4 weeks away. Do Dems hold or fold? Make your prediction now

[wyldwolf]

Here's a wild one. We hold because we WIN GEORGIA (based on Perdue's outsourcing quote):

"Defend it? I'm proud of it. This is a part of American business, part of any business." -- Georgia U.S. Senate candidate David Perdue (R), quoted by the Atlanta Journal Constitution, when asked about a statement that he "spent most of my career" outsourcing.

[riversedge]

1. umm.. thinking the Dems

might lose the Senate --at this point.

[Liberal_in_LA]

10. positive thinking

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. I'm standing with Sam Wang here. He has a good track record.

Sam Wang rebuts Silver's criticisms of his predictions model -- and says his track record trumps Silver's

[Wounded Bear]

3. Hold..

I gotta have hope, you know.

[notrightatall]

4. We hold the Senate

Net gain six to eight in the House.

[AverageJoe90]

5. I don't doubt that we'll be able to hold on for the most part......but.....

I'm not expecting any lucky sweeps, either. Texas is definitely doable, as we've got a lot of Latinos, most of whom are Democrats, and a lot of people are starting to get a little pissed off at Greg Abbott's constant bullshitting routine. And if Wendy Davis and Leticia Van De Putte keep doing the stellar job that they've done, then we do have a chance. My main concern in our state is over election machines; we all know how many machines have had problems over the past 15 years, am I right?

[Efilroft Sul]

6. Democrats hold the Senate.

I follow the polls and electoral-vote.com daily, and the races are tightening up. The Democrats are coming from behind and have closed the battleground states to within one to two points in most instances. The latest polls in Kentucky, Colorado, and North Carolina have the Democratic candidates now ahead by a point or two. Iowa has tightened up quickly since the debate. The Big Dog is going to go all out to keep Pryor in office. And never, ever count out Landrieu in Louisiana.

[Nite Owl]

7. I'm thinking we take the Senate by

1 seat or it's even and Joe Biden is the tie breaker.
It really depends on turnout and how many problems there are at the polls, names not listed, not enough voting machines etc.
Not hearing much in my area. Our Senators don't run this cycle, and we have one of the best reps. We have the Governor to worry about but not much chance of Cuomo losing, it's a matter of keeping his win low so he never runs for President.

[DCBob]

8. Dems take it... 50+1 to 50

The +1 being Biden.

[woo me with science]

9. The goal is never majorities. The goal is always closely divided government,

and both corporate parties will work hard to ensure continued closely divided government.

Corporatists depend on the illusion of gridlock to sustain the excuse of being unable to stop the corporate agenda. A party with strong majorities cannot continue to claim to be unable to respond to the will of the People.

The con game is very familiar by now:

Perhaps the administration is not really all that into having progressive majorities in Congress.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=337938

For so long we mysteriously fell short of Democratic votes for filibuster reform.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021809132

The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:

.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

This is what the Democratic Party does...They’re willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there’s no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush’s eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush’s habeas and interrogation abuses (“Gosh, what can we do? We just don’t have 60 votes).

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

[merrily]

12. Conventional wisdom: Members of Congress (both houses) never get voted out because of bills that

don't pass, only because of bills they voted for that did pass.

If that is their perception of reality, then their perception also is that gridlock serves the selfish interest of all elected officials. Disserves the nation, but serves their desire to keep their seats, at least until they pass on to that great paying think tank or lobbying post.

[corkhead]

13. That Salon article is timeless wisdom. We've been getting rolled for some time.

[Cleita]

11. In an election that requires out of the box thinking

and heroic activism, I haven't seen any from the Dems while the righties are using every resource and dirty trick available to them.

The only hope I have is an electorate that shows up to vote for change because they are so disgusted with the Congress we presently have.

[bigwillq]

14. We win a pony!

[Rex]

15. Hold.

No folding.