Charlie Cook:The Senate will flip republican in 2012 and the house stays republican

[bigdarryl]

The democrats have no chance at capturing the House until 2016 when 24 seats on the republican side are in play.BULLSHIT DOOM AND GLOOM I for one not believing 2012 is lost to the democrats he doesn't take into account that our side will be more energized because of all the rethugs union busting throughout the country I think our side will be more motivated for 2012. He was on Bill Press show this morning

[robcon]

1. I think Cook is very realistic... he accurately called the Democratic Senate takeover in 2006

That doesn't mean he's perfect, only that he reads the signs accurately, IMO.

There's still a chance for a resurgence, and it also depends on who gets nominated for the Senate seats.

[earthside]

6. Cook's prognostication ....

... is based on the notion that the political environment stays pretty much the same as it is today, and it is based upon the plain, unvarnished truth of the numbers of seats in play.

So, yup, his estimate is probably pretty accurate. Couple that with Pres. Obama's continuing move to the right and there is little reason to expect middle-of-the-road voters to throw out en masse the Repuglicans they elected in 2010.

Frankly, I think he was a bit too optimistic about Obama's prospects for reelection ... if we're still in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya; and unemployment is at or above eight percent; and annual deficits are still of a trillion dollars, well, I think even a weak Repuglican nominee might have a 50-50 chance.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. The Republican nominee still has to have a compelling agenda

and/or a competing vision? What might that be? I don't honestly think that they have one nor do they have a candidate that could ever make us think that they do.

[RBInMaine]

35. Oh bullshit ! Either you're trolling or need an anti-depressant.

[Blasphemer]

17. Sounds realistic to me too... espcially considering the upcoming Senate races

I think their hold over the House will be slimmer. We'll see what happens.

[TexasProgresive]

2. Oh noes- we's all gonna die!!!!!!

Political prognosticating is filled with false prophecy- remember the DUers dancing on the grave of the pukes? The thing is the false prophets never own up to being wrong.

I don't have a clue what will happen in 2012- I hope by fellow members of the Democratic party get smart and vote and get out the vote.

[L. Coyote]

15. The universe will be imploding in Dec. 2012, so

don't bother to vote :rofl:

Damn naysayers, doom and gloom hawkers, pulp pseudoscience, yellow newspapers, and glass-ball politicians.

[zeemike]

3. Maybe he knows something that we don't

Like the fix is in and the winners are already selected on the machines that count the vote.
Otherwise we must believe that people are so stupid that they elect the people that just fucked over them for decades..

[Marblehead]

9. thats what I was thinking

they count the votes

[Mass]

4. Way too early for these types of predictions, I wonder what he predicted in 2009.

My guess is he said the right would not be able to regain the house.

[quiller4]

34. No. He was early in predicting that the Rs would take the house.

He was quite accurate in his 2010 elections predictions but he was off when it came to forecasting 2006.

[sadbear]

Even if they do win, they won't have the necessary 60 votes to pass anything

[earthside]

7. Ha!

Unlike the spineless Harry Reid, do you think that a Repuglican majority leader McConnell in the Senate will have any compunction whatsoever at changing the filibuster rule?

[sadbear]

16. Yeah, I think he will

Assuming they take the majority in '12, McConnell knows GOP overreach will toss them back into the minority soon after. The filibuster has served them well in the minority. That's their (deserved) status. They're a minority party, and they know it.

[bluestateguy]

5. He's certainly entitled to his opinion

Why we should all give it so much weight is beyond me.

[Richardo]

8. 241 seats on the Republican side are in play in 2016 - and 2012 and 2014

...unless you mean the Senate. :)

[donheld]

47. We have a winner - no more callers

[OHdem10]

10. He must be assuming that all these Republican Govenors

in the States, Ohio, Wisconsin Indiana, etc will turn
their Images around. The Working People in all these \
states including South Carolina, Missouri Michigan,
are staging protests in so many states. They are going
to flip and vote Republican. Republicans are in those
crowds even if the National Media chooses to ignore them.
Too many states involved.

