Will the Dems lose 30 House Seats in 2010?

[DUlover2909]

I got this DCCC PDF in an email.




http://dccc.3cdn.net/033252ac89759720ee_itm6bvzzd.pdf

[spanone]

1. no

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. Hopefully yes.

All the Blue Balled Cowards. In the primaries. Replaced by REAL Democrats.

[MADem]

5. If any of them go, they'll be replaced by Republicans...

The dream of replacing them with "more liberal" Dems is just that, a dream. Their constituencies don't support them.

[TexasObserver]

18. That's the reality that many never seem to get.

Yeah, let's hope we lose all those seats we had to win to get a majority in the House!

Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. Expecting conservative districts to send liberals is unrealistic. If the Blue Dogs lose, they'll lose to Republicans or other Blue Dogs.

[MADem]

24. Thing is, if you point it out, a lot of times you get the old "I bet yous!!"

"I bet you" are a closet republican/a corporatist/a rightwing Dem....that kind of stuff. When we're not that, at all. We're pragmatists. Damned, dirty pragmatists! How dare we!

Some truths are self-evident, but ya get slapped in the face for saying so!

If I ruled the world, there'd be some changes made....but no one can rule the world. We have to fight for ground, inch by inch. And sometimes we have to deal with "imperfect" members in our party, just to be able to twist their arm when we need 'em on the Big Votes.

[TexasObserver]

26. Yeah, I've fought with blue dogs my whole life, and they're still better than Republicans.

Better, because they help us maintain House majorities. For some of these districts where we have blue dogs, it's a miracle we have a Democrat at all from the district.

[cascadiance]

29. That's like saying that California can't support a senator less DINO than Feinstein! Come on!!!

There are a lot of variables at work here. A big part of it is just money and control over the M$M's image of the candidates, which is largely controlled by those lobbyists who "buy" these congressmen. Now, there are some areas where there are differing viewpoints than perhaps some of our more liberal ones, but it isn't just the opinions of the electorate that govern what choices we are offered. Case in point would be Paul Hackett, who was well suited to appeal to those with other less "liberal" viewpoints on things like gun ownership rights, etc. but who didn't want to follow the party line of pushing forward the corporatist agenda that so often is what "centrist" candidates are all about. They had to get him pushed out before he could even be in the primary for that senate seat to not "threaten" the accepted notion of the stealth corporatist "centrist" candidates that we have in so many areas.

And of course the M$M doesn't help us by not talking about things like health care in a fair and unbiased way from what their corporate sponsors want to sell to us. And so some communities with less educated populaces fall prey to the combination of candidates toeing the corporate line along with a M$M that spoonfeeds them the propaganda they swallow willingly.

If the Democrats really want to get power to do some *honest* change that the people need, they need to find ways to work around this mess and do so in the primaries, and help the alternative media get the REAL word out about what these "centrists" have been doing when they are doing everything against both the middle and the left of this country to further their corporate sponsors' agendas.

[TexasObserver]

33. No, it isn't.

[TheBigotBasher]

38. Has that really been tested?

The incumbents generally enjoy more financial advantages than the challenger, especially in State Primaries. No one is really interested in State Primaries other than serious politicos - most of those back the incumbent out of Party loyalty. So they need to be called on that loyalty.

[TexasObserver]

48. The most vulnerable seats are the ones just won away from the GOP.

The history of mid term elections is the party of the president typically loses seats in the House, and the seats they tend to lose are those they just won in the most recent election.

[MADem]

49. Well, look at Senator Macaca. He was tossed out on his ass not for a screaming liberal,

but for a former Republican who used to work for Reagan. And the former Republican ran against a rather blue-y liberal in the primary, but that guy couldn't deliver the goods and win the day.

It's usually not a HUGE change. When the other party wins, they often win with a candidate who mimics many of the 'favored' traits of the incumbent.

