What will be the real difference in Congress after Jan 2011?

[sleeping]

So, most analyses have thus far sought to determine the net number of seats Republicans would gain in the 2010. However, this elides the fact that there are conservative Democrats who vote with Republicans anyway (like the Blue Dogs who voted against the healthcare bill). Therefore, the real question is whether Congress would be significantly more conservative (rather than Republican) following the November 2010 elections. If most of the Democrats that lose their seats are conservatives (and, after all, conservative districts are also the ones most likely to change hands from Dem to Pub), then there will be little practical difference in the composition of the House and Senate. Any predictions along these lines?

[Captain Amazing]

Obviously, if the Republicans take either house, that'll make a big difference because the majority party controls the schedule and what bills get to the floor.

But lets assume that doesn't happen. Lets say the Republicans pick up a bunch of seats that are now being occupied by conservative Democrats in, say, the House. Two things will happen. First, the House Democratic caucus will get more liberal, since a bunch of conservative Democrats got defeated. The House in general will be more conservative. Even though the Blue Dogs are more conservative than most Democrats, they tend to be more liberal than their Republican opponents. So the Republican that beats him will probably be more conservative than he is.

And remember, while Blue Dogs vote with the Republicans more than the rest of their caucus does, they still vote with their caucus a lot.

[Measure for Measure]

You are missing something. If the Republicans take control of the House, there will be no end to bogus investigations and fake scandals. Think Ken Starr x100. There's even talk of reviving the government shutdown.

The OP is ok though. It's likely that even typical midterm losses will stop the remainder of the Dem's agenda in its tracks. So we can forget about a meaningful climate change bill for the next 2 years. And it's hard to see another substantial stimulus package being passed. So if we want to avoid a Japan-style lost decade, Congress better appoint a couple of solid economists to the FOMC -- and unconventional, untested monetary policy better work.

[Cisco]

I keep hearing conservatives say that this fall is going to be a repeat of the 1994 Contract With America congressional takeover. What I haven't heard them address is that, 2 years later, Clinton got re-elected.

[The Second Stone]

New faces, same idiocy.

Remember, Congress is the opposite of progress.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

You are missing something. If the Republicans take control of the House, there will be no end to bogus investigations and fake scandals. Think Ken Starr x100. There's even talk of reviving the government shutdown.

Like this, but in Congress!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Cisco

I keep hearing conservatives say that this fall is going to be a repeat of the 1994 Contract With America congressional takeover. What I haven't heard them address is that, 2 years later, Clinton got re-elected.

What I haven't heard them address is what agenda/platform analagous to the CWA they have got this year, other than "NO!"

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What I haven't heard them address is what agenda/platform analagous to the CWA they have got this year, other than "NO!"

They're doing their best to help America by using every legal means to stop ill-advised legislation from harming the homeland.

But when they retake Congress, Democrats who do the same will be unpatriotic obstructionists.

[Evil One]

It is abundantly clear by now that 55-70 percent of the american people are not in favor of items in the liberal agenda, depending on the topic. A center-right country has gotten a look at what happens when you have Democrats in charge of congress and the presidency and they are recoiling. An epic slaughter is on the horizon for Democrats this November. Anyone who claims otherwise is whistling past the graveyard in between sips from the partisan Kool-aid cup.

Look at Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. He is busy voting like a Republican so he won't get blasted out of office. Real Clear Politics has 32 seats in as toss-ups in the election. 31 of them are Democrat incumbents. 24 seats are listed as "Leans GOP". 21 of them are Democrats.

President Obama's approval ratings are in the 40's and continuing to fall. The big "strategy" for the Democrats this fall seems to be "Those darn Republicans will be just like Bush!". No discussion of what they've accomplished because they know the majority of the population disagrees with it anyway.

So go ahead Democrats. Keep talking about how bad the Arizona illegal alien law is that 70 percent of Americans support. Follow that up with how great Obamacare is going to be....eventually. And while you're at it, let's talk some more about Cap and Trade.

About a third of the country thinks these are great ideas. Push them boldly.

