First thread! Will Repubs retake the House? Senate? [Archive]

BobLibDem

06-02-2010, 08:40 AM

No. Neither one. The jobs situation will improve, albeit slowly, and the feeling of crisis will pass. The health care debate is over and since the sky has not fallen, the anger over the issue will fade. The oil spill will be seen as the Bush-Cheney deregulation fiasco. Looking at recent special elections, the only GOP win was in Hawaii, where the Democratic vote was split. The Dems will easily take back that seat. Rand Paul is exposing the Teabaggers for the racist halfwits that they are, this will scare moderate independents away from marking the R side of the ballot.

Republican gains will be minimal this fall, if at all. The anti-incumbent feeling may be out there in theory, but when it gets down to voting a lot of people still like their damned rascal.

I look for little change this year, then as the economy gathers steam in 2012, the reelection of Obama and a filibuster-proof solid Dem majority in the Senate.

Squink

06-02-2010, 08:41 AM

No and no.
Healthcare reform will continue to slowly increase in popularity, and Republicans who run against it will only hurt themselves at the polls. Lots of Republicans will run against it.

The extent of Bush's dysregulation at the MMS will become better known, and many southern Republicans will find themselves at odds with the party's anti-regulatory planks, especially when it comes to oiling their beaches. That'll hurt GOPers at the polls too.

The teaparty bit will continue to hurt where it matters, in actually getting GOPers elected. Too much extremist crap actually does alienate the independents.

Gyrate

06-02-2010, 08:45 AM

The extent of Bush's dysregulation at the MMS will become better known, and many southern Republicans will find themselves at odds with the party's anti-regulatory planks, especially when it comes to oiling their beaches. That'll hurt GOPers at the polls too.Eh - that would require the Democrats (individually and collectively) to get this message across without any blame rebounding onto themselves and Obama (who has had control of MMS for the past 1.5 years, higher priorities notwithstanding). Without a FoxNews-type organ to coordinate the message, it ain't gonna happen.

CandidGamera

06-02-2010, 08:47 AM

I'm thinking the GOP has even odds of taking the House, and might whittle the Dems down to 52-53 Senators, but that's about it.

BrainGlutton

06-02-2010, 09:03 AM

The problem is, the GOP has no big energizing message this year, like the Contract With America in 1994. Jobs are the big issue, but what ideas do Republicans have to offer there? "No!" ain't enough to win.

kenner116

06-02-2010, 09:04 AM

I'm thinking the GOP has even odds of taking the House, and might whittle the Dems down to 52-53 Senators, but that's about it.
This. Polls show the Republicans with a slight advantage in the House, and FiveThirtyEight.com is showing the Dems losing 4 to 8 seats in the Senate. I'm guessing Sestak will win in PA and the Dem may win in Colorado. So that's a loss of 6 or 7 for the Dems.

Squink

06-02-2010, 09:05 AM

Without a FoxNews-type organ to coordinate the message, it ain't gonna happen.A nice juicy federal prosecution would do wonders for the message. Of course, it's not clear that Obama's justice has the balls for that. Still, what with housing collapse and bank debacles and insurance company ripoffs there appears to be a bit of reexamination of antiregulatory sentiments. That can only hurt the GOP.

TriPolar

06-02-2010, 09:12 AM

Too soon to tell. The mood of the country may be apparent in September, but the next couple of months will affect people's attitudes in various ways. Big factors will be the price of gasoline at the pump (which may remain low), unemployment (which may remain high), the Gulf oil spill, hurricanes, international affairs, the flaming out or flaming up of the Tea Party, more political scandals, etc.. Until these coalesce, the electorate will maintain its obvious anti-incumbent dissatisfaction shown in primaries, but when election day comes, they have to decide if the unknown candidate is better than the known incumbent. The challengers negatives may make them undesirable in the general election.
To make a general guess, Republican gains in the House and Senate, no change in the dominant party, just the level of dominance.
More interesting will be the changes in the political atmosphere if lots of incumbents are booted out.

Jas09

06-02-2010, 10:36 AM

This. Polls show the Republicans with a slight advantage in the House, and FiveThirtyEight.com is showing the Dems losing 4 to 8 seats in the Senate. I'm guessing Sestak will win in PA and the Dem may win in Colorado. So that's a loss of 6 or 7 for the Dems.
That's a possibility. I think there are two pretty realistic Dem pickups though - MO (I actually thought this was a strong possiblity considering the relative brand value of the Carnahan and Blunt names here - but it looks less likely now) and FL (assuming Crist will caucus with the Dems, which he must if he hopes to win).

Quite frankly, if I got to pick just one result for November, it would be Rubio losing to Crist.

Gangster Octopus

06-02-2010, 10:40 AM

No and no.

ElvisL1ves

06-02-2010, 10:42 AM

No and no.
Healthcare reform will continue to slowly increase in popularity, and Republicans who run against it will only hurt themselves at the polls. Lots of Republicans will run against it.Popular views are already against repeal (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gHk_TKsoMzixbmbwaiHOctHP0k4AD9G2EC7G3), as the GOP made the mistake of promoting as its platform.

But when asked if they would be more likely to vote for a congressional candidate willing to give the law a chance to work and make changes as needed, or one who would repeal it entirely and start over, respondents picked the one who would give it a chance by 55-42.

Political independents favored giving the law a chance 57-40 in the poll, taken in early May.
..
An Associated Press-GfK poll in May found that 47-39 percent, Americans trust Democrats to do a better job of handling the issue.

The extent of Bush's dysregulation at the MMS will become better knownBut that won't matter - Obama's been in charge long enough that the problems are now his, and the issues will come up only in relation to how much / whether he's fixed them, not who created them. That said, you may have heard the last of "Drill, baby, drill!" said in earnest.

The teaparty bit will continue to hurt where it matters, in actually getting GOPers elected. Too much extremist crap actually does alienate the independents.Don't be too sure that will matter either. Fox does know how to motivate their viewers, er, excuse me, the Tea Partiers, to get out to vote, and alienated independents tend to stay home. We've seen a lot of hard-right candidates elected even before there was a name for them.

