Matt: you can't have it both ways.  Gas prices trending down by then (I'm not sure how you're basing that, anyhow) and possibly war or increased threatening action against Iran? 

Besides, unlike 2002, the patriotic dog won't hunt.  I think many Americans (with the possible exception of Democrats who are positioning for 2008) are going to be a bit circumspect about evidence about Iran.  Remember, the NY Times already had on the front page that experts believe it's 10 years away -- it's hard to imagine they'll fall like Judy Miller again.

I think Charlie Cook's right in this perception.  Some figures of the economy may look good (and get trumpeted by the administration) but few people are listening.  The economy by this standard has been good, but many people don't feel much richer -- for good reason.

If prices are not falling in October, it means that they were not raised as high as they could possibly be raised over the summer. They will be coming down in October.
Njorl

> what reasone is there to think that
> prices will drop?

Historically gasoline prices east of the Rockies drop during the October-November period because increasing the yield of home heating oil to support the Northeast market has the side effect of creating more gas than the refineries want, so they lower the price to clear out the excess.

Whether or not that will still hold true, particularly if the Iran situation heats up, I dunno. The refining choices are still the same but perhaps not the marketing.

sPh

I see oil prices trending upward due to the Iran "crisis." I see no downward resolution of that "crisis" short of a complete backdown by Iran - highly doubtful.

There may be short downward corrections when some "diplomacy" or something seems to be moving along, but that will be short-lived.

I don't think heating oil production excess is going to reverse that trend this year.

And of course if Bush attacks Iran in September or October, forget about it - oil will be well over $100/barrel unless the Iranians are REALLY slow or circumspect in retaliating.

Iran is THE main issue for this election year (at least on the foreign policy front - immigration will clearly be number one on the domestic front - the immigrants will see to that, even if they don't vote.)

If the war of words ratchets up on Iran - and it will, unless Rove decides it's a negative for the Republicans, which I doubt - the issue will be how the Democrats respond.

If they respond with their usual stupidity - i.e., "We agree that Iran is a terrible threat, and we need to keep the military option on the table, but negotiate first." - DING! Bush wannabe! - then the Dems, as Josh Bolton has said, will lose. If you agree with your opponent, why should I vote for you?

In the Linux vs Windows wars, one of the points people make is: if Linux looks and acts like Windows, why should anyone switch? Same thing applies to Dems and Repubs - if everybody's a member of the "War Party", why vote at all?

If the Dems come out fighting, get behind Peter DeFazio's resolution to prohibit attacking Iran without Congressional authorization, accuse Bush of doing "wag the dog" on Iraq by talking up Iran, accuse him of imcompetence in Iraq, put THE FEAR into the electorate of another Vietnam (let alone another Iraq) if Bush might actually attack Iran, and so forth, then they have a chance. At least it will look like they some balls for a change (assuming their candidates can talk coherently and come up with some intelligent slogans.)

If, on the other hand, Bush DOES attack Iran before the elections - because the Dems were too stupid to try to prevent him from doing so by passing resolutions in Congress and if necessary amending the War Powers Act - then the Dems asses are grass. The Republicans will toast you in the elections. Anybody who opposes the war will be an "un-patriotic terrorist-loving wimp" - just like now. And the Dems will be scrambling to get on board, just like they did in Iraq.

Maybe in 2008, once the disaster in Iran becomes obvious, the Dems might have another chance - assuming we're still having elections by them after the Iranian car-bombing in America has wiped out the Constitution entirely...

Finally, I'm not really following politics because I really don't care, but I don't see anything jumping out at me that proves that the disaffection with Bush personally among the red state base necessarily means they won't vote for the local Republican Congressmen.

Just because the Congressmen voted for the war in Iraq and don't have a clue how to stop that mess doesn't mean the red state base won't vote for them again. Especially if they don't see the Dems as having a clue either. And to what degree will other issues - such as immigration - control their vote other than Iraq?

I could see the corruption scandals being a real problem if the Dems talked that up enough and a few more indictments and convictions get done by November. As a domestic issue, that could even outfly immigration. Especially if the accused Republican incumbents are being opposed by new young Democratic Iraq war veterans or the like - people who can run on their (recent) war record and their integrity (if any or alleged).

Then it comes down to the simple math as to how many seats change affiliation.

Update: When I say Iran is the "number one foreign policy issue", I don't want to slight Iraq. Obviously that will be considered the main issue. But what needs to happen is that the mess in Iraq needs to be tied to the probable future mess in Iran. The electorate doubts that Bush can make the right decision on Iran, according to some polls. This needs to be hyped by the Dems into THE FEAR that Iran will just be another Iraq - or worse, another Vietnam - a ten-year mess even bigger than Iraq.

If all the Dems do is attack the Republicans about Iraq, and then don't say anything rational about Iran but what I suggested above, and in addition don't do anything to stop Bush from starting an Iran war, then the Dems, as Josh Bolton has indicated to Bush, will lose - especially if Bush really does launch an Iran war by November.

The only thing that can save the Dems is if Bush really doesn't intend to attack Iran, OR he doesn't intend to do it until sometime after the elections.

Do you want to count on that? Do you want to treat that as a certainty - given what we know now about Iraq and the timeline for the war there?

Brett,
Your analysis is mostly on the money. Southerners had a long and odd loyalty to the Democratic party, and '94 was the year that snapped.
The key point here is that Democrats need no where near the number of seats that Republicans did in '94.
It is also interesting that the policies have largely drifted in Democratic directions, although Republican versions have turned out to be fig-leaf versions incompetently designed for their stated purpose, but well designed to divert money from tax payers to staunch Republicans.