2010 mid election chances?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

julius

Living on the air in Cincinnati...
Staff member
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
45,902
Likes
35,005
Points
113
(Karl Rove or) Dick Morris was saying he was predicting that the Republicans would take back BOTH house and senate in the mid-term elections.

How likely is that possible?

I went to a website that suggested there are about 12 possible toss-ups in the Senate. 8 current D's,and 4 current R's.

Which, even if they all went to R, that would still mean the D's had a 52-48 (or there-abouts) "lead", only gaining 8 seats.

The funny part is they might as well have that small of a lead now.

As for the House, I think the D's have an 81 vote lead? Not sure.

Does anyone have a link to a website that shows the likely chances of R's taking over both? It would seem to be kind of difficult to take over one, let alone both.
 
(Karl Rove or) Dick Morris was saying he was predicting that the Republicans would take back BOTH house and senate in the mid-term elections.

How likely is that possible?

I went to a website that suggested there are about 12 possible toss-ups in the Senate. 8 current D's,and 4 current R's.

Which, even if they all went to R, that would still mean the D's had a 52-48 (or there-abouts) "lead", only gaining 8 seats.

The funny part is they might as well have that small of a lead now.

As for the House, I think the D's have an 81 vote lead? Not sure.

Does anyone have a link to a website that shows the likely chances of R's taking over both? It would seem to be kind of difficult to take over one, let alone both.

I'd say it is highly unlikely, but then of course I would say that, wouldn't I?

I personally like fivethirtyeight.com. But then I would, wouldn't I?

barfo
 
I'd say it is highly unlikely, but then of course I would say that, wouldn't I?

I personally like fivethirtyeight.com. But then I would, wouldn't I?

barfo

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washing...-silver-sees-major-gains-for-gop-in-2010.html

Nate Silver Sees Major Gains for GOP in 2010

August 13, 2009 03:54 PM ET | Paul Bedard, Nikki Schwab | Permanent Link | Print
By Nikki Schwab, Washington Whispers

PITTSBURGH — It's fast becoming conventional wisdom, but statistics wonk Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com reiterated that Democrats should be nervous about the 2010 midterm elections. "I don't think you should feel at all comforted by 2010," said Silver. The political prognosticator predicted a 20- to 50-seat loss in the House for the Democrats and either a one-seat gain or as much as a six-seat loss for the Democrats in the Senate.

30-50 seat loss for the Dems. The republicans need 41 to become the majority again.

Partisanship aside, both Morris and Rove are among the very best at reading these things.
 
30-50 seat loss for the Dems. The republicans need 41 to become the majority again.

20-50, according to what you quoted. So it would really have to be at "bad" (for Democrats) end of that range.

But, clearly, "wave" elections are possible. The Democrats benefited from one in 2006. The Republicans did in, I believe, 1994.
 
20-50, according to what you quoted. So it would really have to be at "bad" (for Democrats) end of that range.

But, clearly, "wave" elections are possible. The Democrats benefited from one in 2006. The Republicans did in, I believe, 1994.

20+50=70/2 = 35.

Seems like 41 is pretty close to the middle of those expectations.

The numbers will look better for republicans if democrats keep passing legislation. Bank on it.
 
I was aware of that; however I was responding to the question of how likely it is that the Ds would lose majorities in both houses.

Which, according to Mr. Silver, is highly unlikely.
The possibility of losing just the House and keeping the Senate is far higher (but still less than even odds).

barfo

The numbers will look better for republicans if democrats keep passing legislation. Bank on it.
 
20+50=70/2 = 35.

Seems like 41 is pretty close to the middle of those expectations.

Depends on what you consider "pretty close," I guess. When the range from the middle to an extreme is 15, 6 away from the middle doesn't seem very close to me.

The numbers will look better for republicans if democrats keep passing legislation. Bank on it.

