Two questions about 2010

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1) How many seats will Dems lose

and a more pointed question...

2) How many seats can Dems lose before Congress is effectively governed by a Republican/Conservadem coalition?


If we retain a majority in the House we keep our committees and our speaker but organizational control is not the issue I'm talking about. In terms of support for actual bills and policies we are obviously holding on by our finger-nails already. The Stupaks and Liebermans very nearly run everything already. The constant whittling away of HCR is because we do not have the votes.

For instance, Pelosi did not pull medicare+5% because she changed her mind about the policy. The votes were not there in the Dem caucus. And for every seat a pug picks up that is a higher percentage of the Dem caucus that is required to do anything. (If all the seats we lose are conservadem seats that would buffer the disparity some, but note that we cannot even cajole actual pugs. They are rock-solid opposition votes in all circumstances. A stray conservadem might be bought off on a vote here and there, e.g. Landrieu, but the lock-step pugs cannot even be bribed.)

So, assuming we lose some seats (almost a certainty) it seems very, very likely that after 2010 we will be ruled by a coalition of obstructionist RW a-holes.

And without even getting the political benefit of being the minority!

The Democratic Party will "own" policies that arise from de facto Republican governance. (In the way we Dems currently own a stimulus regimen that was never the liberal approach in the first place. For all practical purposes Susan Collins wrote the stimulus bill, but we own it.)

Bottom line: If we have a great year and only lose 10-20 seats we still lose practical control of the agenda. And Obama doesn't get to run against Congress in 2012.

(Bonus Question: Does Clinton cruise to victory in '96 if we hadn't lost Congress in 1994?)


Sorry for being such a wet blanket, but this is the world. Blame God.

[PBS Poll-435]

1. We'll still have 240+ in the House and 56-57 in the Senate

And the Stupak Amendment was pure political theatre.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Hardly the point

We can lose lots of seats in either house while retaining organization control.

We cannot, however, lose hardly any seats without losing voting control on actual bills. That's basic, since we already lack effective voting control... that's why we lose the PO in the senate and lose Medicare+5% in the House. Because the measures do not have the votes.

If we had 300 seats in the House but 150 of them were held by "Dems" with no interest in voting for Dem bills then we would not pass anything.

So the raw number of nominal Dems is irrelevant to the question raised.

[ieoeja]

2. The house is already governed by a Republican/Conservadem coalition.

If by "governed" you mean majority. While there are more Democrats than Republicans in the House and Senate, there are more Conservatives than Liberals.

Something which a lot of DUers don't quite seem to get. They keep blaming the entire Democratic Party instead of the Conservatives (GOP and Democrat).

[swilton]

9. My words exactly -

Or more specifically - when do we start placing the blame on the conservative Democrats - I don't know all the names but Stupak comes to mind, Boren from OK are a few; you know the suspects in the Senate (Landrieu, Lincoln, Baucas)

I don't really see the value that many DUers place in ranting about Dick Cheney, and the Republicans - the inertia is being caused by the conservatives disguised as democrats.

[Birthmark]

3. My honest opinion?

I think that the Democrats will lose both Houses of Congress by a large margin. (Subject to which Senators are up for election in 2010.) Basically, if the Democrats can lose a seat, they will. They're probably still safe in the NE, though.

The Republicans will take that as some sort of endorsement for their position. They always do. But it won't be. It will be the result of millions of disaffected Democrats sitting it out.

{EDIT: After looking up who is running, I don't believe that the Senate can be taken by the Republicans. But the Democratic majority will be much smaller, 52 or 53 after 2010.)

[Jennicut]

4. We are losing at the very least 10 seats, could be more.

In off years, the party in the Presidency almost loses seats and since we have a 258 to 177 majority so we are going to lose some of those seats. And Clinton would not have won so easily in 96 without the Repubs acting like idiots right before that election...shutting down the government in 1995.

[racaulk]

6. I don't think we have anything to worry about, at least with the Senate.

Here are some seats that could potentially be competitive:

Currently held by Dems: AR, NV, CT, DE, IL, CO
Currently held by Reps: MO, OH, NH, KY

I imagine that most of the other seats will stay under their current control. Even if the Repukes win all 10 seats above (which I think is unlikely), that will give us a net loss of 6 seats, keeping the Dems in the majority...albeit by a slimmer margin. But we will retain control, of that I'm certain.

The House is a little more open to swinging, and I do think the Dems will have a net loss in seats, but I still think we'll hold control.

2010 will be interesting, to be sure.

:hi:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. But control is not control

I doubt we will lose a nominal majority in either house.

But we are already lacking the ability to move our agenda.

We can control committees, control what reaches the floor, etc., but we already lack the votes for things like public option, medicare+5%, etc..

So all loses of seats, even thought they don't cost us organizational control, will make actual Dem bills impossible to advance.

(Since they are already almost impossible to advance.)

[racaulk]

10. Oh, I completely agree with that.

Just because "50% + 1" members in one chamber have a "D" after their name doesn't necessarily mean the Democrats are in control of that chamber. Case in point: the current HCR boondoggle in the Senate.

The Dems simply don't march in lockstep as the Repukes seem to. Unfortunately, I don't know what the solution is.

I do believe, however, that the Dems better push as much as they can in 2010, because it will only be tougher for them to push their legislation in the foreseeable future. I fear that Obama is currently enjoying the largest Congressional majorities that he will see while he is in office.

[quakerboy]

26. This is where I think a loss is a win

I would argue its better to have more power than a quick glance shows, to have "reserves" in the bank, rather than to be a paper tiger, looking great but not ready for action. I would also argue that Specter switching parties, or retaining Lieberman in the democratic caucus(take your pick, or both) was one of the worst things to happen this year.

