How will we fare in 2010 elections?

[cecilfirefox]

I posted a topic a few months back with this very question, however I'd like to discuss it more again- and quite frankly I think we had very little discussion on it at that time, and I think for the most part were avoiding the discussion now.

Everyone is predicting heavy losses for our party in the next congressional election, specifically in the House of Representatives. Now, the research I have done shows me that in order for the Republicans to take back the majority they need to win 40 seats. Bare minimum. That's for a +1 seat majority.

I think were going to loose seats, that's a political reality people. However, I don't think were going to loose 40 seats and I will be shocked, shocked if the Democrats loose the house.

Now, why did the Democrats take back Congress in 06 and, furthermore, why did the Republicans take back Congress in 1994? For one, there was scandal. Huge scandal both times that plagued the party in the majority. This time though there are no scandals plaguing the Democrats, just unhappy public opinion because, rightfully so, the things people voted for haven't really happened yet(Stabilized economy, health care reform- of any type, I genuinely believe the country will accept any HCR legislation), etc.

So, let's look at whats different between now, 1994, and 2006. For one, and I think this is pivotal, I believe the Republicans are forgetting something dear. People are not suddenly agreeing with conservative Republican policies and ideas. In 1994 Newt Gingrich had something he dolled up called the Contract With America. And, although this will cause many people here to gag while reading this, the majority of Americans agreed with him on pretty much everything in that proposal. They thought it was a good idea, hence the reason voters came out in bulk and supported them.

Now, in 2006 Democrats had something called Six for 06. Now, I would argue that this wasn't publicized as heavily as the Contract With America. However, the six points here are whats important. This was an agenda that touted national security, jobs and wages(raising the minimum wage to a living wage, from around 5 dollars I believe to 7.50 over the span of a few years), energy independence, affordable health care(SCHIP), retirement security, and college access for all(They cut interest on federal college loans if I remember correctly). Again, these are all things American agreed with and wanted to see. The beliefs of the American people shifted to that of the Democratic party. That is exactly what happened in 1994.

So, the big question we have to ask and analyze is, is all of that happening now?

Americans are unhappy that all the things they voted for in 2008 have yet to happen, HCR, an end to the wars(Although I think most people are understanding on this actually, this is not where most of the discontentment is from), stabilizing the economy, and reducing the deficit. So, what are the Republicans proposing?

Right now, absolutely nothing. In fact, it seems that more or less their coasting full steam on the fact that they aren't Democrats. Beyond that though what policies have they set forth that the majority of Americans support? I suspect they'll run on reducing the deficit and spending, however I think the Democrats will have tried to make an effort to cut the deficit before then. (Probably by using excess stimulus funds) Besides holding back on spending they don't have a plan to cut the deficit, and they sure as hell aren't going to propose any sort of tax increase. They have presented no realistic alternative to health care, and I do believe the majority of Americans think that had they been in control they'd have done nothing on HCR. Most importantly the last poll I saw said that while Americans were unhappy with the congress and, to a certain degree the President(But his approval rating is still in the majority), they still polled with a majority believing that Republican policies will pull this country in the wrong direction. That is not a good sign for the Republicans. All that right there is what is going to set apart 2010 from 1994 and 2006.

Now, what am I trying to point out here? Well, I think more than anything I'm trying to calm my own nerves. The thought of a Republican congress, Gods forbid a Republican house from coming into fruition, is terrifying. Nothing would get done, it'd be a useless mess, a useless damn mess.

But I do want to make one thing clear here people. Under no circumstances is 2010 going to be smooth sailing for us. If we play hard, run good candidates(perhaps, dare I say it, even centrist ones), adequately fund a multitude of different contentious races, we'll be fine. If we sit on our hands, don't get out and vote, not campaign for the people in scary races that you are in the capacity to help, and gods forbid not get our friends and family out to vote, and then complain here on DU when the results are less than satisfactory- well, you'll be traitors to your own cause.

If we stay on our game, we'll be set. If not, in the words of President George W. Bush- we might be in for a thumping.

- Cecilfirefox

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. House 229-206. Senate 53-2-45.

Dodd, Reid, Lincoln, Kaufman, and one surprise seat, No pickups.

