Will the GOP take back the Senate and House? - NO they won't.

[Kilmer17]

I dont think CA Gov and Legislators have as much input on redistricting as they do in other states.

[December90]

Well, Ca is about to move from a GOP Gov to a Dem one.

Whitman, if polling is correct, is getting hammered, despite spending over $160 million (which is 5x more than her Dem candidate).

Not denying it, but if they vote Brown back in they get what they deserve. How stupid can the people of California be? (I guess no worse than D.C. which did re-elect Mr. Crackhead Mayor after he got out of prison.) Would be a different story if Brown were not essentially kicked out for doing such a miserable job the first time around.

[The Evil Genius]

Would be a different story if Brown were not essentially kicked out for doing such a miserable job the first time around.

Brown served 2 consecutive terms as Governor.

Isn't that the longest you can serve consecutively in the state?

edit..apparently not. Wiki says he chose to run for Senate. So perhaps he was forced out....

As an aside..back then Brown was considered more fiscally conservative than Reagan.

[aREDSKIN]

Not denying it, but if they vote Brown back in they get what they deserve. How stupid can the people of California be? (I guess no worse than D.C. which did re-elect Mr. Crackhead Mayor after he got out of prison.) Would be a different story if Brown were not essentially kicked out for doing such a miserable job the first time around.

LOL the voters of CA deserve what they put into office. Given the shape of that state you'd think they'd might be a bit more intelligent. But sa la vie no skin off my nose, yet.

[The Evil Genius]

LOL the voters of CA deserve what they put into office. Given the shape of that state you'd think they'd might be a bit more intelligent. But sa la vie no skin off my nose, yet.

Well, considering the voters created the mess (Prop 13) that the state is in.

What do you expect though when you want state spending to remain sky high AND you cut off your revenue streams?

[deejaydana]

Unfortunately when it comes to the Governorship in California so much spending is already "baked into the cake" that I don't think a candidate from either party can rightfully do very much. Arnold actually did some good in making the Unions take some concessions towards their perverse pension giveaways but we have a long way to go and neither Brown nor Whitman is any kind of answer. More pain on the way. I'll perhaps start a thread in the run up to election day for California posters on this board (for what that's worth).

[The Evil Genius]

Unfortunately when it comes to the Governorship in California so much spending is already "baked into the cake" that I don't think a candidate from either party can rightfully do very much. Arnold actually did some good in making the Unions take some concessions towards their perverse pension giveaways but we have a long way to go and neither Brown nor Whitman is any kind of answer. More pain on the way. I'll perhaps start a thread in the run up to election day for California posters on this board (for what that's worth).

Please define perverse pension giveaways.

Is 2% of your salary (at age 55) times the number of years served perverse? Even after paying 5% of your salary per month for every month you served? Because that's the formula that governs at least 80% of all CA state workers.

[deejaydana]

Please define perverse pension giveaways.

Is 2% of your salary (at age 55) times the number of years served perverse? Even after paying 5% of your salary per month for every month you served? Because that's the formula that governs at least 80% of all state workers.

Defined contributions v defined benefits (as a start).

[The Evil Genius]

Defined contributions v defined benefits (as a start).

Like the Feds do? Oh wait. Ok..like the Feds do with the military. Shoot, that's not it either. I mean, the military gets to start their "pension" the minute they leave service, right? Even if thats at 37?

Wish I had that option. :evilg:

And would this apply on to new employees? Or would the state be on the hook for compensating all the people, who for the past 20 years, have been paying 5% of their salary in each month to their retirement? Would that money then have earned anything the last 20 years?

[deejaydana]

I don't expect anything bordering objectivity when talking to a state employee. It's just human nature to feel entitled to what you think is (contractually) yours. I get it. The thing is, gov't workers are overcompensated in regards to benefits and retirement and on top of this the plans put into place are unsustainable. Can they be re-written? Should they? It's not easy to take something away once a party feels it's been entitled to them. One way or another we'll have our answer soon enough. It won't be pretty as it plays out and you can only squeeze the taxpayer so far. What I see is major cutback in gov't serves coupled with more taxes. A real double whammy. I see no reason gov't employees should be exempted in sharing the pain.

[btfoom]

The Senate make-up is going to be interesting. I can't believe that Las Vegas is on the verge of putting Sharron Angle in the Senate for 6 years! If she gets elected I think that anyone from the Tailgate has a chance of getting elected.

...

I have no idea what these people personally believe, but once you are a party-person you'll always be a party-person regardless.

Really???? After Minnesota voted in a bad stand-up comic who openly says all Republicans are _____ (rhymes with sticks).