[Gukumatz]

Originally Posted by Evil One

It is abundantly clear by now that 55-70 percent of the american people are not in favor of items in the liberal agenda, depending on the topic. A center-right country has gotten a look at what happens when you have Democrats in charge of congress and the presidency and they are recoiling. An epic slaughter is on the horizon for Democrats this November. Anyone who claims otherwise is whistling past the graveyard in between sips from the partisan Kool-aid cup.

Look at Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. He is busy voting like a Republican so he won't get blasted out of office. Real Clear Politics has 32 seats in as toss-ups in the election. 31 of them are Democrat incumbents. 24 seats are listed as "Leans GOP". 21 of them are Democrats.

President Obama's approval ratings are in the 40's and continuing to fall. The big "strategy" for the Democrats this fall seems to be "Those darn Republicans will be just like Bush!". No discussion of what they've accomplished because they know the majority of the population disagrees with it anyway.

So go ahead Democrats. Keep talking about how bad the Arizona illegal alien law is that 70 percent of Americans support. Follow that up with how great Obamacare is going to be....eventually. And while you're at it, let's talk some more about Cap and Trade.

About a third of the country thinks these are great ideas. Push them boldly.

Is this an example of Poe's Law made manifest? Not being american, I'd have thought you had longer political attention spans than this.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by Cisco

I keep hearing conservatives say that this fall is going to be a repeat of the 1994 Contract With America congressional takeover. What I haven't heard them address is that, 2 years later, Clinton got re-elected.

Though Republicans did retain control of Congress for 10 more years after that.

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by Cisco

I keep hearing conservatives say that this fall is going to be a repeat of the 1994 Contract With America congressional takeover. What I haven't heard them address is that, 2 years later, Clinton got re-elected.

Could it be that he got credit for the things the Republican congress did?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by pkbites

Could it be that he got credit for the things the Republican congress did?

Tell us about the "Hoover Boom."

[Wesley Clark]

There is a chart on 538 somewhere showing how liberal or conservative the house will be depending on how many seats the GOP wins.

I don't have it, but it was from left to right (for level of ideology) and basically shaped like a stairstep. It went straight down as dem seats were lost, and once the GOP got the majority it shoots to the right and goes straight down again.

So the point is that most of the seats the dems will lose (esp in the house) will be blue dog seats. So it isn't going to affect the liberalness of the house. If anything, 230 dem house members with 25 fewer blue dogs will be more liberal than the current one. There have been several times the blue dog caucus has watered down legislation. With their caucus cut in half the progressive caucus (which has 80+ members last time I checked) will have far more sway in legislation. Twenty five blue dogs can't affect legislation the way 50 can.

At the same time, if the blue dogs are going to get voted out of office, the GOP may convince a few to become republicans and give themselves the majority that way. So that is something to worry about.

Any democrat is better than any republican. But if the dems are going to lose seats, thank god they will lose blue dogs and not progressives.

In the senate something similar will happen. Lincoln and Bayh are gone, but more progressive senators will stay on.


So the end result is the 2 parties become even more polarized. All the conservative dems are purged while all the non-crazy republicans are purged. Soon it'll be all Mitch McConnells' and Bernie Sanders'.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by Evil One

It is abundantly clear by now that 55-70 percent of the american people are not in favor of items in the liberal agenda, depending on the topic. A center-right country has gotten a look at what happens when you have Democrats in charge of congress and the presidency and they are recoiling. An epic slaughter is on the horizon for Democrats this November. Anyone who claims otherwise is whistling past the graveyard in between sips from the partisan Kool-aid cup.

Look at Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. He is busy voting like a Republican so he won't get blasted out of office. Real Clear Politics has 32 seats in as toss-ups in the election. 31 of them are Democrat incumbents. 24 seats are listed as "Leans GOP". 21 of them are Democrats.

President Obama's approval ratings are in the 40's and continuing to fall. The big "strategy" for the Democrats this fall seems to be "Those darn Republicans will be just like Bush!". No discussion of what they've accomplished because they know the majority of the population disagrees with it anyway.

So go ahead Democrats. Keep talking about how bad the Arizona illegal alien law is that 70 percent of Americans support. Follow that up with how great Obamacare is going to be....eventually. And while you're at it, let's talk some more about Cap and Trade.

About a third of the country thinks these are great ideas. Push them boldly.

