I will have brought this fate upon myself. Back in June, largely in response to a series of doom-ridden articles written by Republicans about their own prospects, I sought to restore balance. While a Democratic Senate was “not statistically impossible”, I said, it was so unlikely that I would “eat a copy of this column with a dash of Tabasco for flavouring” if the Republicans lost that chamber. I was, perhaps fortunately, less bold when it came to the House of Representatives, risking no wager — though I still predicted that the Republican majority there would endure.

If the consensus in Washington is correct, than I have had it (or will be having it). The House of Representatives is said to be as good as in Democratic hands, while the polls indicate that they are within spitting distance of the six-seat net advance they need to secure the Senate.

The sanctity of my stomach could now rest with a comparative handful of voters in places such as Missouri and Tennessee. Missouri, home of Branson, the town that has become the Mecca of country and western music; Tennessee, whose best-known tourist attraction is Graceland. To put one’s reputation in the grip of such voters makes Russian roulette an attractive alternative.

In fact, the whole battleground for the Senate this year has been disturbing and bizarre. Even by the standards of a country where the President’s father has already occupied the Oval Office, this campaign is more like an episode of Dynasty than Election Night Special.

The Democratic Senate challenger in Pennsylvania, for example, is the son of a popular former Governor of that state. In New Jersey, the Republican contender is the son of a popular former Governor. In Rhode Island, in a slightly different twist, the sitting Senator hopes that his surname (he is the son of a popular former Governor and Senator of that state) will be enough to save him. The Democratic nominee for the Senate in Tennessee is presently a member of the House of Representatives serving the seat that his father handed on to him.

In Virginia, though, matters are more meritocratic. The Republican Senator is a popular former Governor himself. His father was merely one of the most famous American Football coaches in the history of that sport. So while the British debate whether to replace the hereditary principle with direct elections for their second chamber, Americans have shown that it is possible to fuse these concepts. On this logic I suppose that I could insist that my son eats the newspaper laced with Tabasco. I still suspect, nonetheless, that the Washington consensus is (not for the first time) greatly misjudged and that the Republican majority in the Senate will remain intact and the House of Representatives will not fall quite so easily either.

There are three reasons why fate may yet rescue the Republicans. The first is the legendary force of incumbency. Once a politician has become established in either the Senate or, especially, the House of Representatives, it is notoriously hard to evict him. The power of name recognition, reinforced by the huge sums that those who sit in Congress can raise and spend, is awesome. This is the real explanation for the otherwise oddly dynastic character of US democracy. Fathers (and the occasional husband) hand down not only a widely recognised name to their sons (and the rare wife) but a network of fundraising contacts. Only if there is the electoral equivalent of a tidal wave will Republican incumbents be defeated en masse.

Secondly, for such an event to take place, Republican supporters will have to stay at home on polling day. The betting in Washington is that the Christian Right will do just that, disillusioned by the Bush White House and scandals affecting the Republican Congress. They may abstain, but I doubt it. These people are serial political participants. They regard the act of casting a ballot as a civic, indeed a religious, duty. They may not be enthusiastic yet they will stick with the President and his party.

For, finally, this is an election not a referendum. If it were a vote of approval on Mr Bush, Iraq or the broad theme of Time For A Change, then the Republicans would have their chips and me my newspaper column with Tabasco. Yet it remains a choice between two options and the Democrats are a pretty unappealing alternative. They have no coherent new strategy for domestic or foreign policy. A Democratic Congress involves elevating a wacky liberal to be Speaker of the House of Representatives (Nancy Pelosi) and a bland stiff to be the Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid). The Democrats remain the Republican’s secret weapon in US elections.

Which means, perversely, that a Democratic triumph on November 7 could be a disaster for them (as well as my digestive system). It would mean two years of bitter political gridlock between the Administration and its congressional adversaries. Mr Bush would certainly suffer but so would the Democratic Congress. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, Republicans with no links to the White House, would be well placed to exploit this mood. Senator Hillary Clinton would not.

I stay with the view that a Democratic Congress will not happen. But if it does, then it is double or quits on newspaper and Tabasco for the Republicans retaining the presidency two years later.

Times Recommends

• We must lead the world to stability
• The recession's a blessing in disguise
• The guilty men who sent mum to Iceland