Foibles and Fables Don't Turn the Tables
For a decade now, since Republicans swept into control of the Congress in 1994, Democrats and their accomplices in the media have been foreseeing the pendulum
swing in control back to the Democrats that has not materialized despite their best
efforts to create the environment to seduce the electorate back to their vision of
normalcy. Each election cycle they have been wrong. Given the idiosyncrasies of
electoral politics, it is always possible, and sooner or later, if they keep saying it,
it may take place. It may be having the impact on the voters of turning them the
other way, however, much as Peter did with his constant warnings about the wolf.
Taking a bold stance, however, it is probable that they are in error this cycle, as well.
The Congress is not going to go Democrat. Nancy Pelosi is not going to be Speaker.
The idea is sobering in itself, Leader Pelosi having responded to former Representative
Robert Dornan's queries about her pro-abortion stance even though she is ostensibly Catholic asking him what he would do if his daughter had been raped by a black man?
The reasons for the Democrat idea are many. President Bush has low approval ratings.
Yes, given years of baseless badgering and lies from the left, but even Democrats in
Congress will not vote for their anti-war murmurings when they are forced to cast votes
in Congress. A more likely reason for the Bush's low numbers is discontent on the right.
And that voting block can only help Democrats if it refrains from voting. It is not going to
be cast for their candidates.
The generic ballot favors Democrats for Congress, we are told. But it almost always does, perhaps because it may be perceived as a question as to which party would do the most
for you if it controlled Congress, or on the apparently inherent left bias of pollsters.
Conditions may favor Republicans on many scores, as well. The economy is robust, although that may free up voters to cast their choices on other bases. Yet, if that means
they consider such factors as ethical and moral issues, national sentiment will not help
Democrats on a range of issues. Democrats, for their part, are engaged in both a struggle
for control of their party between the radical left and the traditional base, and the media seems convinced that it can condition the electorate to think as it does, an outmoded
notion of political reality grounded in a pre-new media world view. Most important of all may be the reality that GOP elements are outstripping Democrats in fundraising - at least legally and not counting the 527's and union money stolen from membership. 
Democrats are going to have a difficult time taking over Congress in 2006. That may seem a bold assertion.
We can go further. Republicans may well pick up seats in both houses and in state houses.
A Senate that is Republican by a margin of 55-44-1 now may have as many as 60 Republican Senators next year, with the GOP adding seats for Steele in Maryland, Kean in New Jersey, Kennedy in Minnesota, and perhaps Michigan and Washington, as well, and maybe Florida. It may even be possible to add West Virginia to that list. There is a good
chance, as well, that the Democrats in Connecticut, turning their nomination over to the
radical fringe when they nominated Ned Lamont, a move that will lead to an 'independent'
seat held by Lieberman.
The House, which is now divided for the Republicans by a count of 231-201-1, with a couple of vacant seats, is going to be more Republican - perhaps as much as 237-198  or more after November, with Republican gains in Georgia's 8th, Louisiana's 3rd, South Carolina's 5th,
Iowa's 3rd, and Illinois' 8th, as well as Vermont, while losses may be hard to find if they
even lose Wisconsin's 8th district to a Democrat.
Prophecy, especially in political races, is dangerous, but this is lawful, not just prediction.
Republicans can also expect to possible gains of governor chairs in Michigan and Pennsylvania, although it is possible New York will no longer have a Republican Governor next year.
A peculiar twist to the election campaign in 2006 involves a concerted effort by Democrats, apparently unable to twist and contort election law to their satisfaction from Florida in 2000 on and in spite of their capacity to circumvent election law from the theft of the gubernatorial election in Washington to the 'illegal' appointment of Frank Lautenberg to run when Toracelli stepped aside after the deadline, is to attempt to win top election posts in critical states. Secretary of State election officer positions are finding well funded Democrat efforts in Ohio and across the swing states. It says a great deal about the mentality of party leadership. If they cannot win elections, there must be something wrong with either the process or the voters and not the party, its candidates, or its policies.
There are variables that cannot always be foreseen, especially by a distant observer, but
do not put your lunch money on a Democrat victory in November by any stretch of the imagination. It is just your imagination, running away with you. Indeed, Democrats have already begun to offer excuses as to why they did not win.

More than likely what will take place in November will be a continuation of the decades long phenomenon of the party of a sitting President losing seats in the Congress. Other rules seem to go out the window, for whatever reason. On that, if Republicans lose less than 34 seats in the House and less than 6 seats in the Senate, it will be a victory for them. That would be regrettable and dangerous, but there are enough RINOs in the Congress now that any change on that would be mere window dressing. What with the money coming from Chavez to help Ortega and domestic Democrats under the table, they are looking less and less like Vichy and more and more like collaborators, anyway. However it turns out, it will be played as a rejection of Bush, Republicans, the liberation of Iraq, and similar nonsense, at least in the partisan media and by Al Qaeda.