You laugh now, but in 2080 it will be people like me laughing about what a success Obamacare has been.

As far as the immigration bill, it is all politics. And I love what the dems are doing. Right now the GOP is pushing latinos away as hard as they can to appeal to the tea party. So the dems are stepping in and playing good guy to win over latino voters.

Even Karl Rove knew the GOP was toast w/o latino voters. Had Kerry done slightly better among latino voters, he would've won Nevada, Colorado & New Mexico, and as a result the presidency (even w/o Ohio).

Let the GOP push latinos out of their caucus. Soon non-whites will be 35% of the electorate, and many won't go near the GOP.

Polls show most people support liberal issues on the issues. Ask people about energy policy, tax policy, government role in public life, health care, education, foreign policy, etc and almost always the opinions of the public are in line with liberal ideology and agendas.

Progressive taxes, ending the Iraq war, sustainable energy investments, universal health care, humanitarian foreign policy, a problem solving government, etc. These are all issues a majority of the public support.

Ask people about supply side tax cuts, staying in Iraq indefinately, ignoring climate change, raising the social security age, abolishing medicare, keeping private health care the way it is, weakening government, etc. and see the results.

[Chronos]

You laugh now, but in 2080 it will be people like me laughing about what a success Obamacare has been.

In 2080, everyone will be trying to take credit for Obamacare. Or, more likely, for the better system which will have replaced it by then.

[Blaster Master]

Originally Posted by Cisco

I keep hearing conservatives say that this fall is going to be a repeat of the 1994 Contract With America congressional takeover. What I haven't heard them address is that, 2 years later, Clinton got re-elected.

I think Clinton getting re-elected has a lot more with him shifting somewhat to the right after 1994 and the fact that he ran against Bob Dole. I think if he'd tried to stay the course or if the Republicans had found a more charismatic candidate, Clinton very well could have lost.


In either case, I think I agree with the general sentiment here, that the Republicans will likely win a number of seats, but mostly from more conservative Democrats; I think we're unlikely to see any of the more liberal Dems lose since their constituents are more likely to be happy about what Congress as been up to. So, like others have said, I see the Republicans probably getting a majority in the House, but the numbers will probably be much closer and more polarized, so I don't expect much to happen in the two years to follow.

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by Blaster Master

if the Republicans had found a more charismatic candidate, Clinton very well could have lost.

Clinton was very beatable in '96. But not by Bob Dole by any stretch of the imagination. Dole wouldn't have beat Carter in 1980. Hell, he wouldn't have been able to beat Hoover in '32.

One reason is the gun issue. Bill Clinton himself said, in his 1995 State of the Union address, that it was the gun laws he signed that were responsible for the Dems losing both sides of Congress. Bob Dole was in a position to block both the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban, and he blocked neither. Not only that, Dole voted for the Crime Bill that contained the assault weapons ban, and then later failed to follow through on repealing it like he promised.

So that faction of the conservative right and independents were not going to be very gung ho on Dole, and that is a large voting block.

Had another, charismatic, truly pro-gun Republican gotten the nomination, pushed the idea that if people liked the direction the economy was going it was to the credit of the Republican Congress, and really flouted what a scum bag Clinton was, and get Perot locked in a rubber room where he belonged,
I think they could have won.

But all that is water under the bridge.

[Cisco]

Originally Posted by pkbites

Clinton was very beatable in '96. But not by Bob Dole by any stretch of the imagination. Dole wouldn't have beat Carter in 1980. Hell, he wouldn't have been able to beat Hoover in '32.

One reason is the gun issue. Bill Clinton himself said, in his 1995 State of the Union address, that it was the gun laws he signed that were responsible for the Dems losing both sides of Congress. Bob Dole was in a position to block both the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban, and he blocked neither. Not only that, Dole voted for the Crime Bill that contained the assault weapons ban, and then later failed to follow through on repealing it like he promised.

So that faction of the conservative right and independents were not going to be very gung ho on Dole, and that is a large voting block.

Had another, charismatic, truly pro-gun Republican gotten the nomination, pushed the idea that if people liked the direction the economy was going it was to the credit of the Republican Congress, and really flouted what a scum bag Clinton was, and get Perot locked in a rubber room where he belonged,
I think they could have won.

