As Democratic leaders see things, the economic situation is going to look a lot more promising in the fall than it does right now. And once you factor in the deeply tainted Republican brand and drill down and look at the 435-seat map on a district-by-district basis, the chances of waking up Nov. 3 to a Republican majority in the House are virtually nil.
“We’ve been saying this would be a tough election year, but it’s a hallucination for Republican leaders to think they’ll take back the House — this is not 1994 déjà vu,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen told POLITICO.
Basically their frame of thought is that Repubs will not retake the House because:
1) People forget that it was the Democrats’ Congress that tanked the economy, and instead blame Bush (but…that dog don’t hunt like it used to w independents and moderates)
2) The economy is getting better, and Democrats will take credit for it (Pretty sure he said it w a straight face too, but he’s right…Dems will get credit for the economy in the Fall. 17.3% of Americans workers who are unemployed will make sure of that)
3) Repubs don’t have enough money to contest each district (He’s probably right here, but he’s ignoring the math, and the math says Dems took Congress by running conservative Blue Dogs in red districts, and those are the ones that need contesting-not every single district)
4) Not enough Dems are retiring (Here, he’s right.)
SO….what do you think:
Will Republicans take the House back
or
Will Democrats keep the House in the Fall?
See author page
The GOP will take the House and get over 60 in the Senate this year. If not, we will take the House and the Senate by the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Period.
The job situation will not improve by the fall because everything they are doing make employers afraid to hire because they cannot tell what the costs will be after the democrats get their Tax And Trade, back breaking Health care taxes, soda pop taxes, Bush tax cuts expiring, and many many other fees they are trying to impose every day on small buisinesses.
If anything, instead of real unemployment of 18% it will be much higher after the summer. God I hope I can keep my job until there are enough republicans in office to stop the insane spending. Although many republicans, like McCain, are dem-lite… we need conservatives.
The repubulicans will NOT take the house or sentate. However, they will make gains that will impede the run away legislation now taking place. Watch out for even more legislation to be rushed through before that happens. They know there time is limited. That is why they are pushing health care so hard right now, even though many of them know the plan is garbage. They want this win so bad, they don’t care if the outcome is junk. That is what it is all about on both sides. Winning the debate. Neither side is truly trying to improve the health care system. That is what you get when 80% of congress is lawyers.
Ever heard of ” YES WE CAN”
We don’t need to take back the House and Senate in one fell swoop, although it would be nice to do so. Just need to make enough gains to keep the Democrats from rubber stamping all sorts of the most grievous legislation known to man.
No, it won’t happen this time around, though it is beyond me what advantage it will be to have the Republicans in control anyway: a PROGRESSIVE is a PROGRESSIVE whether it be a Demo or Repub.
Scott Brown is an example of what can be accomplished via grass roots support (read that TEA Party). It isn’t about the amount of money the RNC can raise because they provided very little support to Brown, yet today we have Brown leading Coakley by 50/46 (suffolk university poll of registered voters). Independents, Republicans and Democrats have all contributed directly to his campaign bypassing the GOP.
The liberal/progressives have their heads buried in the sand concerning the sleeping giant that they have awoken. The Republicans have a chance to tap into this ground swell of disgust with the system as usual, if they recognize that “we the people” don’t give a damn if you are a Republican incumbent so long as you support the system as usual, your job may be on the line.
I remember the old days when we had people like Henry M. Jackson (D) in the Senate. When you could be a Democrat and vote for candidates that didn’t hate America, believed in a strong defense and fought for the free-enterprise system and the values our founding fathers wrote into our Constitution.
The corruption in Washington DC is appalling. We have an ongoing firesale in place. Big campaign contributions mean exemptions from taxes and policies that are being foisted upon the rest of us. This destruction of our system by the current crop of politicians cannot and will not stand.
People aren’t stupid… If you can exempt unions, entire states and various other interest groups from being subject to the taxes and policies what is next?
How long before we have laws or taxes that exempt everyone that is a registered Democrat or a registered Republican. They could just cut to the chase and say that only people that are not registered democrats will have to pay for health care, everyone else will be subject to the law and taxes. Isn’t that pretty much what we have with this new exemptions of state federal and union workers from paying the “cadillac” health care plan tax.
This is a practice that I first saw being discussed years ago at a Governors conference (both parties were doing it). The goal was to get local levies passed. The solution, exempt those most likely to vote against a levy from having to pay the levy. This is blatantly NOT what our founding fathers had in mind.
