2010 Midterm Election Preditions

[Puppycow]

(Poll)
What do you think will happen in the US midterm elections in 2010?
A big year for republicans like 1994? Or something else?

[Darth Rotor]

Republicans will make modest gains but Democrats will retain majorities in both house of Congress
Unless President Obama does something really stupid, which so far he has not.

That said, it is also possible that GOP loses seats, since what they are currently trying, in terms of "no True Republican" in re conservatives stands to cost them center/center right votes in the next scrap at the ballot box.

Having a great deal of trouble reading how that plays out, given the loss in NY in part due to this precise tactic of trying to exclude the middle.

DR

[Brainster]

The GOP will win back the House, but the Senate is unrealistic given the number of Republican versus Democrat seats up next year.

[Puppycow]

I predict that things will remain about the same.
I think that the economy will be improving and unemployment will be falling by that time.
People will feel better about the way things are going.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Invalid poll. No Planet X option.

[hgc]

On Planet X, the total number of seats in Congress will remain about the same.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Invalid poll. No Planet X option.

It's the last one.

[UNLoVedRebel]

The country's leaning to the left and there's some potential for third party candidates. The GOP still attracts looney politicians like drunk blondes attract hard dicks.

[TShaitanaku]

I think the Republicans will make significant gains, but not because people are re-enamored with the party, more as a means to express dissatisfaction with both parties. To tell the truth, this would see a good time for third party alternatives across the spectrum to make a stab at congressional seats.

A good strong centrist fiscally conservative, socially moderate party could pull from both the Dems and the Repubs. A nationalistic, moral values party could siphon off the far right whackadoodles. A good hard green, anti-war party could scrape the fringe Left.

Ultimately this might leave about 15-20% of the electorate as Republicans, 20-25% as Democrats, a good 30-40% or so as centrists, and 15-25% or so split between the fringes. Of course until a lot more third party candidates start getting elected, people in general aren't going to accept that voting for them is a legitimate option. More choices among parties that accurate reflect voter perspectives, is a good thing, IMO. Though it is only second best to the elimination and outlawing of all parties...again, IMO.

[dudalb]

Too freaking early for predictions. A lot can happen in a year.
Taking this as a given. my prediction is that the GOP might pick up a few seats, as the opposition party generally does in off year elections,but they will not come within a million miles of pulling off another 1994.

[fullflavormenthol]

If the Republicans can build a big tent policy than they have a chance, if tea baggers, 9/12ers and birthers become the face of the party in the minds of many Americans not so much. It won't be because people are really switching parties but because they just won't turn out for an election. The Republican party needs to decide what they are, and if they choose the "no true Republican, everyone not like us is a RINO" line than they will not have significant gains for awhile.

[TShaitanaku]

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

If the Republicans can build a big tent policy than they have a chance, if tea baggers, 9/12ers and birthers become the face of the party in the minds of many Americans not so much. It won't be because people are really switching parties but because they just won't turn out for an election. The Republican party needs to decide what they are, and if they choose the "no true Republican, everyone not like us is a RINO" line than they will not have significant gains for awhile.

Sorry, "9/12ers"?

[leftysergeant]

The GOP needs talk radio to help them turn out the voters. That is what made the 9/12 action seem as "successful" as it seemed.

They are going to run the party right into the ditch.

[parky76]

if the Tea Baggers (I love that name) continue their right-wing conservative Jihad, and demand that all obey their will, Democrats will definetely retain control of both the House and the Senate.

Now, if the GOPers actually find their brains, which they hid in their basement since 2001, there is a chance they might win back a few seats, if they come to their senses. But that is doubtful.

[parky76]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Having a great deal of trouble reading how that plays out, given the loss in NY in part due to this precise tactic of trying to exclude the middle.

good point. i forgot about that. indeed, if nothing major happens, and the right-wingers play the same game they did in NY 23, they will lose seats.

woo hoo!!!!

[Tricky]

I refuse to vote in a poll that is not anonymous. It binds the discussion and leads to accusations.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

The GOP needs talk radio to help them turn out the voters. That is what made the 9/12 action seem as "successful" as it seemed.

They are going to run the party right into the ditch.

Or, as I like to say it, these Tea Party nutters take the attitude that they'll either run the GOP or run it into the ground.

Yet, despite all the evidence that the TPers are frothing to purge moderates from the GOP, there are still those here who insist that NY23 was simply an isolated incident that will not, nay... cannot, be repeated elsewhere. Denial is a sad thing to see.

[willhaven]

America will split into two countries. Rational America and Teabagistan.

I believe the capital of Teabagistan should be called Shriek.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Or, as I like to say it, these Tea Party nutters take the attitude that they'll either run the GOP or run it into the ground.

Yet, despite all the evidence that the TPers are frothing to purge moderates from the GOP, there are still those here who insist that NY23 was simply an isolated incident that will not, nay... cannot, be repeated elsewhere. Denial is a sad thing to see.

You may be right. And they may get elected, the way the economy is tanking. Wouldn't that be something? Might be time to register Republican, because the GOP primary votes are likely to be the only ones that matter in 2010.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Might be time to register Republican, because the GOP primary votes are likely to be the only ones that matter in 2010.

