House of Representatives already lost??

[Politics_Guy25]

I had assumed that the predictions of doom in 2010 were terribly premature but I caught up with Nate Silver's blog yesterday and he thinks that there's a good chance that the republicans will take over the House in 2010 and I just finished watching "The Chris Matthews Show" this morning and the majority of his panel including Chris himself thought that a GOP takeover is likely. What do you all think? I can see a 1982 26 seat style loss but for Nate and the media to say the house is gone gone gone just seems terribly premeature. We're ahead on the generic ballot as well at this time other than for Rasmussen and the president has an approval rating in the mid 50's. This seems like crazy talk. Where is it coming from? Also 3 massive wave elections in a row seems terribly implausible. 2006 was a fury election but even that crested at just 31 seats and 1994 was an once-in-a-lifetime event.

BTW though if the house goes, the senate will go as well. The house has never flipped control from one party to the other without the senate going with it. It's different when one party has control of one house and the other control of the other though. That's not the case here.

[LynnTheDem]

1. Yes, the republic party's massive 18% approval rating is gonna sweep it all up.

Really.

No way can their 18% possibly beat the Dems' 41%.



Sometimes all ya can say is...wtf.

[Pab Sungenis]

2. That 18% is a base.

If the Democrats prove as ineffective as we did from 1993-1994, then we lose the swing voters.

Their 18% plus a majority of the swing voters, not to mention disaffected Democrats who sit it out or go third party, can give them a plurality in a hell of a lot of districts.

[Politics_Guy25]

3. Also...

There is no leader such as Newt Gingrich this time that can be the face of this so-called resurgence. That was a key element of 1994.

BTW, the media spent most of 2008 including half of election night telling us that President Obama was doomed. So this is just what they do I guess. Gotta please their GOP corporate masters.

[harkadog]

19. Not true. Everyone on election night was predicting an Obama victory.

This was from the beginning and the only question was going to be the size of the victory. I don't know what channels you were watching but they weren't broadcasting from this planet.

[uponit7771]

27. Unnn, reThugs were shocked.

[harkadog]

32. Ahhh, no they weren't.

None of the commentators, conservative or liberal, were surprised. The polls for several weeks had predicted the result.

[MiniMe]

43. They may have been shocked at some of the states the Obama took

But nobody was shocked by the result. Indiana, North Carolina, and Florida were a bit surprising, as was Virginia, Although Florida and Virginia I was not surprised about.

[Ineeda]

4. A heads up to make sure grassroots Dems stay in the game and

work just as hard as we did for the presidential election. If we stay in the game, we can do it. If we don't bother, well...

[andym]

5. The state of the economy next fall and the perception of success/failure will determine

the next congress. Guesses as to what will happen now are not relevant.

[Politics_Guy25]

6. Reagan had 10.2% unemployment in '82 and lost just 26 house seats

and the senate was a draw. So even if unemployment is high, I still (based on 1982) don't think it automatically guarantees a 50 seat house loss and 12 seat senate loss.

[liberalpragmatist]

7. I think that's bull

First of all, while I certainly think it's *possible* that the House could flip, there is no reason to believe that is the likely outcome at this point. Republican approval ratings are still quite low, and Democratic ratings are depressed by the health care debate. If health care passes, and if the economy is on the upswing in a year, Democrats could wind up holding their ground or only losing a few seats.

Moreover, the majority in the House is large enough that even a loss of 20+ seats would leave the House in Democratic hands.

As for your last point, yes, the Senate has never before not flipped when the House has flipped, but the odds are extremely low that the Senate will flip. The number of competitive seats just doesn't add up. Right now, GOP-held seats in New Hampshire and Missouri are tossups, and Democratic-held seats in Nevada, Arkansas, Connecticut and possibly Colorado are big tossups. Potentially competitive are Illinois, North Dakota, New York, Delaware, and Pennsylvania.

If Republicans hold their seats in NH, MO, KY, and OH, and pick up Nevada, Arkansas, Connecticut, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Dakota, and Illinois, and New York, Democrats would STILL hold the Senate 51-49. Not going to happen. Most likely outcome in the Senate is a 1-3 seat Republican gain; if it's a better Republican year than a Republican gain of about 5-6 seats is possible. And if Democratic losses in the House are modest, it's actually quite possible Democrats could make a 1-2 seat net pickup in the Senate.