Possibly. Of course, I think Bill Clinton hit it on the head when he said that passing health care legislation might result in short-term losses for the Democrats but will yield long-term gains.

And, one point that Nate Silver (the guy you quoted) has made repeatedly, based on polling, is that things will look even worse for Democrats if they don't pass a health care bill. While passing a bill might not help Democrats, not passing one will hurt them even more. I don't think 2010 will be a good election year for Democrats, but I think 2012 could very well be if Democrats pass a health care bill that expands affordable coverage.
 
The numbers will look better for republicans if democrats keep passing legislation. Bank on it.

Gee, that sounds familiar. Guess it must be true, I've heard it more than once recently.

barfo
 
Depends on what you consider "pretty close," I guess. When the range from the middle to an extreme is 15, 6 away from the middle doesn't seem very close to me.



Possibly. Of course, I think Bill Clinton hit it on the head when he said that passing health care legislation might result in short-term losses for the Democrats but will yield long-term gains.

And, one point that Nate Silver (the guy you quoted) has made repeatedly, based on polling, is that things will look even worse for Democrats if they don't pass a health care bill. While passing a bill might not help Democrats, not passing one will hurt them even more. I don't think 2010 will be a good election year for Democrats, but I think 2012 could very well be if Democrats pass a health care bill that expands affordable coverage.

So they should pass any old bill for the sake of keeping their jobs. That's exactly what it looks like they're attempting.

Regardless of what Nate Silver says, the polls say 41% of registered voters favor the democrats' plan and 44% of all americans favor it.

The last attempt at passing health care legislation was 1994. You do remember what the mid-term election results were then, right?
 
Nate Silver's response to that is that some people oppose the health care bill because it doesn't go far enough. They aren't going to vote Republican because the Democrats didn't do single payer.

barfo

I think the people will wonder where the jobs are while seeing the insurance companies pay out huge bonuses. Right around election time. They'll properly equate the two, since the health care plan is siphoning money from the taxpayer to the insurance companies.
 
I think the people will wonder where the jobs are while seeing the insurance companies pay out huge bonuses. Right around election time. They'll properly equate the two, since the health care plan is siphoning money from the taxpayer to the insurance companies.

We'll see, I guess. I don't think most voters are terribly aware of health insurance company bonuses, and since bonuses tend to be paid at year end, the 2010 bonuses won't have been paid on election day. So they could look at bonuses paid at the end of this year, I guess, but do those bonuses have anything to do with the health care plan that hasn't even been passed yet? And how much tax will the voter have paid for the healthcare plan by November 2010?

Other than that, your prediction makes total sense.

barfo
 
So they should pass any old bill for the sake of keeping their jobs. That's exactly what it looks like they're attempting.

Should? I'm not talking about what should be done. If I ruled this nation, things would go differently. This thread seemed to be about the political ramifications.


How is that "regardless of what Nate Silver says?" His view is that passing health care probably will hurt Democrats in 2010. He just feels NOT passing health care legislation will hurt them even more.

As barfo says, this is because the second case will hurt them with Democrats. The Democrats have already lost those who care a lot about health care legislation and don't want to see it pass. Not passing a bill won't get them back. But not passing a bill will cost them some amount of those who care and DO want to see it passed.

The last attempt at passing health care legislation was 1994. You do remember what the mid-term election results were then, right?

You keep arguing as if I'm saying that the Democrats will do great in 2010 if they pass health care legislation, when I'm actually saying nothing of the sort. I think what you're doing is called a strawman. ;)
 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30417.html

Dems to lift debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion, fear 2010 backlash

In a bold but risky year-end strategy, Democrats are preparing to raise the federal debt ceiling by as much as $1.8 trillion before New Year’s rather than have to face the issue again prior to the 2010 elections.

“We’ve incurred this debt. We have to pay our bills,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told POLITICO Wednesday. And the Maryland Democrat confirmed that the anticipated increase could be as high as $1.8 trillion — nearly twice what had been assumed in last spring’s budget resolution for the 2010 fiscal year.

