Republicans are going to slaughter Democrats in the next election??

[kentuck]

I simply cannot believe that.

If America does indeed have such a short memory, how much longer can we last as a nation?

Contrary to all the arguments about "they all do it", it was the Republicans and their misguided ideology that put us in the hole from which we are now trying to escape.

There is no reason to believe that the Republicans have changed the way they believe? They still think taxcuts for the wealthy are the solution for just about every problem that ails us. And they still refuse to admit that their policies put us into this predicament.

Democrats are far from perfect. But none of the Democratic policies created the debt or the huge deficits that we are now battling. Democrats may spend on different programs but they try to pay for them. They don't put it on the credit card, which is what the Republicans have done since the election of Ronald Reagan. More than 90% of our debt has occurred since 1981.

For me to believe that the Republicans will swamp the Democrats in the next election, I would have to believe that there are no more Republicans that read or know the truth. I would have to believe they simply follow what Mitch McConnell or John Boehner might tell them. I cannot believe that.

That is why I believe the Democrats will maintain control of the House and the Senate. The people will give them a chance to clean up the mess. They will not go back to the same politics that got us to where we are today. I simply cannot believe that.

[IndianaJoe]

1. We'll see. But I think memories are short.

I think the economy will tell the tale.

[zeemike]

2. Perhaps they have a plan we don't know about.

like voter caging and black box voting...and they need for the word to get out that they will win so it won't be such a shock to us.
I know, tin foil hat.

[blue sky at night]

3. ya, cause that deregulation thingy is going over so well....

for them and Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Banking.

[leftygolfer]

4. no way

I think we are going to shock the world in November.

[FarLeftFist]

32. I agree.

[tavalon]

5. Not anymore

If they could have played it quiet, our politicians were well on the road to convincing people that Nader was correct and there wasn't a lick of difference between the two parties and Dems we're going to sit out in droves. But no, the rethugs had to go all batshit crazy on us and remind us that while the Dems are spineless and also working for big business, the are at least sane. We will be going to the polls in droves, thanks to the crazy ass rethugs.

[Stevepol]

6. You better factor in the voting machines. That's a probable 5% tilt almost everywhere.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Its the norm for the party in power to lose seats at the mid term

Barring a loss of majority in either house, I would not worry about it

[kentuck]

8. It is the norm...

But I'm not so sure the Democrats will even lose the "norm". The Republicans really, really screwed things up very badly.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Like I said, I am not worried at this point

[dems_rightnow]

10. My take

The American people are not pleased with the representation they've been getting. One need only to look at Congressional approval ratings to see that they are OVERWHLEMINGLY unhappy with them. It started in the past administration, and continues now.

They are in "throw the bums out" mode. I think it comes down to worry over the huge deficit spending, but maybe that's me projecting my own worry over this.

[chillspike]

11. I'm with you...

Dems won't lose anything if it was up to just me...I would never vote republican.

[greencharlie]

12. yeah, all about the economy... 4-5% unemployment is where this nation belongs. nt

[ThomWV]

13. I think Democrats may lose some races, but overall will gain seats.

The Republican Party is divided- its as simple as that.

[tritsofme]

16. Where are these seats?

There are really only three good pickup opportunities for Democrats this cycle, IL-10 where Mark Kirk has left to run for the US Senate, DE-AL where Mike Castle has also left to run for the US Senate, and LA-2 where Joseph Cao only won in this heavily Democratic district in 2008 because of a fluke.

The rest of these congressional Republicans have weathered the much more toxic political environments of 2006 and 2008, and are likely not going anywhere.

Losing 20 seats in the House would be a moral victory for Democrats, but it is not at all realistic to expect gains in this cycle.

[kentuck]

18. But in 2006 and 2008...

the voters did not understand the extent of the damage done. I have a difficult time seeing a Republican Party that is energized, except for a few tea-baggers.

[tritsofme]

20. Let's see the districts.

Democrats are at a ceiling, we hold basically all of the competitive seats. The question is not if Democrats will lose seats, it is how many, and whether it is enough to lose the majority. At this point, it is just too early to make any meaningful predictions. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/generic-ballot-points-toward-possible.html">Nate Silver thinks that a 20 seat loss would be among the best possible outcomes, but also sees a possible nightmare scenario where Democrats lose 80 seats. I think this is a pretty reasonable analysis.

