More Losses in 2010 Could Push GOP to Brink of Collapse

[SecularMotion]

It couldn’t happen again, right? Republicans have gotten slaughtered in two straight elections. 2006 saw a fifteen-seat majority in the House evaporate, leaving nothing behind but a minority of the same size. In the same year, a five-seat majority in the Senate turned into a 51-49 minority. Just two years later, Democrats delivered another crushing blow, taking an additional 21 seats in the House, and eight more in the Senate. In just two years, the GOP population on Capitol Hill decreased by 52 Representatives, and 14 Senators. In both houses, Republicans are dangerously close to being rendered politically irrelevant by supermajorities that could override any attempts to block Democratic legislation.

2010, by all accounts, should be a Republican year. It’s rare to see a single party be decimated three times in a row, and the first midterm election into a new presidential term tends not to be kind to the president’s party.

But looking at the list of match-ups slated for 2010, it doesn’t necessarily look like Republicans are anywhere near a comeback. Five Republican-held seats in the Senate will be in play no matter what, and depending on how events play out, that number could balloon to as high as ten. It’s still too early to see how things will turn out in the House, but if predictions from major analysts turn out to be accurate, Republicans could have a tough time there, too.

Republicans are divided into two camps: half simply can not fathom a third walloping in a row, and insist on staying the course, riding out what they believe is a cyclical spike for Democrats. The other half isn’t as confident, and believe the GOP needs to make immediate strategy changes or face serious consequences.

http://www.eyesonobama.com/blog/content/id_45198/title_More-Losses-in-2010-Could-Push-GOP-to-Brink-of-Collapse/

[tridim]

1. They also haven't won a Presidential election since 1988.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. damn those pesky fact thingies.

But you are totally right.

[Chan790]

6. Oh geez, not that shit again.

2000 was a travesty but the continual conspiracy theory bullshit about 2004 makes us all look like lunatics. Kerry ran a piss-poor campaign, was a terrible nominee and lost on his own merits. I remember going to bed at 9:30PM that night because I'd burnt myself out working like a madman on local campaigns and by 8:50, I knew JK had lost.

The only shock the next morning was that it wasn't the absolute mauling I expected when my head hit the pillow.

[unblock]

9. re-election campaigns are rarely about the challenger at all.

they're almost always a verdict on the incumbent, and the challenger rarely matters, unless he has REALLY serious charisma or is a war hero.

we all get very worked up over the details of campaigns, but the reality is that these things are all noise. see lichtman's 13 keys for the things that really matter.

sure, you can say that kerry ran a lousy campaign, but then again, shrub was a far worse campaigner. kerry needed some big bad news on the war front or economic front to win, and it didn't happen.

http://www.lionhrtpub.com/orms/orms-2-04/frwhitehouse.html

Lichtman also points out that a number of other variables didn't have much effect: the challenging party's nomination contest, adverse reports on candidates' health, running mates and endorsements, among others. "The point," he asserts, "is that elections are less about campaigning than people like to believe, and more about governance. That doesn't mean one party could just stay home, do no campaigning at all, and still win if the keys were in its favor. It does mean, though, that the little ups and downs in the campaigns don't have all that much effect, no matter what the pundits claim. The people are sensible, and they decide based on how well the party in power has governed."

[politicasista]

24. and Obama is Mr,

well flawless. Showing them how it's done.

Amazing a lot of people here complain about the media, yet buy into everything, every lie they fabricate, only if it isn't about my favorite Democrat!

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[politicasista]

31. An idiot? Really?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Point proven. Look, people have tried to run me away from DU, but I ain't going nowhere. I am going to stick up for our President and his allies when they do good things. You didn't noticed the comment below, but it's all good. Luckily, opinions don't always equal facts.

People will believe whatever they want and it isn't always the truth. Peace.

[jmowreader]

44. The challenger WAS a war hero in 2004...

He was also from Massachusetts, and about as lively as a fucking dishrag.

[unblock]

57. lichtman's "hero" standard is ike or grant. kerry didn't come close to that standard.