Oh, right, the OP: Senate impossible, House almost so.

Evil Captor

06-02-2010, 10:46 AM

I think the Tea Party will hurt the Republicans in November. No majority in either house of Congress, and a smaller gain than expected.

Jas09

06-02-2010, 10:47 AM

Forgot to add that Rand Paul is making it more and more likely by the week that the Dems will pick up the KY Senate seat as well.

Steve MB

06-02-2010, 11:08 AM

The problem is, the GOP has no big energizing message this year, like the Contract With America in 1994.

You don't think the Ninja Cats (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=564800) are going to come through for them? :p

Captain Amazing

06-02-2010, 11:18 AM

They'll gain seats, but I don't think they'll win a majority in either house, with the caveat that it's a long time until November, and that if the economy stays the same or gets worse, that'll help the Republicans, and that might let them pick up more House seats. I'm also assuming, of course, that no one does anything insane.

Skammer

06-02-2010, 11:23 AM

Moderate gains for the GOP, but the Dems will keep their majorities in both houses. The 'pubs will be emboldened, however, and dig in in 2011 and with 41+ senate seats will try to block just about anything the Dems try to pass.

Really Not All That Bright

06-02-2010, 11:23 AM

I think the Tea Party will hurt the Republicans in November. No majority in either house of Congress, and a smaller gain than expected.
I think it's impossible to say what the Tea Party will do. It will doubtless split the Republican vote, and result in a bunch of primary wins by candidates too far to the right to win an election, but it may also increase GOP turnout enough to offset these issues.

Tanbarkie

06-02-2010, 01:55 PM

I think it's impossible to say what the Tea Party will do. It will doubtless split the Republican vote, and result in a bunch of primary wins by candidates too far to the right to win an election, but it may also increase GOP turnout enough to offset these issues.

Indeed. Democrats underestimate the Tea Party at their own peril - not because the 'baggers necessarily have useful policy ideas or even popular support, but because they are doing a helluva job of firing up the Republican base, while the Democratic base is at a nadir of enthusiasm. And independents don't just include politically-active moderates, sadly. It also includes lots of apathetic non-political types who might swing towards the Paulbots just because they represent something new (you can tell this type because, if pressed on why they vote the way they do, they can't come up with anything more specific than "Washington is full of dirt, throw the bastards out!").

That being said, I still think the Dems hold both the House and Senate, although the former only narrowly. A major factor that could tilt the election one way or the other will be how the economy acts over the next five months. If things look good, the Dems may be able to minimize their losses (it is unlikely in the extreme that they will actually make any gains). If things start looking bad again, then the Dems will probably lose the House.

Little Nemo

06-02-2010, 02:22 PM

Indeed. Democrats underestimate the Tea Party at their own peril - not because the 'baggers necessarily have useful policy ideas or even popular support, but because they are doing a helluva job of firing up the Republican base, while the Democratic base is at a nadir of enthusiasm. And independents don't just include politically-active moderates, sadly. It also includes lots of apathetic non-political types who might swing towards the Paulbots just because they represent something new (you can tell this type because, if pressed on why they vote the way they do, they can't come up with anything more specific than "Washington is full of dirt, throw the bastards out!").The problem the Republicans are going to have is whether they can turn the movement from being anti-Democratic into being pro-Republican. The Tea Partiers are already convinced that the Democrats in office a problem but they still have to be sold the idea that electing Republicans is the solution.

There's a strong possibility that the Tea Partiers will just drop out of the election process entirely. That will be a disaster for the Republicans. The Democrats will still be able to use the Tea Party as a focus to run against while the Republicans will gain nothing from the movement.

Tanbarkie

06-02-2010, 02:58 PM

The problem the Republicans are going to have is whether they can turn the movement from being anti-Democratic into being pro-Republican. The Tea Partiers are already convinced that the Democrats in office a problem but they still have to be sold the idea that electing Republicans is the solution.

There's a strong possibility that the Tea Partiers will just drop out of the election process entirely. That will be a disaster for the Republicans. The Democrats will still be able to use the Tea Party as a focus to run against while the Republicans will gain nothing from the movement.

I don't think this is true. The Tea Party is, for all intents and purposes, a subset of the Republican Party. This isn't a "Green Party" situation, wherein the extremists might vote for Nader over the less-palatable but more-electable Gore. They're not even like Perot's supporters, who disdained both major parties more or less equally.

In contrast, Tea Party members strongly identify with and support the Republican Party (Nate Silver goes over the relevant data here (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/how-similar-are-tea-party-and-perot.html)). They're looking to move the Pubbies rightward, to be sure, but only via the primaries. They'll happily support a moderate Republican over ANY Democrat in general elections. Just look at what happened here in Massachusetts. Scott Brown wasn't expected to be a blip on the radar, and ended up winning - partly because his opponent was one of the least-effective candidates I've ever seen (seriously, who is stupid enough to call Curt Schilling a Yankees fan in Boston?!), but just as much because he had some serious Teabagger energy behind him.

Onomatopoeia

06-02-2010, 03:01 PM

The problem the Republicans are going to have is whether they can turn the movement from being anti-Democratic into being pro-Republican. The Tea Partiers are already convinced that the Democrats in office a problem but they still have to be sold the idea that electing Republicans is the solution.

There's a strong possibility that the Tea Partiers will just drop out of the election process entirely. That will be a disaster for the Republicans. The Democrats will still be able to use the Tea Party as a focus to run against while the Republicans will gain nothing from the movement.Where are you getting that there's a 'strong' possibility, or even a possibility that the TPers will sit the election out? I'm not getting that at all, well, aside from the rhetoric from talking heads.

Further, to your excellent point that the TPers sitting out would be a disaster for Republicans, I think the meme that TPers are not primarily Republicans is a bunch of hooey, and because they're Republicans first, idealists second, and because they will oppose any Democrat for any reason and no reason, in the end, the TPers will fall in line and back the Republican candidate, even if said candidate promotes an agenda that's against their better interests.

To answer the OP, close but no cigar in the House, and not a chance in Hell in the Senate.