Look at Lieberman. He was "the incumbent" and there was a groundswell of Dems who knocked him out--but they still couldn't prevail. Look at Casey in PA--he mimicked a Republican, pro-life and all, (and leaned on his daddy's connections) to get his seat. Watch Sestak make a run in PA and get crushed, unless Arlen gets hit by a bus.

These races are a lot like a carrier turning--slow to change. If there's volatility in the changes, that happens often in the House races, because that's a screwup that can be fixed more easily if the pick doesn't work out. Senators are in the job for six years.

[Bill McBlueState]

6. how often does an incumbent Representative lose a primary?

It's pretty rare.

[quiller4]

15. What are you smoking?

The blue dogs that represent districts the voted for McCain are slightly more liberal than their districts. There is no way in hell that a liberal Democrat could defeat them in a primary. Many of them are at risk of being defeated by Republicans in the next election. They hold their seats because they benefitted from anti-Bush feeling; not because the district suddenly became more progressive.

[WI_DEM]

22. there really isn't any such thing as "real democrats" since it's beginning

the democratic party has been a fractured party representing many different factions. It's as true today under Barack Obama as it was when FDR was president, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Carter and Clinton.

[Zynx]

3. If economic growth does not resume at all, then yes.

If there is even a tepid recovery, that will be enough to squelch losses.

[Vincardog]

4. IF they do not start to pass true HEALTH CARE and regulate the Parasitic Corporations YES

[elocs]

7. My guess is that for Democrats, it will be downhill from here in coming years.

If Obama serves 2 terms I would not be surprised if he faces Republican control on at least 1 house of Congress. If Dems can't get things done now, they never will.

If we want to get rid of the Blue Dog Dems once and for all there are only two choices: defeat them with a true Dem in the primary, or sit on our hands and let them lose to the Republican in the general election. Then next time put up a true Democrat to run against the Republican. There is no simple way to solve the Blue Dem problem, but to tell the truth this is pretty much what Republicans do and that is why you do not see any Red Dog Pubs and that is why Republicans stand together.

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. Entirely possible to see...

...their majority cut to ten, yes. I rather expect it, once the search for scapegoats starts after the Millenium fails to arrive.

Elections are won and lost at the margins -- less than 400,000 votes cast differently in 2004, and the Democrats win the Senate then. And any American party with enough seats to hold the House and Senate is automatically already a cobbled-together coalition, with plenty of fault lines along which it can be split, or will split itself.

1. Liberals, horrified that polticians act like, you know, politicians, sit on their hands, stay home, vote third party, whatever.
2. Republicans turn out to vote like crazed weasels, in a low-turnout environment (see #1)
3. Independents hear about #2, and front-runners that they are, they make the difference in a couple dozen tight races.

If I had to pick, I'd say 227 House seats, down from 256. Senate, 54/5 (Sanders) down from 60, on 4 Januay 2011.

[Engineer4Obama]

12. We will probably lose ground in the house

But more than likely gain it in the Senate. The class of 2004 is up for reelection and most of the swing seats in that election went republican (we only flipped one seat held by a certain former Senator from IL). We really need to focus on the appointment Races (NY, IL, DE, CO). Those are our weak spots imho.

[liberalpragmatist]

25. Maybe, but I somewhat doubt it

I do think we'll lose seats in the House, but the pattern is either small losses or big losses - very few in between.

So if people are happy or if the public mood is merely middling - then we'll probably lose a few seats - maybe about a net loss of 10.

If people are really angry - if the health care reform effort fails, if unemployment is at 12%, if Blue Dogs are defecting on every vote and killing all kinds of legislation, then Dem turnout will be low, Republican turnout will be high, and we could lose 20-30 seats.

Given the size of the current Dem majority, it's unlikely that we'd actually lose the majority. But it would still be possible.

As for the Senate, it's very doubtful that we'd go all the way down to 54. The seats up for grabs simply don't suggest that.