[politicasista]

18. Yep.

Shame on those Democrats that sat on the sidelines not wanting to help their candidate. Glad Kerry did for Obama what the party should have done for him! What a piss-poor Senator he is. :rofl: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

The media lies about Obama all the time, but if they lie about Kerry, it's true! :rofl:

[Chan790]

26. No, I worked on and quit that campaign.

It was like the moron circus at the top.

Those of us who were in communications (even at the state-level where I was) were all saying "Can someone tell the senator to respond to the allegations against him. Please insist. Silence in the face of slander does not appear honorable, it comes across like he can't refute the allegations because they're true. That was not a rebuttal. Rebuttal. Rebuttal. Rebuttal! REBUTTAL!" (smash paper coffee cup, fling towards trash can.) Every day was like Monday 8am. We're out there rebutting the slander and it's not working because he's belly-up on it.

John Kerry is responsible for John Kerry losing. Not some vague MIC conspiracy. Not the media. John Kerry had what should have been a cakewalk to the presidency and ran the worst campaign I've ever seen from the inside. He would not raise his voice and take a principled stand to defend his values and his actions...something he's done 1000's of times within the Senate chambers.

Howard Dean would have won that election. So might have John Edwards. Kerry self-destructed.

[politicasista]

28. You sound bitter

Dean would have had a similiar fate. With media bias, it would have been impossible for any Democrat to win.

Too bad you didn't directed at a weak Democratic Party Chair in McAuliffe and people like Carville and Begalla and a Democratic Party that stood on the sidelines and did nothing for their candidate. But hey, at least Kerry took responsibility (unlike the ones who should have been doing the harder work) and went out there and defended Obama. Glad Obama shows MORE respect for his alies than most here ever will.

Thanks for letting the media and Democrats off the hook.

[Chan790]

35. Oh, they've got my ire too.

and I'm not bitter. I'm tired of having the same fight with entrenched party apparatchik who think we can't possibly do or say anything that might alienate anybody, even the people who are not going to support us anyways. If Senator Kerry had stood up and said "The Swift Boat ad is full of it. The closest Jerome Corsi ever got to combat was watching it on CBS News sitting on his REMF posterior. He knows nothing about how I earned my Purple Hearts." If he'd said it proactively, loudly, proudly and repeatedly then the whole thing would have been DOA. Why didn't he do that? Because all the people you named, along with Cahill and Shrum told him it would make him look "angry".

Sometimes, anger is a gift. It demonstrates you actually give a shit.

Blame the media, it's easy. It ignores a big truth...media's all about ratings. They like the big story, that's the meme they're going to run, it gets people's eyeballs. It has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative or D vs. R. (Except for partisan-hack FNC) or even the truth. Win over the media and you win. Win the media by getting people talking. Keep it simple, keep it high-energy and look like an avalanche...they'll fall right in, just like they did for the Obama candidacy and like they did for the Tea Party and like they tried to do for the Palin selection as McCain's VP. They'll run the avalanche. In the words of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

Nobody in the media really cares if it's actually true. It's the legend, dammit.

[politicasista]

39. Ok. Although you are still repeating the media lie that Kerry sat on his tail and did nothing

He actually responded with a Firefighters Convention speech, but the media refused to cover it and instead gave air time to the liars. In fact, people would not have thought Obama did anything to counter the Rev. Wright mess, but the media aired in its' entirety his speech in response.

The Kerry campaign released all the records and responded in May of that year. Question was Where were the Democrats that should have standing with Kerry like they stood with Obama.

Luckilly, opinions aren't facts. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

[blm]

80. WHAT A CROCK. Kerry did exactly that on Aug19, 2004 in a one hour speech to Firefighters Convention

He called out the swifts as liars and CHALLENGED Bush to debate over their services publically instead of hiding behind the swifts. Gee...that should have been a heavily rotated story for at least a WEEK. But.....

Not ONE network would broadcast that speech once they saw the prepared remarks. Few even reported that the speech occurred and those that did downplayed the remarks, with the clips kept to minimum rotation, if played at all.