ETA: Tanbarkie pretty much said what I did, but better.

Chronos

06-02-2010, 03:22 PM

Still, I'd actually like to see Rand Paul get in, if only for the sake of more ideological diversity in Congress. More diversity, say, from a few libertarians, might be a nice thing, but Rand Paul is just far-right economically and socially, putting him in about the same place as plenty of other Republicans. There's nothing new there.

To the OP, I give a House takeover at most 1 chance in 10, and the odds of a Senate takeover are too low to even bother worrying about. I also think that the Democrats will probably lose seats in both houses, but that in the House, at least, anything that leaves the Democrats with a majority should be viewed as a victory for Dems, just perhaps a smaller victory than it might be. Control of the chamber is decided by the number of seats, not the derivative of the number.

appleciders

06-02-2010, 03:27 PM

For what it's worth, Intrade (http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/#) favors the Democrats about 3 to 1 to retain the Senate and about 55-45 to retain the House.

Really Not All That Bright

06-02-2010, 03:31 PM

Still, I'd actually like to see Rand Paul get in, if only for the sake of more ideological diversity in Congress.
The stupid are already overrepresented in Congress.

Death of Rats

06-02-2010, 04:52 PM

No and No. The GOP will pick up some seats but not enough for control and to make thing worse for the GOP the few wins the Teabaggers do get will replace incumbent GOPers in already red areas with freshman Congresscritters with no seniority and no clout in Congress.

Lok

06-03-2010, 01:39 AM

That's a possibility. I think there are two pretty realistic Dem pickups though - MO (I actually thought this was a strong possiblity considering the relative brand value of the Carnahan and Blunt names here - but it looks less likely now) and FL (assuming Crist will caucus with the Dems, which he must if he hopes to win).

Quite frankly, if I got to pick just one result for November, it would be Rubio losing to Crist.

There is a decent chance of a Dem pickup in Ohio also. If Voinovich was running again, he would win, but Fisher has a chance against Portman. If Brunner had won the primary, I think the left would have been more excited about the general election, but I don't know if that would have been enough to make her the better candidate. (Well, I thought she was, but that does not necessarily follow in the General Election.)

For the OP, barring something really horrendous happening, no and no.

There are not enough Dem seats vulnerable for the GOP to take over, even if they hold onto their own vulnerable seats. And the Tea Party candidates could help some of the Dems. What happens if Sue Lowden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Lowden) is the GOP candidate in Nevada? While Blumenthal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Blumenthal) will have some problems in Connecticut, McMahon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_McMahon) was hardly the best choice for the GOP.

The House is more volatile, but if the economy continues to improve, even as slowly as it is, the Dems should be able to keep their majority. It will probably mean even more power to the Blue Dogs, which is not good, but better than the GOP taking over.

Jas09

06-03-2010, 10:07 AM

And the Tea Party candidates could help some of the Dems. What happens if Sue Lowden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Lowden) is the GOP candidate in Nevada? While Blumenthal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Blumenthal) will have some problems in Connecticut, McMahon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_McMahon) was hardly the best choice for the GOP.This is a great point, I think. The impact of the Tea Party could be positive for the Republicans in races where there was not a contested primary (or where the TP didn't "win" the primary), like they were in MA, but in races where they were or may be a factor in the Republican primary (KY, CT, FL, maybe NV, maybe AZ if they primary McCain) it's possible they will do the GOP some damage.

I was never really counting CT as in play though, even with the Blumenthal "scandal".

Another interesting factor will be the impact of any immigration reform talk. The AZ law has already given Reid a nice boost in the polls, and had what seems to be a large impact in the NM races this week. It could be significant in CO as well.

Steve MB

06-03-2010, 10:23 AM

This is a great point, I think. The impact of the Tea Party could be positive for the Republicans in races where there was not a contested primary (or where the TP didn't "win" the primary), like they were in MA, but in races where they were or may be a factor in the Republican primary (KY, CT, FL, maybe NV, maybe AZ if they primary McCain) it's possible they will do the GOP some damage.

The interesting thing will be the post-election repercussions, if so. I'm sure that some Republican leaders (coffMcConnellcoff) are already regarding the Tea Party crowd as a bunch of rabble who ought to stay in their place (which is to show up and make a fuss when, and only when, their betters consider it politically useful for them to do so). That attitude would surely spread, and inevitably become known, if they have reason to blame the TP for disappointingly low gains.

Lok

06-03-2010, 11:40 AM

I think if Paul loses in Kentucky, the GOP leaders will start trying to dump the Tea Party. Rubio losing to Crist would suck from their POV, but would be livable. Reid hanging on in Nevada, again, not a good thing. But both of those have some outside explanation. But Paul losing in Kentucky would be an outright rejection of the Tea Party line by the general populace, with no name recognition or incumbent power to explain it. The name recognition would even go the other way, with Ron Paul's wide exposure in the Presidential elections.

Nate Silver at 538.com shows a 50-50 chance (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/senate-forecast-update-little-chance-of.html) the Dems will have at least 54 seats after the elections. (Unfortunately, quite a lot has happened since the last update to the forecast, like Crist going independent. Will be interesting to see how that affects things.) While not a great number, still solidly in control. IMO, what will really tell the tale for future elections is who wins the Republican pickups.

If Tea Party candidates win a decent share of the Republican seats (Amazing how a "non-partisan" movement is not attempting to win any Democratics primaries. :rolleyes: ) The GOP will have no choice but to continue to pander to them. Which will probably really hurt come 2012's Presidential race. I can't see the people that actually decide the races, the moderates and independents in the middle, going for someone like Ron Paul after being exposed to their ideology for a couple of years at the Federal level.