The leadership is betting that it’s better for the party to take its lumps now rather than risk further votes over the coming year. But the enormity of the number could create its own dynamic, much as another debt ceiling fight in 1985 gave rise to the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction act mandating across-the-board spending cuts nearly 25 years ago.

Already in the Senate, there is growing pressure in both parties for the creation of a novel bipartisan task force empowered to force expedited votes in the next Congress on deficit reduction steps now shunned by lawmakers.

As introduced Wednesday, the legislation sets no specific targets for deficit reduction, but its 18-member task force — 16 of whom would come from Congress — is promised immense leverage to force change if they can first come together behind a plan.

“This is a defining moment,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), one of the lead sponsors, and New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, the panel’s ranking Republican, is already maneuvering to try to add the legislation as an amendment to any bill tapped to carry the debt increase.

As explained by Hoyer and other Democrats, that will almost certainly be a pending $636.4 billion Pentagon appropriations bill that includes $128.3 in contingency funds for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The House leadership has held back the bill for weeks, saving it for this moment, but now appropriations clerks have been instructed to have a final package ready to go by Monday.

Leadership staff stressed that nothing was yet final in what has become a year-end negotiation between top Democrats in the House and Senate. But the Senate appears to have been the first to put the $1.8 trillion number on the table. And Hoyer’s comments are the clearest yet on the scale of the increase and the expectation that it will be part of a larger year-end legislative train pulled along by the must-pass military bill.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, who is pursuing job-related measures he would also like to add, insisted that the debt issue is a “leadership call” alone. But the Wisconsin Democrat showed no sign of opposition to the strategy outlined by Hoyer.

“It is December. We don’t really have a choice,” Obey told POLITICO. “The bill’s already been run up; the credit card has already been used. When you get the bill in the mail you need to pay it.”

Though Treasury can buy itself time by moving assets around, it is already coming close to the current debt ceiling of $12.1 trillion. Last spring, the Democratic-backed budget proposed to raise this to about $13 trillion, but given the current pace of borrowing, no one now expects that will be sufficient to get through 2010.

In fact, fiscal year 2009 ended Sept. 30 with a $1.4 trillion deficit, which demanded higher-than-expected Treasury borrowing. Most of that was due to the downturn in the economy and spending commitments in place before Barack Obama took office. And as much as Republicans point to the president’s economic recovery bill last February as the culprit, only a small share of that $787 billion package was spent by Sept. 30.

The picture in 2010 is different. The administration is predicting the stimulus will hit its stride with much more spending. And there will be a steady escalation of outlays driven by back-to-back increases in 2009 and 2010 appropriations for domestic agencies.

The White House has vowed to be more deficit conscious in its forthcoming 2011 budget due out in February. But the House could vote as early as Thursday on a $446.8 billion year-end package covering more than a dozen Cabinet departments and agencies and representing a healthy 9 percent to 10 percent increase over current spending for the same accounts.

For example, transportation and housing resources would grow by 12 percent, including $2.5 billion for high-speed-rail investments on top of the $8 billion already added by the White House to the giant stimulus bill in February. A $163.5 budget for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education would add an additional $8.6 billion to annual spending, and Veterans Health Administration spending would grow to $45.1 billion, a $4.1 billion increase.
 
I think it isn't feasible the dems would lose both houses. Maybe the House of Reps as those people are often volatile.

That said, it is very possible the Senate could swing to the repubs after the next general election.
 
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1209/Bush_closes_the_gap.html

Bush closes the gap

Public Policy Polling:

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that's somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country's difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.
 
I think right now things are at about their nadir for Democrats. One of the reasons they want to hurry up and pass health care is so they can put it in their rear-view mirror. The sooner it gets passed the more likely the electorate is to forget about it by November.