Imagine if corpmedia did that with Obama's speech after a month of RevWright videos...he never would've made it to nominee.

It's a fucking MYTH that Kerry never responded to swifts. Corpmedia depends on inattentive SAPS to get away with the shit they pull. Dan Rather has said the media was invested in protecting Bush in 2004 for the favorable expansion rulings the owners expected (and eventually got) in a second term. They knew Kerry was against expansion as he authored a senate resolution protesting FCC's moves in favor of expansion in June2003.

[OZark Dem]

66. Kerry had 14 million he did not spend.

[blm]

79. 14m he COULDN'T spend as it came so late during the PRIMARY. It's called CAMPAIGN LAW.

Terry McAuliffe knew that when he made his complaint but counted on so many of you NOT knowing...McAuliffe was in the game from 2001-2005 ONLY to keep 2008 open for Hillary. He never strengthened party infrastructure in prepareation for a 2004 election win.

[EstimatedProphet]

69. People went to jail for voter fraud in Ohio from the 2004 election

Kerry ran a crappy campaign, true, but claiming it was all aboveboard when we have people convicted of voter fraud favoring Bush in 2004 doesn't exactly help either.

[truebrit71]

75. Yeah, everything that happened in OH in '04 was above board and kosher...

..riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.... :eyes:

[KansDem]

7. They also haven't won a Presidential election since 1952 without Nixon or a Bush on their ticket

1952-Eisenhower/Nixon
1956-Eisenhower/Nixon
1960-Kennedy/Johnson
1964-Johnson/Humphrey
1968-Nixon/Agnew
1972-Nixon/Agnew
1976-Carter/Mondale
1980-Reagan/Bush
1984-Reagan/Bush
1988-Bush/Quayle
1992-Clinton/Gore
1996-Clinton/Gore
2000-Bush/Cheney
2004-Bush/Cheney
2008-Obama/Biden

They're the "Party of No(thing)"

on edit: In fact, go all the way back to 1928 and Herbert Hoover for the last time the Repubs had the White House without Nixon or a Bush on their ticket! That's 78 years (FDR was elected in 1932).

[politicasista]

33. Shh! They won in

2004. Thanks to that ineffective dude who ran a "piss-poor" campaign. :sarcasm: :rofl: :sarcasm: Glad to know our President shows more respect for his surrogates (when they should have done the same for him) than most ever do.

[villager]

2. No, the D.C. Democrats will work overtime to make sure the GOP is never "politically irrelevant"

If the Dems ever accidentally got over 60 votes in the Senate -- evaporating the last of their excuses to act against the interests of their corporate sponsors -- they'd think of some new reason "it can't be done..."

[FBaggins]

4. Give me some of whatever he's smoking.

Or get around to recognizing this article is almost two years old.

The electoral landscape has, shall we say... "shifted" slightly.

It does, however, make it obvious how significantly that landscape can change in eighteen short months. This is a very good thing, because if one were to make a predication today, the 2012 senate landscape looks every bit as bad for us.

[lonestarnot]

11. Whine in someone else's soup why don't you. And I do not for one second agree that future landscape

looks bad.

[FBaggins]

20. The "future landscape"

was only to comment on how much things change in two years. In 2012 we're defending 25 Senate seats (if you count Lieberman as a democrat) and the republicans are defending 9. If this election goes as most expect it to right now, January's predictions for 2012 will be for a slaughter. But the reminder of how dramatically things change in just two years is useful. The economy will almost certainly look better and a then-more-popular Obama will be at the head of the ticket.

As for whining... are you that blind to how dramtically things have changes since this article was written?

[hfojvt]

38. that's what I thought too

right now the polls looks pretty bleak

http://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2010/polls.php

with 10 democrat, 22 Republican and 5 toss up.

Four of the toss ups are Democratically held - Washington, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. The fifth, Florida, is a hold for the Republicans although the Republican Crist may take it as an indy.