But all that is water under the bridge.

How is this any different than Monday-morning quarterbacking, or being an armchair fight professor? If George Foreman had a third arm and a titanium skull, he would've beat Muhammed Ali.

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by Cisco

How is this any different than Monday-morning quarterbacking, or being an armchair fight professor?

It's an election from 14 years ago. How could I be anything but?

At the time I actively worked to prevent Bob Dole from being the nominee.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Cisco

If George Foreman had a third arm and a titanium skull, he would've beat Muhammed Ali.

Cite?

[F. U. Shakespeare]

Originally Posted by pkbites

Could it be that he got credit for the things the Republican congress did?

If I were a Democrat, I'd say: works for me.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Even though the Blue Dogs are more conservative than most Democrats, they tend to be more liberal than their Republican opponents. So the Republican that beats him will probably be more conservative than he is.

But not by much. If the district is moderate enough to elect a conservative Democrat, they probably aren't going to move radically to the right. Any Republican they elect will have to as liberal as the Democrat was conservative. Small shift right; think Scott Brown from Massachusetts, who has been a big disappointment to conservative extremists.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

Polls show most people support liberal issues on the issues. Ask people about energy policy, tax policy, government role in public life, health care, education, foreign policy, etc and almost always the opinions of the public are in line with liberal ideology and agendas.

Progressive taxes, ending the Iraq war, sustainable energy investments, universal health care, humanitarian foreign policy, a problem solving government, etc. These are all issues a majority of the public support.

Ask people about supply side tax cuts, staying in Iraq indefinately, ignoring climate change, raising the social security age, abolishing medicare, keeping private health care the way it is, weakening government, etc. and see the results.

I hope you are right about this, but those assertions need to be documented.

----------

Gallup Poll June 15, 2009

PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/co...cal-group.aspx

[Cisco]

NDD- I think Wesley Clark was saying to ask people about those issues without labelling them. Right-wingers have fairly successfully turned "liberal" into an insult in this country, so there may be a lot of people who hold liberal views without really wanting to call them that, or perhaps not even realizing that that's what they are.

[Chronos]

Take people like my dad: He's dyed-in-the-wool conservative, and thinks that government-run health care or health coverage is bound to inevitably be a catastrophe, but at the same time, he swears up and down that the care he gets at the VA hospital is the best in the world. Somewhere in there, there's a major disconnect.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

I hope you are right about this, but those assertions need to be documented.

----------

Gallup Poll June 15, 2009

PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/co...cal-group.aspx

A finer instrument was used for a Center for American Progress study, State of American Ideology, 2009, with markedly different results:

For years, traditional public opinion polling has broken down ideology into three distinct groupings: liberal, moderate, and conservative. Based on this categorization, there has been remarkable stability in ideological orientation, with roughly one-fifth of Americans identifying themselves as “liberal” and about four in 10 classifying themselves as “moderate” or ”conservative,” respectively, according to Gallup polling from 1992 to 2008.

In this study, however, the electorate is broken down using a more expansive five-point scale of political ideology that reflects the variety of approaches people ascribe to today. Employing this more calibrated measure, 34 percent of the country identifies as “conservative,” 29 percent as “moderate,” 15 percent as “liberal,” 16 percent as “progressive,” and 2 percent as “libertarian.” After moderates are asked which approach they lean toward, the overall ideological breakdown of the country divides into fairly neat left and right groupings, with 47 percent of Americans identifying as progressive or liberal and 48 percent as conservative or libertarian. The rest are unsure or scattered among moderate and other approaches.

Combining this five-point scale of political ideology with responses to the 40 specific ideological statements, the progressive leanings of the country become readily apparent. On the domestic front, after years of supply-side tax cuts, support for corporations (especially extractive oil and mining companies), and deregulation of the economy, large percentages of Americans increasingly favor progressive ideas centered on: sustainable lifestyles and green energy; public investment in education, infrastructure, and science; financial support for the poor, elderly, and sick; regulation of business to protect workers and consumers; and guaranteed affordable health coverage for every American. On the international front, the legacy of the Bush years has yielded to an American public far more interested in restoring the country’s image abroad, fighting climate change, and pursuing security through diplomacy, alliances, and international institutions than in the continued pursuit of national objectives through the sole projection of military might.

