Washington Post has an excellent map of the races for Senate and House and where the major contests are likely to fall.
The sweep of the House in 1994 by Republicans by a gain of 54 seats demonstrates how fragile the GOP's hold is on the House this November with Democrats only needing 15 seats to take control. Given polls and public sentiment, it is appearing more and more as if a number of incumbents will be getting the boot in November, IF voters turn out to vote.
Stephanie Crist said at :
5:24 PM, 05 19 2006 | Permalink
Well, I'll be voting this year--and voting against incumbents. But, that's the easy thing to do at this point. The difficult part, is coming back election after election and doing it again and again until we've got the results we want. We're likely to have an anti-incumbent year, but one anti-incumbent year is not going to be enough.
Stephanie Crist | May 19, 2006 5:24 PM
Reply to this comment
d.a.n said at :
9:45 PM, 05 19 2006 | Permalink
Absolutely.
Education is the key.
Voters need to remember that their duty is to vote out irresponsible incumbents, always.
It's not a once-in-a-election duty.
It's a every-election duty.
That does not mean all incumbents are irresponsible, but at this point in time, there are damn few that are responsible. That is why no one, after many months, can name but 6 or 7 incumbent politicians they thought were responsible, and it was not hard at all to show they all are irresponsible, vote on pork-barrel (while troops go without body armor and healthcare), troll for campaign dollars for their campaign warchests, and are too beholding to their big-money-donor-puppeteers.
d.a.n | May 19, 2006 9:45 PM
Reply to this comment
steve smith said at :
2:28 PM, 05 24 2006 | Permalink
Without passing judgement on the ability to get the job done or, the general conduct of a "local" politician, it amazes me that the incumbant mayor of New Orleans at the time of Katrina has just won his reelection. If the need for change had ever been in the hearts and souls of the displaced population, IMO it was going to show up in that election.
steve smith | May 24, 2006 2:28 PM
Reply to this comment
David R. Remer said at :
4:10 PM, 05 24 2006 | Permalink
Steve, the reason Nagin won was not the merits of Nagin in the aftermath of Katrina, but, the deficiencies in the Landrieu dynasty of that state's political history.
Nagin didn't win, Landrieu lost, in my opinion. They would rather have a mayor who lost it temporarily after Katrina, than to have a political insider family with all of the crony ties to money and elites dating back decades.
The Nagin victory was actually an anti-incumbent motivated action by voters with a reverse twist, I think. In this unique case, the anti-incumbent vote was to vote for the incumbent as opposed to family's perceived political dynasty of power and corruption dating back decades.
David R. Remer | May 24, 2006 4:10 PM
Reply to this comment
steve smith said at :
7:25 AM, 05 25 2006 | Permalink
An interesting concept. The voters cast ballots for the incumbent feeling that the challenger would be (as bad as his potential might indicate) worse than the incumbent.
steve smith | May 25, 2006 7:25 AM
Reply to this comment