At this rate, that will only be so because there will be only a choice between a Democrat and a known lunatic.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

At this rate, that will only be so because there will be only a choice between a Democrat and a known lunatic.

You're running for office?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by applecorped

You're running for office?

[Just thinking]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

They are going to run the party right into the ditch.

Actually, in NJ, they're going to try and pull it out of the ditch, which is where it's at. I oughtta know.

[Brainster]

Just came across this post at Firedoglake, one of the largest lefty blogs.

Quote:

Stupak Amendment Passes; 64 Dems Ask for Primary Opponents

The Stupak Amendment stripped abortion coverage from the Health Care bill; as you can see, about 1/4 of all House Democrats supported it. But as far as the Firedogs are concerned, those Democrats need defeating in the primaries. My goodness, they're just like a bunch of Tea Partiers!

And look at the sidebar; calls to stop Eshoo (Democrat from California) and a fundraising effort to support any candidate who runs against Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark):

Quote:

Please donate to our efforts on the ground in Arkansas to defeat ConservaDems -– help us reach $30,000.

There were also 37 nays among Democrats in the House on the Health Care Bill; how much you want to be that Kos and Hamsher will be supporting candidates who run against them?

[TShaitanaku]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Just came across this post at Firedoglake, one of the largest lefty blogs.



The Stupak Amendment stripped abortion coverage from the Health Care bill; as you can see, about 1/4 of all House Democrats supported it. But as far as the Firedogs are concerned, those Democrats need defeating in the primaries. My goodness, they're just like a bunch of Tea Partiers!

And look at the sidebar; calls to stop Eshoo (Democrat from California) and a fundraising effort to support any candidate who runs against Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark):

There were also 37 nays among Democrats in the House on the Health Care Bill; how much you want to be that Kos and Hamsher will be supporting candidates who run against them?

You do recognize the difference between bloggers making such statements and National Party officials and representatives making such statements, don't you?

[Merko]

Depends on the unemployment rate at election day.

>12%: GOP may take over majority in one or both houses.
10-12%: GOP have major gains, senate supermajority gone, but no majority.
8-10%: Moderate GOP gains, senate supermajority in danger.
6-8%: No major difference.
<6%: Democrats win additional seats.

[skeptigirl]

I'm curious who votes for people like Michelle Bachman. She's an absolute nut job.

[McHrozni]

Republicans will make gains, but I can't say if they will take one of the houses or not. Somewhere between 2 and 3, I think (I picked number 2).

McHrozni

[GreyArea]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

I'm curious who votes for people like Michelle Bachman. She's an absolute nut job.

According to CQ Politics, Bachmann's district contains suburbs for Minneapolis and St. Paul.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cf...district-MN-06

In the U.S., suburbs are often Republican and white, at least currently. It would be worthwhile to find out how the 6th District was drawn up. Did Republicans control the legislature during redistricting?

Congressional District 6, Minnesota
Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights
http://fastfacts.census.gov/servlet/...rd=&_industry=

Minnesota Congressional Districts by Land Area, Rural Population, and Urban Population
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cd109th/MN/ur_c9_27.pdf


Campaign Contribution data is available here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/races/sum...N06&cycle=2008

In 2008, Bachmann received some campaign contributions from a figure involved in a scandal. So, she gave the funds away to an evangelical Christian group that fights drug and alcohol addiction in teenagers. Unfortunately, they also fight against Halloween and Pokemon.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2...ann_donate.php

Meanwhile, Bachmann has been receiving a lot of money from outside her district, apparently from contributors in states (and D.C.) which went to Obama in 2008.
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpo...nificantly.php

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by GreyArea

Meanwhile, Bachmann has been receiving a lot of money from outside her district, apparently from contributors in states (and D.C.) which went to Obama in 2008.

Okay, when you draw from the whole country, I guess it is easy to find enough crazies to fund the crazy candidates.

The question is how, in such a small population, you find enough crazies to vote for the crazy. How large a segment of the population of her state have to be crazy to elect such a whacked out drooler?

[leftysergeant]

I just read on the Ed Schultz board that there is now an official Tea Party certified in Florida, and that they intend to support and fund candidates around the country in 2010.

This is good for America and the Democratic Party.

I see the Senate going as much as 65% D.

[Skeptic]

(Shrug)

Currently Democrats control both houses. This means that by definition their influence after the 2010 elections can (a) stay the same, or (b) diminish.

It is likely they'll lose influence since mid-term elections for congress are often partially a "protest vote" against the sitting president's party or policies. We saw this, in any case, with both Bush and Clinton. Go back in history practically as long as you'll like and you'll see the same.

Prepare for pundits screaming over what this blindingly obvious prediction, if it comes to pass (which I am willing to bet), really means.

Expect to hear "the death of liberalism" or "the end of the Obama era" a lot.

[Whiplash]

Or newscasters referring to the American people having had a huge temper tantrum.

[Meadmaker]

I heard Hannity on the radio yesterday crowing about the huge conservative landslide pending for 2010.