Approximately two-thirds of Americans—reaching to 70 percent to 80 percent on some measures—agree with progressive ideas in each of these domestic and global areas (see Table 1). Important cleavages emerge in the data, however, between non-college-educated Americans and college-educated elites. Non-college Americans are more populist and progressive than elites on some measures of government and economics and much more conservative on cultural and national security measures.

The rise of progressivism in America is reflected more starkly in direct ratings of various ideological approaches. Today, more than two-thirds of Americans rate a “progressive” approach to politics favorably, a 25-point increase in favorability over the last five years, with gains coming primarily from those who were previously unaware of the term. “Progressive” now equals ”conservative” in terms of overall public favorability (67 percent, respectively).

See also the Pew Political Typology. The most recent version, 2005, classifies Americans into the following political groups:

Enterprisers
9% of adult population, 10% of registered voters
PARTY ID: 81% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 1% Democrat (98% Rep/Lean Rep)

Social Conservatives
11% of adult population, 13% of registered voters
PARTY ID: 82% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 0% Democrat (97% Rep/Lean Rep)

Pro-Government Conservatives
9% of adult population, 10% of registered voters
PARTY ID: 58% Republican, 40% Independent/No Preference, 2% Democrat (86% Rep/Lean Rep)

Upbeats
11% of adult population, 13% of registered voters
PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 39% Republican, 5% Democrat (73% Rep/Lean Rep)

Disaffecteds
9% of adult population, 10% of registered voters
PARTY ID: 68% Independent/No Preference, 30% Republican, 2% Democrat (60% Rep/Lean Rep)

Liberals
17% of adult population, 19% of registered voters
PARTY ID: 59% Democrat; 40% Independent/No Preference, 1% Republican (92% Dem/Lean Dem)

Conservative Democrats
14% of adult population, 15% of registered voters
PARTY ID: 89% Democrat, 11% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican,(98% Dem/Lean Dem)

Disadvantaged Democrats
10% of adult population, 10% of registered voters
PARTY ID: 84% Democrat; 16% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican (99% Dem/Lean Dem)

Bystanders
10% of adult population, 0% of registered voters
PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 22% Republican, 22% Democrat

Add together all the definitely Republican-leaning groups (Enterprisers, Social Conservatives, Pro-Government Conservatives) and you get 33% of registered voters. Add together all the definitely Democrat-leaning groups (Liberals, Conservative Democrats, Disadvantaged Democrats) and you get 44%. The rest are swing voters. IOW, the Dems always have a bigger base, at least in national aggregate. This is why Pubs usually don't want high voter turnout.

[JKellyMap]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I was curious about exactly which issues they're talking about here -- those for which less-educated Americans are MORE likely to be "populist and progressive" than more-educated ones. I finally found it on page 14 of the 2009 CAP report -- see below.

So, does this mean that less-educated people tend to vote against their own economic interests -- (views on which they have no trouble expressing when asked "in isolation"), because their social conservatism trumps other factors and so they vote Republican? Or am I mischaracterizing the less-educated voters -- are there more of them that are non-Southern, and/or minority-race, than I assume -- that is, do more of them tend to vote Demcrat than I assume (and so they have to overcome their distaste for cultural progressivism, and vote more based on economic issues?).

Probably, both factors are at work -- less-educated Southern Whites vote Republican (despite their surprisingly "progressive" attitudes about government involvement in the economy), while less-educated minorities and non-Southerners vote Democrat (despite their non-"progressive" cultural attitudes).

Originally Posted by Center for American Progress

Americans with a high school education or less are
much more likely than post-graduate-educated elites
to believe the following (HS or less–postgrad on
strongly agree):
• Government policies too often serve the interests of
corporations and the wealthy (+18 strongly agree)
• Government has a responsibility to provide financial
support for the poor, the sick, and the elderly
(+20 strongly agree)
• Government must step in to protect the
national economy when the market fails
(+13 strongly agree)
• The gap between rich and poor should be reduced,
even if it means higher taxes for the wealthy
(+16 strongly agree)
• Rich people like to believe they have made it on their own, but in reality society has
contributed greatly to their wealth (+15 strongly agree)
• Labor unions play a positive role in our economy (+17 strongly agree).

