the rest of our community. Korten is autor of “Agenda for
A New Economy” and has an interesting interview on Peak
Moment TV: “Get Rid of the Wall Street Mafia”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BQeIDOX1

Another tip:  I just picked up 2 copies of Kevin Phillips’ 2008 book, “Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism.”  BIG LOTS! next to Albertsons is selling them for $1 each.  Phillips has a giant intellect, and is a former Republican strategist. This looks to be a very good analysis of where our country is today.

Finally, a very interesting perspective from David Holmgren who has a unique grasp on the role of energy in society, politics, economics, and everywhere.  He’s written an interesting essay called “Money Vs. Fossil Energy: The Battle for Control of the World.” 

He writes: “The unfolding climate/energy/economic crisis is heating up a very old rift in global industrial politics. This rift derives from two core beliefs on what constitutes the source of wealth. Does wealth come from human creativity and innovation or is it found in the natural world? Is human capacity the source or a by-product of real power?

I believe two alternative (and mostly complementary) paradigms that are implied by these questions, have shaped the history of the modern world perhaps more so than the Left-Right political ideologies. I characterise these increasingly conflicted paradigms by the following shorthand: faith in wealth and power from ?human brilliance? (meaning ?faith in human brilliance to overcome physical limitations.?) verses faith that wealth and power emerge from control of ?holes in the ground?, ie. physical resources.”

You’ll have to read the essay to really understand where he’s coming from.  A very abridged version is here:
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-08-28/money-vs-fossil-energy-battle-control-world