How many state legislative seats will Democrats lose?

[Mr.Phips]

Charlie Cook thinks the consensus in a loss of 500 seats, which would give Republicans a lead of 3700-3500 in state legislative seats. 

Democrats should really want to bash Hank Paulsen to pieces for making Lehman fail in 2008 and making sure Obama got elected.  Obama taken the Democratic party and made it so small that you will be able to drown it in a bathtub after these elections. 

[feeblepizza]

They will definitely lose the Indiana House.

[Hash]

IT IS THE DEATH OF TEH DEMOKRATIK PARTY!!!111!

[Mr.Phips]

IT IS THE DEATH OF TEH DEMOKRATIK PARTY!!!111!

I seriously believe this.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

IT IS THE DEATH OF TEH DEMOKRATIK PARTY!!!111!

I seriously believe this.

So... should the Democrats just never run anybody for President, ever? lol

These things go in cycles, it happens.

[Beet]

IT IS THE DEATH OF TEH DEMOKRATIK PARTY!!!111!

I seriously believe this.

So... should the Democrats just never run anybody for President, ever? lol

These things go in cycles, it happens.

Bush had 4 solid years where the GOP controlled everything and he was personally popular and got the things he wanted passed. Obama had less than 1 year of popularity, a little over 1 year of getting things passed. He's getting wasted pretty much for all things he inherited from Bush. Once he's done cleaning up the GOP will come back in and claim credit for everything. Maybe that's the real cycle?

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

IT IS THE DEATH OF TEH DEMOKRATIK PARTY!!!111!

I seriously believe this.

So... should the Democrats just never run anybody for President, ever? lol

These things go in cycles, it happens.

Bush had 4 solid years where the GOP controlled everything and he was personally popular and got the things he wanted passed. Obama had less than 1 year of popularity, a little over 1 year of getting things passed. He's getting wasted pretty much for all things he inherited from Bush. Once he's done cleaning up the GOP will come back in and claim credit for everything. Maybe that's the real cycle?

People are stupid. There isn't much that can be done about that. Plus, it doesn't help that there is a television network and a bunch of popular radio hosts who try to do everything they can to undermine him along the way.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Part of the reason the Democrats will lose so many seats is they've kind of maxed out in some places. For example no matter what the climate the DFL is set to lose seats in both houses of the legislature, just because all the Republicans are from ultra-Republican districts and they already hold several seats on paper they should have no chance in.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

IT IS THE DEATH OF TEH DEMOKRATIK PARTY!!!111!

I seriously believe this.

So... should the Democrats just never run anybody for President, ever? lol

These things go in cycles, it happens.

Bush had 4 solid years where the GOP controlled everything and he was personally popular and got the things he wanted passed. Obama had less than 1 year of popularity, a little over 1 year of getting things passed. He's getting wasted pretty much for all things he inherited from Bush. Once he's done cleaning up the GOP will come back in and claim credit for everything. Maybe that's the real cycle?

Obama didn't really inherit the recession though. He is being judged based on a percieved failure to fix the problem. And part of that is the mixed messages he has sent. Going from we need stimulus to talking about spending freezes then back to defending the Stimulus for the elections. First focusing on jobs then going to health care, then back to jobs, no wait HRC isn't finished. This constant back and forth has been his own undoing. I remember in January 2009 a picture being posted of Obama fighting a bunch of Reagan zombies with a chain saw. If Obama was actually intending to do that, he could have had he remained focused from the beginning on this is what we need, why we need it what it will do, and why the opposition is wrong. The problem is he had no stategy to destroy Reaganism other then passing his adjenda and praying for fair winds.

There is a reason why FDR did well in 1934 midterms and Obama is going to get a smackdown. To his credit though, FDR really was very inconsistant as well but in order to get the same effect as FDR's public actions Obama had to challenge head on conservative assertions about the deficits and debt that he didn't do, and explain why gov't spending was necessary in a recession.

[Niemeyerite]

the party which could disappear in the next 20 years isn't the democratic party, is the GOP, but it's also unlikely xD. think: the hispanic population is growing a lot (they are democrats) and youg people are more leftists than their parents. if the GOP doesn't change, we could see them in a very bad shape in the next 20 years.

[Brittain33]

The headline number is fairly useless for one reason: New Hampshire House. That could easily account for 100 seats in a good year, altogether having less value than 3 state senate seats in New York or 10 house seats in Ohio. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The headline number is fairly useless for one reason: New Hampshire House. That could easily account for 100 seats in a good year, altogether having less value than 3 state senate seats in New York or 10 house seats in Ohio. 

Good point. Raw number of seats is a pointless measure. The percentage of seats of each house controlled in various states might be worth tracking though.

Perhaps the best point of this is that two California State Senate seats have the population of well over all of New Hampshire but is two seats vs. 400.

[cinyc]

the party which could disappear in the next 20 years isn't the democratic party, is the GOP, but it's also unlikely xD. think: the hispanic population is growing a lot (they are democrats) and youg people are more leftists than their parents. if the GOP doesn't change, we could see them in a very bad shape in the next 20 years.

Young people are always more leftist and Democratic-leaning than their parents.  Then, real life sets in.  Hispanics will not always be Democrats, either, as they become more wealthy and integrated into American society.

No party will permanently be in good shape or bad shape in the next 20 years.  It will ebb and flow with the times, as it usually does.

[Niemeyerite]

the party which could disappear in the next 20 years isn't the democratic party, is the GOP, but it's also unlikely xD. think: the hispanic population is growing a lot (they are democrats) and youg people are more leftists than their parents. if the GOP doesn't change, we could see them in a very bad shape in the next 20 years.

Young people are always more leftist and Democratic-leaning than their parents.  Then, real life sets in.  Hispanics will not always be Democrats, either, as they become more wealthy and integrated into American society.

No party will permanently be in good shape or bad shape in the next 20 years.  It will ebb and flow with the times, as it usually does.

Agreed. but if republicans continue nominating tea partiers and praising people like joe arpaio, sarah palin or jan brewer, they won't be able to convince hispanics and young people to vote for them.