If, OTOH, the Tea Party candidates don't make it in, the GOP can try to start working back to the center, maybe getting a more moderate image going by then. I don't know if they would succeed at that, some of the leaders just don't seem to be able to lead in that direction. But it is a possibility.

elfkin477

06-03-2010, 04:50 PM

Further, to your excellent point that the TPers sitting out would be a disaster for Republicans, I think the meme that TPers are not primarily Republicans is a bunch of hooey, and because they're Republicans first, idealists second, and because they will oppose any Democrat for any reason and no reason, in the end, the TPers will fall in line and back the Republican candidate, even if said candidate promotes an agenda that's against their better interests. Exactly. People who think they're not going to fall in and vote Republican this fall or in 2012 are just engaging in wishful thinking. They're not going to vote for a third party candidate. Conservatives don't do that (well, 27% of the people 19% who voted for Perot in 1992 were conservatives. look at how well that turned out, though.) Liberals don't even vote for third party candidates very often, despite Nader having been a far bigger name than any supposed tea-party candidate thus far.

Marley23

06-03-2010, 06:25 PM

The interesting thing will be the post-election repercussions, if so. I'm sure that some Republican leaders (coffMcConnellcoff) are already regarding the Tea Party crowd as a bunch of rabble who ought to stay in their place (which is to show up and make a fuss when, and only when, their betters consider it politically useful for them to do so). That attitude would surely spread, and inevitably become known, if they have reason to blame the TP for disappointingly low gains.
That's more or less why the Tea Party exists in the first place: the Republican Party got very skilled at using Tea Party type voters. For maybe 30 years, Republican candidate and the RNC used wedge issues and such to get them to turn out and vote Republican in elections, but they did not deliver very much for them at least on the federal level. After a fashion the Tea Party is Karl Rove's fault: if you take your liberal goggles off, what did Bush really do for these voters? He didn't ban abortion, and didn't even move the Supreme Court significantly close to doing so. He didn't ban gay marriage. He ramped up the size of the government and government spending, including TARP, which was one of the real 'last straws' here. Not that Bush was the only Republican president or candidate who excited these people and didn't deliver as much as he promised. But maybe you get the idea here.

DoctorJ

06-04-2010, 05:43 AM

For what it's worth, Intrade (http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/#) favors the Democrats about 3 to 1 to retain the Senate
That's money in the bank, right there. I'm not saying it's impossible for the Republicans to pick up eleven seats, but some crazy shit would need to happen between now and then. There's nowhere near a 25% chance.

and about 55-45 to retain the House.
Probably a little closer to reality, but it's still a bet worth making, IMO.

Really Not All That Bright

06-04-2010, 08:37 AM

That's more or less why the Tea Party exists in the first place: the Republican Party got very skilled at using Tea Party type voters. For maybe 30 years, Republican candidate and the RNC used wedge issues and such to get them to turn out and vote Republican in elections, but they did not deliver very much for them at least on the federal level. After a fashion the Tea Party is Karl Rove's fault: if you take your liberal goggles off, what did Bush really do for these voters? He didn't ban abortion, and didn't even move the Supreme Court significantly close to doing so. He didn't ban gay marriage. He ramped up the size of the government and government spending, including TARP, which was one of the real 'last straws' here. Not that Bush was the only Republican president or candidate who excited these people and didn't deliver as much as he promised. But maybe you get the idea here.
Ronald Reagan did all the same stuff and didn't create a Tea Party.

Lok

06-04-2010, 09:10 AM

Ronald Reagan did all the same stuff and didn't create a Tea Party.
But St. Ronnie was the first to do it. They could still believe that he was starting things off and it would all happen "any day now". Harder to do that after 30 years of getting bent over with no lube. Even today, if you point out that under Reagan middle class taxes went up, the federal government got bigger, and the federal deficit got huge, they don't believe. Reality after all, has a liberal bias.

Squink

06-04-2010, 09:24 AM

Ronald Reagan did all the same stuff and didn't create a Tea Party.That's because he was the one who sucked all those people into the Republican party in the first place. Being conservatives, it took them 30 years to realize that they weren't getting the end of the deal they thought they were going to get by joining the GOP, hence the current discontent.

It's a marriage made in hell, gone bad.

Chronos

06-04-2010, 04:23 PM

Exactly. People who think they're not going to fall in and vote Republican this fall or in 2012 are just engaging in wishful thinking. They're not going to vote for a third party candidate. Conservatives don't do that (well, 27% of the people 19% who voted for Perot in 1992 were conservatives. look at how well that turned out, though.)Wouldn't the more recent example be NY-23, where Tea Partiers and mainstream Republicans did in fact split the vote enough for the Democrat to win? Now, obviously, the nation as a whole is not NY-23, but it seems dangerous to generalize the reverse.

lel

06-04-2010, 05:04 PM

It seems fairly reasonable that in the Senate a GOP majority seems quite unlikely, but is possible in the House. I think to get that GOP majority in the House, they need another 1994 Contract with America, and Newt Gingrich needs to get out there and create a new vision like he did back in '94 to get a GOP majority.

If something doesn't happen soon, I'd put my bets on Dems retaining the House but losing seats.

Qin Shi Huangdi

06-04-2010, 06:41 PM

lel

06-04-2010, 09:43 PM

Slight Republican majority in the House and five or six seats gained in the Senate. Possibly this will mean the rise of moderate/Rockefeller Republicans like Brown in Massachusetts, Kirk in Illinois, and Fiorna or Campbell in California.

That could go either way. For example, if you count McCain as a more moderate Republican, he's in a major primary fight against a well-known opponent coming from the right who claims he is insufficiently conservative. Will the moderate Republicans who win in traditionally blue state areas be offset by the moderate Republicans who may lose in primaries to those farther right in more red states?

Onomatopoeia

06-04-2010, 11:20 PM

It seems fairly reasonable that in the Senate a GOP majority seems quite unlikely, but is possible in the House. I think to get that GOP majority in the House, they need another 1994 Contract with America, and Newt Gingrich needs to get out there and create a new vision like he did back in '94 to get a GOP majority.Gingrich? Hah! He's like a tired, long-dead ghost, still clinging to the remnants of memories of a life he once had, having not yet come to grips with the fact that it's simply time to walk into the damned light already.

Superhal

06-05-2010, 03:12 AM

If the Repugs continue to be divided by the tea baggers, they'll lose even more seats.

Their only hope is that the crazies vote with the less crazy. Separately, they can't win.

