2010 Mid-Term Elections

[Mr.Phips]

The 2010 Democrats will certainly break 60 seats in 2010 just as the Republicans did in 2006

Um, I dont think anyone but a few highly delusional Republicans thought they could get to 60 in 2006. 

[DownWithTheLeft]

The 2010 Democrats will certainly break 60 seats in 2010 just as the Republicans did in 2006

Um, I dont think anyone but a few highly delusional Republicans thought they could get to 60 in 2006. 

The talk following 2004 was most certainly that the Republicans would pick up seats.  People forget how long two years it.  Face it, the economy tanked after the Dems took over in 2007, but people stupidly blamed it on Bush.  Without Bush to blame, crushing defeats should be in store for the Democrats.

[Mr.Phips]

The 2010 Democrats will certainly break 60 seats in 2010 just as the Republicans did in 2006

Um, I dont think anyone but a few highly delusional Republicans thought they could get to 60 in 2006. 

The talk following 2004 was most certainly that the Republicans would pick up seats.  People forget how long two years it.  Face it, the economy tanked after the Dems took over in 2007, but people stupidly blamed it on Bush.  Without Bush to blame, crushing defeats should be in store for the Democrats.

Thats a bunch of bullcrap.  The economy had been weakening since mid 2006 when there was almost zero growth in the third or fourth quarter.  The economy is likely to rebound in early 2010. 

[Padfoot]

The 2010 Democrats will certainly break 60 seats in 2010 just as the Republicans did in 2006

Um, I dont think anyone but a few highly delusional Republicans thought they could get to 60 in 2006. 

The talk following 2004 was most certainly that the Republicans would pick up seats.  People forget how long two years it.  Face it, the economy tanked after the Dems took over in 2007, but people stupidly blamed it on Bush.  Without Bush to blame, crushing defeats should be in store for the Democrats.

Thats a bunch of bullcrap.  The economy had been weakening since mid 2006 when there was almost zero growth in the third or fourth quarter.  The economy is likely to rebound in early 2010. 

Economy aside, I think the original point remains valid which is something I've been saying ever since election night.  Democrats could very well face a tough election year in 2010.  The Republicans had everything in their favor after 2004 and look what happened.  If the public feels the Democrats have dropped the ball then 2010 could be a bad cycle for us.  This is politics people.  Anything can happen.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The 2010 Democrats will certainly break 60 seats in 2010 just as the Republicans did in 2006

Um, I dont think anyone but a few highly delusional Republicans thought they could get to 60 in 2006. 

The talk following 2004 was most certainly that the Republicans would pick up seats.  People forget how long two years it.  Face it, the economy tanked after the Dems took over in 2007, but people stupidly blamed it on Bush.  Without Bush to blame, crushing defeats should be in store for the Democrats.

Either you read too much Dick Morris, or you must give me the number of your dealer.

[Mr.Phips]

The 2010 Democrats will certainly break 60 seats in 2010 just as the Republicans did in 2006

Um, I dont think anyone but a few highly delusional Republicans thought they could get to 60 in 2006. 

The talk following 2004 was most certainly that the Republicans would pick up seats.  People forget how long two years it.  Face it, the economy tanked after the Dems took over in 2007, but people stupidly blamed it on Bush.  Without Bush to blame, crushing defeats should be in store for the Democrats.

Thats a bunch of bullcrap.  The economy had been weakening since mid 2006 when there was almost zero growth in the third or fourth quarter.  The economy is likely to rebound in early 2010. 

Economy aside, I think the original point remains valid which is something I've been saying ever since election night.  Democrats could very well face a tough election year in 2010.  The Republicans had everything in their favor after 2004 and look what happened.  If the public feels the Democrats have dropped the ball then 2010 could be a bad cycle for us.  This is politics people.  Anything can happen.

Then you should have voted for McCain.  You knew that Democrats were going to have major trouble in 2010 if Obama was elected and so did I. 

[Coburn In 2012]

I really think this is what will happen.

Obama will so screw up the country as he already seems to be doing that people will be sick of him and the Democrats.  Just remember what Bill Clinton experienced just two years into his failed administration!

Now I don't think there will be a 1994 style sweep for us.  I wish!  But I think we could pick up two or three Senate seats, regain the House and grab back a number of statehouses. 

[Holmes]

People got so sick of Bill Clinton that they re-elected him in 96 by even wider margins.

Personally I think gerrymandering should be illegal, I know it's an opinion but every state should have a non-partisan group doing it. And racial gerrymandering too. That one district in Arizona is the worst for that... even though it's my favourite.

[Mr.Phips]

People got so sick of Bill Clinton that they re-elected him in 96 by even wider margins.

Clinton's win in 1996 did nothing for the Democrats.  In fact it may have even hurt them.  He governed pretty much as a Republican in his second term and kept Democrats from retaking the House in 1998.  Remember, if Democrats have a bad 2010, they will likely be shut out of the House until 2022 because Republicans will control gerrymandering. 

[Coburn In 2012]

People got so sick of Bill Clinton that they re-elected him in 96 by even wider margins.

Clinton's win in 1996 did nothing for the Democrats.  In fact it may have even hurt them.  He governed pretty much as a Republican in his second term and kept Democrats from retaking the House in 1998.  Remember, if Democrats have a bad 2010, they will likely be shut out of the House until 2022 because Republicans will control gerrymandering. 

He didn't govern as a Republican.  He didn't govern at all.  Congress governed and mostly we were better for it.  We kept him in check which is what I wish we could do with Obama.

[Dan the Roman]

People got so sick of Bill Clinton that they re-elected him in 96 by even wider margins.