[OHdem10]

8. If the MSM WRONGHEADEDLY believes the country will be better

off with GOP control of Congress, believe me it will happen.
They have the power and exercise it all the time. They can
spike stories unfavorable to GOP. They inflate stories favorable
to the GOP. They can exaggerate unfavorable stories re Dems.
They have from now until '10 to do their tricks. Never
underestimate the power of the Media.

How are they able to get away with this ?? Very simple, The
Democratic Party will not confront them and they know it.

Yes the Media can wrongheadedly help bring the GOP to power
in 2010---in the Congress. Will they, We can only hope
their better angels take over.

[CrispyQ]

15. And there's also this:

Diebold Unloads Beleaguered Voting Machine Division
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/diebold-sells

snip...

It took about three years but Diebold has finally managed to get out of the election business.

The company announced Thursday that Premier Election Solutions, Diebold's beleaguered voting machine division, has been acquired by Election Systems and Software (ES&S).

more...

Even before the sale, ES&S was already the nation's largest voting machine maker. Present in 43 states, ES&S systems were "utilized in counting approximately 50 percent of the votes in the last four major U.S. elections," according to the company's website. The company also created the statewide voter registration systems used in California, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska and New Mexico.

With its acquisition of Premier, the second-largest voting machine maker, ES&S achieves a near monopoly on election gear in the country.

===
I'm impressed how the dems are using their majority in Congress to address this critical issue. :eyes:

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. House: 227-218, Senate 53-2-45.

So it is written, so it shall be -- a substantial 'throw the bums out' wave, which by definition punishes the majority.
The House has never flipped unless the Senate flips too.

This seems like crazy talk. Where is it coming from?

50% Progressive Democrats staying home, muttering something about 'I've been sold out', and 50% once-in-a-lifetime Obama voters reverting to previous (non-voting) form, in a low-turnout election.

Meanwhile GOP voters head to the polls like rabid wolverines in a last-ditch bid to save the Pasty White Republic.

[Aramchek]

11. you are wholly incorrect, but I am willing to bet that won't affect your certainty.

bad delusions are hard to break.

[Davis_X_Machina]

14. Senate losses...

...in CT, CO, AR, NV, and one surprise -- with zero pickups.

The swing in the House is comparable to other first-term midterm losses by the party in the White House. No Obama coattails this time.

I expect the Democrats will lose 5-6 state houses, too. It's a bad time to be an incumbent rep, a worse time to be an incumbent governor. The casualties in the Senate are limited only by the fact that only a third of Senators are up for re-election at any one time.

[Aramchek]

26. want to make a wager? I will bet a $50 DU donation that your numbers are wrong.

Are you up for that?

or are you just blowing smoke??

[mgcgulfcoast]

22. no way

we will do much better than this. it will be a democratic house, 235-210

[jenmito]

10. The majority of Matthews' panel did NOT think the Dems. would lose the House in 2010-just that

they'd lose seats.

[Politics_Guy25]

13. Jenmito-that's not true

Trish was very borderline and leaned towards yes
Kathleen Parker was a yes (she is a right-winger though)
Chris was yes- "they will lose effective control"
Time's Spengler was no-just a typical midterm year
Not sure what the NYT guy said again

But still that's 3-2.

Of course, I haven't the foggiest idea what Chris meant by "effective control". The speaker controls what comes to the floor. Agenda items might not get passed with a narrow majority for sure but the GOP agenda isn't going to come to the floor that's for sure.

[jenmito]

18. Only Parker said she thought the Repubs. would take control. Matthews meant

that the Dems. would lose enough seats as to not have enough power to "control" the House. Probably since he doesn't think they're not able to get everything they want NOW.

[Mz Pip]

21. The Dems certainly

haven't been very 'effective' with their control that for sure. I can see progressives staying home, especially if there isn't some meaningful health care reform passed.