Uncle Goat

06-05-2010, 07:32 AM

Does it matter? Near as I can tell, if one of the security guards is Republican, the Dems will bend over backwards making sure that GOP issues are rammed on through. The only way the Dems could have a "super majority" is if everyone on the planet was in full support of them, otherwise, they cave in like a cheap souffle.

Qin Shi Huangdi

06-05-2010, 10:30 AM

That could go either way. For example, if you count McCain as a more moderate Republican, he's in a major primary fight against a well-known opponent coming from the right who claims he is insufficiently conservative.

Well McCain has the support of the retirees in Sun City and elsewhere who form a massive voting bloc but don't usually respond to polls.

waterj2

06-05-2010, 06:52 PM

Wouldn't the more recent example be NY-23, where Tea Partiers and mainstream Republicans did in fact split the vote enough for the Democrat to win? Now, obviously, the nation as a whole is not NY-23, but it seems dangerous to generalize the reverse.Scozzafava dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democratic candidate. Her name was still on the ballot, but she only got 5.7% of the vote.

Boozahol Squid, P.I.

06-06-2010, 04:20 AM

Gingrich? Hah! He's like a tired, long-dead ghost, still clinging to the remnants of memories of a life he once had, having not yet come to grips with the fact that it's simply time to walk into the damned light already.

I thought that post was referring to a more metaphorical version of Newt Gingrich: while the actual man still has some presence in the minds of voters, and a slightly larger one in the minds of Republican voters, there needs to be a charismatic, game-changing leader to reject the policies of the last Bush President as well as the current policies of the current Dem Prez in order for massive shift in the House.

That being said, I think the Heffalumps don't have a snowball's chance in hell to pick up more than 7 Senate seats, but probably will get close enough in the House that the five or six special elections we see every two year cycle will become of major importance.

RTFirefly

06-06-2010, 09:30 AM

I thought that post was referring to a more metaphorical version of Newt Gingrich: while the actual man still has some presence in the minds of voters, and a slightly larger one in the minds of Republican voters, And an absolutely huge presence in the minds of the 'liberal' Beltway media, for no apparent reason (really, they're his main constituency anymore),

there needs to be a charismatic, game-changing leader to reject the policies of the last Bush President as well as the current policies of the current Dem Prez in order for massive shift in the House. Not only is that a pretty thin needle to thread, but is there any sign that either the GOP establishment or the base wants to abandon any Bush policies besides immigration reform?

Charismatic leader or no, there has to be an agenda. Just for fun, try to create a GOP agenda that (a) GOP Congresscritters and Congressional candidates are willing to run on in a general election, (b) won't get the GOP base hopping mad, and (c) will draw a modicum of support from centrists/independents.

I don't think it can be done, but I'm starting a thread for people to try (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=566045).

That being said, I think the Heffalumps don't have a snowball's chance in hell to pick up more than 7 Senate seats, but probably will get close enough in the House that the five or six special elections we see every two year cycle will become of major importance.I'll agree with the former, but not the latter. For those special elections to start being a big deal, I think the Dem majority has to drop under ~225, and I really don't think that'll happen.

RingsOfPylon

06-06-2010, 10:39 AM

There is a strong anti-incumbent sentiment afoot. It has little to do with party affiliation. The electorate is angry and they see their current crop of representatives as being woefully out of touch and far too insulated from their constituency.

That perception of the electorate may be accurate or inaccurate, but it exists nonetheless. That could, and probably will, spill over to some degree at the national level. How much so remains to be seen. For the most part this has little to do with which party one is voting for, and more to do with sheer disgust with the actions and records of those currently holding office.

Looking at the recent jobs numbers does not give comfort to incumbents who are seeking to be re-elected. If things improve economically by November, the backlash will be reduced. Current conditions to not appear to be incumbent-friendly, regardless of party affiliation.

Very few people are so party-loyal that they are willing to forgive/support politicians perceived as working against them. Just imho.

gravitycrash

06-06-2010, 10:49 AM

If the Repugs continue to be divided by the tea baggers, they'll lose even more seats.

Their only hope is that the crazies vote with the less crazy. Separately, they can't win.

So much for thoughtful discussion in this new forum. :rolleyes:

Is this going to be allowed here Mods? If so I'll just stick to the pit for my daily dose of this.

Chronos

06-06-2010, 01:22 PM

...but probably will get close enough in the House that the five or six special elections we see every two year cycle will become of major importance.Of course, even if it doesn't get that close, the special elections will still be portrayed as being of major importance. Ooh, the seat from North Takoma's 17th and a half district changed parties! That must mean that there's a major wave of anti-incumbent sentiment and that every seat in the country will change hands in the next general election!

Onomatopoeia

06-06-2010, 02:13 PM

There is a strong anti-incumbent sentiment afoot. It has little to do with party affiliation. The electorate is angry and they see their current crop of representatives as being woefully out of touch and far too insulated from their constituency.I think the facts are somewhat different. I agree there's an anti-incumbent sentiment afoot, but that's mostly internecine, and has everything to do with party affiliation. The Tea Partiers are litmus testing everyone for their conservative bonafides. If they don't pass muster, they're threatened with competition from tea party approved candidates, most, if not all of whom just happen to be Republicans. The problems the democrats have does not come, for the most part, from any anti-incumbent sentiment, but from Republican desires to destroy any Democrat, no matter who they are, what they've done, or what they stand for, which has been SOP for the last 16 or so years.

That perception of the electorate may be accurate or inaccurate, but it exists nonetheless. That could, and probably will, spill over to some degree at the national level. How much so remains to be seen. For the most part this has little to do with which party one is voting for, and more to do with sheer disgust with the actions and records of those currently holding office. Not really true, unless you count inaction as an action. Republicans who are being tea-partied out are only vulnerable because they're considered not to be obstructive enough to anything proposed by the Obama administration. It has very little to do with their records or votes before 2008, which were considered hunky-dory before they did the unforgivable and allowed a black man to become President

Looking at the recent jobs numbers does not give comfort to incumbents who are seeking to be re-elected. If things improve economically by November, the backlash will be reduced. Current conditions to not appear to be incumbent-friendly, regardless of party affiliation.This is true, but again, it has less to do with an anti-incumbent sentiment than with the normal cycle of electoral politics, of which jobs is just one component.