[JKellyMap]

I really hate to say this, but this data just seems to reinforce the idea that many less-educated folks who vote Republican AND who think economic issues are the most important reason to vote for someone, almost MUST be voting against Obama personally, and it's hard to see why that would be so without considering race as a factor. In other words, for example, they believe that "Government must step in to protect the national economy when the market fails....except when Obama does it."

[BrainGlutton]

As of today, the last primaries are over. Anyone care to revise their predictions?

[BrainGlutton]

So, how does it look at this point? Are the pundits or the bookies giving any definite odds yet, as to whether the GOP will take either house of Congress in November?

[gravitycrash]

I think the Democrats will hold on to both houses mainly because of the Tea Party dimwits splitting the vote with the Republicans.
So I don't think the dynamics will change all that much except that the Democrats will be forced to compromise with the Republicans more than they would normally want to in order to get anything passed of significance.

[JRDelirious]

Hmmm... if the Dems were to be able to salvage their nominal majorities by a narrow margin, I agree that the survivors would as a body be even more "liberal", specially if they save the House.

However, retaining the Senate by a hair's breadth could have the effect that the relatively more liberal survivors would have to forget about even bothering to attempt to get 60 votes, so if you know a particular proposal won't get to 60 without first folding, twisting and mutilating it beyond recognition, or letting someone pull a Ben Nelson, just in order to to say you passed something on the issue, you may reconsider the idea of whether that's worth having to "just pass something" rather than move on to the next issue while controlling the agenda; start sending forward popular, viable-sounding proposals, and eventually "just say no" obstruction on Every. Single. Least. Thing. would become unjustifiable.


Even if indeed a new GOP majority would be more hardline ideological, when it comes to trying to stick with claims of malfeasance, Obama is no Clinton. Many of them would not be too sanguine on trying to claim that somehow making policy you ideologically disagree with is a wrongdoing equivalent to corruption or to perjurious obstruction of justice.

The CWA Congress that came up in 1994 tried to play the government-shutdown card in '95, but the economy at the time was stable enough that Clinton was able to allow it to happen and everyone came back to the table after just being minorly inconvenienced. Not sure how things would work out in the current state of things if the two ends of Penn Avenue tried that gambit again.


In any case within a few cycles the voters will once again be saying, "well, yes, I wanted a change from the other guys but not THIS!"; took them 5 terms between '94 and '06, barely took them two between '06 and '10.



(Aside: pkbites, I think you overestimate the potential impact of a hardline guns stance in the '96 presidential race. In '94, yes, it was still fresh in the motivated voters' minds; but by '96 most would have noticed the main impact as some ammo magazines becoming more expensive and harder to find, yet nobody had come around to kick their doors down and take their guns away, even after a "militia" type had blown up all those kids in Oklahoma City. What any Republican in that race would have needed more would have been convincing Perot to throw his lot in with the GOP candidate, but even Republicans were pro-"globalization" in the 90s)

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by JRDelirious

Even if indeed a new GOP majority would be more hardline ideological, when it comes to trying to stick with claims of malfeasance, Obama is no Clinton. Many of them would not be too sanguine on trying to claim that somehow making policy you ideologically disagree with is a wrongdoing equivalent to corruption or to perjurious obstruction of justice.

Probably not, but make no mistake, that meme is out there. On some message boards I often see people screaming that Obama is violating the Constitution and ought to be locked up or worse.

[BrainGlutton]

Interesting new poll:

NEWSWEEK Poll: Anger Unlikely to Be Deciding Factor in Midterms
Self-described "angry voters" no more likely to vote; Democrats trusted more than GOP on key issues.

<snip>

But the NEWSWEEK Poll's most revealing finding is that despite months of media coverage insisting that voters are "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore," anger is unlikely to decide this year's elections. For starters, self-described angry voters constitute only 23 percent of the electorate, and there's no reason to believe that they're more likely to cast ballots in November than their calmer peers. Why? Because the percentage of angry voters who say they will definitely vote in the midterms is statistically indistinguishable from the overall percentage of voters who say the same thing (84 percent vs. 81 percent). In fact, majorities of voters say they would not be more likely to vote for candidates who express anger at Washington incumbents (60 percent), Wall Street bankers (52 percent), the illegal-immigration problem (53 percent), the Gulf of Mexico oil spill (65 percent), or health-care reform (55 percent). Fifty-three percent of voters see Obama's unemotional approach to politics—his "coolness"—as a positive, versus only 39 percent who don't.