I am sort of surprised that the democrats in the House and Senate don't see that. They seem almost tone deaf to the wants of those who came out in support of Obama and got many of them re-elected. If listening to their corporate masters is more important than listening to the people then they deserve to lose.

I wish the Democrats would take a really long hard look at themselves and think about what republican rule will look like again. I suspect it will be far worse than what we've had in the past given the base of the party and how they manage to come out and vote for every lunatic running.

In a sane world there should be no way in hell someone a nuts as Michele Bachmann should win an election, or Peter King or Eric Cantor. They have the collective IQ of a squirrel but that doesn't seem to matter to the nuts.

[KingFlorez]

12. I don't see that happening

The economy would have to completely tank for them to win and there are many signs showing that the recession has ended and that means recovery can begin. As it stands now, the Republicans have no leader and no ideas, which makes it really hard for them to pull anything off.

[Politics_Guy25]

16. I'll be pessimstic

And expect to lose 30 house seats and 7 senate seats. Enough to have the media frothing at the mouth to be sure but not enough GOP fiends. Close but no cigar!

That's the beauty of having a massive majority. You can take losses but survive.

I don't think the dem majorities will come into serious question until 2014 and even then maybe just one house will go (six year itch)

[BlooInBloo]

17. Damn "game over" whiners.

[DrToast]

20. No way...

Especially after Health Care reform passes.

[amandabeech]

31. Being forced to buy expensive health insurance is not going to be popular.

I understand why Obama wants to do it, but I think that a lot of people will be pissed.

If there are still not enough jobs and employed people are pressed economically, then we will be in trouble.

[DrToast]

35. Except the vast majority of people won't have to do that

And the ones that do won't have to before the midterms.

[amandabeech]

37. Enough will, and at high prices.

It will also anger a lot of people who won't be forced to do so because some people are going to 1) be angry on the principle that the government is forcing you to spend money; and 2) others will be saying "there but for the grace of God go I."

I hope that you're right and that I'm wrong, but obviously, I don't agree with you.

The only saving grace may be if they aren't forced before the midterms.

[Clio the Leo]

23. The Big Dawg disagrees w/ you......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8672565

(and so does Bo Obama for that matter)

[brentspeak]

24. Obama's push for a mandate with only a weak public option would be a big reason for Dem losses

[Baltoman991]

29. No, the bullshit

YOU make up daily and try to push off as fact to other liberals is what will cost them.

You just can't help yourself can you?

[boppers]

25. A TV show with a few pundits made predictions?

Holy Crap, all this time we've been voting, organizing, campaigning, when we could have just asked pundits what the result should be?

Jeez, think of the time we've wasted, we could have just asked them!

[lunatica]

28. When was the last time anyone was able to predict accurately?

Chris Matthews and other pundits live in the never changing Beltway, far far from the maddening crowds. They don't have a clue that America has changed in a fundamental way. In both directions. There are a hard core conservative base baying at the moon, and the rest of us who put Obama in office. THe pundits are totally out of touch because they base their 'facts' on what used to be reliable sources but which are no longer worth the paper they're printed on.

The New York Times used to be a great source. Now it's got a tiny minority of good journalists. Judith Miller types are more the norm. The liars and fabricators and Bush/Cheney mouthpieces.

Things are different and they still don't get it. And if they do get it they're clueless about what to do about it, so they just play along, pontificating as if it still counts.

[iceman66]

30. It really depends on what happens with health care.

Most of these 'pundits' are assuming that the reform effort will fail, because that is what they would like to see happen, and have factored this into their prognostications.

[Fire1]

33. "The house has never flipped control from one party to the other

without the senate going with it." Not so. This was the scenario during Clinton's second term.

[wyldwolf]

34. some people wish

The left has made a cottage industry out of claiming the House was lost in '94 because Clinton wasn't "progressive" enough. Now some seem to almost want it again to try and make the same lame non-point.

[southernyankeebelle]

36. If the democrats have any balls and get a health care bill passed

than we may have a chance. They must support the president and the present must have some balls.