I am not saying the Democrats will win big. I am saying
if the Democrats got together and remember they are supposed
to be the party of the working class, they could surprise
the Cook's of the world.

Having said that, Cook is one of the best in his field.

[still_one]

11. If true, those that enable this are deserving of the consequences. I guess they have no sense of

history, and what the republicans have done to our country

Those on social security and medicare are complete idiots if they vote for republicans, and any woman or minority who votes republican must be self-destructive, because that is what they will be doing if they vote for republicans

[karynnj]

12. Every Republican (and Democratic ) seat in the House is up in 2012

It is idiotic to say that only n seats are in play - no matter what you use for n - more than a year and a half before. The fact is that they have a smaller number of incumbents now than we after the 2008 election.

I fully agree with your comment.

In addition, 2012 will have a better turn out for Democrats, if only because it is a Presidential year. (Not to mention, there have been polls showing the vaunted "enthusiasm gap" is gone.

I do agree that the Senate is in jeopardy. This is because we won everything the least bit up for grabs in 2006 - so we have a lot of vulnerable Senators and we have many retiring. While Kaine actually looks stronger than Webb, it is hard that Conrad and Bingaman are stepping down. The Republicans have fewer seats up - but they could lose Maine and maybe even Indiana if a tea partier beats Snowe or Lugar. They could also lose Nevada and Massachusetts.

[L. Coyote]

13. How many Republicans die each year? How many Dems register each year?

The biggest mistake in Republican history has been attacking education.
They forget, all those high school graduates become voters!
And the author forgets that the demographic that is dying is largely Republicans.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Redistricting will likley make it harder for Democrats to make gains in the House in 2012

And Senate prospects don't look great either, considering we have more seats to defend.

[JVS]

18. "capturing the House until 2016 when 24 seats on the republican side are in play."

All house seats are in play every year.

[former9thward]

26. The National parties would disagree with you.

The Republican and Democratic parties routinely write off scores of seats on either side each election. The provide no money or support for candidates. They know there is no chance at all the incumbent will be defeated. I'm not sure where the 24 number is coming from though. Maybe the OP got that confused with the Senate.

[jenmito]

19. And what did he say about who would win the presidency? n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. Boy, I hope not

The vulnerability of some of the Democratic seats worries me but OTOH next year will be a Presidential election and turnout among Democrats should be higher, President Obama's prospects for re-election appear to be good, and the Republican-dominated state governments in several states aren't making many people very happy. The (re-)mobilization of Unions following the drive to push anti-union legislation in several states will likely help as well. Let's hope that the states that are losing Democratic incumbent Senators due to retirement have some good solid candidates lined up to replace them.

The main Democratic argument for 2012 should be about the need to have a Democratic House and Senate again because the Republicans are pushing a radical agenda that most people don't want and that divided government isn't able to work effectively because the Republicans really aren't interested in working with President Obama and Congressional Democrats on..........well, just about anything.

Republicans' argument is going to be all about the need to have a Republican Senate and POTUS in order to pass their allegedly *popular* agenda such as repealing "Obamacare", defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood, etc.

I have a hard time believing that the Republicans are going to come up with a good candidate for POTUS let alone effectively make the argument that their agenda is actually popular with the majority of the public and that they need to have the entire federal government back under their control again so as to be able to enact it. The polling and, more importantly, the reticence of even the most talked-about Republican candidates for POTUS to even announce their bids for the nomination doesn't suggest that the Republican message is likely to be successful.

However, of course, things change, so I could be wrong but "Ocam's Razor" seems to suggest that 2012 is not going to be anything remotely like 2010.
:shrug:

[Arkana]

21. Cook is reading different polling information than I am, because

this time the President's going to be on the ballot--and Obama has proven that his coattails are pretty long in election years.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Guess those are the results the Media will be working for, for the next year and a half.

