Here is a little fun fact!

Not since FDR has a 2nd term president manage to keep the legislative branch in the same party majority as his in a mid-term election.

In other words if the Democrats do not take over at least the house. The people in this country have their heads way further up their asses then I had imagined!!!

Prove me wrong and vote!
 

I don't know about 423 but Ricketts has about as much of a chance as I do. It's going to be an ass kicking, and thank god.
 

I think your prediction for the Senate is right, but they'll pick up more seats than that in the house. What's interesting will be how the committees will be formed with a 50/50 split in the Senate. The last time (after the 2000 election and before Jeffords switched parties), the Democrats got what they believed to be a very favorable arrangement that the Republicans say won't happen again. We'll see.

For the optimistic Democrat: the last polls taken have Tester holding his lead in Montana, two polls have McCaskill up 3-4 points, Menendez holding in NJ, and Ford within one point of Corker. I still think Ford is a long shot--thanks partially to the race baiting ads--but the Dems don't need him to win if they can get Missouri and Virginia. Check out www.pollster.com if you want to waste a few hours.

For the pessimist of any party: The FBI is investigating racially targeted vote blocking in VA, voting machines are failing across OH (including an incident on TV when a congresswoman went to vote), the MO secretary of state was denied access to vote when she failed to show ID (note: the law says she doesn't have to in MO), the anti-stem cell campaign just had to put Mike Sweeney on the DL with a sore back, new voter IDs are so strict they often deny students (let alone the poor) the right to vote, and people across the country (including in the 3rd district) report repeatedly receiving calls at inconvenient times purporting to be from one candidate but actually from a political party (guess which).

Is it too much to ask that we have a democracy where one party isn't FOR voter suppression? Apparently.
 

McCaskill and the guy in Montana should be golden. Still banking on Menendez as well, like you I'm not really banking on Ford. If George Allen wins then Virginia might as well start installing colored drinking fountains again. I can't believe he is still in this thing after the "macaca" incident.

I think that both parties have been to blame for voter supression, recently and certainly throughout history. Obviously I'd love to blame only Republicans but I don't feel that is entirely accurate, and moreover I don't feel like a majority of either party would agree that this is kosher, at least I hope not. Regardless, it's reprehensible and certainly goes against every democratic principle imaginable.
 

Yeah, I don't pretend democrats are innocent in this regard, especially throughout history. I guess I was trying to say there is always one party who relies more heavily on the disenfranchised, minority, poor, etc. vote and right now it happens to be the democrats and so--smartly, if you find it an acceptable political strategy--republicans react by trumping up allegations of voter fraud in order to justify harsh voter ID laws while ignoring, in my mind, the much more serious problems of paper-less touch screen ballots, hackable machines, and uncounted ballots. I'm not a conspiracy guy on these issues, I don't think anyone is trying to steal an election (per se), and I don't care who reform ultimately favors, but I do think there should be a non-partisan effort to have reliable voting in the world's greatest democracy. Declare it a holiday, allow voting by mail (like in Oregon), or just come up with a uniform system across all states. Whatever it is, just make it happen.

For the moment--and again, it could just as easily be the other way and has been in the past--republicans cry 'Federalism' when any national election reforms are proposed and 'Fraud' when there is little evidence of any. Maybe those are legitimate concerns--okay, the federalism thing is just dumb--but it isn't an accident that the party of "traditional American values" is not going out of its way to stop a precipitously dropping turnout rate (that seems to have leveled off recently).

The fact that I have to feel like some partisan, Daily Kos reading, 9/11 conspiracy theorist to even make these claims convinces me that there ARE sides on this seemingly simple issue. To put it another way, if someone asks you what the largest electoral problem is today and you say illegal aliens voting--you probably listen to Rush Limbaugh. If you say electronic voting and Diebold--you probably read Rolling Stone or The NY Times or just read period. But are probably over simplifying, but it doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

Or if that doesn't work, look at it this way: our election system is an amalgam of disparate methods heavily reliant on complicated computer technology ran by 80-year-old volunteers and people on loan from a methodone clinic.
 

Wow. republicans cry "fraud" when they do not win an election? What election are you talking about? what about all the people that still claim Bush has stolen both elections he has won? Second, what about showing a state id as a requirement to vote is "oppressive"? How can anyone possibly make this argument? Am I oppressed when I am required to show id when I buy beer, drive a car, etc.? No? Did not think so. This is so common sense, it is beyond me how it could be argued otherwise.
 

First of all, no one is arguing against showing a voter ID. ALL states require voter IDs of some kind. Nebraska's law, similar to most, requires an ID when registering or the first time a person votes if they registered by mail without an ID. The key here is that what they accept as IDs includes pay stubs, bills, and anything else that lists an address (whether or not it has a photo). Anybody have a problem with that or feel like mass voter fraud is being committed in Nebraska? All I'm advocating is the status quo.

The problem is that new laws (mostly passed by Republican legislatures in MO, OH, AZ and other important states in national elections) ONLY allow for state issued photo IDs that list a current address. Last time you moved, did you run down to the DMV to get a new, update license right away? When you were a student, did you get a new license everytime you changed dorms or moved off campus? Those are just the most base level concerns let alone going into the traditionally enfranchised, problems with voter databases, and trusting poll workers to actively challenge votes. Thankfully, so far the courts have overturned these laws as being basically state sanctioned intimidation.

Again, the tables have been turned before and could be again, but right now Republicans are the ones who benefit from lower turnout and actively seek it. Both sides are pretty disgusting in this regard (did anyone see Rs and Ds on TV arguing about whether or not rain in Tennessee favored Corker or Ford?) but my only point--rather than advocating a candidate or party--was to say we should encourage voting rather than discourage it. How could it be argued otherwise?

As for fraud, I only meant literally fraudulent voting--god knows the Ds cry at every loss--which is used as the boogeyman to scare voters despite the fact there is little evidence of it happening. Mostly its a practical concern. How many voters pretending to be someone else would you have to get to actually turn an election? That's a lot of fake mustaches and funny accents.