[madrchsod]

2. if the american people perceive there`s no job improvement-the house

and maybe a few senate seats. obama`s senate seat has a good chance to go to a republican.

it all depends on how many people either get a job or knows of someone that has. the big problem obama faces is creating jobs and that`s something he can`t do.

[cecilfirefox]

3. I think the big thing I'm trying to point out is that we won't loose congress if were on the ball.

And even if we loose a lot of seats, its possible in very Democratic districts when the President is running for re-election we'll get those seats back.

[Better Believe It]

19. So you don't think massive unemployment, foreclosures, the wars and a weak healthcare bill won't be

the major factors in determining the election outcome?

Your suggestion that working hard in the elections are primary and will overcome these objective factors is not "on the ball".

[cecilfirefox]

23. Way to take something completely out of complex. But when your blisteringly angry at people for

trying to discuss things, what can you expect. My point is, quite clearly, that the Democrats are still better apt to handle these things than Republicans and the majority of Americans in this country still believe that. We must not give the Republicans an opportunity to sink our country anymore than the aftermath of two mismanaged wars and other things all ready have.

I believe, from a prediction of a future election standpoint, that if we run good campaigns and fund our races as we should we will still hold the majority. Don't try and turn this conversation into something its not about.

[Better Believe It]

36. The two wars are merely "mismanaged"?

And how do you think they are now being properly managed and will be won by a Democratic Congress and White House?

You do want to win those wars .... isn't that right?

It appears that you do accept the probability that the Democratic Party will lose a significant number of seats in the House and Senate in 2010. That's suggested by your modest goal of trying to hold on to a simple majority of seats in the House and Senate .... if the Democratic Party runs "good campaigns" and spends enough money in those races.

So what is a "good campaign"? That's pretty vague. Does it have anything to do with real political issues and presenting solutions to problems working people face or is a "good" campaign all about logistics, catchy campaign slogans, "attractive" candidates and adequate fund raising from corporate interests?

[cecilfirefox]

38. You know, this isn't about that. This is about numbers, that was my post, it was discussion

about how our party will do in the 2010 elections. I'm not getting into bed with this nerdrage with you, it's practically off topic. Stop trying to derail the threat man, go make one of your own.

[Better Believe It]

39. Oh .... you just want to throw out some numbers without any political analysis or background.

That would be a terrific discussion.

OK.

So here's some fourth grade "horse race" numbers for ya if Democrats work hard.

House 226

Senate 53

Here's some more numbers if Democrats don't work as hard.

House 225

Senate 52 or 53

So what do you think?

[depakid]

4. Depends on the turnout and the volunteers

which at the moment, aren't looking too enthusiastic.

[FrenchieCat]

5. It all depends on what we want to happen.....

either we want to wish a pox on everyone's house for our own personal vendetta,
like proving some kind of point that will only negatively affect our children, ourselves,
and many other Americans,

or we can want to work toward progress some more.

We are the ones that we are waiting for...
the question is are we still scheduled to show up?

[quiller4]

6. Probably lose 6-10 house seats, Senate anywhere from pick-up of 2 to loss of 4.

[cecilfirefox]

7. I suspect we may loose 10, or more to. nt

[zbdent]

8. with today's "liberal media"?

We'd be lucky if it isn't a Repuke landslide victory ...

[David__77]

9. Impossible to say. Let's remember 2002 and 2004.

Democrats - and Republicans - thought Democrats had a great chance to regain majorities in both of those cycles, but no such thing happened obviously. Though Republicans and right populists are energized, their constituency is shrunken from 16 years ago considerably.

[cecilfirefox]

10. Do you mean people thought Democrats might take back Congress in 02? O_O nt

[David__77]

16. Yes, actually.

People had high hopes in that regard. It would only have taken a few house seats. And, of course, we had the senate already.

[cecilfirefox]

22. Oh, that's right, we did have the Senate and we needed only like 15 seats.

[David__77]

24. We were only six seats from winning the house.

The DCCC had a website set up highlighting that fact. We were hamstrung with defeatists like McAuliffe. Things are SOOOO much better now. A year is a loooong time.