<snip>

Another factor that has garnered a lot of potentially unwarranted attention is "the issues." Simply put, in the NEWSWEEK Poll, voters said they trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle pretty much every problem currently facing the country: Afghanistan (by 6 points), health care (by 12), immigration (by 2, though that figure is within the margin of error), Social Security (by 14), unemployment (by 12), financial reform (by 14), energy (by 19), and education (by 19). Voters even prefer Democrats to Republicans on federal spending (by 4 points), taxes (by 5), and the economy (by 10)—the GOP's core concerns. The only area where Republicans outpoll Democrats is the issue of terrorism, where they lead by a 6-point margin.

Still, voters are split on which party should control Congress after November—44 percent went for Republicans, 46 percent for Democrats—and most experts are predicting sizable Republican gains in both the House and the Senate. So if not anger, the president, or the issues, what will be the deciding factor in the 2010 midterm elections? According to the NEWSWEEK Poll, the condition of the economy, and the inability of anyone in Washington to improve it, is by far the most important force at play in this year's congressional campaigns.

[Really Not All That Bright]

That is curious. Actual poll is here; sample size is 1,025.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by pkbites

It's an election from 14 years ago. How could I be anything but?

There are systematic statistical relationships between the Presidential vote share and the state of the economy during the election year and incumbency. Controlling for those factors we can say whether Clinton or Dole were better candidates. We can also posit how competent Dole would have had to be to beat Clinton.

Based on the model by Ray Fair, Clinton punched above his weight by 1.8 percentage points. Clinton won 54.7% of the popular vote in 1996: make him evenly matched with Dole and it would have been 53.0% (there's some rounding error). For Dole to move the needle by 3 percentage points would be most unusual. While Dukakis and McGovern got clobbered that badly, such Presidential mismatches are the exception.

I discussed this in greater detail on another message board in Jan 2009.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

So, how does it look at this point? Are the pundits or the bookies giving any definite odds yet, as to whether the GOP will take either house of Congress in November?

The go-to site is Nate Silver's 538.com, now located at the New York Times' website: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

There is a 76% chance that the Democrats will control at least 50 seats in the Senate. The model predicts that they will control 51.5 seats to the Republican's 48.4: it's pretty ugly.

In the House, the Republicans win by 224.3 to 210.7. The odds of Republican takeover are 67%.

Regarding the OP, this matters. The Democrats in Congress have been lousy at PR, but terrific at performance. Facing the most vicious obstructionism since the Civil War -- incredibly the Senate Republicans even refused to seat appointees to the Treasury Dept that they had no objection to -- the Democrats performed better than all sessions since WWII. (Possible exception: Civil Rights session during President Johnson's term).

Outsourced to Steve Benen:

Originally Posted by Steve Benen

I don't expect the public to have an extensive knowledge of federal policymaking history, but I at least hoped Americans would realize the scope of recent accomplishments. We are, after all, talking about a two-year span in which Congress passed and the president signed the Affordable Care Act, the Recovery Act, Wall Street reform, student loan reform, Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, new regulation of the credit card industry, new regulation of the tobacco industry, a national service bill, expanded stem-cell research, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the most sweeping land-protection act in 15 years, etc. Policymakers might yet add to this list in the lame-duck session.

Some of these efforts have been years in the making. In the case of health care reform, politicians have been talking about a major overhaul for a full century, but it took this Congress and this president to get it done.

During all of this, the Republicans held up appointments to the Judiciary, The Federal Reserve and the Treasury, despite the fact that the nation was facing the worst recession since WWII -- delivered by Republican malfeasance (what else would you call it?) The Republicans expanded the use of the filibuster and refused to seat the properly elected Senator from Minnesota for about 6-7 months. And yet the Dems delivered.

It's not just me: Norm Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute concedes that this congress has been the most productive in our lifetimes.