Democrats will lose the House in 2010
Dionysus
HEAD: Why the Democrats will lose the House in 2010
The trend is not the Democrats� friend. At least not in 2010. The party of
the sitting president almost always suffers losses in midterm congressional
elections. To that time-tested dynamic now add voter angst about high
unemployment, big deficits and controversial legislation. Expect Senate
majority leader Harry Reid to lose his effective 60-seat supermajority and
Nancy Pelosi to hand the House back to the Republicans. Here�s why 2010 is
looking like 1994 all over again:
1. Virginia and New Jersey. Big GOP wins in the gubernatorial races not only
highlighted discontent with incumbents by recession-weary voters, they also
greatly helped Republicans with candidate recruiting for 2010.
2. History. More big political change isn�t predicated on America rekindling
its love for the Grand Old Party. A recent poll had the Republicans
finishing a distant third in popularity behind a fictional Tea Party and the
actual Democratic Party. Yet American politics has a regular ebb and flow.
In 13 of the past 15 midterm elections going back to 1950, the party in
control of the White House has lost an average of 22 seats in the House. In
10 of the past 15 midterms the party running the Senate has lost an average
of three seats.
3. Mean Reversion. Democrats have a wide field to defend after huge
victories in 2006 and 2008. Particularly in the House, there are lots of
Democrats in places with a proven willingness to vote Republican. Currently
47 of them are in districts won by both John McCain in 2008 and George W.
Bush in 2004. And voters in those districts may be especially unhappy with a
Democratic legislative agenda that causes many Americans mixed feelings.
4. Obama-Reid-Pelosi Agenda. A RealClearPolitics aggregation of polling data
shows Americans disapprove of healthcare reform by a 51-38 margin. And only
a little more than a third think the $787 billion stimulus plan has done
much good, according to pollster Rasmussen. There�s also plenty of worry
among the electorate that Washington spending is creating a dangerous level
of government debt.
5. Rep. Parker Griffith. Griffith, elected in 2008, could be an electoral
harbinger. His district, Alabama�s 5th, gave 60 percent of its votes to Bush
in 2004, and 61 percent to McCain. He just switched from Democrat to
Republican, saying he couldn�t belong to a party that favors healthcare
reform that massively expands the role of government. Even though Griffith
voted against the stimulus, cap-and-trade and healthcare plans, he clearly
felt that guilt-by-party-association threatened his re-election.
6. Unemployment. Underlying voter unease with Capitol Hill is deep concern
about unemployment. And that leads to a simple equation: Joblessness drives
presidential approval ratings, and it�s those ratings that drive midterm
congressional results. Despite a landslide win in 1980, for instance,
unemployment approaching 11 percent drove Ronald Reagan�s approval ratings
down to the low 40s in November 1982 when Republicans lost 26 House seats.
(And only five narrow GOP victories by fewer than 50,000 votes kept the
Senate even.)
As unemployment has risen this year, Obama�s approval has steadily eroded to
around 50 percent currently. The White House says it doesn�t expect
employment growth until the spring. And if even the economy begins to create
jobs, the actual unemployment rate could still rise as the long-term
unemployed begin to actively seek jobs again and thus start being counted by
the Labor Department. It would take a year of 4 percent growth generating
200,000 to 250,000 jobs a month to bring the rate down to 9 percent. And
even that would be twice as high as what Americans have been used to during
the past two decades.
7. Discontent with Democrats. At the same time, the generic congressional
ballot has shifted from a high single-digit Democratic lead to a low
single-digit Republican lead as independents veer back to the GOP. What�s
more, a recent poll by the liberal Daily Kos blog found just 56 percent of
Democrats definitely or probably voting in 2010 vs. 81 percent of
Republicans. Note that a new Rasmussen poll has Sen. Ben �60th Vote� Nelson,
who won reelection in 2006 with 64 percent of the vote, down 61-30 in a
hypothetical 2012 matchup vs. Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman. Dems in both
chambers will surely take note of those numbers. Indeed, the prospect of a
terrible 2010 environment has already pushed some veteran Democratic
legislators in competitive districts into retirement such as John Tanner of
Tennessee and Brian Baird of Washington.
8. Economic Damage. Even if the unemployment rate falls a full percentage
point next year, it may not help Democrats much. Americans only slowly
regain their economic confidence after a deep recession. When Democrats lost
the House and Senate in 1994, the economy had been growing steadily since
the nasty 1990-91 downturn and unemployment had fallen sharply, though not
fully to its pre-recession levels. Yet 72 percent of Americans at the time
still thought the economy was �fair� or �poor,� according to Gallup.
As political forecaster Charlie Cook has noted, what happens in the House
depends a lot on there being more Democrat retirements in competitive seats.
The GOP needs a 40-seat pickup. The more Dem members that stick, the less
likely a changeover. If the numbers start going north of 12-15, a warning
signal should sound for Democrats. (In 1994, Democrat departures created 31
open seats, 22 of which were won by the GOP.) For now, Cook sees a possible
20-30 seat pickup in the House for the GOP and four to six in the Senate.