The media has a way of ordering what it wants way ahead of time....then they do what they can to get her done. It is up to us make that "prophecy" wrong. But do we have it in us, or will we tear down Democrats more often than we do Republicans, the way we do now? That is the challenge. Oh, and Charlie Cook is a tool.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. Where have we heard that before?

It's almost like "fixing the facts around the policy" and, to a large extent, I believe that that's what the corporate media does and did from early 2009 through last year's midterm elections in regards to the teabaggers and their newfound *influence* on the Republican Party. :eyes:

[jillan]

25. With Citizen's United, I don't doubt it.

[Hawaii Hiker]

27. Let's wait & see what Nate Silver says, i put more faith in him than

Charlie Cook....

[treestar]

28. If he repeats his wish often enough, the good fairy will grant it!

:rofl:

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

29. what a fat, stupid pig Charlie Cook is.

[jefferson_dem]

30. Totally plausible.

I saw a poll today that had Tester at even with his Repub opponent.

This makes the presidential election THAT MUCH MORE important. ... and the "i'm done with Obama" crowd sound that much more unreasonable.

[Armstead]

32. How's this for a more reasonable sound?.....

It means that Obama and the Democratic Party have to work that much harder at actually listening to their liberal base and taking that into account AND work harder at intensifying and capitalizing on the disaffection of many in "the middle" with the GOP's anti-worker and anti-middle class behavior.

In other words, forget this centrist shit and actually run a liberal campaign that excites people and offers more than just "we're not the GOP."

[RBInMaine]

42. Will the "liberal" message win with mods NEEDED to win the general election?

The pragmatic-progressive message might, but not a far-left one.

[NewJeffCT]

31. The senate will be very difficult to hold

even if the political & economic environment improves somewhat over the next 12-15 months. Republics have like half the seats to defend as do Democrats.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. Yeah, Charlie, because voters will happily vote for a do-nothing Republican Congress

while keeping Obama as president. And polls suggesting that more Americans blame Republicans, so those same Americans will be puting MORE Republicas, not less, in Congress in 2012?

Makes perfect sense... :sarcasm::sarcasm:

[totodeinhere]

36. A lot of people on this board didn't believe they would take the House in 2010 either.

But we all know what happened. So I wouldn't call bullshit on Charlie Cook. He may well be right.

[FrenchieCat]

39. Cause folks on this board aren't as easily influenced by Charlie Cook's prediction....

except for the ones that continue in attacking whatever this administration does at
exilerating swiftness....like minute to minute, and help inflate the myth that
somehow whatever Obama is doing, he is doing it all wrong.

[totodeinhere]

40. I hope you aren't talking about me. I am getting flamed in other threads on this board right now

because of my support for President Obama's Libya policy. I think that most posters on this board support the president when they think he is right and oppose him when they think he is wrong. I know I do.

[Imajika]

41. Completely disagree...

FrenchieCat, you are like a rock and your posts a bastion of sanity, but I've got to disagree with you here. A lot of the people that constantly defend the President (such as myself) are political realists. We support the President because we understand he has to govern the entire nation and just won't be able to get a lot of what he wants done, know he is a good man who generally at least tries to do the right thing, and recognize that sometimes the biggest part of what a President can do is slowly turn the machinery of state in a new direction. Many of us know the temper tantrums a lot of folks here throw over marginal issues like how comfortable Bradley Manning is in jail are entirely irrelevant to the big picture, and I think most of us who understand these things really appreciate your sensible comments. I know I do, your one of my favorite posters here.

Political realists are often the MOST likely to stand with and defend President Obama against countless silly attacks and whining fits from many here (and on other activist oriented left leaning forums), but as political realists there is simply no avoiding the fact that the Senate will be incredibly hard to hold. It isn't a question of being influenced, it is a question of what reality is staring us in the face. Even assuming the best case scenario - a comfortable Obama win in 2012, as of now it is not looking like we are likely to win back the House and the odds of holding the Senate are not particularly good. Democrats simply have way too much territory to defend in the Senate this election cycle, and many of those seats are in states the Republicans tend to do well in.