The special election for Murtha's seat in a few weeks could be a harbinger of things to come, and I don't really expect Critz to win.

[Johonny]

14. I'm inclined to believe you at this point.

It's very early yet though. The thought was Obama was going to get to the mid-terms to change the economy. But all polls show Bush gets the majority of the blame still for the economy. It's hard to imagine that the Republicans can win a significant gain so long as the economy continues to be hung on them.

[kentuck]

15. I would say if the economy is below 8%....

most Americans will see it as going in the right direction and will reward the Democrats for it. At least, that is my hope. :-)

[and-justice-for-all]

17. Not going to happen..nt

[BzaDem]

According to all emperical data out there, if the election were held today, yes.

The generic ballot snows a range of tied to +6 for Republicans (a range found by many pollsters). Translating this result to house seats, that means at least a likely 30 seat loss, where the upper bound is probably 70 or more. Looking at past elections with similar generic ballot readings is helpful; ALL indicate a massive loss in the House.

Your "evidence" that Democrats won't lose lots of seats isn't really "evidence," it is wishful thinking. Looking at actual, objective evidence, Democrats would get destroyed if the election were held today.

However, the election will not be held today. Anything could change by November. Democrats could regain the favor of Independents, and might limit their losses. The economy could boom. Or the economy could tank and the election could look even worse than if it were held today. No one knows or can claim to know. But as of today, Democrats are in very rough shape, your sadness about short memories notwithstanding.

[BzaDem]

19. According to all emperical data out there, if the election were held today, yes.

The generic ballot snows a range of tied to +6 for Republicans (a range found by many pollsters). Translating this result to house seats, that means at least a likely 30 seat loss, where the upper bound is probably 70 or more. Looking at past elections with similar generic ballot readings is helpful; ALL indicate a massive loss in the House.

Your "evidence" that Democrats won't lose lots of seats isn't really "evidence," it is wishful thinking. Looking at actual, objective evidence, Democrats would get destroyed if the election were held today.

However, the election will not be held today. Anything could change by November. Democrats could regain the favor of Independents, and might limit their losses. The economy could boom. Or the economy could tank and the election could look even worse than if it were held today. No one knows or can claim to know. But as of today, Democrats are in very rough shape, your sadness about short memories notwithstanding.

[kentuck]

22. What empirical data?

All I have seen are polls and Repubs are not doing well in most of those.

[BzaDem]

25. Republicans are actually doing pretty well in the polls.

From http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html:

ABC News/Wash Post 4/22 - 4/25 RV 43 48 Democrats +5
Gallup 4/19 - 4/25 1600 RV 45 45 Tie
Rasmussen Reports 4/19 - 4/25 3500 LV 44 38 Republicans +6
FOX News 4/20 - 4/21 900 RV 42 38 Republicans +4
Democracy Corps (D) 4/17 - 4/20 872 LV 45 43 Republicans +2
PPP (D) 4/9 - 4/11 622 RV 47 42 Republicans +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/9 - 4/11 907 RV 46 50 Democrats +4
GWU/Battleground 4/5 - 4/8 1000 LV 41 40 Republicans +1


In other words, that's 8 polls. 2 of them are run by Democratic-favored organizations, and 1 of them in my opinion is run by a Republican organization (Fox).

The average of all these polls are Republicans + 1.1. Weighting according to sample size shows an even worse result.

Republicans lead or tie in 6 out of 8 polls.

Keep in mind that a tie means we lose 30-40 seats in the House, since we are starting way ahead of a tie. Anything less than a tie would be devestating and probably cost us our majority.

[kentuck]

26. I have heard some prognosticators say that 5% equals....

about a gain of 30 seats. Rasmussen only has the Repubs up by 6%.

[BzaDem]

37. That is not true at all. A TIE would result in a gain of about 30-40 seats.

We had about a 10 point lead in the Generic Congressional Ballot before election 2008, where we got to a +40 majority in the House. A tie would result in a ~0-10 seat majority in the House (i.e. a shift of 30-40 seats).