It seemed so utterly mindless. In 1993, Clinton tried to pass health care, and there was a huge Republcan win in 1994. Hannity's sure it will happen again. He seems to have not noticed that maybe some things are a little different in 2010 than they were 16 years ago.

Large majorities such as exist now for the Democrats tend not to last very long, so it seems likely that the GOP will pick up some seats, but I don't sense a groundswell of momentum for conservative ideas that might lead to a Republican landslide.

[leftysergeant]

I still think that the formation of a new party, calling themselves the Tea Party, will damage the GOP badly. Their apparent plan is to challenge the sane Republicans wherever they may appear. Rep Cao is one of their prime targets already.

They are sure to draw mostly crazies and fundies.

As though the GOP needed to lose more of its power base.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I still think that the formation of a new party, calling themselves the Tea Party, will damage the GOP badly. Their apparent plan is to challenge the sane Republicans wherever they may appear. Rep Cao is one of their prime targets already.

They are sure to draw mostly crazies and fundies.

As though the GOP needed to lose more of its power base.

Already underway ... http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...n_Florida.html

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

(Shrug)

Currently Democrats control both houses. This means that by definition their influence after the 2010 elections can (a) stay the same, or (b) diminish.

It is likely they'll lose influence since mid-term elections for congress are often partially a "protest vote" against the sitting president's party or policies. We saw this, in any case, with both Bush and Clinton. Go back in history practically as long as you'll like and you'll see the same.

It was something of that in 2006 and 1994, but the Democrats didn't do badly in 1998 and the Republicans didn't underperform in 2002, either. Part of the reason the party in the White House tends to lose seats in the mid-year election simply has to do with the absence of the president on the ticket. In a presidential election year, the party winning the White House tends to pick up seats in marginal districts, because the party winning the White House tends to be upbeat and vote, while the party that loses tends to think, "What's the use of voting?" with a consequent loss of seats down ticket. In 1996, despite Clinton's reelection, the Democrats only picked up 8 seats in the House; hence in 1998 they actually managed to gain a few seats in the House rather than lose them.

In 2000, Bush did not win by a large margin (in fact, he lost the popular vote), and the GOP actually lost 2 seats in the House that year. Hence they did not have a lot of seats that were vulnerable in 2002, and in fact they picked up 8 seats. In 2004, when Bush defeated Kerry, the GOP picked up a few seats, and thus, barring other circumstances, should not have been terribly vulnerable in 2006. But of course other circumstances did apply, and the GOP got crushed, losing 31 seats to the Democrats. In 2008, the Democrats picked up an additional 21 seats.

So it is my feeling that the Democrats are bound to lose seats both for the "lack of presidential coattails in an off-year reason" and for the "other circumstances reason".

[TShaitanaku]

Originally Posted by Brainster

It was something of that in 2006 and 1994, but the Democrats didn't do badly in 1998 and the Republicans didn't underperform in 2002, either. Part of the reason the party in the White House tends to lose seats in the mid-year election simply has to do with the absence of the president on the ticket. In a presidential election year, the party winning the White House tends to pick up seats in marginal districts, because the party winning the White House tends to be upbeat and vote, while the party that loses tends to think, "What's the use of voting?" with a consequent loss of seats down ticket. In 1996, despite Clinton's reelection, the Democrats only picked up 8 seats in the House; hence in 1998 they actually managed to gain a few seats in the House rather than lose them.

In 2000, Bush did not win by a large margin (in fact, he lost the popular vote), and the GOP actually lost 2 seats in the House that year. Hence they did not have a lot of seats that were vulnerable in 2002, and in fact they picked up 8 seats. In 2004, when Bush defeated Kerry, the GOP picked up a few seats, and thus, barring other circumstances, should not have been terribly vulnerable in 2006. But of course other circumstances did apply, and the GOP got crushed, losing 31 seats to the Democrats. In 2008, the Democrats picked up an additional 21 seats.

So it is my feeling that the Democrats are bound to lose seats both for the "lack of presidential coattails in an off-year reason" and for the "other circumstances reason".

Further complicating this picture is that there are not equal numbers of Dems and Reps up for re-election each year. Change of the status quo is always a popular voter sentiment, and when there are more Dems up for re-election, it makes sense that they are going to face tougher battles hanging onto their seats. In a way, term limits might help this issue some, as voter party preferences then wouldn't always come into conflict with the "throw the bums out" urges.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Brainster

So it is my feeling that the Democrats are bound to lose seats both for the "lack of presidential coattails in an off-year reason" and for the "other circumstances reason".

Actually, there is a way to deal with that problem.

1.) Fund a really acceptable but weak Republican candiddate with too much sense to appeal to the hard core of the GOP to knock out the rightwing lunatic Republican, and fund the lunatic alternative right wing nut to siphon off the crazy contingent. This is really going to dilute the core constituency of the GOP.

2.) Duck-tape the Republican candidate to the Rushblob and Michael Steele.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

I'm curious who votes for people like Michelle Bachman. She's an absolute nut job.

Remember, this is the state that elected Jesse Ventura. I think it's some kind of cheese mold that's affecting their brains.