PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Experts see double-digit Dem losses


HonestChieffan
08-31-2009, 09:04 AM
THIS would be Change you can believe in!

Experts see double-digit Dem losses
.By JOSH KRAUSHAAR | 8/31/09 4:50 AM EDT

Handicappers can now envision an election in which Democrats suffer double-digit losses in the House.

After an August recess marked by raucous town halls, troubling polling data and widespread anecdotal evidence of a volatile electorate, the small universe of political analysts who closely follow House races is predicting moderate to heavy Democratic losses in 2010.


Some of the most prominent and respected handicappers can now envision an election in which Democrats suffer double-digit losses in the House — not enough to provide the 40 seats necessary to return the GOP to power but enough to put them within striking distance.


Top political analyst Charlie Cook, in a special August 20 update to subscribers, wrote that “the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and congressional Democrats.”

"Many veteran congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats,” he wrote.


At the mid-August Netroots Nation convention, Nate Silver, a Democratic analyst whose uncannily accurate, stat-driven predictions have made his website FiveThirtyEight.com a must read among political junkies, predicted that Republicans will win between 20 and 50 seats next year. He further alarmed an audience of progressive activists by arguing that the GOP has between a 25 and 33 percent chance of winning back control of the House.


“A lot of Democratic freshmen and sophomores will be running in a much tougher environment than in 2006 and 2008 and some will adapt to it, but a lot of others will inevitably freak out and end up losing,” Silver told POLITICO. “Complacency is another factor: We have volunteers who worked really hard in 2006 and in 2008 for Obama but it’s less compelling [for them] to preserve the majority.”


Historic trends point to Republican House gains in the midterm election, particularly after facing two brutal election cycles where the party lost seats in every region and even in some of the most conservative states in the nation. Over the last five decades, the party out of power has picked up seats in 10 of the 12 midterm elections.


Turnout levels may also work in the GOP’s favor: House Democrats who narrowly won election in 2008 on the strength of high turnout among African-Americans and young voters probably won’t be able to count on that same level of enthusiasm next year in a nonpresidential election.


The national political environment, of course, could look significantly different next year. It wasn’t until the final month before the 1994 GOP landslide that political analyst Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of The Rothenberg Political Report, anticipated GOP gains large enough to win back control of the House.


This year, Rothenberg cautioned that despite signs of a Republican resurgence, there are many factors working against huge numbers of GOP pickups. If Democrats are able to pass a health care bill without the controversial public option, the party could get credit for passing legislation without jeopardizing their most vulnerable members, he noted. And if the economy perks up in the third quarter of next year, Rothenberg argued, all bets are off.


“To have another wholesale sea change bigger than last year’s and almost as big as the two years combined is asking a lot. It’s not impossible, but you have to think that’s quite a challenge for the Republicans,” said Rothenberg. “If [House Republicans] won 12 to 15 seats, … they should be very happy about that. Could I see them winning more than that? If there are gale force winds, I could see them winning 20 to 25, … but 40 seats is a really big number.”


Cook Political Report House analyst David Wasserman, who expects Republicans to pick up between nine and 26 seats, said that even if the national environment approximates the 1994 atmosphere, there are significant structural differences about the political landscape that will limit Republican gains.

Back in 1994, Democrats had held the majority for 42 years. Many veteran members, predominantly from conservative districts, decided to retire after sensing the changing political winds. Of the 31 open seats they created, Republicans picked up 23 of them — about 40 percent of the GOP’s total pickups that year.


Only seven House Democrats to date have announced they’re not running for reelection — with all but three of them representing safe Democratic districts.


“I don’t think that Democrats’ chances of losing the House are anywhere near one-in-four right now,” said Wasserman. “For Democrats to lose 40 seats, they would have to be facing absolutely catastrophic circumstances, and even if the health care debate turns sour, it’s hard to imagine that Democrats will be losing a ton of ground.”


Silver also pointed to the role of health care legislation, which he said is increasingly looking like a no-win situation for House Democrats.


In his view, if a compromise bill is passed without a public option, the liberal base will become upset and may not be enthusiastic heading into the 2010 midterm elections, where their support will be critical. But if Democrats pass legislation without any assistance from Republicans, the party risks incurring the wrath of independent voters looking for a bipartisan solution. And if no health care reform at all gets passed, the administration and vulnerable members will have spent political capital without getting any results on the administration’s signature issue.


“If you pass a health care bill it doesn’t make you popular, but if you don’t sign any legislation it makes things even worse,” Silver said. “You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. I don’t see what the exit strategy is for the White House. Once they went down this path, they’re going all in here, and you can’t take that bet back.”