[Wrong Direction]

The R's will win big in the house. That's almost certain. Pelosi is fired. In the Senate, I see the R's with 48 certain seats, 1 quite likely seat (Harry Reid's), 1 true toss-up (WV) and 2 that look quite tough but not totally impossible (WA/CA).

In a landslide election, it's quite unlikely that undecideds are going to fall in line for the losing party. That makes the chances of Reid or others gaining a % of votes beyond what they're polling small. In fact, if anything, the R's are likely to be under-polling at the Senate level because turnout predictions in these polls are still relatively moderately in favor of R's, whereas I could see that being much worse. That's why the play the game.

So, best case for R's is 52 Senate seats, though any more than 50 seems pretty unlikely and 49 is probably where it'll end up. Worst case is 48, IMO.

The untold story of this election is really about the governors, health care reform and re-districting. Through term limits or turnover, there will be about 25-30 new governors (not necessarily a new party, just new leadership). That's an incredible turnover, with R's poised to have a significant net gain. That means that the staffs in 25-30 states are likely to have significant turnover. This is a big concern because states are largely charged with implementing healthcare reform. A lot of decisions which have already been made are going to be made again. This will make implementation even more difficult. Through redistricting, this will likely result in a significant net gain of safe and potential R seats in the house.

Looking to 2012, the Dems are somewhat likely to lose the Senate majority if they haven't already (I know...way too early to tell). I say this only because they had their first "wave" election in 2006, and previously strong R seats should be in contention once again. MO, OH, PA, MT, FL, MI, NE, ND, and WV are all swing or typical R states and being defended by D's. On the R side, the only obvious tough hold this far out is Scott Brown in Mass.

Two years is a long time though, just ask Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich.

[The Evil Genius]

I don't expect anything bordering objectivity when talking to a state employee. It's just human nature to feel entitled to what you think is (contractually) yours. I get it. The thing is, gov't workers are overcompensated in regards to benefits and retirement and on top of this the plans put into place are unsustainable. Can they be re-written? Should they? It's not easy to take something away once a party feels it's been entitled to them. One way or another we'll have our answer soon enough. It won't be pretty as it plays out and you can only squeeze the taxpayer so far.

Fair enough. I don't expect a reasonable comprehension on how my position is atleast 20% lower paid comparatively than the private sector. And, on top of that, another 13.86% underpaid the last 20 months+ due to furloughs.

Better yet, ask some state Ca lawyer who posts here how much underpaid he is comparative to the private sector.

Total those reductions, and I think the benefits and the defined compensation pension are the only semi-attractive things left to appeal to future state workers here. When thats taken away - the people will get the government they deserve. Just wait.

[Predicto]

I dont think CA Gov and Legislators have as much input on redistricting as they do in other states.

This is correct. In fact, California is voting on a proposition to completely take away all gerrymandering and have congressional districts drawn by a bipartisan committee.

Which is a good thing, but is also shooting ourselves in the foot, because Texas and other heavily red states will be gerrymandered all to heck. Oh well, I'm still voting for the proposition.

[Predicto]

Not denying it, but if they vote Brown back in they get what they deserve. How stupid can the people of California be? (I guess no worse than D.C. which did re-elect Mr. Crackhead Mayor after he got out of prison.) Would be a different story if Brown were not essentially kicked out for doing such a miserable job the first time around.

You guys really don't know a thing about Jerry Brown or California history. All you know is that he has a (D) next to his name. It's funny to hear you prattle on.

Upon taking office, Brown gained a reputation as a fiscal conservative.[6][7] The American Conservative later noted he was "much more of a fiscal conservative than Governor Reagan."[7] His fiscal restraint resulted in one of the biggest budget surpluses in state history, roughly $5 billion.[7][8][9] For his personal life, Brown refused many of the privileges and perks of the office, forgoing the newly constructed governor's residence and instead renting a modest apartment at the corner of 14th and N Streets, adjacent to Capitol Park in downtown Sacramento.[10] Instead of riding as a passenger in a chauffeured limousine as previous governors had done, Brown drove to work in a Plymouth Satellite sedan.[11][12]

He was both in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment and opposed to Proposition 13, the latter of which would decrease property taxes and greatly reduce revenue to cities and counties.[7][18] When Proposition 13 passed in June of 1978, he heavily cut state spending and, along with the Legislature, spent much of the $5 billion surplus to meet the proposition's requirements and help offset the revenue losses which made cities, counties and schools more dependent to the state.[7][8][18] His actions in response to the proposition earned him praise from Proposition 13 author Howard Jarvis who went as far to make a television commercial for Brown just before his successful reelection bid in 1978.[18][19]

Brown chose not to run for a third term in 1982 and instead ran for the United States Senate but lost to then San Diego mayor Pete Wilson. He was succeeded as governor by George Deukmejian, then the Attorney General of California, in 1982.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Brown

[aREDSKIN]

This is correct. In fact, California is voting on a proposition to completely take away all gerrymandering and have congressional districts drawn by a bipartisan committee.