Absolute worst case scenario - to get to your point of 55 (w/ Sanders and Lieberman) we pick up no seats and lose seats in Delaware, Illinois, Connecticut, Nevada, and Colorado. Of those, Illinois is especially unlikely - it may be close, but Illinois is nearly as Democratic as NY these days. Also, in Colorado, the Republicans literally have no credible candidate running at this point. That may change, but the Colorado Republican Party is surprisingly weak and most of the top talent is instead gunning for the governorship.

Right now, I'd say our most vulnerable seats are Connecticut, Nevada (if Rep. Dean Heller runs), and Delaware (but only if Rep. Mike Castle runs). So a realistic worst-case in the Senate is a net loss of 3, down to 57.

And so long as the political climate doesn't turn extremely ugly, Dems have a better-than-even shot of actually expanding the majority by 1-2 seats. They're arguably narrowly favored in both Missouri and New Hampshire. We have even odds in Ohio and if Jim Bunning doesn't retire, then the Dems are favored in Kentucky too. Throw in second-tier pickup opportunities in NC and maybe Louisiana, and the map does not look bad.

Right now, if I had to guess I'd say that we pick up 3-4 seats (Missouri, NH, one or both of OH and KY), lose 1-2 (1 or 2 out of DE, NV and CT) and make a 1-2 seat net gain in the Senate.

(Honestly, I wouldn't mind losing Reid if we can hold onto 60 overall.)

[DUlover2909]

31. You seem to have thought about this quite a bit!

:toast: :hi:

I wouldn't mind losing Reid either but I really don't want a Republican in his place.

[NavyDavy]

9. oh noes the sky is falling the sky is falling

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. The party in power usually loses seats in the midterm election.

So its the percentage bet.

[BlueIdaho]

11. Yes we will

we are currently proving that we have no idea how to govern effectively. So far all we have done is give a bunch of banks billions of our dollars to play with and once again failed to reform health care. This is not change we can believe in, this is not change at all.

[Engineer4Obama]

13. Wait when was the healthcare vote

I must have missed that!

But don't let me get in the way of your "This is not change we can believe in" post heavy on resentment and light on facts.

[BlueIdaho]

14. Do you really think

There will be a significant and meaningful change in health care for all Americans? Not just some fucked up bullshit shell game where politicians get to claim some pyrrhic victory while the sick and the poor fall through the same old cracks? Health care that is not a condition of your employment so it can't be used as a weapon when it comes time to negotiate your wages? Health care that costs substantially less and delivers substantially more? Do you really thing that politicians of all stripes that take MILLIONS in payola and bribes from "the industry" will bite the hand that feeds? Do you really think that politicians that spend more time at Washington cocktail parties than in their home districts will suddenly grow a conscience? Do you really think the MSM, now seen as a profit center for broadcasters, with its ability to decide exactly constitutes news and how to spin that news will suddenly turn their backs on their revenue stream just to help America become a better place?

Light on facts?

I hope you're right but I fear you are wrong.

[Engineer4Obama]

16. Sorry if I came off a little terse

I'm just used to hearing the "That's not change we can believe in" from well:



I also tend to be an optimist and believe that if we start acting like we've already lost on health care we will lose!

There is a general desire in some personality types to be on the winning side or the confident side and I believe the blue dogs often fall under this personality type.

Also the thing that causes me the most despair isn't the corruption of congress its the corruption of the media. Because what discourse do you have when the "ref" is dirty and protected by the rules.

[BlueIdaho]

19. Thanks for that

I seriously hope I'm wrong and you're right. There are times when I feel we are beating our brains out - donating time, money, blood, sweat, and tears for a better America. One that is strong enough to care for its weakest citizens. Unfortunately, it seems, the rich and powerful care only about increasing their power and personal wealth. The gap between the wealthy few and an increasing lower class and an ever shrinking middle class is widening at an alarming rate. Politicians seem more interested in lip service than public service and the media acts like a willing and able co-conspirator.