North Dakota looks like it will flip from D to R, same with Colorado with Indiana and Arkansas also going from DLC to R. So that is -4 for the Ds even if we win all of the toss ups and hold Nevada as well. Best chances of a D-flip are Missouri and Ohio.

[OZark Dem]

5. And yet we still can't pass a bill

We did nothing in opposition for 6 years before 2006

[tridim]

8. Except, of course, all the bills that we passed.

:freak:

[Ikonoklast]

10. You mean all those bills we didn't pass that the Republicans are promising to repeal

if they get a majority? Health care reform, FinReg?

Let me clue you in, those bills absolutely hammered the Pukes.

[lonestarnot]

12. WTF?

are you talking about?

[NNN0LHI]

13. Who is this "we" you talking about?

[lpbk2713]

14. It's the party of Limbaugh, Hannity & Beck.

I'd love to see them get whay they have been asking for.

It's long overdue.

[ThomWV]

15. I think the Democrats have 'momentum' and will gain more seats

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

16. "January 29th, 2009"

Massive fail.......sigh.

[SecularMotion]

17. Things have only gotten worse for the republicans since then.

The republican party is even further divided, thanks to the Tea Party.

[FBaggins]

21. In all ways except in comparison to Democrats.

n/t

[SecularMotion]

23. Did I read that clearly?

You think Democrats are worse off than Republicans?

Please enlighten us. How so?

[FBaggins]

25. You're kidding, right?

Have you spent no time on DU? Even by the "part split internally" standard, we're having a tough time... but I'm just talking about electoral chances here. Republicans stand to make big gains this Nov at all levels unless something changes in a big way and soon. How can that not be "worse off than republicans"?

Since when did supporting the party mean that one had to stick his head in the sand and pretend that it's a sunny day with no rain in sight? There is nobody (and I mean no-body) in the party who knows anything about electoral politics who thinks that we're better off than the opposition right now. We don't have to lose either the House or Senate, but we're going to lose some seats unless someone has a hat with a rabbit in it.

You've posted an article from January of 2009. Do you seriously think that it's still operative? Take a look at Charlie Cook's table from that January and you'll see that he felt exactly the same way as this author.

Then look at his table for today.

[SecularMotion]

29. If you're using the "obama-haters" on DU as an indication

of the health of the Democratic Party, you're very disillusioned.

I don't understand how your overly pessimistic outlook for November is "supporting the party".

The Democrats in Congress have a strong record of health care and financial reform to run against the tired Republican record of no.

If you don't see that, you may be in the wrong place here. If you're not, then what are you doing to help elect Democrats?

[FBaggins]

32. Lol... not "obama haters"

Teachers who feel betrayed... LGBT who feel betrayed... people who feel they were promised real healthcare reform who feel betrayed. Real democrats who are disillusioned. I like the guy, but I'm not blind to the fact that lots of democrats are ticked with how little we've gotten out of a senat super-majority and a democratic president. You can't argue with the facts... democrats overall are FAR less motivated to show up this november... and every poll has shown it. You can put your head in the sand if you like, but it won't change reality.

I don't understand how your overly pessimistic outlook for November is "supporting the party".

Lol... I just love how some people seem to think that reality changes with political affiliation. My outlook is built from years of experience, it doesn't change with who I hope wins. You're like the one odds maker in vegas who sets the super bowl line for his favorite team when everyone else says they're ten point underdogs. You know what happens to him? He goes broke. And when he asks the other odds-makers how they can call themselves true fans when they set the line against their favorite team? They laugh at him.

The Democrats in Congress have a strong record of health care and financial reform to run against the tired Republican record of no.

And I use the same line when I'm trying to spin. But I leave out that I can't figure out when they're going to actually see some impact from that strong record. The generic polls are the worst they've been in a generation... when exactly should I expect the impact of that record to show up?

If you're not, then what are you doing to help elect Democrats?

Donating every spare penny (and then some) to candidates who have a chance to hold the line. Trying to convince democrats here to show up on election day because we have a race that we could win.


I tell you what. Why don't you find a SINGLE party insider who predicts picking up a SINGLE net seat in the House Senate OR the statehouses? Just one will do.