Very few people are so party-loyal that they are willing to forgive/support politicians perceived as working against them. Just imho.Again, not really true. To paraphrase a comment from a conservative on these boards recently, Republicans consider the worst conservative to be better than the best liberal. Sorry, I don't remember who said it, or the thread I read it in. However, I do agree with it. Republican can and do vote for candidates who promote agendas that are against their better interests.

RTFirefly

06-06-2010, 08:41 PM

So much for thoughtful discussion in this new forum. :rolleyes:

Is this going to be allowed here Mods? If so I'll just stick to the pit for my daily dose of this.If you really want to ask the mods, click that little red triangle and note your objection. Or PM the forum mod, Marley23. If you don't want an answer, then don't do either of these things.

But just asking "Is this going to be allowed here Mods?" in the thread hardly guarantees that a mod will see your question. There's no freakin' way that a mod can read every post in every thread in his/her forum.

RingsOfPylon

06-06-2010, 08:46 PM

The problems the democrats have does not come, for the most part, from any anti-incumbent sentiment, but from Republican desires to destroy any Democrat, no matter who they are, what they've done, or what they stand for, which has been SOP for the last 16 or so years.

I get a different read. Folks are disgruntled with their representatives. They don't care which letters of the alphabet are after their representatives' names. The electorate is looking for retribution for a dreadful economy. Most of the talk is "vote the bums out", not "vote for this Democrat" or "vote for that Republican". Anyone currently in office is perceived to be part of the problem.

Very few of us think in purely binary terms of Democrats or Republicans. We're not married to a party and we have no vested interest in whether a specific party succeeds or fails, however that is defined. We DO have a vested interest in our own well-being and many folks believe that their interests are not being served.

Not really true, unless you count inaction as an action. Republicans who are being tea-partied out are only vulnerable because they're considered not to be obstructive enough to anything proposed by the Obama administration. It has very little to do with their records or votes before 2008, which were considered hunky-dory before they did the unforgivable and allowed a black man to become President.

I don't know if you're giving the tea party too much or too little credit. ;)

All I have to go on to form my perceptions on this issue is what I'm hearing from other people -- people who are not normally political creatures, although they certainly are politically aware. I live in a fairly liberal, Democratically entrenched area and people are very unhappy, even those people who were Obama supporters in the previous election (which was the vast majority of them).

A conservative has little opportunity here, but that doesn't mean that the Democratic incumbents are safe by any stretch of the imagination. They are incurring a lot of wrath from their constituency, and they know they cannot take re-election for granted. They're nervous and they should be. There's a possibility that this disdain could spill over into elections of national-level reps. Several congressional seats are vulnerable in this general area - an area where, by enrollment, Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1.

This is true, but again, it has less to do with an anti-incumbent sentiment than with the normal cycle of electoral politics, of which jobs is just one component.

Given the current economic situation, I don't think this is a "normal" election cycle, although I agree that those cycles exist.

I think jobs is a huge component. I know I can't take my job for granted and I'm also trying to help out an adult child who was laid off, while simultaneously trying to deal with double digit increases in property taxes and increased state payroll taxes and increased "fees" (in other words, taxes).

Unemployment/underemployment doesn't just impact the person who has been laid off. The longer this goes on the more people realize that, even if still gainfully employed, they are picking up the financial slack for those poor souls who are not having luck finding another job, both directly and indirectly. It's financially crippling to the middle class, who have yet to see any breaks regardless of who's in office.

Again, not really true. To paraphrase a comment from a conservative on these boards recently, Republicans consider the worst conservative to be better than the best liberal. Sorry, I don't remember who said it, or the thread I read it in. However, I do agree with it. Republican can and do vote for candidates who promote agendas that are against their better interests.

Well, I don't know about conservatives, let alone the attestations of a conservative poster. Again, I don't think most people care about political parties, which is why most people are independent voters, and they will vote for the people who best represent their interests. If people think their reps are selling them out they will, in turn, sell out their reps. Tit for tat.

Regardless of all of our musings, it could be a very interesting election year and I'm looking forward to seeing how wrong I might be. :)

Cheers.

Squink

06-06-2010, 08:53 PM

There's no freakin' way that a mod can read every post in every thread in his/her forum.Well, there might be a way, when the forum's so new and small that it only contains seven threads.
I'd be willing to bet that Marley23 is up to that challenge.

Chronos

06-06-2010, 08:56 PM

I get a different read. Folks are disgruntled with their representatives. They don't care which letters of the alphabet are after their representatives' names. The electorate is looking for retribution for a dreadful economy. Most of the talk is "vote the bums out", not "vote for this Democrat" or "vote for that Republican". Anyone currently in office is perceived to be part of the problem.Except if you look nationwide, the people saying "vote the bums out regardless of party" are mostly Republicans living in Democrat-represented districts.

Squink

06-06-2010, 09:25 PM

Yeah, there's a real riddle wrapped in an enigma for you, Chronos, isn't it? ;)

Cyberhwk

06-07-2010, 01:05 AM

I get a different read. Folks are disgruntled with their representatives. They don't care which letters of the alphabet are after their representatives' names. Fine...which Democratic candidates have the Tea Parties endorsed?

Or even easier...which incumbents do you expect to lose to more liberal challengers this fall? Again, if this were truly just "anti-incumbent sentiment" then there should be proportionately as many GOP seats flipping Dem as Dem seats flipping GOP.

ETA: Dems DO have a chance to flip a couple of seats where no incumbent is running. Mostly due to GOP retirement.

waterj2

06-07-2010, 01:39 AM

Or even easier...which incumbents do you expect to lose to more liberal challengers this fall? Again, if this were truly just "anti-incumbent sentiment" then there should be proportionately as many GOP seats flipping Dem as Dem seats flipping GOP.Not really. The Democrats did very well in flipping marginal seats in 2006 and 2008, such that the overwhelming majority of the seats that could be flipped have Democratic incumbents. Also, Arlen Specter just lost a primary to a more liberal challenger, and Blanche Lincoln got forced into a run-off that she might well still lose.