If Republicans are up by 6% on election night, we are screwed. Republicans could get a +20-30 seat majority in the House (which is a 60-70 SEAT SWITCH).

[kentuck]

38. If we are behind by 6% on election night...?

Then we should just pack up our shit and go home. We don't deserve to be called a political Party anymore. What do the Republicans have to do before we win by default?? What do we have to do to get the people to look and listen more deeply to the issues that affect us all?

[FarLeftFist]

34. Rasmussen and FOX should be scrubbed from that list.

[Motown_Johnny]

21. Raising expectations for them is a good thing no matter how things turn out

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Keep in mind that a lot of the Senate losses will be due to simple incompetence by Dems

Ruth Ann Minner could have appointed John Carney to replace Biden and the Delaware seat would've been Safe D. Instead she appointed a placeholder so that Beau Biden could run without even knowing if Beau Biden was going to run (and if he was why not just appoint him in the first place?).

Similarly Illinois is only competitive because of the Blagojecvich/Burris/Giannoulias saga, and if Blagojevich hadn't tried to sell the seat he could've appointed somebody that could not be beaten.

Same goes for Colorado. Bennett is not the kind of appointment that could make the seat Safe D. Ritter really should've thought that one through a bit more.

As for Nevada, Harry Reid probably should've passed on leadership to focus on Nevada. The party leader should come from an extremely blue state so that they will never face a seriously competitive re-election.

Take those away and really the only endangered incumbent we're really talking about is Blanche Lincoln. Arkansas voted for McCain about 6 to 4 so this isn't really surprising. Some of the country really didn't get the memo that the Republicans caused this crisis or they are too focused on social issues to care.

The rest of the seats potentially going Republican are retirements (Dorgan, Bayh, etc). You can't really doing anything about that in a good year or a bad year. Also, Democrats have top tier candidates in Louisiana, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Missouri and a pretty decent candidate in Florida. The pundits who are saying that these seats will definitely remain Republican are really speaking too soon IMO.

In the House we face a similar amount of challenges not related to the national political climate, among them that we are still playing on a map that was gerrymandered by Republican legislatures. Democrats maxed out their gains on this map in 2006 and 2008 and so losing seats is pretty much inevitable.

[kentuck]

24. Republicans think it will be like 1994...

After Clinton failed to pass health care reform. I think Democrats will be able to gather their forces before election and get a much better turnout than now expected. It's all about turnout. GOTV

[RM33]

27. The Republicans will win big.

I have read from several sources like the Cook Report.

Bascially it comes down to several issues.

1.) When George Bush was president, unemployment was about 5%. The president said that if congress did not pass his stimulus package unemployment will go up to 8%. Well the congress did pass the stimulus and unemployment went to 9.7%. Now there are no articles talking about the new normal. That unemployment will remain high and stay that way for the forseable future. The unemployed have been out of work for a long time. They pinned their hopes on Obama and he did not deliver.

2.) The way health care was passed was not pretty. It was rammed down the throats of the voters. Most surveys wanted a go slow approach. So moderates are turned off.

3.) Liberals are fuming. Obama did not close Gitmo, he increased the war in Afganishatan, he is for off shore drilling. So many Liberals will stay home this election.

4.) Jews are against Obama. They are protesting him in NYC.

5.) A friend of mine is gay and he told me that gay people have turned against Obama.

Voters are angry! They are in a vote the bums out mood. The economy is in bad shape. And like President Clinton use to say, "It's the economy stupid."

Lets face the facts. If Scott Brown can win by running against Obama and taking Kennedy's Mssachusetts Senate seat. A seat that was considered safe. Imagine what will happen to all those seats that are considered unsave.

[kentuck]

29. There are a few assumptions in your post.

Scott Brown ran against a candidate that went on vacation. Massachusetts people can be very independent. Also, Democrats historically have not done as well as Republicans in off-year elections. I would not put as much stock as you do in that race.

Liberals will stay home this election? Is that something you know for a fact or is that wishful thinking? I do agree that some will stay home. However, nowhere near the numbers you might anticipate or hope for.

And the naked Republican argument that unemployment would only go up to 8%. Yes, they said that. However, unless you are a tea-bagger or similar, most folks understand that after the big banks crashed and employers started laying off people and the stock market with savings and 401K's crashed, then no one knew how bad it was going to get. Thanks to George w Bush and the Republicans primarily.