[SecularMotion]

34. Those aren't facts, that's your opinion

And you can pull right wing polls out of your ass all day, but it's still propaganda.

"Donating every spare penny (and then some) to candidates who have a chance to hold the line. Trying to convince democrats here to show up on election day because we have a race that we could win."

You may not be aware of it, but your pessimistic outlook has the opposite effect.

"Why don't you find a SINGLE party insider who predicts picking up a SINGLE net seat in the House Senate OR statehouse? Just one will do."

You're right, no one is PREDICTING Democratic gains in either house, but it is possible.

And no one is PREDICTING Democratic loss of control in either house, except for right wing hacks.

[FBaggins]

36. Nope. Facts don't become opinion just because you disagree with them.

And you can pull right wing polls out of your ass all day, but it's still propaganda

See above. Left-wing and indy polls don't become RW just because SecularMotion is driven crazy by even thinking about them. There are no polls that make the OP look like anything but a pipe dream. none

You may not be aware of it, but your pessimistic outlook has the opposite effect.

Says you. When your running back gets stuffed for negative yards three times in a row and the game is one the line... you call a pass. When the running back comes to the sideline and says "I know I can do it coach"... that only works in movies... you still call a pass. When the running back coach comes to you and says "we can't run on these guys, we need to put the ball in the air" you don't say "your pessimistic outlook is going to cost us this game".

You're right, no one is PREDICTING Democratic gains in either house, but it is possible.

So find me ONE person who knows what he or she is talking about who says that it's possible that we'll pick up a single net seat absent a massive sea change in public opinion. Come on... surely there's someone out there who passes your "must ignore reality to be a real Democrat" standard.

And no one is PREDICTING Democratic loss of control in either house, except for right wing hacks.

Once again with the disconnect between wishful thinking and reality, eh? There are a number of non-rw-hacks who are predicting an awful november (yes, including some who think we'll lose the house if nothing changes). But more importantly, did you think that nobody would notice that you just moved the goalposts? If we lose 30 seats in the House and six in the Senate (plus 6-8 governorships and redistricting power next year)... you really think that's anything but bad news?

I'm not predicting that we lose either house (though both are certainly possible)... but it's going to be an ugly year. And posting a prediction of net gains possibly decimating the opposing party as if it is in ANY way connected to reality... well... that certainly has no positive effect.

I don't suppose that you're old enough to remember 1994, are you? Do you know how few people expect us to lose that many seats? Hardly anyone. The pollyanna-ish outlook pre-election just made things worse. All you can accomplish with this fantasy is to lower expectations for the opposition... lowering them to far below what they can easily clear. What we should be doing is raising their expectations so that it looks like a loss for them if they fail to take both houses.

[SecularMotion]

37. And your opinion doesn't become fact no matter how much you repeat it.

You're obviously a half-empty type and I'm a half-full type.

The fact is that the Teabaggers have divided the Republicans and it will be a big factor in the elections.

Now you can join the right wing noise machine and try to dampen Democratic turnout

or you can rally Democrats to get out to vote and help to destroy the GOP for good.

I choose the latter.

[FBaggins]

42. So what you're saying is...

..you're knowingly lying because you think that democratic voters can be conned into action rather than persuaded?

No thanks.

You're obviously a half-empty type and I'm a half-full type.

Nope. The glass is 75% empty and I'm the guy saying so... you've correctly identified how you're labeling it, but that isn't reality.

[SecularMotion]

72. It's too early to concede so many competitive races

I wonder why you're willing to give in so easy?

[tritsofme]

60. The Nile aint just a river in Egypt.

Show me the districts. There are only about 4 competitive GOP districts this year, Democrats currently hold all other competitive districts after 2006 and 2008. So you really think Democrats will run the table and not lose a single open seat or incumbent? That is delusional.

[Radical Activist]

40. Party insiders know that polls taken 6 months before an election mean nothing.

They don't panic about media hype and useless polls. Democrats are going to increase their majority in the Senate.