What I'm focusing on is the remaining amount of the "stimulus" package. My feeling is that the Democrats are going to examine the political landscape and fund projects in districts that are in danger. The House and Senate will create measures that moderate Democrats can vote "no" on to prove their independence. Blue dogs will be allowed to run against President Obama while those places where the President is still popular will see a ton of him.

2010 is a huge deal, because it's a redistricting year due to the census. With one party completely in power, they get to draw the districts to their political advantage--it's been that way for both parties.

I think the Democrats will lose some seats, but no where near the amount to lose either the House or the Senate. They will, however, likely lose their filibusterproof majority in the Senate and I think the people of Nevada will ensure there will be a new Majority Leader.
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126100346902694549.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Democrats' Blues Grow Deeper in New Poll

For First Time, Voters Split Over Who They Want in Control After 2010 Elections, and Obama's Approval Rating Falls Below 50%
By PETER WALLSTEN

WASHINGTON -- Less than a year after Inauguration Day, support for the Democratic Party continues to slump, amid a difficult economy and a wave of public discontent, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

The findings underscored how dramatically the political landscape has changed during the Obama administration's first year. In January, despite the recession and financial crisis, voters expressed optimism about the future, the new president enjoyed soaring approval ratings, and congressional leaders promised to swiftly pass his ambitious agenda.

In December's survey, for the first time, less than half of Americans approved of the job President Barack Obama was doing, marking a steeper first-year fall for this president than his recent predecessors.

Also for the first time this year, the electorate was split when asked which party it wanted to see in charge after the 2010 elections. For months, a clear plurality favored Democratic control.

The survey suggests that public discontent with Mr. Obama and his party is being driven by an unusually grim view of the country's status and future prospects.

A majority of Americans believe the U.S. is in decline. And a plurality now say the U.S. will be surpassed by China in 20 years as the top power.

Democrats' problems seem in part linked to their ambitious health-care plan, billed as the signature achievement of Mr. Obama's first year. Now, for the first time, more people said they would prefer Congress did nothing on health care than who wanted to see the overhaul enacted.

"For Democrats, the red flags are flying at full mast," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "What we don't know for certain is: Have we reached a bottoming-out point?"

The biggest worry for Democrats is that the findings could set the stage for gains by Republican candidates in next year's elections. Support from independents for the president and his party continued to dwindle. In addition, voters intending to back Republicans expressed far more interest in the 2010 races than those planning to vote for Democrats.

But public displeasure with Democrats wasn't translating directly into warmth for Republicans. Twenty-eight percent of voters expressed positive feelings about the GOP -- a number that has remained constant through the Democrats' decline over the summer and fall. Only 5% said their feelings toward the Republicans were "very positive."

And in one arena, Afghanistan, Mr. Obama appeared to have some success in winning support for his planned troop surge. Liberals remain largely opposed to the strategy, but in fewer numbers compared with before Mr. Obama made his case in a speech at West Point. Overall, by 44% to 41%, a plurality believe his strategy is the right approach.

Still, the survey paints a decidedly gloomy picture for Democrats, who appear to be bearing the brunt of public unease as unemployment has risen from 7.6% to 10% since Mr. Obama took office. Just 35% of voters said they felt positively about the Democratic Party, a 14-point slide since February. Ten percent felt "very positive."

"Overall, it's just a depressing time right now," said Mike Ashmore, 23 years old, of Lansdale, Pa., an independent who supported Mr. Obama last year but now complained about the president's lack of action on jobs.

Julie Edwards, 52, an aircraft technician for Boeing Co. in Mesa, Ariz., said she voted Democratic in the past two elections but wasn't sure how she would vote next time. She wondered why Wall Street firms were bailed out when average Americans needed help. "We can bail out Wall Street, but everybody else has to suffer in spades for it," she said.