The democrats have a right to gloat, if ObamaCare passes they are going to pass
national voter registration. That will lead to nation wide election fraud and life long seats for them in government. ‘We the People” will cease to exist. In ten years this country will look like Haiti.
Donald, I do hope for the system to work, but I am reluctant to believe that the Liberals and their fraudulent machinery are not going to try to steal this election.
Joseph Stalin used to say:
Those who cast their votes decide nothing
Those who count the votes decide everything!
The old bastard knew what to do then, imagine the sophistication of the Commies in MA now!
Too much is at stake for the Radical loonies to just give up the seat to Brown.
Fat chance the GOP won’t take the house and or the senate.
Brown is now the 41st senator in 2010. With a Brown win it is not too hard to understand what will happen in the House and the Senate.
A democrat is something you will have to visit at the Smithsonian Institute past 2010. No one will remember what one looks like because there will be none left in the Congress.
The Dems are hallucinating if they actually believe this. Here is the rub, politicians will tell you everything is beautiful in their political world when even they know it aint. For some reason, each one is emotionally invested in this belief and even reverance for the bandwagon effect. (The polls tell me America loves me.) The reality of a situation is not nearly as important to them as the perception. The Democrats have been living by this credo for decades. This year, it will be a major part of their downfall. They are also trying to sell this nonsense as much to the unseasoned freshman blue dogs as well as the rest of us. It is a plea to not switch parties, not abandon this POS agenda, and keep your wagons hitched to our horses. The backlash against the Democrats this year will be deep. America will take a long time to forgive them for their betrayals. As for the economy, maybe it will be better by November, as it is tough to go lower than bottom, but Americans are intelligent enough to know that a recession usually lasts about 9 months, and this one has lasted a lot longer. They are smart enought to know that unemployment usuall caps at 7.5% and this one went a lot higher. They are smart enough to know that their are different strengths of recovery, and even though in technical terms this recession ended, it still doesn’t feel like it.
Former GOP head from 1994 Haley Barbour told Newt that he thought conditions leading up to 2010 were BETTER than they were in ’94 when we took 54 seats and captured the House.
And yes, Dems do have more cash on hand than GOP committees:
http://content.usatoday.com/topics/post/Democratic+Senatorial+Campaign+Committee/620004773.blog/1
And that’s going to hurt, even with funding only targeted races.
But we have folks on our side who say “DAMN THE GOP” and won’t give them a nickel then they complain when the GOP doesn’t fully fund the candidate they like.
Sort of a self fulfilling prophesy.
A party name change might be in order if Deomocrats want to win elections after a year of Obama. Thanks to Barack the name “Democrat” is no longer equated with being a liberal. Now it’s equated with being a Socialist.
@Mike’s America:
That is true, but not for the reasons you may think. The GOP has been raising funds and spending the money as it has been coming in. Michael Steele has been using a different tactic than what the parties have done in the past. He is distributing the funds much more quickly, both to candidates and for operations between campaigns. While the party itself does not have the checking account balance one would expect, the candidates have more funds available to them for an earlier start. We’ll see if the strategy works.
@Flyovercountry: Thanks. I’m glad to hear Steele has been getting out the money quicker than in the past.
Any detail you would like to provide on that would be welcome.
@Mike’s America:
I actually heard Steele on the radio over the last couple of days discussing this very issue. I believe it to be the Hannity show, (probably the best bet, as Hannity is usually still on for my drive home, but I am not certain.) He was addressing the very news report I believe we all read and did not like. I will agree entirely with your main premise though, and that is the GOP needs to get back to representing the core values which made it the majority party in the 90’s. The problem is, in my humble opinion, that everyone with one issue which that person may feel is important beyond all others, is what that person would believe as to what defines a Conservative. The perfect example is Mike Huckabee. His one issue is Pro-Life. He and his followers claim the mantle of Reagan based on this issue. His economic stance is both illiterate, and socialist in nature. The fact is that Reagan is gone, and we will be waiting a long time for someone like him to rise to prominance.
@Flyovercountry:
Another issue for Huckabee is the flat tax. I was never a fan, didn’t buy his book and nothing aggravates me more than to be woken up to the Little Rockers in the middle of the night because hubby leaves the television on.
Who cares?