[FBaggins]

41. Do party insiders know how to subtract?

It's less than three months before the election. When exactly do the polls start to mean something?

Democrats are going to increase their majority in the Senate.

So find me a single party insider who says that. Just one will do.

If Democrats are going to increase their majority, what is it that you think will change between now and then?

[Radical Activist]

43. The narrative of Democrats losing Congress started months ago.

The narrative won't die before election day. You should take a look at the latest polls of specific Senate races. We have a strong shot at picking up Republican Senate seats in KY, MO, OH, NH, NC, and LA. Pay less attention to who's in the lead and look more at positive/negative ratings. Look for races where the challenger is still unknown and there are a lot of undecideds. Watch for races where a well known incumbent is polling under 50%.

Don't let the media do your thinking for you. Their narrative is BS.

[BzaDem]

48. You have got to be kidding me. We practically aren't even contesting some of our own seats.

We are around 40 points down in North Dakota, and around 20+ points down in Arkansas, Indiana, and Delaware. There is a 0% chance we are going to win any of those 4 seats. We are around 5 points down in Colorado and Pennsylvania. And those are ALL currently held by Democrats. That's 6 seats.

As for the 5 you mention, we are around 8-10 points down in KY, 3-8 in MO and OH, 8-10 in NH, 2-10 in NC, and even Melancon's own internal poll has him down 5 in LA. (The reality is likely more like 20 points.) To reiterate, we are not ahead in even one of the seats you mention, and many, many polls show this.

And on top of all of that, we are roughly tied or ahead by 0-5 points in NV, IL, CA, WA, and WI. We could still lose any or all of these seats (all of which are currently Democratic).


"Watch for races where a well known incumbent is polling under 50%."

OK. How about this. In AK, NV, CO, CA, WA, and WI, the Democratic incumbant is under 50%. In most of these, the Democratic candidates favorables are upside down.

We are FAR more likely to lose the Senate majority than we are to actually gain seats. It is laughable that any person is even suggesting that we would gain seats, let alone saying it is likely. If you think we will gain seats, you should bet a lot of money on that in the prediction markets. You would lose every penny.

Is there room for the picture to improve? Sure there is. I think it is possible that we win in NV, IL, CA, WA, and WI, and only lose the obvious 4 (ND, AK, IN, and DE) and one of PA/CO. That would put us at 54 seats, which would still allow us to confirm most of Obama's judges and pass reconciliation measures.

[Radical Activist]

49. You're citing outdated and inaccurate poll numbers.

Two recent KY polls were tied, not 8-10 points down. Most Ohio and MO polls are within the margin of error. Even Rasmussen changed Ohio from "leans Republican" to "tossup." The Republican primary frontrunner in NH just had a major scandal break. The trend is changing in favor of Democrats and there's still a lot of time before election day.

I don't know why you're so committed to this chicken little attitude but it really does have the effect of campaigning against Democrats. And no, it isn't connected to the current reality. As I said before, experienced campaign managers know that polls taken months before an election never match the final results. The best they can do is reveal a trend and the latest trend favors Democrats.

And I won't be crying about losing Arkansas. It's not like that's a lost vote on progressive issues.

[FBaggins]

65. Nope... just not ones that you're happy with.

Two recent KY polls were tied, not 8-10 points down.

There has been one democratic poll (PPP) that I've seen where it was tied. The most recent poll was released this morning and shows a 9-10 point gap. It's also a pretty comprehensive poll broken down by congressional district and contains bad news for Ben Chandler's race (one of the must-win districts if we're going to keep the House). Obama strongly approve 11.5% - strongly disapprove 41.2%, more think that the economy is the presiden't fault rather than where it belongs, "which party do you want to control congress= R+8. "What do you tink of the tea party" +15%.

http://politics.mycn2.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/7479-Kentucky-State-Tabs.pdf

[Radical Activist]

51. eh

I just realized you aren't the same person who wrote the other posts so the chicken little paragraph wasn't meant for you.

[FBaggins]

50. by your own standard, we don't pick up any net senate seats.