Right now, we appear to the outside to have an unassailable majority in both bodies. And yet we are not passing anything like great legislation. But the average joe out there can check wikipedia or just listen to his local newz, and knows we have a super majority. So anything that happens is our fault, pure and simple. If we were lacking that one vote, we would have that as a platform in the next election. We could credibly blame republican obstructionism.

I would not mind losing some blue dogs. I would prefer to loose them in the Senate, to be honest, and retain the relative liberal control of the house. But they will reap what they have sown. What blows me away is that these blue dogs are the ones with the most to loose in a failure. Kucinich isn't going to lose his seat if health care fails, nor is Boxer. But Landrieu and Nelson might. So why are they the ones seen as holding the power? The left should be metaphorically "having our way" with them, as the participants with the least to loose.

[otohara]

17. New Poll In Colo....Both Dems Are Behind

by 10 points in a poll released today.

[Armstead]

7. I think we woll lose control unnecessarily

Democrats had an opportunity to set a clear public-interest agenda that would have also addressed people's populist instincts. Let's keep it modest and call it moderate liberal -- but clearly reflecting liberal values, like affordable health care for everyone plain and simple and beginning to take away the obscene power of Wall St. bankers and other oligarchs.

If done and sold wisely, that would have won a lot of people over and made the Republicans look like the assholes they are by opposing it. Progressives would have been energized and moderate/swing types would have said "I kinda like this."

Instead, they gave the public a demonstration of ineffectual leadership, complete with kowtowing to corporate power, waffling, being apologetic about "liberalism," backpedling and infighting.

I can't predict exactly how many seats will be lost. But I think many would have been winnable if our side had gotten its act together this year and shown what a good Democratic majority can accomplish for real people.

[T Wolf]

11. You speak so strong a truth that it hurts. nt

[racaulk]

12. Thank you!

Truer words never spoken.

:applause:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. sounds about right

[IndianaGreen]

20. We voted for a new New Deal, we got Hooverism instead

President Hoover tried to help people during the Great Depression, as he subsequently did for FDR by feeding postwar Europe, but he was a creature of the system and thus unable to take the bold and dramatic steps needed to deal with the crisis.

K&R to your post.

[COLGATE4]

22. Sad, but brilliantly true. We have no one to blame but ourselves

for what I fear is an upcoming electoral debacle.

[Clio the Leo]

14. Still the best article on the matter....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125495123152271693.html

[davidpdx]

15. My thoughts

1) I think we will lose 30 in the House and the margin will be 228 to 207. For the Senate I think we will lose 5 for sure with the sixth a possibility (this is counting the entire 60 member fragile caucus including Lieberman who is not up and Sanders). In terms of 2) two I think for the US Senate that would pretty much do it. The Conservadems are already trying to hold the caucus hostage, but if it wastes away a little more, they will try to pull some of the moderate Republicans like Snowe possibly putting together an unholy alliance of conservative Dems and Republicans. In the House, if they lost more then 30, then I think there is a chance you'd see that happening and maybe even Pelosi getting thrown out of her speakership.

Yes, I still think Clinton would have won the 96' election if we had won control of Congress. It may have even played into a mutual tidal wave effect in the Presidential and down ticket races.

[TexasObserver]

16. I think we'll lose at least ten seats in the House.

If things don't improve in the employment market between now and the election, we could lose the House.

As for the senate, I haven't decided yet what I think will happen, although we're likely to lose at least a seat or two.

[totodeinhere]

18. We can't afford to lose even one seat in the Senate.

With sixty seats in the caucus right now it's hard to get anything done. Imagine how much harder it will be if we have less seats next time. That's why we need to get as much as possible accomplished right now while we can. I just wish the leadership would realize that and get off their asses and do something. Reid needs to grow some before it's too late. His seat could be the one that we lose.

[onenote]

19. two questions about tomorrow

who's winning the Giants/Eagles game and what will the score be.

After all, if folks can predict the number of Congressional seats that will change hands 11 months from now, it should be a snap to predict the precise outcome of a sporting event that will be held 24 hours from now.

[AlinPA]

21. The Republican/Conservadem coalition has huge power now. IMO, most of the power is

with the Blue Dogs in the House and with the few Conservadems + Lieberman and Snowe in the Senate.

[Garam_Masala]

23. All depends on UNemployment rates in Fall 2010

And not one person can predict accurately what it will be
in October 2010. So it is all conjecture.

If unemployment is under 8%, we retain most seats, if it is
11 to 12%, it will make 1994 look like a Sunday picnic.

[old mark]

24. We will gain seats if more Democrats would vote...this conceding

the election a year in advance is stupid defeatist, bullshit, certainly not a "certainty".
Many people here seem to love to talk out of their ass, OP, and you are another one.

mark

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. Hostile and stupid is a poor combination

Seats will be lost.

You note that seats would not be lost if more Democrats voted.

Yeah... no shit. What about it?

More Democrats are not going to vote. Many fewer Democrats are going to vote.

The fact that you chose to ignore reality doesn't make everyone else an asshole.

Buy a mirror.

[CraigNelson]

25. Do we even want Obama reelected with a GOP Congress?

Obama would likely work with Republicans to privitize Social Security and pass another round of Bush style tax cuts to appease them. If Congress goes in 2010, Obama has got to go in 2012 too. We cannot have another Democratic President who poisons the well for the party like Clinton did.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. I can't wait for your tenth post

Will you make it to fifteen?

[KrR]

29. His post is pretty much middle of the road around here

who cares what his count is?