Democratic officials privately expect to lose around 10 House seats even under politically stable conditions, and acknowledge that President Obama’s standing in the run up to November 2010 will play a pivotal role in how well they can weather the historical trend.


“When you have big waves like 2006 and 1994, you felt it early and you felt it build. I am not sure we are seeing that. While healthcare is causing some heartburn, it is still an issue that two-thirds of all voters say needs reforming,” said Democratic pollster John Anzalone, who represents many clients in conservative Southern districts.


“It is clearly too early to tell if the Republicans have a chance [to regain control of the House], but at this point I still think it is more like a 10 or 15 percent chance. That may certainly grow. But there are some big battles yet to fight.”


Indeed, those upcoming battles — on health care reform, energy legislation and economic regulation — will be crucial to the fortunes of targeted House Democrats.



Wasserman noted that of the 16 House Democrats who voted against former President Clinton on the controversial budget and assault weapons ban, every single one of them won reelection. If this year’s crop of targeted Democrats resists pressure from leadership and votes in line with their constituencies, Wasserman predicted they can overcome a Republican wave.


Already, many Democrats representing conservative-minded districts have distanced themselves from the national party’s leadership on the most controversial measures. Forty-four Democrats split from their leadership to oppose the cap-and-trade energy legislation — most of them falling in line with the economic interests of their districts.


“It goes to show that voting behavior in Congress matters at the end of the day.” Wasserman said. “Right now, we’re looking at a wave cycle, but the question is will it be a small wave or a major wave. And it matters how these freshman and sophomore members vote to determine how big a wave it will be.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26393.html

BigRedChief
08-31-2009, 09:16 AM
Little too early to be prediciting. But hasn't the incumbenant party lost seats in the house during a mid term election after winning the presidency since...forever?

Garcia Bronco
08-31-2009, 09:22 AM
I just don't see double losses, but I do see a net lose. It depends.

wild1
08-31-2009, 09:41 AM
The people might be sorry they have to stomach an inept president, but they really know that the Dems should not be left with the keys to Congress.

jiveturkey
08-31-2009, 10:05 AM
It's how these things always balance out. One side goes crazy and starts throwing rocks at everyone and then 2 years later they tell us how throwing rocks is unpatriotic.

I'm looking forward to some balance.

blaise
08-31-2009, 10:11 AM
Little too early to be prediciting. But hasn't the incumbenant party lost seats in the house during a mid term election after winning the presidency since...forever?

I think so, but there were people claiming the Obama election signalled the death of the GOP and acted, and still do act, as if this is a permanent seizure of control by the Democrats.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 10:12 AM
I think so, but there were people claiming the Obama election signalled the death of the GOP and acted, and still do act, as if this is a permanent seizure of control by the Democrats.

exactly

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 10:26 AM
Well, I don't want one party rule again on either side of the aisle. Power corrupts.

petegz28
08-31-2009, 10:31 AM
Little too early to be prediciting. But hasn't the incumbenant party lost seats in the house during a mid term election after winning the presidency since...forever?

in 2002 the Repubs actualyl gained seats, admittedly bucking the trend. But generally speaking you are correct.

RINGLEADER
08-31-2009, 10:38 AM
Little too early to be prediciting. But hasn't the incumbenant party lost seats in the house during a mid term election after winning the presidency since...forever?

2002 the Republicans went +8 in the house and +2 in the senate.

But I agree. Too early to predict.

If the election were being held right now, however, I think the GOP would come very close to reclaiming both houses.

At the very least, if the GOP can pick up 20+ seats in the house and 5+ in the senate it will make it next to impossible for Obama to ram through anything like he's been trying to do this session.

At least Obamacare would be dead. That's why they're trying to pass it this year because the politicians don't want to have to deal with this kind of resistance in an election year. They have to pass it this year or it isn't happening IMO.

petegz28
08-31-2009, 10:47 AM
2002 the Republicans went +8 in the house and +2 in the senate.

But I agree. Too early to predict.

If the election were being held right now, however, I think the GOP would come very close to reclaiming both houses.

At the very least, if the GOP can pick up 20+ seats in the house and 5+ in the senate it will make it next to impossible for Obama to ram through anything like he's been trying to do this session.

At least Obamacare would be dead. That's why they're trying to pass it this year because the politicians don't want to have to deal with this kind of resistance in an election year. They have to pass it this year or it isn't happening IMO.

I am not so concerned with 1 party rule if the numbers don't give the one party a super majority like they have now. That being said, I am opposed to one party rule.