Some will say - hey that's a "glass is half empty" attitude but my 60 years of experience on this planet tells me its a realistic assessment of the state of the nation.

edit- typo

[anigbrowl]

17. Do you really that framing what you expect to happen as if it has already happened is useful?

'We';re gonna get shafted, we always do' is just as dumb as 'I'm sure we'll get a pony if we just wish hard enough'.

[BlueIdaho]

20. Respectfully

Its happened, you just don't see it yet.

[anigbrowl]

36. Sorry, that's a propagandist argument

It happens I agree with you about the issue, but I can not buy into this kind of persuasion technique.

[WI_DEM]

21. It's way too early to say but it really depends on the economic situation in '10 more than anything

[saltpoint]

23. I think we ought to do pretty well.

I'm optimistic for gains, in fact, and not losses.

[DUlover2909]

30. I hope you're right. I posted this so Dems would keep up the pressure on the GOP.

Maybe we can squeeze some more House seats out of them and break the statistics. I would really love to see more Senate seats "stolen" from the pukes. We can't be complacent, no matter what happens with the current legislative battle. Fewer idiots and freepers in Congress is always a good thing. Next we gotta get rid of the corporatist Dems if we can.

[saltpoint]

39. Yes -- to steal a couple of those seats from the bad guys would make

a very sweet outcome for our side.

I hope folks throw in to their local Democratic Party operations to volunteer. It makes a huge difference.

[rockymountaindem]

37. Me too

For all the whining and freak outs (not that it isn't borne of justified frustration), people seem to forget that the Republicans are in total disarray and still living in the shadow of the Bush admin. Our party has lots of challenges, but the Republicans would love to get down to "challenge" levels of difficulties instead of the train wreck they're currently dealing with.

[saltpoint]

40. Agree. And if the president prevails on health care -- and I believe

he will -- even the popular Republicans who opposed him in both chambers will be held to the fire.

I think this could get interesting.

[ShadowLiberal]

27. Maybe not that many, but the president's party loses something like 15 on average the first 2 years

[Telly Savalas]

28. Since 1862, the average loss is 30 seats.

That's mentioned in the pdf in the original post - hence the title of the OP.

[RB TexLa]

32. I think we'll do better than average, lose around 25 seats

[Jennicut]

34. In 2002, the Rethugs gained 8 seats and in 2004 won 3 seats

This was after 9/11 of course. All the fear mongering and stuff...I guess we will loose some seats, hopefully not too many.

[dysfunctional press]

35. not if they pass REAL and SUBSTANTIAL healthcare reform.

otherwise- yes, and then some.

[pinb1212]

41. I worry about the opposite

We pass health care now, it doesn't kick in for a year or 2. The rethugs have a year or 2 to scare people about it's results.

[dysfunctional press]

43. well then, i guess we shouldn't pass anything then...

and let them spend the rest of time scaring people about it's possible results.

:eyes:

[MrBig]

42. Does it matter?

I think rather than worry about a party losing x number of seats, we should make sure that those politicians who support important positions (health care, etc.) are kept in office and similar minded people are elected as well.

If there is a Republican that supports a reformed health care system and other positions, I would vote for them. The little letter next to the name isn't everything.

[quiller4]

44. I don't think 30 seats are at risk. 12-15 is likely. Those most

at risk are Dems elected from red/purple states that McCain carried. There are also some Republican seats in jeopardy. I think a net loss of less than 20 seats, possibly as few as 12 is much more likely. Many think passage of health care is key. I don't. The unemployment rate and Dow are propably more critical.

[Umbral]

45. Lose? Here I was hoping they might win enough to actually do something...

and by something I mean something useful.

[saltpoint]

46. It would be a fine thing indeed were a Democrat to defeat Michelle Bachmann.

[LaPera]

47. If they don't pass universal health care with a public option they will lose a lot of seats....

If they can get it through they may even gain seats, unheard of in a mid term election.