ER, no, the GOP will not take the House or the Senate. They MAY add some seats. But they have to defend more seats in the Senate AND they have many more retirements in the Senate than the Dems. So no incumbancy factor there.
It took six long years of GOPer incompetence for the voters to turn on the GOP and put the Dems in the position they are in. It will take similar Dem incompetence AND A GOP MESSAGE to send the Dems packing. Unfortunately for the GOP, they seem to have an entirely passive approach to this: let the Dems fcuk up, then come sweeping in on a white horse. But where are the GOper ideas to make a moderate Dem think about voting for the GOPer? There are none. And that is why 2010 will not be 1994 — the GOP is intellectually bankrupt and everyone knows it.
@ B-Rob
It won’t take much of a message… Dems are easily swayed by catchy sound bites and slogans.
“Hope and Change”
Now there’s some real substance, but it got their attention.
The trick to appealing to a moderate demonicrat is to appeal to their emotion NOT their intellect.
There are very few moderate democrats most people are independents and they are jumping from the democrat ship so fast its hard to conduct polls quick enough to document the transition.
What is it… 28% of the population identifies themselves as Democrat?
Donald, I have no idea why you want to refight the 2008 election, where your side got its collective a$$ kicked, handing over Red States like Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana. But if you cons think a catchy slogan is the reason Obama won those states (and Florida and Colorado and Nevada and New Mexico and Iowa and Ohio) you all are less enlightened than even the most partisan Dem could ever hope.
For all the troubles the Dems have, the GOPers are even less popular among the electorate. Want to know why? How about Senate candidate Brown campaigning on “more tax cuts” without stating a dime of spending he would cut to balance the books? That, my friends, is intellectual bankruptcy. And everyone knows it.
Didn’t take long for the Dems to indeed f*#k it up, eh? Serious Congressional spending increases when they took control of both chambers in 2007, and a tripling to quadrupling of the debt in under a year when possessing both legislative and executive branches.
I will agree that tax cuts must be accompanied by reigned in Congressional spending. The latter seems to be highly unlikely under the current majority. Whether the GOP learned it’s lesson over their screw ups is something that remains to be seen. But all of us, regardless of party stripes, are in an uproar, and will not sit by quietly without some fiscal responsibility.
@B-Rob said: “I have no idea why you want to refight the 2008 election”
Probably because you would LOSE big time.
Now that Obama has been unmasked as a liar who can’t keep a promise and is nothing more than a left wing socialist who hasn’t got the experience or smarts necessary to run an ice cream parlor let alone a country.
Mike you SUPPOSEDLY are an Ivy Leaguer just like me. When you say Obama is not smart, though, I start to wonder whether you are padding your resume. Anyone who knows anything (this exclude Palin types, of course) knows you can’t graduate magna cum laude from Harvard without being pretty fcuking smart. Just ask Roberts — he, too, graduated magna from Harvard Law. So you can make some other criticism of Obama (over the spending, the cigarettes, whatever) but when you criticise his intellect, you only undercut your own credibility.
By the way, Mata. The GOP ran some pretty spectacular deficits from FY 2001 onward. So I call “bullsh*t” on you for acting as if the spending SUDDENLY increased under the Dems. Indeed, how much of that increase was for the drug bill the GOP rammed through without paying for it? How much of it was increased spending on Iraq and Afghanistan? The point being: if the GOP had not engaged in excessive spending and wreckless tax cuts that created the deficit,* we would have had more tools to work with once the economy slowed. Because it is one thing to run deficits when the economy is bad; it is another thing to do it when the Bushies did it, when the economy was expanding.
Lastly, the whole “socialist” thing is so friggin tired. See, I don’t see any GOPers actually trying to de-socialize the US, like getting rid of government provided health care (the VA, the military hospitals, the clinics), or ending Social Security or welfare (which would hit the Red States HARD . . . check the data). Or ending any number of socialist experiments. In fact, Mike, I was thinking about this when my sister-in-law had surgery at Ohio State University Hospital — can anyone who went to a state school, or who gets care at a state university teaching hospital, make any credible complaint about “socialism”? I think not. It is easy for conservatives to rail against socialism; but just try to tell one of them that they don’t get to suck on the government teat!
As for refighting 2008 . . . who would you run this time? Susie Sunshine all by herself?
* And don’t even try to deny that the tax cuts helped create the deficit. Because the Bushies admitted as much.