In my opinion, dismissing Cook's predictions (and that of others suggesting the same thing) of how things are shaping up is akin to sticking one's head in the sand. Saying that, what these sorts of predictions from Cook and others should do is motivate us to change the dynamics as best we can. From analysts like Cook we can see the general direction taking shape, but there is nothing that says with hard work, great campaigns and excellent messaging that we can't shift things in our favor. Consider the predictions of Cook a warning of what very well might be on the horizon, and work hard to make sure it doesn't happen.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Oh...I agree, Imajika,

just sometimes being a realist on these boards makes one feel silly, as though pie in the sky
and talking a lot of trash is somehow a better place to be.

What I was saying is that a year and a half before, stating what the chances are from a political analyst should be more of a clarion call to all of us...that we need to get our shit together, and stop only criticizing this administration, and deflating those who would support him if it wasn't that they only hear the Left trashing him at all times.

So yes, I agree with what you said that "these sorts of predictions from Cook and others should do is motivate us to change the dynamics as best we can. From analysts like Cook we can see the general direction taking shape, but there is nothing that says with hard work, great campaigns and excellent messaging that we can't shift things in our favor."

[Imajika]

44. Actually you are in the overwhelming, vast majority of the base...

...who support the President. Polls show this again and again. It causes the complainers here to gnash their teeth and scream and moan, but it is they who are in the minority. The truth is that the "liberal" base (to use pollsters terminology) massively support our President. If anything, it is "moderates" and more conservative Democrats whom are more likely to take issue with or oppose Obama. There is the real world reality which is the nation as a whole, and DU reality which is a small subsection of the base involved enough on specific issues to spend time posting on forums.

"just sometimes being a realist on these boards makes one feel silly, as though pie in the sky"

You've no reason to feel silly. Your comments are more representative of the base of the Democratic party than many here. I scan for your posts because I consider them to be grounded in a reality and, as I said, something of a bastion of sanity. What you are really accomplishing here, in my opinion, is reminding those on the left who are often interested in specific/niche issues that while the President may not be able to satisfy all people all the time, he is a million times better than what the opposition offers and is, overall, a good man and an excellent President who has really done a lot of good for our country. Without your voice (and many others who defend our President), an echo chamber of twisted negativity would develop and destroy what I think we all agree is a great forum and generally excellent community. Remember something else about forums of all kinds - people who are angriest about something tend to post most. The reasonable and realistic members are often the quietest. Your comments, I think, encourage those reasonable and realistic people to post more.

[FrenchieCat]

45. Thanks for reminding me of the actual reality as it is in the real world......

sometimes this echo chamber here makes one feel like a minority,
when, you're right, that just isn't the case. :hi:

[RBInMaine]

37. BULLSHIT ! The RePUKES have gone ultra-right fucking CRAZY, and D's will be energized as all hell.

I don't know what he's thinking, but expect RePUKES to lose seats.

[RBInMaine]

38. Yeah, well we'll see what happens in WI. If R's lose seats by recall, it will shock the hell out of

PUKES.

[and-justice-for-all]

46. As the pukes take am at our social sevices....

education and uniions, I think they are digging their own graves.

[Ter]

48. With the 2010 Census, it's extremely unlikely the House will change before 2020

The Senate there's still hope, but don't expect to gain a single seat in 2012 with many more Democrats up than Republicans. So I'd say there is a 75% chance the Senate goes Red in 2012. If not, they'll have at least 48 or 49 seats, up from the 47 pukes there now (counting Murkowski). The odd that the House flips after one term would probably be about 97% no.

So, I'd have to agree with Cook, although I think it's still a possibility we keep the Senate, although remote. Look on the bright side though. 75% chance Obama gets re-elected. Not re-electing a sitting president is so 1992.