[Skittles]

38. um, sb?

male body parts are not needed for courage - surely you know this

[rasputin1952]

39. I don't think so...

The R's have nothing, and the candidates I've looked up or heard about have little or nothing to add if they are R's.

The D Congress has done some good things, but the R's have done all they can to sabotage whatever comes down and look like schoolyard bullies. They've been getting the press because they are vociferous enough to be noticed for anything but substance.

While it is imperative that Health Care Reform be passed, almost everyone I know of the R persuasion here in Red NE, thinks the R's have nothing to stand on.

I actually think we may pick up seats...:hi:

[depakid]

40. "I just finished watching "The Chris Matthews Show"

Therein lies your problem.

If you want to dumb yourself down and be manipulated- that's one of the best ways to do so.

[eridani]

41. A health care bill in which nothing happens until 2013 will leave Dems in a bad position

Two election cycles in which they will have to explain to their constituents why health care still sucks badly. Howver, that may not mean losses if the Repubs keep acting like asses.

[cornermouse]

42. Democrats were elected because people wanted

Congress and the White House to undo what Bush had done. ...How many of Bush's policies has Obama and the democratic congress actually voided or undone? Not given lip service to, not promised to change or undo several years down the road, not completely forgotten to all appearances?

How many of Bush's policies has Obama and the democratic congress actually voided or undone?

[Fire1]

44. President Obama can only do so much and the rest is left

up to your precious firmly entrenched Senators and Representatives like Sen. Dodd of Conn. (who is the head of the Finance Committee) who find bullshit reasons to impede progress. Such as: the 88 page presidential proposal for financial regulation and don't even mention HCR. President Obama did happen to overturn the Bush policy on States Secrets and reversed the "Conscience Clause" for physicians to perform abortions.

Much of what has to be turned around and cleaned up from past administrations cannot be done overnight. It took 30 years to get to this point and for anyone to complain that he's not moving fast enough is ludicrous at best and stupid at the very least.

[cornermouse]

45. The buck stops at his desk, not Congress' desk.

If he overturned the Bush policy on State Secrets why am I getting email from the ACLU stating something a heck of a lot different?

[Fire1]

46. I have no idea why you're getting such e-mails. Maybe

they haven't done their homework. The buck would stop at his desk if this were a DICTATORSHIP! Welcome to a DEMOCRACY!! Perhaps people like you would be better off voting republican next time and do yourself and the democratic party a favor.

[cornermouse]

47. Proposed State Secrets Guidelines Don't Relieve Need For Real Reform

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/41124prs20090923.html?s_src=RSS

The Obama administration today announced it will put in place new voluntary guidelines for the executive branch's use of the state secrets privilege

Obama Administration Will Not Seek Indefinite Detention Legislation (9/24/2009
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/41140prs20090924.html?s_src=front

FBI Data Mining And Collection Programs Threaten Privacy Of Innocent Americans (9/24/2009)
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/41144prs20090924.html?s_src=RSS

Obama's been in office for almost 10 months now. Wake. Up.

[Fire1]

48. No. YOU wake up but then again I'm totally indifferent to

itineraries of strangers. It boils down to WHOM you prefer to believe and the hidden agenda of their rhetoric. For every post and link you have, I can provide sources to support the exact opposite. No progressive will ever win the white house, so you can forget that. There is no other democratic candidate that could do as much in so little time than Barack H. Obama and IF by some miracle they had won the WH, I guarantee you the complaints would be similar if not identical. Why? Because contrary to popular belief, the man does not walk on water.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/23/AR2009092301958.html?hpid=topnews

[cornermouse]

49. Who to believe?

The ACLU with solid and substantial credentials or the Washington Post?

I'll stick with the ACLU.

[Fire1]

54. You do that and I'll stick with the Washington Post. n/t

[treestar]

51. So a Repuke House would undo it?

:rofl:

[cornermouse]

52. Jump to false conclusions much?

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[SoFlaJet]

50. What The Fuck Is Happening To This Board?

wow, just wow.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

53. DU, you guys need to grow up. You should know that 1 day is an eternity in the world of politics.

It is simply too early to be predicting gloom and doom! You guys should know better! Come on, now. It's way too early to be doing this.