Democratic leaders, while bracing for losses next year, have argued that unlike the 1994 elections, in which Republicans gained 54 seats and took the House majority, Democrats would survive 2010 in part because they are taking steps to avoid that possibility. Republicans must gain 41 seats to take control.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that Democrats "fully intend to be in the majority" after November 2010, and she was now shifting to "campaign mode" to help candidates. Party officials are leaning on a number of longtime colleagues to fight for their seats rather than retire.

The Journal/NBC survey found Ms. Pelosi's presence on the campaign trail could do more harm than good. Fifty-two percent said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who agreed with the speaker almost all the time, compared with 42% who felt that way about candidates siding with Republican leaders.

For Mr. Obama, who has relied on his personal popularity to retain the clout he needs to enact his legislative agenda, the survey pointed to troubling signs.

A majority for the first time disapproved of his handling of the economy. And the public's personal affection for the president, a consistent strong suit, has begun to fray. Fifty percent now feel positive about him, six points lower than in October and an 18-point drop since his early weeks in office.

Democrats' troubles can be attributed in part to changing feelings among some core supporters. A third of voters 34 and under, a group that turned out heavily for Democrats last year, feel negative toward the Democratic Party. And just 38% of Hispanics feel positive, down sharply from 60% in February.

For all of the Democrats' challenges, they can be thankful they don't have to try to reverse Americans' feelings about Tiger Woods. In the wake of revelations about his extramarital affairs, just 5% feel positive about Mr. Woods.

The survey, which was conducted Dec. 11-14, has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

—Nomaan Merchant contributed to this article.
Write to Peter Wallsten at peter.wallsten@wsj.com
 
I honestly don't think the Democrats in control care. This complete control of the Congress combined with the Presidency is a unique opportunity that comes along perhaps once a century. I can imagine in the minds of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, it's worth him being a one-term, but historic, president and it's worth it to her to lose a huge number of seats in both houses in 2010 if they get to realign the country permanently left-of-center.
 
I want a good, solid healthcare bill to get passed before 2010, along with any more infrastructure and jobs spending bills. After that, I want the Republicans to get majority in the Senate (51-49 would be ideal, IMO) and then the Dems can keep a slight lead in the House.

I think that would be the best thing for this country, tbh. A democratic president and a (slightly) republican congress is probably the most ideal situation, since it is harder for me to trust republicans in the presidency now after the absolutely corrupt and disgusting Bush administration that totally changed the America I love for the worse. But when Bill Clinton was president and the 'pubs took control in 94, i think that was one of the best times for this country, TBH.

The Dems had a golden opportunity to pass their agenda from 08-10 and really failed miserably on a lot of things. They really don't have a backbone, no where near as strong as the republicans had from 2000-06.

Just my $.02
 
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/senate_preparing_for_cloture_o.php

Senate Preparing for Cloture on Health Care

So there's now about a 90% chance that the health care bill will pass.

At this point, the thing is more than a little inexplicable. Democrats are on a political suicide mission; I'm not a particularly accurate prognosticator, but I think this makes it very likely that in 2010 they will lost several seats in the Senate--enough to make it damn hard to pass any more of their signature legislation--and will lose the house outright. In the case of the House, you can attribute it to the fact that the leadership has safe seats. But three out of four of the Democrats on the podium today are in serious danger of losing their seats.

No bill this large has ever before passed on a straight party-line vote, or even anything close to a straight party-line vote. No bill this unpopular has ever before passed on a straight party-line vote. We're in a new political world. I'm not sure I understand it.

The irony of this is that this bill is great for me personally. I'm probably uninsurable, and I'm in a profession where most people now end up working for themselves at some point in their career. So mandatory community rating is great news for me and mine. But I think that it's going to be a fiscal disaster for my country, because the spending cuts won't be--can't be--done the way they're implemented in the bill. We've just increased substantially the supply of unrepealable, unsustainable entitlements. We've also, in my opinion, put ourselves on a road that leads eventually to less healthcare innovation, less healthcare improvement, and more dead people in the long run. Obviously, progressives feel differently, and it will never be possible to prove the counterfactual.