"Watch for races where a well known incumbent is polling under 50%" is a well-known (and accurate) standard... but by that standard we would lose the Senate were it not for 3-4 republican seats that are in play... because there are several Democrats who fit that standard. Including Feingold and Boxer - who weren't even part of the "narrative" six months ago.

And if "under 50 for a well-known incumbent" is a problem, what about the races where they outright trail in virtually every poll?

You left off GA. We have a shot there too. But you also ignored that there are 12-13 democratic seats in play too.

[JVS]

54. The republican ability to keep their filibuster going at almost all times demonstrates..

an amazing level of unity. I only wish that the Democrats had been able to muster such unity in the Bush years.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

71. The tea party is full of it

They are Republicans, and they will vote for Republicans, any Republican who says all the right things to appease them. The problem for them will start once they get in there, when the pressure from the extremist wing kicks in, the dissension will start in earnest. Until then, they will be united in taking over the House and Senate.

Sadly, for the rest of us, it will be too late.

[Doctor_J]

81. The pukes will make heavy gains this year, despite veering FAR to the right

all of their sane candidates have lost in the primaries, and the loony fringe will be taking office in January. How do you sell this as "getting worse"?

[27inCali]

19. Repigs are gonna lose seats in the Senate

I don't think the house is gonna look so pretty, but hell! we don't need super-majorities in the House.

[FBaggins]

22. NET seats?

Or are you talking about FL/KY/MO/NH/OH?

[Initech]

27. I hope so. Fuck 'em all.

[OmahaBlueDog]

45. It will be interesting to watch

The party of the President in power is always a lightning rod in the first midterm. Bush escaped this because of 9-11.

It would be naive of anyone here to think that there are not a horde of angry, highly motivated voters who are licking their chops to kick the Democrats to the curb. The odds of losing the House are still very good. Americans like divided government.

BUT

a) The economy, while not roaring back, didn't fall off a cliff either
b) The President has put two justices on the court now, and neither time did it turn into a Bork-like or Clarence Thomas-like fiasco.
c) Charlie Crist has demonstrated that there is such a thing as too-far-to-the-right. Rubio embraced the T-baggers; Crist went indy, and will likely take both halves out of the middle and go to the Senate.
d) After being crapped on since the Prop 8 debacle, the LGBT community finally won a major court victory
e) The T-bagger movement seems winded. They had a great flourish in the Spring, but it doesn't seem to be the steamroller that was originally envisioned.

[Hawkowl]

46. Now THIS motivates me

The sooner the rethuglicans join the Whigs, the sooner we can eliminate the DLC.

[MajorChode]

47. I've been saying for some time that the GOPhers are working themselves into obscurity

The GOP has allowed themselves to be driven by their fringe nuts. Even though the teabaggers represent a small segment of the GOP's base, they are clearly the most vocal right now. As their candidates pander to those fringe nuts, they start to lose those in the middle, and once they lose the middle, the GOP will fade into irrelevancy.

[old mark]

52. Well, then let's certainly push them over the edge...I have been thinking

that the GOP would disintegrate itself for several years, and so far nearly everything I thought would happen is happening...the ReallyRight ('Baggers)have begun to split from the "real" GOPers, leaving several small inefective parties fighting each other and hurting esch other in elections.

I think we can win more seats in congress this November if enough of us actually vote instead of just complaining, and change the numbers in congress enough to actually effect the type of bills that can survive...Maybe get some real progressiveism going on.

mark

[underpants]

53. They already collapsed in 2006 but fawning media coverage has kept them alive

No one will pay or watch a one person boxin match so the press (this is the only rational explanation) kept them alive so there is a fight.

The "uprising" started in 2006 with Lamont beating Liebermann and the incredible ouster of incumbents - we have a 98% incumbency rate in this country mostly due to money.

[RandomThoughts]

55. I don't think it is just money.

It is also people not knowing the marketing and corruption to skew elections.

Although money pays to keep those things from people knowing about them.