The Tea Party has certainly made a bigger splash in the media (I suspect Fox's reporting on it may have been a bit biased), but it seems that people are breaking both left and right in their opposition to the status quo. I don't know how things are going to shake out in November, but I think that anyone counting on Tea Party enthusiasm sweeping the Republicans into office in droves is going to be disappointed.

Cyberhwk

06-07-2010, 02:15 AM

Gyrate

06-07-2010, 04:15 AM

You bring up a fair point, I forgot about Specter and Lincoln, but do you really think those that voted for Sestack and Halter did so because of "anti-incumbent sentiments." Or was it policy driven like everything else?You have to admit that Arlen "I'm just switching parties because I want to get re-elected" Specter was a victim of a self-inflicted injury; all Sestak had to do was keep replaying that clip for the masses.

MsRobyn

06-07-2010, 05:34 AM

You bring up a fair point, I forgot about Specter and Lincoln, but do you really think those that voted for Sestack and Halter did so because of "anti-incumbent sentiments." Or was it policy driven like everything else?

Specter's defeat came down to two things. First, his switching parties was seen as a cynical ploy to get re-elected. Most of the people I know didn't trust him not to switch back if he got re-elected. Second, he's 80, and he'd be 86 once his term ended in 2016, and that's assuming he managed to make it that long. Also assuming he stayed Democrat, there was a very real risk that he'd be replaced by a Republican governor. None of these were especially palatable to Democrats. PA has a sore loser law, so he can't run as an independent.

Sestak, on the other hand, is reliably Democrat, and he's got the support of organized labor and veterans' groups. Statewide name recognition doesn't seem to be a problem since he took Pittsburgh pretty easily. It's not clear if he'll play well to the more rural parts of the state because of some of his more liberal positions, but that's the nature of PA politics. We have blue stripes on either end of the state, and a tiny island in Harrisburg but a whole lot of red in the middle. Fortunately, it's possible to win without the rural voters because there are a hell of a lot more voters in the cities.

The Democratic base is fired up, but it's not the base I worry about. It's the people who were OK with Specter who may not like Sestak all that much. We'll know on November 3.

RingsOfPylon

06-07-2010, 06:10 AM

Fine...which Democratic candidates have the Tea Parties endorsed?.

To be frank, I don't yet know who the Tea Parties are endorsing in my own state, but I suspect that, in other states, they're endorsing people like Rand Paul.

Or even easier...which incumbents do you expect to lose to more liberal challengers this fall?

I think Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is vulnerable if she gets decent competition. And, she could certainly be replaced by another Democrat, if another Democrat challenges her. She was respected by her district (which generally goes to Republicans) when she was in the House, but a lot of people don't like her as a Senator, including other Democrats. She was appointed by the governor to replace Hillary Clinton.

Scott Murphy (D-NY20) is also vulnerable. That district tends to be more conservative, so if he was replaced it wouldn't have the same shock value.

Paul Tonko (D-NY21) may get some good competition which could dislodge him, although this is a heavily Democratic district. It's also a particularly fed up district politically. If the competition is competent he'll get a run for his money.

Again, if this were truly just "anti-incumbent sentiment" then there should be proportionately as many GOP seats flipping Dem as Dem seats flipping GOP.

I agree, and I think you'll see that situation as well.

ETA: Dems DO have a chance to flip a couple of seats where no incumbent is running. Mostly due to GOP retirement.

Agree again.

[I'm not arguing that Republicans will be more successful as much as I'm saying that incumbents, regardless of party, are vulnerable. We've already started to see this.]

DrDeth

06-09-2010, 09:43 PM

No, and no. The Pubbies may pick up enough seats so that only a few crossovers will allow the GOP to win a few fights. Generally, the other party picks up a few in the election after a new President comes in, and dudes find out he really can't walk on water.

Really Not All That Bright

06-09-2010, 10:39 PM

To be frank, I don't yet know who the Tea Parties are endorsing in my own state, but I suspect that, in other states, they're endorsing people like Rand Paul.
Which Democrats remind you of Rand Paul, exactly?

Squink

06-16-2010, 08:13 PM

Looks like the tea party is starting to show a little tarnish in the eyes of voters:
Dick Armey: Avoid 'tea party' label, MSNBC (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38625.html#ixzz0r2wN6TXF) Republican candidates popular with tea party activists should refrain from self-identifying as tea party candidates — and also should stay off MSNBC, Dick Armey said Wednesday.

The former House majority leader, who has emerged as a leading figure within the tea party movement as head of the nonprofit group FreedomWorks told reporters at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, that candidates who call themselves tea party leaders are opening themselves up for more negative scrutiny from hostile media outlets, and he singled out MSNBC as a leading antagonist of the tea party movement and its favored candidates. This can't be good news for the group which claims to represent mainstream America, or the GOP.

Merijeek

06-17-2010, 07:31 AM

Looks like the tea party is starting to show a little tarnish in the eyes of voters:
Dick Armey: Avoid 'tea party' label, MSNBC (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38625.html#ixzz0r2wN6TXF) This can't be good news for the group which claims to represent mainstream America, or the GOP.

Eh, same shit as always. Play to the ends for the primary and the middle for the general.

Except.

In this case, one of the ends (that's the rightish one, for those paying attention) is psychotically focused on purity tests and seem to have no interest in whether or not their candidate is electable.

But.

The GOPer establishment has to bend over and accept the teabagged primary winners. However, once that happens they seem to get control of them. Which is why Paul and Angle won't be talking in public for weeks, and after that they will only talk to people who are guaranteed to ask the right questions.

They may as well not say anything, because what they say will be as worthwhile as the answers a supreme court nominee gives.

Sarah Palin set the pattern. Hopefully she'll have set the pattern for actual elections as well.

-Joe

Larry McAwful

06-17-2010, 07:54 AM

All things being equal, 2010 ought to be a fantastic year for the Republicans. The reason for this is that the Democrats just had two fantastic election years in a row, and we're in the middle of a Democratic president's first term. Plus the economy sucks. This should spell great news for Republicans.