(Harry Reid, Blanche Lincoln and Chris Dodd look especially vulnerable). But
Cook may be underestimating how the dreadful New Normal in the economy will
create a New Normal in politics in 2010.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SOME COMMENTS FROM THE SITE
Throw the bums out!
`````````````````
It�s pretty safe to say that except in the blue strongholds people got
pretty sick of Obama fast and are going to take it out on his party.
````````````````````
I think the GOP must give voters a reasons to vote FOR their candidates�not
just rely on current discontent with the incompetent and radical Left House.
Something like 1994�s Contract With America. The GOP needs to offer
something positive and hopeful and not just carp and nitpick the insane
legislation the Dems are pushing. It�s critical the GOP take back either the
Senate or the House. If not, watch for Obama/Pelosi to go all-in in 2011 on
their Leftist agenda.
`````````````````````
We must take the House or the Senate back in 2010! �If not, watch for
Obama/Pelosi to go all-in in 2011 on their Leftist agenda,� and that simply
CAN�T HAPPEN if our republic is to survive. This is serious stuff!
``````````````````````
Personally, I hoping for a wave like �94, but not 1994. I�m hoping for a
wave like 1894 where the Dems lost 125 House seats. Is it possible? Yes.
Compare the similarities. The 1894 elections followed the panic of 1893 and
unemployment was in double digits. The 2010 election will be following the
Panic of 2008 and if unemployment is still over 10%, the Democrats have a
major problem. The Democrats won the 2008 congressional elections with a 9%
point margin nationwide. 9% was good for a 40 seat margin. Since the 9 point
win, generic polling by Rasmussen has been showing an average margin of 6%
for the Republicans which is a swing of 15% in 13 months. If the ballot
continues to shift at this rate, in 10 months (Nov 08), the Republicans
could be sporting a 16-17% margin on election day. This should be good for
125 seats.
****************
125 seat swing....Sweet! 125 maggot-treat Dems shown the door....oh yeah,
sweet, all right.
Happy New Year.
No Surrender!
Dionysus
Michael Coburn
> FROM POLITICAL RISK
>
> HEAD: Why the Democrats will lose the House in 2010
The corrected header is that Democrats may lose some House seats in 2010.
And the reasons are several and varied.
> The trend is not the Democrats’ friend. At least not in 2010. The party
> of the sitting president almost always suffers losses in midterm
> congressional elections. To that time-tested dynamic now add voter angst
> about high unemployment, big deficits and controversial legislation.
Very true. The congress always suffers from the plight of the economy
regardless of who caused the problem UNLESS the fascist pigs can have
another war.
> Expect Senate majority leader Harry Reid to lose his effective 60-seat
> supermajority and Nancy Pelosi to hand the House back to the
> Republicans. Here’s why 2010 is looking like 1994 all over again:
>
> 1. Virginia and New Jersey. Big GOP wins in the gubernatorial races not
> only highlighted discontent with incumbents by recession-weary voters,
> they also greatly helped Republicans with candidate recruiting for 2010.
Horse shit.
> 2. History. More big political change isn’t predicated on America
> rekindling its love for the Grand Old Party. A recent poll had the
> Republicans finishing a distant third in popularity behind a fictional
> Tea Party and the actual Democratic Party. Yet American politics has a
> regular ebb and flow. In 13 of the past 15 midterm elections going back
> to 1950, the party in control of the White House has lost an average of
> 22 seats in the House. In 10 of the past 15 midterms the party running
> the Senate has lost an average of three seats.
This is true. In 1966 Johnson gained seats due to the fascist (communism)
boogerman of Vietnam, and in 2002 Pinocchio Bush converted 9/11 into HIS
scary (terrrrrrrrrist) boogerman. But in all other years since Truman
the administration has lost seats in the congress.
> 3. Mean Reversion. Democrats have a wide field to defend after huge
> victories in 2006 and 2008. Particularly in the House, there are lots of
> Democrats in places with a proven willingness to vote Republican.
> Currently 47 of them are in districts won by both John McCain in 2008
> and George W. Bush in 2004. And voters in those districts may be
> especially unhappy with a Democratic legislative agenda that causes many
> Americans mixed feelings.
These are the seats that the Democrats _SHOULD_ lose. They are seats
that have been gained only because Republicans are such rightarded screw-
ups and the people of the district are conservative. These districts
will probably go back to trying to reform the Republican party. They
won't have any success, but they will probably try.
> 4. Obama-Reid-Pelosi Agenda. A RealClearPolitics aggregation of polling
> data shows Americans disapprove of healthcare reform by a 51-38 margin.
> And only a little more than a third think the $787 billion stimulus plan
> has done much good, according to pollster Rasmussen. There’s also plenty
> of worry among the electorate that Washington spending is creating a
> dangerous level of government debt.
These memes are constant from the lying pigs. The Current Health Care
reform bill out of the Senate is disliked by both left and right. And
that is NOT a lie. It remains to be seen whether the bill can be repaired
in July or so to make it more like what it was before the Senate
destroyed it. If the Public Option is brought to the floor of both House
and Senate in July, we will see who the people in support of the middle
class really are. That is when the rubber meets the road on health care.