In order to counter this severe downturn, they did the only thing they knew would work - a heavy dose of Keynesian economics. That was the purpose of the huge "Stimulus Bill". There is little doubt that the stimulus and the bailout of General Motors did much to keep us from going off the cliff that the Republicans had led us to.

That is why the deficit is large now. However, we cannot forget that George W Bush doubled the debt in eight short years. Never in our history had we had such a huge turnaround from surplus to debt. Bill Clinton had left Bush and the Republicans a surplus of $260 billion dollars and a projected surplus of $5 trillion dollars. Bush turned that into a $5 trillion dollar debt and left a deficit of about $1.3 trillion dollars to President Obama, along with the worst economy since the Great Depression.

The Obama deficits are different from the Bush deficits in they were intentionally created to stimulate the economy, unlike the Bush deficits, which were created to give big taxcuts to his friends and to drive our economy into the ground. Is this too complex for "tea-baggers" to understand?

[RM33]

30. What I see is . . .

What I see is that there was a lot of hope and enthusiasm for Obama when he walked into office. A year later, the hope seems to be dashed.

The only thing people understand is jobs. There attitude is "Where are the jobs!" People want result not excuses. You can talk about how the stars need to align, and quote stats' and blame the Republicans. In the end, the voters just sees an economy stuck in the mud. And if that was not enough, now economist are talking how the misery index is getting worst.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/13/news/economy/misery/index.htm?postversion=2008051317

The voters are going to punish those who are in charge. And the people in charge are Democrats.

[kentuck]

31. "...the hope seems to be dashed"..?

If I recall the last poll, Obama is more popular than either Party of Congress. Much more so. Somewhere between 53%-56%.

You are correct that jobs are very, very important and that people "want results not excuses". But do they want to return to the same policies that got us into the mess we are in now? Republicans do not know how to fucking govern. It's as simple as that. They would screw up a wet dream. So people have to figure that into their equation also when they go to vote.

[RM33]

41. I don't think people are that logical.

President Clinton years. He provided the American people with an amazing economy. 3% unemployment and a budget surplus. Clinton was reelected. In fact, I believe that it was said that it was a long time since a Democrat was relected for President.

President Bush years. Huge deficit, panich on Wall Street, unemployment starts to rise. Obama wins the election.

Today the economy is in the slump. Voters are mad. Notice how every time Obama endorses a candidate that candidate looses. Obama goes to Massachusetts to try to help the Democrat win, the Democrat looses. Obama goes to Virginia, the Virginia Democratic candidate for governor looses. Obama goes to New Jersey, throws his weight behind Corzine, Corzine looses.

The facts speak for themselves. The voters are in throw the bums out mode. They want to punish those in charge.

[Change Happens]

28. Pukes/crazies/Teahdists are going down HARD in November!

[classysassy]

33. The republican will not change

so its up the sane and progressives to keep them in the minority where they can't do too much damage to our country.

[kentuck]

35. It would be nice if their brains were fully developed.

:-)

[mitchtv]

36. you can't do that ignoring you base

and kissing puke ass which is what's been going on

[Kablooie]

39. Hey, they voted Bush in for a second term. Don't underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.

Most voters only have a very narrow, local view of politics.

They may hear of all the crazy things going on in Washington but don't feel any connection with it.

They hear that one candidate will cut their taxes and they think, "Oh good. I will have more money. I'll vote for him." and the Republican wins.

[political_Dem]

40. The RW media is getting their overtime pay trying to galvanize their base.

Their base votes the way their conservative handlers want them to. And this time around, their fear of having a "black man in charge of their country" will get them to go to the polls. They will fight tooth and nail to "reduce that socialist/communist/nazi influence of Obama" because Beck and his ilk tell them repeatedly this garbage day after day.

Especially after 2000 and 2004, I don't underestimate what the RNC does. Their nefarious schemes to get back in power are legendary. What they do is disgraceful because they can't be caught and prosecuted for wrongdoing in fixing the voter rolls to get their candidates in office. They do this while getting their most specialized blowhards to go on-line and type talking points on blogs, forums and message boards.