= new reply since forum marked as read
Or that Hillary only has a small lead.
I really did think Romney might pull it out in the end in 2012 based on the poll numbers.
So I still get a little twitchy when the polls don't look great, but I think of Karl Rove in disbelief 
Krugman has a good bit about this in his NYT column for 14 Oct ("The Clinton Agenda"
excerpt:
. . .
Now, even a Democratic Senate wouldn’t enable Mrs. Clinton to pass legislation in the face of an implacably obstructionist Republican majority in the House. It would, however, allow her to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Antonin Scalia.
Doing that would have huge consequences, for environmental policy in particular. In his final years in office, President Obama has made a major environmental push using his regulatory powers, for example by sharply tightening emission standards for heavy trucks.
But the most important piece of his push — the Clean Power Plan, which would greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants — is currently on hold, thanks to a stay imposed by the Supreme Court. Democratic capture of the Senate would remove this roadblock.
And bear in mind that climate change is by far the most important issue facing America and the world, even if the people selecting questions for the presidential debates for some reason refuse to bring it up. Quite simply, if Democrats take the Senate, we might take the minimum action needed to avoid catastrophe; if they don’t, we won’t.
What about the House? All, and I mean all, of the Obama administration’s legislative achievements took place during the two-year period when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Can that happen again?
Until the last few days, the chances of flipping the House seemed low, even if, as now seems all but certain, Democratic candidates in total receive more votes than Republicans. Partly that’s because G.O.P.-controlled state governments have engaged in pervasive gerrymandering; partly it’s because minority voters, who overwhelmingly favor Democrats, are clustered in a relatively small number of urban districts.
But a sufficiently big Clinton victory could ... let her pursue a much more expansive agenda.
... she would significantly strengthen the social safety net, especially for the very poor and children, with an emphasis on family-related issues like parental leave. Such programs would cost money, although not as much as critics claim; she proposes, credibly, to raise that money with higher taxes on top incomes, so that the overall effect would be to reduce inequality.
Democratic control of the House would also open the door for large-scale infrastructure investment.
----------- end of quoted excerpt. Read more at the NYT website. ------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/opinion/the-clinton-agenda.html?
Since I can't be the only believer among us, let's all of us pray for this. Any religion is fine -- all prayers count. Prayer is not a substitute for action of course -- we also have to work for this -- campaign, get out the vote, offer someone a ride to the polling place; Whatever we can do, we need to do it. Complacency is the enemy of victory.
I will be overjoyed if dems win control of the senate for SCOTUS seats.
I will be beside myself with supreme happiness if the dems get control of the house! 