[cecilfirefox]

28. To be fair I wasn't paying attention then, couldn't even vote at that time.

[JCMach1]

11. It all depends where the economy is sitting...

Krugman said yesterday it is about 50/50 as whether we slide toward recession again in the latter quarters of next year.


So 50% we lost 5-15 seats

and

49% 15-30+


I would say only about a 1% chance they take control

[BeFree]

12. It depends on...

...how the voting machines are programmed.

If there is a huge turnout the machines will be overrun. If there is a small turnout the machines will rule the day.

In 435 districts the campaign will narrow down to personalities and policies.
Policies are on our side and personalities are up for grabs.

Senate races; the same.

There being no reason for dems to not work hard for our candidates in their home districts, I see no reason for the turnout to be smaller than it was in 2006. So, we win even more seats.

[JCMach1]

13. I think we lose 3-5 in Senate whatever happens

just not shaping-up in our favor there...

[BeFree]

20. Which seats do we lose?

[JCMach1]

35. Here is how I see it right now

Reid
Dodd
Lincoln
Open Delaware seat
Burris' seat

and maybe Bennett in CO

Subject to reality check... as I said it really depends on the economy... Escpecially, the Reid race.

[CANDO]

14. By the tips of our fingers.

Just barely in the House and will retain comfortable lead in Senate, but not 60-40, more like 55-45.

[CK_John]

15. Turn out will be our biggest problem. I think we will give up 42 seats. n/t

[cecilfirefox]

17. 42 seats?? Holy crap, that's a large number for a populace that really hasn't shifted on policy!! nt

[Motown_Johnny]

18. Honestly, what is the difference?

We can't pass any decent legislation with the majorities we have. IF we have smaller majorities it will just be worse.

Without 60 in the Senate nothing at all will get done since the pukes will filibuster everything.

I hope we hold our majority in The House but it may not matter as far as getting things done in 2011-2012


My prediction is that we lose seats but hold majority in both The House and The Senate

[cecilfirefox]

21. The difference is we can still pass things,

And I to predict we'll hold our majorities, I would be seriously shocked if we lost the house. You must also remember the machine that is the Obama presidential campaign in 2012, what we loose we can realistically recover probably(especially if their seats in moderate or democratic districts).

I understand your frustration, but there is a difference between what Boehner would be doing and what Pelosi and Obama are doing. If you don't vote you only hurt your cause people.

[Karmadillo]

25. No worse than we deserve.

nt

[grahamhgreen]

26. Dems are failing progressives on every issue. And they are so vain, you don't realize this will

Collapse the 2010 elections.

Centrist? Bull.

You need to protect your liberal base, duh.

[Midwestern Democrat]

27. Right now, I'd say anywhere from 12 to 26 House seats lost and 3 to 5

Senate seats lost. I'd be shocked if we lost the House - losses of that magnitude in one single election cycle are very rare (1974 and 1994 are the only two congressional elections in the last 40+ years that had losses that severe). I think something comparable to Reagan's first midterm in 1982 (loss of - IIRC - 26 Republican House seats) is probably pretty close to the worst case scenario for us.

[cecilfirefox]

29. Righto, let's just work hard as possible to elect the right candidates and minimize any damage. nt

[Yupster]

30. I agree with most here

lose three senate seats or so.

Maybe 15 to 20 house seats.

[cowcommander]

31. The GOP has no Gingrich for 2010

All they have is Palin, and everyone else is too busy covering their own asses instead of working for the party as a whole. You overestimate the GOP, they're still a broken trainwreck with no solid leadership.

[DainBramaged]

33. Yup, people giving them WAY too much credit

and what about the infighting with the tea party shitheads? A divided house is a broken house. The Pukes may ultimately wind up LOSING seats over the health care debacle is we play our cards right.


Democrats, always finding a way to lose.......

[dysfunctional press]

32. probably not well.

unless something unforeseeable happens that turns the next 9 months into the biggest, fastest job creation period EVER in american history.

[FLAprogressive]

34. I'm hoping that if we lose, we lose a lot of blue dogs.

[Orsino]

37. We will fare about as well as we've treated all those people who are hurting...

...plus whatever the final HCR bill does for ordinary Americans, minus however badly the MSM can spin it.

I'm expecting disappointment.