Another thing Mata. You said “a tripling to quadrupling of the debt in under a year”. That, too, is b.s. The debt was around $10 trillion when Obama came in. It is neither $30 trillion nor $40 trillion now. You made that up out of whole cloth.
Reality bytes:
And Mata–
“I will agree that tax cuts must be accompanied by reigned in Congressional spending. The latter seems to be highly unlikely under the current majority.”
Let’s ponder this. The GOP says in believes in smaller government, low spending and fiscal responsibility. But when they had the authority to do whatever they wanted, budget and tax-wise, what did they do?
The did cut some taxes. But they rapidly expanded the government, whether measured by dollars, size, or intrusiveness. That leaves only three possible explanations:
1) the GOPers really wanted to shrink government, but were incompetent
2) the GOPers never really wanted to shrink government, so they didn’t, or
3) the GOPers really wanted to shrink government, but didn’t have the balls to make any of the hard decisions
I am not sure what the reason is that George W. submitted only one balanced budget and never vetoed any of the deficit-riddled budgets his fellow GOPers sent to him. So what say you as the explanation?
Personally, I think it is number 2. My reason: the GOPers are offering NO SPENDING CUT ideas now, even as a gimmick. Absolutely nothing. The GOP is the party of the free lunch. At least the Dems are willing to pass unpopular taxes to pay for their programs. The GOP just puts in on a Chinese Communist credit card. Pathetic . . . .
Chihuahua, you will notice that only one of those years has actually occurred. In addition, if you know anything about the budget, you surely are aware that much of the deficit is structural.
But here is the kicker — you folks were handed surpluses as far as the eyes could see. But you folks not only ran deficits when the economy was expanding, but you added on a drug entitlement and refused to raise taxes or cut any other spending to pay for it. Why did you supposed “small government” conservatives do that, Chi? Why?
And do you actually compare the 2009 budget with the Bush-led financial sector bailout during a recession to the 2003 and 2004 deficits when the economy was expanding? Does that make sense to you?
I mean, seriously, Bush was handed a surplus and an anemic economy. He handed Obama $10 trillion in accumulated debt, an even more bloated entitlement system, and an economy heading into year two of a recession. And you think BUSH did a better job managing what he was handed? On what planet do you live?
My question that liberals never answer: why aren’t liberals interested in government doing a few important things and doing them well? Why back every b.s. program that comes down the pike, instead of picking your battles? Liberals believe in conserving natural resources, but why don’t they believe in conserving tax dollars?
The questions conservatives never answer: why is it that conservatives believe in cutting taxes, but never cutting spending? Why did they get rid of the pay as you go system (where new spending or tax cuts is offset by spending cuts) and instead put up that voodoo known as “dynamic scoring”? And if tax cuts create more revenue, then how come no state responds to a deficit by cutting taxes even more?
The only thing that will fix the entitlement problem is a commission structure. Because the Dems are loath to make the hard choices and the GOPers have no credibility at all. Hell, the GOpers stopped even acting like they want to cut spending. Just as only Nixon could go to China, only Obama can cut entitlements.
I’ve noticed B-Rob has new marching orders….
It appears that the dems are really worried about the socialist label they will be painted with come 2010 election time. I see Rob is now on a mission to try and close the gap by creating the impression that conservatives are just as much socialists as are the liberal/progressives.
They must really be running scared coming into the mid term election cycle.
And… debt and deficit is where everyone is playing the word game.
Obama HAS increased the DEFICIT by 4x
@B-Rob: Everyone knows that you don’t have to be a genius to be a great president. Being “smart” has nothing to do with being a successful President. Being a successful President is about being a leader and having a vision for where you want to take the country, and then actually carrying it out.
Reagan was a great president and one I had the privilege to serve up close.
I really could care less what affirmative action program Obama used to score big at Harvard. Besides, didn’t Bush get better grades at Yale than John Kerry yet little George Soros parrots like you said Bush was a stupid chimp.
If you were so smart, you would have realized what a con game Obama was playing on your simple mind with all that hoax and chains. If Obama was so smart why can’t he actually DO what he promised the voters he would do? Why are we STILL in Iraq? Why can’t he televise his meetings with the House and Senate over health care on C-Span? Why did he raise taxes on people making less than $250k who smoke?
If Obama was sooooo smart he could actually deliver on his promises.
But then, kool aid drinkers like you really don’t care if he’s an inexperienced, incompetent liar.
Reality is going to smack your little affirmative action delusions right in the head soon enough. A smarter person would have seen it coming.