BigRedChief
08-31-2009, 11:35 AM
I think so, but there were people claiming the Obama election signalled the death of the GOP and acted, and still do act, as if this is a permanent seizure of control by the Democrats.
I'm also concerned about one party rule, even when its to my liking. But, they always over reach and then the voters smack them back down, at least historically thats what has happened.

I do think it is the end of the Republican party as we have known it. They have lost 90% of the african American population. 70% of the mexican-american population. 30% of white America will never vote for a Republican. Do the math. Whats their margain for error? They will be a different party or just wither away. None of this Obama backlash has shown up in polls as a gain for Republicans.

They need to expand their party base by not being so dogmatic. If not, they can be the minority party forever. Tax cuts for the wealthy and business's won't cut it anymore.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 11:38 AM
I do think it is the end of the Republican party as we have known it. They have lost 90% of the african American population. 70% of the mexican-american population. 30% of white America will never vote for a Republican. Do the math. Whats their margain for error?

They need to expand their party base by not being so dogmatic. If not, they can be the minority party forever. Tax cuts for the wealthy and business's won't cut it anymore.

The dems expand their party base by not stopping illegal immigration from poor countries and buying votes with entitlements aka bribery. FTR the GOP never had the black vote. Nothing new. Blacks tend to vote for socialist leaders unfortunately, so who cares. The 30% that won't vote for a R is the same left that's always been around. Just as there's 30% who won't ever vote for a D. That just equalizes each side. It's the ones in the middle or un-aligned that make the determination.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 11:38 AM
We need to elect representatives on WHAT they stand for individually not just along party lines, 3rd party anyone?

Simplex3
08-31-2009, 01:00 PM
They need to expand their party base by not being so dogmatic. If not, they can be the minority party forever. Tax cuts for the wealthy and business's won't cut it anymore.

Tax cuts aren't their problem, being married to Christianity is. Most Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Neither party addresses that.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 01:01 PM
Tax cuts aren't their problem, being married to Christianity is. Most Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Neither party addresses that.

:eek:

The politicians aren't married to Christianity, they simply use that position to get power.

Simplex3
08-31-2009, 01:06 PM
:eek:

The politicians aren't married to Christianity, they simply use that position to get power.

My point is that the Republican party's deep involvement with the church and legislation of morality is their biggest problem. If they would simply drop the morality crap and actually become the fiscal conservatives they claim to be they would be winning in landslides.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 01:13 PM
My point is that the Republican party's deep involvement with the church and legislation of morality is their biggest problem. If they would simply drop the morality crap and actually become the fiscal conservatives they claim to be they would be winning in landslides.

True, especially since most are morally bankrupt the churches would do well to distance themselves.

Adept Havelock
08-31-2009, 04:18 PM
My point is that the Republican party's deep involvement with the church and legislation of morality is their biggest problem. If they would simply drop the morality crap and actually become the fiscal conservatives they claim to be they would be winning in landslides.

Yep, but they won't risk losing the Fundies that flock to yammerheads like <s>Nehemiah Scudder</s> Mike Hucksterbee who has said the President should also be a "national pastor" and the Constitution needs to be redone in line with "God's Law".

Gee, that sounds familiar...I think is saw the movie:

http://a.imagehost.org/0378/gabriel1933.jpg (http://a.imagehost.org/view/0378/gabriel1933)

As crappy an idea now as it was in the 30's when Hearst put out that piece of dreck.

stevieray
08-31-2009, 04:34 PM
My point is that the Republican party's deep involvement with the church and legislation of morality is their biggest problem. If they would simply drop the morality crap and actually become the fiscal conservatives they claim to be they would be winning in landslides.

that's a toughie..

you'll love one and despise the other

memyselfI
08-31-2009, 06:37 PM
ROFLROFLROFL

***SPRAYER
08-31-2009, 06:47 PM
I'm at the point now where I don't think it matters. I mean, it's nice to hear the dem's are going to get booted from office, but republicans taking their place takes the wind out of my sails. Because we all know they will stab conservatives in the back and then they too will get replaced by dem's and America descends further into it's tragic end.

InChiefsHell
08-31-2009, 08:15 PM
Big deal. If the Repubs take it all back, it won't take them very long to piss down their legs...

Personally, I'm all for voting out ALL the bums...

***SPRAYER
08-31-2009, 08:18 PM
My point is that the Republican party's deep involvement with the church and legislation of morality is their biggest problem. If they would simply drop the morality crap and actually become the fiscal conservatives they claim to be they would be winning in landslides.

