How will we do in 2010?

[cecilfirefox]

My personal prediction is that we may loose some seats in the house and senate, but that for the most part things are going to stay the same. Right now we have a very vocal right wing minority in this country but I don't personally see the country rising in a groundswell against the establishment like it happened in 2006, yet still some Republicans seem convinced they are going to make huge gains. How many of our seats are up in 2010 in the Senate and how many of theirs?

Any predictions people? Or is this all really hot air? We need a legislative victory is what we need. /sigh

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Here ya go...

House 235-210, Senate 53-2-45

[stevedeshazer]

12. Love the specific response, and I agree w/ your House margin, but the Senate?

I can't figure out how the Repubs pick up five Senate seats.

[Davis_X_Machina]

14. CT, AR, CO, NV, either DE or IL, and one not-yet-open seat (HI? WV?).

A throw-the-bums-out wave will produce a few surprises.

[KharmaTrain]

2. Case By Case Basis...

Remember, politics is a short attention span theater. Many of the controversies we see now will be fond memories a year from now. Events move fast and the corporate media's flea-brained coverage means that topics get dropped when a new, bright shiny toy comes along.

Also there are a couple of games that need to be played out. First, obviously, is the health care debate. While many of us are resigned to a half-assed bill the devil will be in the details. We're already seeing which Blue Dogs and others within the Democratic party are willing to sell out to lobbyists or go against the White House and in some cases a primary challenge should be in order. But I don't see that many challenges being successful unless there's a massive netroots/grassroots effort. That could be hard if people are depressed or pissed off by what passes. Now all bets are off if a bill with a public option passes through.

Also the economy will factor big. If the economy isn't into some kind of rebound...unemployment dropping and credit eased, then things look good. But I've always believed that people vote with their pocketbook. If they feel things are not going well it'll hurt Democrats across the board.

The bottom line is Congressional and many Senate races are very local. While President Obama's popularity can affect some races, it's the records of the individual candidates that will be judged. With rushpublican approval numbers still in the terlit, I don't see a big change next year...unless Democrats mess up with health care and the economy.

[ThomWV]

6. In part we disagree

Here's the part: "While President Obama's popularity can affect some races, it's the records of the individual candidates that will be judged."

While I think advocacy groups look long and hard at candidate's records from the previous session at the same time I don't think very many individuals do. In fact I don't think most individuals know much at all about their Candidate's records on anything other than the one or two big items that come up every session and in many cases not even then. What I suspect is far more common is that the zealots (like you and me) who do come out for mid-term elections are more swayed by Party affiliation than by individual records. I guess that doesn't explain the Blue Dogs, but I'm still trying to get my arms around the question of how they manage to get elected. Other than a failure so obvious as the Bush Administration which certainly drives a lot of people away from their own party, so I guess some of them had to light on our side of the fence at least for a little while.

[cecilfirefox]

8. Politics is local? I'm still not seeing the same sort of groundswell against us that we had in 2006

against them.

[WeDidIt]

3. 1994

1994 will seem like a huge Democratic victory compared to 2010.

[TheKentuckian]

4. That's wonderful!!! It'll be great to allow us to run faster down the GOP's path for another decade

What are some people thinking?

Reality is we'll possibly loose 15-25 in the House but gain a couple or so in the Senate by taking advantage of lots of GOP retirements.

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. Didn't we just HAVE a legislative victory?

>>>We need a legislative victory is what we need. /sigh>>>>

How much more of a legislative majority do we need? I'm thinking we have now the best political ratio that we are going to have anytime soon. ( i.e. in a number of decades.)
To answer your question: we're not going to do very well in 2010, if ---- the above circumstances being what they have been in DC under Obama --- if we don't have something to show for it.

So far this is what we have: more war in Iraq, escalating war in Afghanistan, no movement on marriage equality... or any issues relating to sexual minorities, privatization of public education, and worsening economic news. We could have done just as well under Romney ( forget McCain) as we have done under President Obama.

We also have a few positives ( an upgrade in the quality of the ME dialogue, some inroads into ending the country's isolation from the rest of the world. A few other positives. )Health care reform hangs in the balance but one senses that the WH is going to "compromise" on that as well. ( Translation: no real reform)

Frankly, there's not a lot there.

All of the above being the case: I predict we are not going to do well.

[cecilfirefox]

7. Legislative as in law, as in issue, not electoral victory. nt

[asdjrocky]

9. I don't have a fucking crystal ball.

Suddenly it's like everyone's a fucking cable tv pundit casting predictions, but it's better coz we can do it in our sweats picking our ass with one hand and our nose with the other.

NO ONE has any idea what is going to happen more than a year from now. Just think back to late 2006, early 2007.

I'm not jumping on you personally, I just think predictions this far out are silly.

[cecilfirefox]

10. Just getting nervous, but I don't believe in any world were going to loose congress. nt

[asdjrocky]

13. Nope.

From now on the south will always be the south. There'll be what I call "crazy zones" in the Midwest and west, but the Dems can stay strong, especially in the House.

If we get smart and pass a bill with a strong public option, we can rule the roost for a long, long time, in all three branches. It gets iffy, if we fail.

[scentopine]

11. The ugly unrecommend/censor feature is sure working well

Everyone who is unrecommending posts like this deserves the shitty politics they get.

Amazing how so many intellectually valid and important discussions have negative recommendations, thereby censored.

DU you should hold your head in shame as you have simply turned into rubber stamp site that refuses to admit mistakes and censors too many opinions and honest questions.

Sure its easy to write a post about how much republicans suck - but its intellectually dishonest to excuse ourselves from the debate. Democrats now have the weakest moral and ethical backbone in the history of the party. Everyone understands republicans they are transparent in their intentions. Democrats, however, are now worse than republicans - preaching one thing, then doing exactly the opposite. Its a good cop, bad cop routine used against the public.

To the OP, what can i say. Its hardly worth coming by the site anymore since minority view points are censored.

Frankly the site has turned lame. Its always the same sort of post in the greatest section -

"How I hate republicans"

"Obama White House Pictures"

"How republicans suck"

Occasionally there are a few posts on health care duplicity that make it to the surface, but this censorship thing is creating a mono-culture i.e. little diversity and no innovation.

Completely disgusted.

[Laelth]

15. I am not terribly worried about 2010. It should not be a repeat of 1994.

The political climate is really very different now than it was in 1994. In 1994, the Republican Party's approval ratings were not in the toilet. The ghost of Ronald Reagan was much more powerful then. Whereas Clinton followed Bush I, Obama follows one of the least popular politicians in American history, Bush II. Clinton was elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. Obama was elected with well over 50% of the popular vote. The religious right had not completely taken over the Republican Party then. Now, Republican politicians are generally insane, reflecting their rabid base.

I think Obama blew his first chance at health care reform by pushing for a weak plan. I think he should table the idea, for now, and push for single payer in 2011. The current system is unsustainable, and everyone knows it. Change will come. Let's not settle for a bailout of the insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it.

I expect the Democratic Party will pick up 3 seats in the Senate and between 3-6 seats in the House UNLESS Congress passes a disastrous "insurance reform" bill. At this point, I would rather do nothing than to pass any of the bills under consideration in Congress.

:dem:

-Laelth