B-Rob, which Ivy League school are you pretending you attended?
@Flyovercountry: Did he say he attended? I thought he was just an affirmative action hire as night janitor.
@B-Rob:
Your number of retirements analogy is idiotic at best. The retiring Republicans are from districts which are safely Republican districts. Not so for the Dem retirees. The great thing about this game though, it matters not what our predictions are. We will get to see how this play ends in November. Enjoy the quick painful retreat of your party. The problem with running as and promising to be a centrist, is that the American people actually have that expectation. The Dems have played their hand, started to lose, and doubled down on stupid. I have never seen a disconnect this brazen before, and the Dems will pay dearly for it. It will take decades for the American People to forgive them at the poles.
@Mike’s America:
B-Rob
23 Mike you SUPPOSEDLY are an Ivy Leaguer just like me. When you say Obama is not smart, though, I start to wonder whether you are padding your resume. Anyone who knows anything (this exclude Palin types, of course) knows you can’t graduate magna cum laude from Harvard without being pretty fcuking smart. Just ask Roberts — he, too, graduated magna from Harvard Law. So you can make some other criticism of Obama (over the spending, the cigarettes, whatever) but when you criticise his intellect, you only undercut your own credibility.
end of quoted text from comment number 23
Mike to answer your question, Yes B-Rob from that quaint little town called Clevecago and who exhibits a highschool writing style and a junior high debating style, has now claimed to be an Ivy League educated lawyer. If you are playing the B-Rob drinking game at home, take a double shot now.
You’re right, billy bob. I typed debt, and should have typed deficit. Mea culpa. It will take the Big Zero his first term to double the debt. What I said, inserting the correct word, was:
But then, YOUR progressive leadership must know more than you since they will be busy raising the debt limit to 13 tril for 2010.
Then there’s Dave Henderson of EconoLog’s post last May, “Obama Debt Tsunami”. Again, since you’re math challenged, that’s four months after he assumed the POTUS position.
There is little that Obama has not gotten out of Pelosi and Reid that he’s demanded, and or promised. You might consider that success. I consider it the root of his failure, and the piss poor judgement of voters not to believe the utterings dripping from the teleprompter lips during the campaign.
The payment of the piper has now begun.
Now, since I know reading anything but myobama.com talking points isn’t your forte, I’ll illustrate the same in pictures.
Percentage of debt to GDP… note when the straight line up started… when the Dems took over both chambers. However you will get no argument from that that the GOP can’t take the moral ground of being thrifty either. But I will say they look like Ebenezer Scrooge compared to Obama/Pelosi/Reid.
Here’s another pretty picture for you, billy bob.
Picture accompanies comments INRE Obama’s mid-session review last August. You know.. the one where they admitted they “miscalculated” by a mere $2 trillion?
So while I correct my “debt” use instead of “deficit” for the tripling and or quadrupling, the debt is a doubling by the end of his term…. and he’s tripled the deficit in his first year (because he’s gotten all the spending bills thru that he’s requested.)
The quadrupling will depend upon what slithers out of the dark rooms of the WH for health care, and what the EPA does in regulations to bypass Congress and a cap/trade bill. And oh yes… how many more “jobs” bills they pass in the next six months. So far, there’s one that passed the House, and Pelosi’s talking about yet another one.
BTW, I’d like to point out that in Sept 2009, the annual deficit was estimated at $1.4 tril. Tho CNN’s Money was guessing it would peak at 1.67 to 1.85 trillion.
By contrast, the annual deficit for 2008 was $454.8 to $459 bil. An increase under Obama/Pelosi/Reid of $945 bil… using the lowest estimate.
Care to spin that factoid, billy bob? We’ll be patient while you remove your shoes, of course.
Here’s another economic factoid to chew on, billy bob….
Trade gap in 2008 narrowed, for two years running. One year of Obama and the trade gap sharply widened. Between Aug and Nov, it expanded by 18.2%. Doesn’t say much for Bernanke’s plot to sink the dollar to improve exports, eh?
The GOP needs to win this November or they will have wait quite a while to win again. Once the economy starts to improve, though, it may become even harder, I’m sorry to say. They need to change tactics and focus on Constitutional Amendments for term limits, a tax supermajority requirement and a line item veto, like the Confederate Constitution had during our Civil War. And they will HAVE to want to limit their own power a little in terms of restricting careerist ambitions.