I do tend to agree with Radius in the presidential end result, especially with respect to the Republican party ticket and how the VP choice (who, I might add, I am not thrilled with) has set the things in motion. Granted, it might
(big might) cause Wisconsin to be a red state this year, as it's very rarely that a candidate's home state does not vote for them and also due to the outcome of the Scott Walker recall election, but that's a very big might. Pretty much, Romney needs Florida. If he can get the votes there, then he's in the game; if not, it's game over.
House will probably stay Republican-controlled, barring a major implosion, but the Senate is more of a potential toss-up with a lean towards the Democrats. A good number of predictions say the Democrats would likely lose control of around three seats while the Republicans only one. But if it went that way, that would still give a 51-49 majority to the Democrats.
On an unrelated sidenote, the governor's race in my "home state" (North Carolina) is looking to be rather lively. With the incumbent Democratic governor not running, it's a bit of a free-for-all. Fortunately, I'm not there and Ohio isn't having too many major elections this year, so I'm (sorta) safe from that chaos.
Radius Solis wrote:
Motivated, perhaps, but I have my doubts it will result in their actually giving up much. They don't want to look like compromisers to their base - compromise is a dirty word now. Instead they may calculate they have more to gain by letting taxes go way up for a few years so they can paint the Dems as diabolical tax-and-spendists, passing compromise-free renewals of the cuts to help make the charge stick, campaigning in 2014 and 2016 on a platform of restoring the cuts to save us all from economic catastrophe they'll claim is about to befall us if we don't, and - if they gain the Senate this cycle or next - putting Obama in the position of having to defend vetoing a tax cut extension for the middle class. They've been pulling this shit for years and making it work; why stop now?
I can really see them doing this: if Obama wins re-election, then it's in their interests to paint him and his side in as negative a light as possible (even moreso than they have been doing for the past few years) if they want a good chance at running a successful mid-term campaign.