I’m sorry, I can’t see how losing control of half of an entire branch of the federal government is anything but a serious loss.
Because it happens with some regularity, especially in mid-term elections. When the economy is doing poorly, incumbents do poorly. The bums get tossed out and the new bums get put in. And every time this happens, the bums that get put in crow about how “this shows that we are right and correct in everything we do”
I have to agree with Batfish, Euphonious Polemic. This, IMO, isn’t going to be a matter of losing a dozen or so seats; this is going to be like 1966: the Democrats are going to lose big.
538 is forecasting a slim Dem majority in the Senate, a Republican majority in the House, and lots of new Republican governors.
The Dems are going to have to lose 78 seats in the House for the Repubs to have the same kind of majority in the House that the Dems enjoy right now. No serious pollsters expect that, they epect that the Repubs will probably get a majority, but not a huge one, one easily reversed in 2012 if the Repubs perform as badly once elected as everyone, including their voters, expect them to.
I agree the Democrats will lose seats. I disagree that
can be reasonably construed as “losing big” or “getting waxed”. That sort of swing would be quite expected given the current state of the economy, and should not logically be attributed to any sort of massive swing to Republican policies (what are the Republican’s policies again?)
The same 1966 where the Republican opposition took three Democratic Senate seats, but the Democrats still had control with a 64-36 majority?
The same 1966 where the Republicans gained a net of 47 seats , but still ** maintained a clear majority in the House.**??
Yes, Euphonious, by your own admission, the Republicans gained 47 seats in an off-year election. Whether they had control of the House or not is irrelevant; they still picked up quite a few seats from their opponents.
I also said that I expect the Democrats will keep control of the Senate, although they will lose seats.
I think the loss is going to be much worse than the normal off-year election in a shitty economy. Since my original post I have learned that several insurance companies, including Humana, UAM, and Aetna, will no longer be offering Medicare Advantage plans in many areas. The old people, especially those that like ther MA plans are going to be pissed and they vote.
It’s going to be a massacre.
They’re going to be pissed at the Dems because the insurance companies are screwing them, even though it has been the Repubs who opposed health care reform every step of the way?
Figures.
These are the same folks who think Obama raised their taxes.
I think you would have been better off comparing to 1994.
a 54-seat swing in membership in the House from Democrats to Republicans; Republican Control of the House
An 8-seat swing in membership in the Senate from Democrats to Republicans; Republican Control of the Senate.
If these elections are equivalent or close to that, I will agree that it was pretty bad, but not necessarily “a massacre”. That is just hyperbolic.
Otherwise, I will think you are merely putting a spin on the results.
Perhaps you did not like the comparison with 1994 because of what happened subsequently in 1996?
Maybe TDC will do another contrast & compare piece with what Repubs say on 3 November 2010 with what they said in 1994. I bet it would be hilarious to hear McCain again saying the same thing word for word.
Otherwise, I will think you are merely putting a spin on the results.
Perhaps you did not like the comparison with 1994 because of what happened subsequently in 1996?
I am not trying to put a spin on anything, Euphonious Polemic. I am simply saying the Democrats will suffer losses far worse than the normal off-year election, even with an economy that is in the toilet. You are right, though; 1994 is a better year for comparison.
I am not sure I understand your question about 1996. If you mean that I am happy that the Republicans will gain power, no because I think the current GOP is dominated by a bunch of war-mongering theocrats. If you mean that I am happy that Obama will be re-elected, no. I think Obama is a mediocrity. I think both parties are leading the country down the primrose path. Conditions are not going to improve until we get a leader who is willing to admit the American Empire is broken and we are going to need massive reductions in military spending coupled with reforms of other programs and increased taxes to bail the country out.
I am afraid I have very little confidence in either party right now.
I think you’re right.
Interesting bit on 60 minutes last night with David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director:
Here
Essentially his message was that the cry of “tax cuts” has become a religion for Republicans, and the Democrats are not much better. He does not see any hope for fixing the deficit situation if this continues. It will be very bad for the country.
Stockman said:
The reason these companies are stopping to offer Medicare Advantage plans is because Obama & the Democrats significantly cut the funding for these plans, as part of the Health Care Reform bill. Anyone who is even slightly familiar with the HCR bill is aware of this issue. [Medicare Advantage plans were created as part of the Republican-passed Medicare Part D bill, and were bitterly opposed by Democrats from Day 1.]
The fact that people ignore facts like this is part of the problem with politicians like Obama. If you claim “no one will have to change their current health care plan under this bill” because the law doesn’t directly force people to change, you are being dishonest if the law has the practical effect of forcing people to change. And while your dishonesty will get you somewhere, as many people are not educated enough to see through your claims, you don’t have much complaint if some people do.
Your problem is not with the parties. Your problem is with the people.
If a leader came along who talked straight with the American people, he would not be a leader for long, because he would not win a single election. The people will vote for someone who tells them they can get a free lunch over someone who tells them they can’t, 100% of the time.
“Yes We Can!!!”
False. Medicare+Choice was created in 1997. It was re-named Advantage by the Part D bill. Medicare Advantage is Part C.
Considering how wrong you were in the first part of this post, I must admit I kinda chuckled about this part. 
Or tax cuts, for that matter.
This I agree with. The elections today will prove it once again.
Balance the budget! Cut taxes! But don’t cut Defense, Medicare, or Social Security!
I should perhaps also mention that the Medicare Part D plan you were just touting was not at all funded by the establishing legislation. Do you consider this “telling the voters they can get a free lunch” or not?
You’re wrong.
It wasn’t just re-named. It was structurally changed, and was given enhanced subsidies.
This was supported by the Republicans because it fit in with their agenda of supporting private plans over public plans, and was opposed by the Democrats for the same reasons. Democrats were opposed to the enhanced subsidies that these plans had since they were created in the Medicare Part D bill, and vowed to gut them the first opportunity they had.
None of this is a secret.
Cite: