Karl Rove & other Republicans see a "whupping " in store for the Dems. I just don't see it

In listening to Republicans on the radio and in print they all seem to think a huge beat down for the Democrats is coming on the next Congressional election cycle. Honestly, I just don’t see it. There are certainly a lot of people who don’t like Obama, but I’m not seeing there’s lots more now than there were when he took office.

Some food for thought: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-Conservatives-Outnumber-Moderates-Liberals.aspx

Define “huge beat down”. I don’t know any analyst, left or right, who doesn’t think the Dems will lose seats in the House and the Senate.

Obama’s approval rating in Jan '09 was about 65 and his disapproval was about 20. Today, both of the numbers are about 47. But this doesn’t even have to be about Obama. The Dems gained a lot of seats in the anti-Bush backlash, many in traditionally conservative districts. Now, many of those seats have to be defended without Bush to point to.

I don’t think there will be an extraordinary move right, like to turn Congress into a majority Republican outfit. But I think that they may well come to 50% or perhaps a teeny bit more.

The Republicans have several advantages:

  1. The Tea Party movement attracted fiscally minded independents to the right.
  2. There will be greater turnout by Republicans during this election than during the 2008 election because of all of the campaigning by the Tea Party.
  3. There will be greater turnout by Republicans during this election than during the 2008 election because many Republicans sat it out rather than vote for McCain.
  4. A weak economy favors the challenger.
  5. There will be lower turnout by Democrats during this election than during the 2008 election because the many Democrats who would usually be too busy/lazy/unmotivated to vote but who actually came out to vote for Obama will now be staying at home/work like they usually do.

There isn’t an overwhelming desire to rein in Obama and strap him down with a Republican Legislature, I don’t think, but the above items all added together will still significantly change the makeup of Congress.

There will also be a greater turnout against the Republicans (as distinct from for the Democrats) during this election than during the 2008 election because of all the campaigning by the Tea Party.

Generally the party in the white house loses some seats during off year elections. The out party always claims it is a beginning of a new trend . This is not new.

Also – what do the Pubs have to offer this year, other than not being Dems? They don’t have any 2010 Contract With America, and, judging by this thread in the 2010 elections forum, they don’t have any ideas out of which a voter-friendly CWA could be built. And, judging by this GD thread, they have no plausible ideas for reducing the jobless rate. “No!” is not, by itself, a winning electoral message.

Pure opposition is a perfectly fine political strategy when the ideas being opposed are so facially awful.

Is it your contention that the Dems will not lose seats in the House or Senate? Because if it isn’t, I don’t know what the point of that post is. If it is, then would you like to place a wager on that?

Of course the Dems are going to lose seats. The in-party almost always loses seats in a midterm election. My contention is that we’re not going to see a Republican Revolution like in 1994, which seems to be what Rove, etc., are predicting.

I don’t know about “etc.”, but simply going to Rove’s web site show that’s not true.

He’s current predictions for the Senate are:

Dems: 49
Pubs: 43
Toss-up: 8

Well, that ain’t no whuppin’.

If I can guess the make-up of the next Senate to within eight seats, will people pretend I’m a political genius to?

I’m beginning to believe that our political system is a big sham, and that both parties are continually guilty of the same malfeasance over and over again, and it just runs in cycles depending on which party has control when and what events/disasters/wars/legislation/etc happens and when.

Stupid blame game over and over. Its like the media feeds on it, and by extension, so do we the general population.

I am glad to see the Republicans abandoning their “lowered expectations” game. Now, unless it is a total rout, it is a win for the Democrats.

The Tea Party has the base fired up, but it isn’t doing much for moderates and independents. Some of their candidates are just plain loopy, and centrist voters will avoid them like the plague. And I think they are seriously underestimating the backlash among Latino voters, who are mobilizing to get out the vote in much higher numbers since the right tipped their hand and followed the Arizona lead in repressive immigration talk and legislation. Plus, the GOP is tagged as BP apologists, thanks to Barton and the Republican Study Committee.

Democrats lose a few seats, but maintain majorities in both houses.

The thing is historically people tend to vote their pocketbook.

Without unemployment so high and underemployment a bigger problem, people will most likely not be as friendly to whatever party is in power.

This goes for BOTH the Democrats and Republicans.

If a state office is Republican that Republican is in trouble.

Also you have to remember people didn’t vote FOR Mr Obama as much as they voted against him. He barely beat Hillary in the primaries. Clearly people were not impressed with him.

The same way people in Mr Reagan’s first election were voting AGAINST Carter, not so much as voting for Reagan.

The economy has to get better, but till it does every current politican, regardless of party is in danger.

I’d personally vote that this is because we hire our politicians based on policy. We ourselves know nothing about what really is or isn’t the right move to make on almost anything, but we all think that we do. So we vote in guys that are willing to say that we’re right. Of course, once they’re in the job with an army of experts and actually having to deal with people on all sides of the fence, they’re often forced to do what is the most intelligent thing to do – all while trying to couch it as doing “what you elected them to do”.

Our job as the electorate isn’t to decide or even consider policy, it’s to look at people and decide whether or not we think they’re reasonably bright and trustworthy, and if so to vote for them. If that’s all we expect of ourselves, when they do something that seems odd to us, that’s okay because we’ve already accepted that we don’t have all the info to properly legislate ourselves.

Plenty of people think the tea party ideas are “facially” awful, too. Everyone thinks the other side is awful in the face.

How depressing.

It’s not depressing, it’s how the system was supposed to work way back when the Constitution was written. Of course, it only lasted until about two seconds after George Washington was elected.