But it won't. The Republican Party is either leaderless or has too many leaders, depending on how you look at it. The Tea Partiers are revving up voters, sure, but they also risk scaring off moderates from voting Republican--even moderate Republicans.

Much attention has been paid to the special elections in NY-23, PA-12 and MA-Sen. But I don't think any of these really set the narrative the way a lot of people would like to think. It's more like we don't want to have to wait until this November before we can talk about which way the country is definitely heading. So I could be just as wrong as anyone, but my takeaway is that the Tea Party is a weird populist movement, in that it opposes government but doesn't actually stand for anything. (Sure, it claims to be in favor of the Constitution, but seriously--who runs for office while taking a stand against the Constitution?)

In the end, I think the Republicans will come out with a few more seats in the House and Senate than they did before, but that's about it. It'll hurt them, too, because of all this talk we've been hearing about how Obama was spelling certain doom for the Democrats, for America, for Western civilization, for Christendom, etc. When the doom fizzles, what are the Republicans going to have left to freak out about? Not that they'll stop freaking out or anything, but unless they take at least one of the houses of Congress, they're going to look pretty impotent.

If Rand Paul loses his election, the Republican Party is going to want to have a lot less to do with the Tea Party. However, there's not a whole lot they can do to get rid of them. The Republicans are going to be in a bad way until someone inside the Republican Party stands up and actively tries to rip the Tea Party out of their party, because no one can clean the Republicans' house for them. Until that happens, the Republicans are going to remain a very vocal minority, and very likely shrinking in influence.

Chronos

06-17-2010, 11:37 AM

But it won't. The Republican Party is either leaderless or has too many leaders, depending on how you look at it.Actually, I've figured out who the leader of the Republican Party is. There is in fact one individual who is single-handedly determining what the Republican position on any given issue is. That man being, of course, Barack Obama.

Askance

06-24-2010, 12:49 AM

If the oil gusher in the Gulf doesn't count as a major disaster, I really don't want to see a major disaster. Not that I hold Obama solely responsible for that, and I don't think most of the public does either, but it does not make him look good and it is not going away.
Are you saying you hold him partially responsible for it?

gonzomax

07-13-2010, 09:12 PM

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201007120006
As long as the tea party gives you people like Angle, they will diminish their effect. This is a Fox Gnus interview and Cavuto is begging her not to be stupid. But she did not get the hint.

BrainGlutton

07-14-2010, 02:48 PM

Well McCain has the support of the retirees in Sun City and elsewhere who form a massive voting bloc but don't usually respond to polls.

What makes you think they don't respond to polls? I mean, what else have they got to do with their time?

Really Not All That Bright

07-14-2010, 02:59 PM

Order people off their lawns?

Sinisterniik

07-14-2010, 04:51 PM

To address the OP, I say no and no.

john b.

07-19-2010, 12:17 AM

Standard middle of the road response: too early to tell.

A number of things relating as much to American political history as to the 2010 midterm election: party loyalty has fallen to record lows in recent years. Once upon a time both parties had strong bases, and not just in an ideological sense. The South was solidly Democratic, the farm belt Republican. Most of non-Southern rural and small town America was Republican, of varying degrees of conservatism depending on the region. Yadda yadda. That's all changed. The heartland isn't the heartland anymore; the far west is cosmopolitan, especially the coast; while the South doesn't even like to be called the South nowadays: it's the southeast.

Bottom line: we've become increasingly an ideological rather than the sort of idiosyncratic party-oriented nation we once were, yet the parties themselves, while they reflect these changes, haven't changed as quickly as the American people. My sense is that the political landscape is beyond the comprehension of both major political parties, one of the many reasons I hesitate to even guess what will happen in November.

For what it's worth: my sense is that a lot of the anti-Obama sentiment comes from people who are traditionally Democratic,--working folk, middle class but not really Yuppie professionals, those one might loosely called the educated poor. Some of these people have gone the tea party route, others are just simmering. It remains to be seen whether the Republicans can win these kinds of people over. At the other end of the spectrum, many well to do Dubya Republicans, the affluent, the complacent (and I don't mean that in a negative sense), those for whom life is good because they were born that way, these people (my sense) don't really hate Obama. They're naturally moderate to conservative, can accept Obama as a symbol, can live with his social policies. In other words, they're not fans of the guy but they don't hate him enough to drop their golf clubs and rush to the polls to vote straight ticket Republican in November. They may sit this one out, split their tickets, vote in insufficient numbers to turn the tide toward the Republicans even though if they were really motivated they probably could.

Bricker

07-19-2010, 08:12 AM

Not too early to tell. GOP will take the House by a slim margin, Democrats will retain the Senate.

BrainGlutton

07-19-2010, 10:21 AM

Not too early to tell. GOP will take the House by a slim margin, Democrats will retain the Senate.

Have you got some breakdown of House-seat races you base that on?

Bricker

07-19-2010, 10:34 AM

Have you got some breakdown of House-seat races you base that on?

What, my grandmother's casting of the chicken bones ain't good enough for ya?

Really Not All That Bright

07-19-2010, 10:50 AM

Probably more scientifically valid than Research 2000's predictions.

New Deal Democrat

07-30-2010, 11:35 AM

Ronald Reagan did all the same stuff and didn't create a Tea Party.

The Tea Party is more of a reaction against Obama than Bush.

Reagan did nothing for the religious right, but he pretended to share its concerns. Christian conservatives were used to being laughed at since the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925. By the Bush administration, those in the religous right were tired of being pandered to. They wanted results.

Also, during the Reagan years the economy slowly recovered. An average of 2,000,000 jobs were created every year, as opposed to 375,000 under Bush.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Finally, under Reagan there were no foreign policy disasters. The Iran Contra Scandal was trivial compared to Bush starting two expensive wars he could not win.

Bush tried to govern like Reagan, but he choose advisors who were yes men and yes women. Reagan had good advisors, and he listened to his advisors. He would have wanted to invade Iraq, but his advisors would have counseled against it.