> 5. Rep. Parker Griffith. Griffith, elected in 2008, could be an
> electoral harbinger. His district, Alabama’s 5th, gave 60 percent of its
> votes to Bush in 2004, and 61 percent to McCain. He just switched from
> Democrat to Republican, saying he couldn’t belong to a party that favors
> healthcare reform that massively expands the role of government. Even
> though Griffith voted against the stimulus, cap-and-trade and healthcare
> plans, he clearly felt that guilt-by-party-association threatened his
> re-election.
And all the Democrats who are the party of the common people waved
goodbye as he took his Republican self to the Republican party. His
vote, as you have demonstrated, will not be missed. The Democrats can
afford to lose 30 of the right wingers in the Blue Dog coalition and have
no pain from it in that these people vote with the Republicans almost
every time. It would also be better if LIEberman were expelled from the
Democratic Senate caucus. We are done with him at this point.
> 6. Unemployment. Underlying voter unease with Capitol Hill is deep
> concern about unemployment. And that leads to a simple equation:
> Joblessness drives presidential approval ratings, and it’s those ratings
> that drive midterm congressional results. Despite a landslide win in
> 1980, for instance, unemployment approaching 11 percent drove Ronald
> Reagan’s approval ratings down to the low 40s in November 1982 when
> Republicans lost 26 House seats. (And only five narrow GOP victories by
> fewer than 50,000 votes kept the Senate even.)
Yup... I was there and watching.
> As unemployment has risen this year, Obama’s approval has steadily
> eroded to around 50 percent currently. The White House says it doesn’t
> expect employment growth until the spring. And if even the economy
> begins to create jobs, the actual unemployment rate could still rise as
> the long-term unemployed begin to actively seek jobs again and thus
> start being counted by the Labor Department. It would take a year of 4
> percent growth generating 200,000 to 250,000 jobs a month to bring the
> rate down to 9 percent. And even that would be twice as high as what
> Americans have been used to during the past two decades.
Yup... This is a serious problem. And it will cost the Democrats some
seats. No doubt about it.
> 7. Discontent with Democrats. At the same time, the generic
> congressional ballot has shifted from a high single-digit Democratic
> lead to a low single-digit Republican lead as independents veer back to
> the GOP. What’s more, a recent poll by the liberal Daily Kos blog found
> just 56 percent of Democrats definitely or probably voting in 2010 vs.
> 81 percent of Republicans. Note that a new Rasmussen poll has Sen. Ben
> “60th Vote” Nelson, who won reelection in 2006 with 64 percent of the
> vote, down 61-30 in a hypothetical 2012 matchup vs. Nebraska Gov. Dave
> Heineman. Dems in both chambers will surely take note of those numbers.
> Indeed, the prospect of a terrible 2010 environment has already pushed
> some veteran Democratic legislators in competitive districts into
> retirement such as John Tanner of Tennessee and Brian Baird of
> Washington.
Yet the number of seats being vacated in the House is about equal between
Republicans and Democrats, and the seats that are vulnerable for the
Democrats is simply not enough to give the Republicans control of the
House unless a HUGE majority of democrats stay home. That will not be
allowed to happen. We WILL polarize the electorate before that. Given
the choice between an ugly Democrat and a bat shit crazy Republican, the
Democrats will be fine.
> 8. Economic Damage. Even if the unemployment rate falls a full
> percentage point next year, it may not help Democrats much. Americans
> only slowly regain their economic confidence after a deep recession.
> When Democrats lost the House and Senate in 1994, the economy had been
> growing steadily since the nasty 1990-91 downturn and unemployment had
> fallen sharply, though not fully to its pre-recession levels. Yet 72
> percent of Americans at the time still thought the economy was “fair” or
> “poor,” according to Gallup.
>
> As political forecaster Charlie Cook has noted, what happens in the
> House depends a lot on there being more Democrat retirements in
> competitive seats. The GOP needs a 40-seat pickup. The more Dem members
> that stick, the less likely a changeover. If the numbers start going
> north of 12-15, a warning signal should sound for Democrats. (In 1994,
> Democrat departures created 31 open seats, 22 of which were won by the
> GOP.) For now, Cook sees a possible 20-30 seat pickup in the House for
> the GOP and four to six in the Senate. (Harry Reid, Blanche Lincoln and
> Chris Dodd look especially vulnerable). But Cook may be underestimating
> how the dreadful New Normal in the economy will create a New Normal in
> politics in 2010. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is the usual "lipstick on a pig" Republican crap. The
dissatisfaction with the economy and with the Senate garbage Health Care
bill is bad for Democrats. But that doesn't translate to good things for
the bat-shit nutters. If the Democrats have the balls to bring a true
MIDDLE CLASS health care add-on to the floor during the campaign season
the Republicans are going to be in deep doo. We did all we could for the
poor and it got torpedoed by the Republicans (including Max Baicus and
Jope LIEberman) in the Senate. But helping the poor is the heavy
lifting. A middle class aid package is not that difficult. The
Republican drum beating about the deficit and the harm to the middle
class caused by health care reform can be a Democratic wedge for new
legislation that will attract a lot of middle class votes.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60