Which is a good thing, but is also shooting ourselves in the foot, because Texas and other heavily red states will be gerrymandered all to heck. Oh well, I'm still voting for the proposition.

Of course you conveniently leave out all the BLUE states which continue to gerrymand. And don't forget who thought up this vile practice to get a leg up on the competition. Yes the Dems in MA.

It's good you're voting for it but how long will it take before it's gets challenged by those on your side?? Because it will.

[The Evil Genius]

Of course you conveniently leave out all the BLUE states which continue to gerrymand. And don't forget who thought up this vile practice to get a leg up on the competition. Yes the Dems in MA.

It's good you're voting for it but how long will it take before it's gets challenged by those on your side?? Because it will.

Actually, the Prop in question (20) only strengthens something that already is in place.

The right to draw district boundaries.

That right currently sits with a Board (and not with the legislature itself) via Prop 11 a few years back. This Prop adds congressional lines.

[Predicto]

Of course you conveniently leave out all the BLUE states which continue to gerrymand. And don't forget who thought up this vile practice to get a leg up on the competition. Yes the Dems in MA.

It's good you're voting for it but how long will it take before it's gets challenged by those on your side?? Because it will.

I didn't leave anything out. I was just pointing out the obvious fact that if the largest blue state ends gerrymandering while the largest red state does not, it is a clear disadvantage to the Democrats. Nevertheless, I'm voting for it because it is the right thing to do, even if it hurts "my side." And yes, I expect the Democratic party to challenge it, and I hope the challenge fails.

[twa]

Speaking from Texas I wish they would simply draw sensible districts dictated by geography and community

There is no reason for the bizzare boundaries they have now(besides the court + party bs)

[Kilmer17]

Speaking from Texas I wish they would simply draw sensible districts dictated by geography and community

There is no reason for the bizzare boundaries they have now(besides the court + party bs)

Not just Texas, it's everywhere. There is a "safe Dem district" Kathy Castor District 11 that runs here from south Tampa, along the eastern bank of Tampa Bay into Manatee County, shoots like a fang from the northern part manatee county into the central part of Bradenton (not a nice part of town), then shoots north across the skyway bridge and grabs a large chunk of the slums of St Petersburg.

[greenspandan]

the republicans will pick up about 50 seats in the house, and will be a couple short of a majority in the senate. predictions outside of that ballpark are not really based in reality.

standing by this prediction.

[Riggo-toni]

standing by this prediction.

Ditto - sounds accurate to me.

[DRSmith]

Extremists?....aren't you supposed to negotiate with them according to O? (Taliban,Iran ect?)

Where's the understanding and consideration???

It is good to know who ya'll consider the enemy,when I'm picking sides

I got yer back Sir:)

Well you can try and talk to them be the Taliban Iran or many of Republicans in the senate and house but it does not work most times.

When the stated goal of the pubs is nothing more than to try and make Obama a one term president and they are open about it this should send a shiver into everyones spine who actually expects those elected to act like grown ups and do an actual job.

[aREDSKIN]

Here's Larry Sabato's prediction. He's a lefty without question so if this is his prediction add another 10-20% on top of that IMO.

"Here is video of University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato giving his “Crystal Ball” final predictions for the upcoming 2010 Midterm Elections.

In his final predictions, Sabato said he believes Republicans will pickup 55-seats in the House, and 8-seats in the U.S. Senate. That would give the GOP control of the House, but two-seats short of taking control of the U.S. Senate.

Sabato said this election is “about the fundamentals” of a bad economy and an unpopular President, and “it was over a long time ago.” He believes about 40% of American voters will turnout, fairly typical for a Midterm Election.

Sabato believes Sharron Angle will win in Nevada over Harry Reid – but narrowly. He has Rand Paul winning in Kentucky, and Ron Johnson defeating Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. “I don’t know how Sen. Feingold comes back at this point.”

http://freedomslighthouse.net/2010/10/28/larry-sabato-gives-final-midterm-predictions-gop-55-in-the-house-8-in-the-senate-video-102810/

[Burgold]

I think what gets me esp. relative to the House is that the choice is between Pelosi and Boehner? Really? Boehner is as bad if not a worse and uglier political creature than Pelosi could ever dream to be. He's the kind of guy who makes used car salesmen and mob hitmen feel virtuous. Sigh...