[RandomThoughts]

56. They can always experiance some of the joys I have over here :)

I have had nothing, no prospects, assets or much of anything else for years.

Would be glad to have them experience life with nothing to lose :)

[MadBadger]

58. Right now, can you name a seat in the Senate we will pick up without a doubt? You cant.

You may have a good feeling about a few seats, like I do with Ohio. But its too close to call there, so I really cant say without a doubt we take those seats. However, i feel very comfortable in saying that the Republicans will take ND, IN, AK, and DE. And not to mention, the same way the five republican seats are in play, Democratic seats in PA, CO, and IL are also in play.

[tritsofme]

59. This article is 20 months old.

If you still think this is a reasonable analysis of how the midterms are likely to go, I got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

[SecularMotion]

61. This isn't prediction

Just reminding Democrats of what's possible with a strong Democratic turnout on election day.

[FBaggins]

62. And what's going to CAUSE that strong Democratic turnout?

You seem to think that if we pretend everything is bright and sunny that people will just show up on election day expecting to win.

You can't just convince people that they've been given what they thought they were promised. Unemployment may be the result of the Bush recession, but it's been two years and you can't convince people that things are much better. It doesn't have to have anything to do with bad policies or decisions, but people aren't blind. Things suck and they can't vote Bush out again - only one party is in power.

What we CAN do is scare the stuffing out of them by reminding them that things can get MUCH worse and Republicans aren't the answer. We can tell them exactly where this election looks like it's headed and let that motivate them to turn out... maybe pull a rabbit out of this hat.

[SecularMotion]

63. Fear mongering is a right wing tactic nt.

[FBaggins]

64. So is lying.

The difference is that it isn't fear mongering when the concern is a valid one.

Reminding people that as badly as the last two years have gone, they would be worse under republicans... is the ONLY thing left right now.

The alternative is electoral slaughter that could make 1994 look like a not-so-bad year. You see... if it turns into a "wave," then every close race in the pre-election polling falls one way (because there's a 2-4 point shift in who actually shows up). 2006 and 2008 were lite examples. The "tossup" category ceases to a be split where some races go one way and some go the other.

There are FAR too many democratic seats in that tossup category right now. Coming up with "creative" (i.e., dishonest) reasons why each of them doesn't really belong in that category helps not a whit.

[Blue Owl]

67. I'm in the mood to kick those assholes while they're down

n/t

[Scurrilous]

68. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Juche]

70. 538 shows them winning

538 has been a reliable site. They predicted perfectly what would happen in 2008 down to which states each candidate would win in the presidential and which senate seats would turn.

They claim 53-54 dems in the senate after 2010, and I think a 40% chance of the house turning GOP.

However that could change over the next 3 months.


If anything the GOP winning could be a good thing because the tea party extremists will start pushing them further and further to the right, alienating even more voters, hopefully creating a downward spiral of extremism and minority rule.

It isn't so much that a huge % of the population decided to become GOP, but in the next election a large number of dem voters and new voters will sit out while the GOP runs to the polls. Among registered voters the dems win in polls, among likely voters the GOP wins.

So whatever gains are gained will probably be wiped out in 2012 and then some IMO because the presidential election will get people to the polls. Conservatives tend to better in midterms because their turnout is higher than dem turnout.

[Evasporque]

73. But everyone else says the Republicans are poised for major victory...

So either the fix is on again...or the MSM is simply talking out of their ass.

[SecularMotion]

74. I'm gonna go with "simply talking out of their ass" nt

[truebrit71]

76. Talking out of their ass...the presstitutes are only giving half the story...AGAIN...

...the polls say the Dems are at historical lows in popularity...what they also say is that people have an even LESS favourable view of the gop, but strangely the whores in the M$M don't report that part...I wonder why? :eyes:

[Bill McBlueState]

77. I'm gonna go with

"the article in the OP is from a year and a half ago."

[saltpoint]

78. "We are hateful, insane, dismissive, and comprehensively

clueless. This is today's GOP. We'd like your vote."

That's essentially their pitch.

Here's hoping it's real unsuccessful.