Rush is running for congress — does he need to give up his radio show?

[Bluffcityguy]

@Do_Not_Taunt

#2 I think is particularly improbable. Firstly, at the moment, Republicans are being seen by majorities of the US voter population as obstructionists, and are quite unpopular. So they’d have to find some way to turn that ship around, but they seem quite disinclined to do so, and that will probably remain true until they lose at least one more election cycle.

A lot depends on how well Obama manages what we’re laughingly calling an economic “recovery”, and that notoriously short attention span of the American electorate. I can see some scenarios where the economy tanks to the point of collapse causing a backlash against Obama. I don’t want to lay odds on that, but Paul Krugman (who’s forgotten more about economics than I’ll ever know), suggests in his latest NYT column (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html ) that Obama’s already behind the curve in his attempts to jump-start an economic recovery, and apparently basing much of his future plans on assumptions of when the economy will recover that are so optimistic as to be Pollyanna-ish. And there’s also Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possibility that something very dreadful might happen in one (or both) of those venues that would cause Americans to become very disenchanted with the Democrats in a hurry.

2010 is still much too far away to start handicapping the mid-term elections.

@Do_Not_Taunt

#3 is also unlikely. I’d imagine House Republicans are more likely to elevate one of their own, such as John Boehner or Eric Cantor to Speaker than pick a freshman representative, no matter how well-known.

Seniority is just about everything in the House. The odds against a freshman representative being chosen as Speaker are pretty astronomical. I won’t say it’s impossible, but it’d be a pretty bizarre set of circumstances which would lead to it happening.

Cheers,

bcg

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@Bluffcityguy

A lot depends on how well Obama manages what we’re laughingly calling an economic “recovery”, and that notoriously short attention span of the American electorate. I can see some scenarios where the economy tanks to the point of collapse causing a backlash against Obama. I don’t want to lay odds on that, but Paul Krugman (who’s forgotten more about economics than I’ll ever know), suggests in his latest NYT column (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html ) that Obama’s already behind the curve in his attempts to jump-start an economic recovery, and apparently basing much of his future plans on assumptions of when the economy will recover that are so optimistic as to be Pollyanna-ish. And there’s also Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possibility that something very dreadful might happen in one (or both) of those venues that would cause Americans to become very disenchanted with the Democrats in a hurry.

Watershed years, like 1994 and 2006, are pretty rare. It seems to take a higher-level of people being fed-up before you get massive swings with a change of control in the House of Representatives. Also, come 2010, it’s not like anyone’s going to forget how the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan came about. Pretty much the only I could imagine swinging the house in less than two years is if the economy continues to deteriorate, and people start to actually put some of that blame on Obama and the Democrats.

But, even if the economy is still a disaster area then, I could see Obama successfully making the case that this is still fallout from the first part of this decade. People in general are loath to replace something with nothing, and the Republicans just aren’t putting forth any ideas that anyone has much interest in.

2010 is still much too far away to start handicapping the mid-term elections.

It’s far away, sure, but it’s not so far away that we can’t even guess at the issues and dynamics that are going to be involved.