So there you are. Alea iacta est. I sure hope I'm wrong.
 
Only thing for certain at this point is there will be an increase in successful 3rd party candidates.

Dems and Reps are both betraying their constituents and their country for money and power.
 
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/senate_preparing_for_cloture_o.php

Senate Preparing for Cloture on Health Care

So there's now about a 90% chance that the health care bill will pass.

At this point, the thing is more than a little inexplicable. Democrats are on a political suicide mission; I'm not a particularly accurate prognosticator, but I think this makes it very likely that in 2010 they will lost several seats in the Senate--enough to make it damn hard to pass any more of their signature legislation--and will lose the house outright. In the case of the House, you can attribute it to the fact that the leadership has safe seats. But three out of four of the Democrats on the podium today are in serious danger of losing their seats.

No bill this large has ever before passed on a straight party-line vote, or even anything close to a straight party-line vote. No bill this unpopular has ever before passed on a straight party-line vote. We're in a new political world. I'm not sure I understand it.

The irony of this is that this bill is great for me personally. I'm probably uninsurable, and I'm in a profession where most people now end up working for themselves at some point in their career. So mandatory community rating is great news for me and mine. But I think that it's going to be a fiscal disaster for my country, because the spending cuts won't be--can't be--done the way they're implemented in the bill. We've just increased substantially the supply of unrepealable, unsustainable entitlements. We've also, in my opinion, put ourselves on a road that leads eventually to less healthcare innovation, less healthcare improvement, and more dead people in the long run. Obviously, progressives feel differently, and it will never be possible to prove the counterfactual.

So there you are. Alea iacta est. I sure hope I'm wrong.

I'll tell you what scares the shit out of me: Members of both the House and Senate from both parties now fear their parties than fear the people they represent.

For all the talk of a Democratic suicide pact, it's anything but. There will be people who lose their seats over this vote; I hope someone tracks where these people who sacrifice their seats for this vote end up after they're voted out of Congress. Something tells me they'll end up with some of the cushiest jobs around.

And when you give the government power over life and death, the Democrats may knock themselves back in 2010 and 2012, but in the long run they will have won. The populace will be so frightened for their own well being, they'll vote for the party who gives them the most access to health care, and that will be the Democrats. This bill is about as un-American as it gets.
 
The populace will be so frightened for their own well being, they'll vote for the party who gives them the most access to health care, and that will be the Democrats. This bill is about as un-American as it gets.

Access to health care is un-American? Maybe, but slightly less so now.

barfo
 
they'll vote for the party who gives them the most access to health care, and that will be the Democrats.

You may see this as an indictment, but I suspect that being "the party who gives [citizens] the most access to health care" is a legacy that Democrats will be quite satisfied with and, if they do indeed end up with such a legacy, will generally be viewed quite positively in future generations.
 
Access to health care is un-American? Maybe, but slightly less so now.

barfo

Everyone has access to health care right now. Some may find more difficulty in paying for it than others, but everyone has access to it, and that health care is currently the best in the world.

What's un-American is having the government decide what treatment you can get. And if you don't think this shitpile of a bill isn't the first, second and third step to that eventuality, then you need to think through the steps of the game a bit more.
 
You may see this as an indictment, but I suspect that being "the party who gives [citizens] the most access to health care" is a legacy that Democrats will be quite satisfied with and, if they do indeed end up with such a legacy, will generally be viewed quite positively in future generations.

I do see the party who chose to put the government in charge of what health care I can and cannot receive as a pretty shitty legacy. And that's what this bill is intended to accomplish.

People will now vote out of fear instead of hope. An ironic legacy for the candidate of Hope and Change.
 
Everyone has access to health care right now. Some may find more difficulty in paying for it than others

Yes. Just as everyone has access to a Bugatti Veyron right now. It's just that some may find more difficulty in paying for it...

barfo
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top