Are Christians allowed to have representation?

***SPRAYER
08-31-2009, 08:19 PM
x

Saul Good
08-31-2009, 08:53 PM
It reminds me of an old quote I once heard from some hockey coach. He said "We were losing at home, and we couldn't win on the road. My biggest failure was that I couldn't think of anywhere else to play."

That's how I feel. The good news is that the Democrats may lose seats. The bad news is that they will go to the Republicans. I feel the same way when the Raiders play the Broncos.

banyon
08-31-2009, 09:10 PM
This has been coming since Pelosi was elected as Speaker in 2006. You're only as coherent as your leadership, and their leadership and choices were the worst, so this is what they get.

RNR
08-31-2009, 09:13 PM
It reminds me of an old quote I once heard from some hockey coach. He said "We were losing at home, and we couldn't win on the road. My biggest failure was that I couldn't think of anywhere else to play."

That's how I feel. The good news is that the Democrats may lose seats. The bad news is that they will go to the Republicans. I feel the same way when the Raiders play the Broncos.

There is not enough rep to give for this post........err......well.......less the last part!

jAZ
08-31-2009, 09:48 PM
in 2002 the Repubs actualyl gained seats, admittedly bucking the trend. But generally speaking you are correct.

Yeah, the average is a 20 seat loss. 2002 was the post 9/11 election.

jAZ
08-31-2009, 09:50 PM
This has been coming since Pelosi was elected as Speaker in 2006. You're only as coherent as your leadership, and their leadership and choices were the worst, so this is what they get.

Pelosi, for all the polarization of her job, is far more of a coherent and (relatively) dynamic leader than Reid.

He's a zombie.

banyon
08-31-2009, 09:55 PM
Pelosi, for all the polarization of her job, is far more of a coherent and (relatively) dynamic leader than Reid.

He's a zombie.

That's ridiculous. What has Pelosi been an effective leader on?

HonestChieffan
08-31-2009, 10:09 PM
That's ridiculous. What has Pelosi been an effective leader on?

Led the polls down rather well. Not even a stutter step.

jAZ
08-31-2009, 10:11 PM
That's ridiculous. What has Pelosi been an effective leader on?

I didn't call her an effective leader, I said that she is more coherent and dynamic than Reid.

HonestChieffan
08-31-2009, 10:25 PM
I didn't call her an effective leader, I said that she is more coherent and dynamic than Reid.

Calling citizens Nazis?

StcChief
08-31-2009, 10:33 PM
throw 'em all out.

RINGLEADER
08-31-2009, 11:06 PM
This has been coming since Pelosi was elected as Speaker in 2006. You're only as coherent as your leadership, and their leadership and choices were the worst, so this is what they get.

People don't like it when the government tries to do big things -- usually because government screws it up. The leadership of both parties is terrible IMO, but the big move in public opinion has more to do with over-reaching than who's trying to do it. Just my opinion.

RINGLEADER
08-31-2009, 11:10 PM
I didn't call her an effective leader, I said that she is more coherent and dynamic than Reid.

Huh?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nxE33lfTi_Y&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nxE33lfTi_Y&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Direckshun
08-31-2009, 11:11 PM
I think so, but there were people claiming the Obama election signalled the death of the GOP and acted, and still do act, as if this is a permanent seizure of control by the Democrats.

That's pretty much happened since... forever, too.

You need some thicker skin.

Direckshun
08-31-2009, 11:12 PM
In my opinion, these things always swing on a pendulum anyway, so I don't think this is a master victory for conservativism as much as it is the natural order of things.

I would expect double digit losses in the House, and a loss of four to five in the Senate

blaise
09-01-2009, 07:54 AM
That's pretty much happened since... forever, too.

You need some thicker skin.

Um, no I don't. When did I say I was offended? I'm just pointing out an observation. If anyone needs a thicker skin it's obviously you because my innocuous comment must have bothered you somehow.

jAZ
09-01-2009, 09:19 AM
Huh?

Do you know who Harry Reid is?

Simplex3
09-01-2009, 11:48 AM
Are Christians allowed to have representation?

Sure. All I'm saying is that any party that is going to vote based on their Bible is going to have a hard time winning nationally. Not even all Christians want to be preached to by their government.

Simplex3
09-01-2009, 11:50 AM
Pelosi, for all the polarization of her job, is far more of a coherent and (relatively) dynamic leader than Reid.

He's a zombie.

Electing your leadership based on how long they've been there will inevitably get you the far-spectrum wingnuts from very safe districts.