A desperate ad, especially with that picture of Sarah Palin included. Boxer's a blithering idiot and a pathological liar. California's identity politics demographic is propping her up, but a silent majority may well sweep her out with the tide on November 2.
WSJ has more on how the Senate is shaping up:
Key Senate races are tightening as candidates on both sides make unexpected gains, suggesting that the final days in the battle for control of the chamber could be as volatile as any in recent memory.More at the link.
Democrats who were all but written off, including Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado, have revived and are pulling even with their Republican opponents in some polls.
Meanwhile, Republican challengers, including Dino Rossi in Washington and Carly Fiorina in California, who polls showed had slipped behind two Democratic incumbents, have drawn even.
The trend could mean that party loyalists, who may have been undecided at the campaign's outset, are coming home to their candidates as election day nears. The seesaw poll numbers also reflect activists' counter-reaction whenever the other side starts to build a lead.
"The further it starts to move in one direction, the more it energizes the opposite party," said Lara Brown, a political scientist at Villanova University near Philadelphia.
If Republicans win the Senate, they could more easily control the agenda by sending President Barack Obama legislation he would have to sign or veto. Democratic control of the Senate would provide a tie-breaker of sorts between a Democratic White House and a House that Republicans are expected to win.
Republicans need to capture 10 seats now held by Democrats to win a 51-49 Senate majority. Eleven Democratic seats are in play. Three are likely GOP pickups and the rest are too close to call. Democrats are within striking distance of one Republican-held seat, in Kentucky.
1 comments:
The Sarah Palin in the background was a really dumb idea! Where do they come up with these things! We'll take the House, but the Senate will be difficult. Actually, I have always thought the U.S. government works better if the opposition is in the House/Senate regardless of which party is in the Presidency. In this way (regards checks and balances) there is a restraint of congressional self-interest; a check against wholesale spending. Hasn't the current administration illustrated that if a party in office controls both houses there is too much potential for personal agenda and corrupting power? What do you think?
Post a Comment