Clinton's win in 1996 did nothing for the Democrats.  In fact it may have even hurt them.  He governed pretty much as a Republican in his second term and kept Democrats from retaking the House in 1998.  Remember, if Democrats have a bad 2010, they will likely be shut out of the House until 2022 because Republicans will control gerrymandering. 

Gerrymandering will be more pro-Democratic since any time since 1980 simply because they control the DOJ which has to approve the maps of most of the states the Republicans could conceivably screw them in(ie. every southern state, plus they can veto maps in OH, MI, PA, and FL that screw with minorities). Since 1990 the DOJ has been incredibly aggressive and arguably had more to do with the Republican House gains in 1994 than any GOP legislator.

At the same time, the Democrats have a good shot at controlling California completely and wiping out as many as six GOP seats.

I think a good year is not necessary for the Democrats, but a bad year would doom the GOP at least until 2022.

[Mr.Phips]

People got so sick of Bill Clinton that they re-elected him in 96 by even wider margins.

Clinton's win in 1996 did nothing for the Democrats.  In fact it may have even hurt them.  He governed pretty much as a Republican in his second term and kept Democrats from retaking the House in 1998.  Remember, if Democrats have a bad 2010, they will likely be shut out of the House until 2022 because Republicans will control gerrymandering. 

He didn't govern as a Republican.  He didn't govern at all.  Congress governed and mostly we were better for it.  We kept him in check which is what I wish we could do with Obama.

That was my point.  The Republican Congress pretty much had Clinton on a leash and having him in the White House was not that much different than having a Republican there. 

[Beet]

Uh, not every bank is insolvent and not every bank will be insolvent, regardless of how bad this gets.

Still, your end result is entirely possible because the key point is that most of the "big banks" - BAC, C, WFC, JPM, etc. are all completely underwater

Here's the key point:  Trying to prop these banks up with government lending or buyout of their assets or nationalizing them without cramdown of their bad assets (one in the same solution actually) with not only crash our markets but will also endanger the stability of the US government and its funding mechanisms as a whole.

There are no solutions I can think of where the market doesn't crash again at some point in the near future, but we must make sure to choose a solution that does not screw up the stability of the US government or its ability to maintain funding.

I can't repeat this enough.  And Obama needs to stop dicking around on this matter.

There is no way to absolutely ensure that the US government 'maintains' its ability to get funding. Check that, there is a way... start acting like an empire: invade other countries and seize their property, then use that property as collateral for debt. But besides that, there is no guarantee that anyone will continue to lend to the US government.

Even if the government were to, tomorrow, stop issuing new debt and try to balance the budget, or use a portion of its revenues to pay off the principal on existing debt, its ability to borrow could still come under attack later if debt-deflation continues for a long enough period of time to the point where its revenue base shrinks, and then some other country (Spain, Ireland, the U.K.) defaults.

There are risks on all sides right now. There are risks to not spending enough just as there are to spending too much. I have not yet seen a convincing case that X dramatic event will definitively occur.

[tokar]

I'm staying on the sidelines in making predictions right now because what is presently happening to the American/world economy and what will likely happen to the American/world economy before the 2010 elections means to me that only the *most popular* DEM/GOP incumbents in the *most* red states/blue states can be termed "safe" for all intents and purposes.

I mean this with all the seriousness that it sounds of.

Your point is dully noted...this is the stance that most people are taking.  This is also the stance that most independent projection agencies (Cook Political, Rothenberg, etc.) are taking judging by their race ratings - the only true toss-ups are those which are guaranteed to be open or an appointee in a battleground state (FL open, OH open, MO open, NH appointee).  Other toss-ups are those with questionable situations - IL Burris (who knows how he will perform), KY Bunning (yeah.......).

Another thing is that besides the fact that the economy can dictate how the races go, there is a lot of weight on the candidates chosen.
*Kansas is mostly rated "Likely Republican", but if Kathleen Sibelius jumps in then the race jumps to toss-up.
*While unlikely, if Rendell were to jump into the race the rating would go from lean Rep to lean Dem
*blah blah blah, etc. etc. etc....you get the point.

However, it is always fun to project.

(in order of how good I feel about the projection)
NH +1 dem.  I can't see how they fail to pick up this seat with a strong DEM bench.
PA +2 dem.  I'm from PA (as you can see).  Besides the fact that the dems have a 1.1 million (and growing) advantage in registration, people are tired of Specter.  Even though 2006 was a major wave election, if we were able to vote out a strong staunch republican name like Rick Santorum, then we should have no problem voting out a bush-rubber-stamp like Arlen Specter.  The fact that Rendell would put this seat as a strong-DEM pickup should be good indication that with the right man this seat is pretty certain to be a DEM pickup.
KY +3 dem.  I am basing this one on my assumption that Bunning stays in.  If he drops then this one is out of reach for the dems.
MO +4 dem.  Carnahan is strong with the force.
OH +5 dem.  Just like in 2006, with the right Democratic candidate this one could be put out of reach in a hurry.


I am going to say +6 DEM.  These 5 plus either FL/KS/LA/NC go DEM.  I am leaning towards LA because of the DC Madam stuff with Vitter, depends on how the DNC decides to exploit it.


On the cusp:
FL - it is a republican leaning state, but a good DEM candidate can make this open seat competitive (yes, Obama won it this past election cycle, but the right GOP candidate can put this one away.  Fortunately for us dems, Jeb Bush isn't running).
KS - Sibelius would put this one in play.
NC - I am currently in North Carolina (for school) and this state is surprisingly more democratic than I expected before I came down here.  You have four five areas of NC: the research triangle of Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill is heavy democratic.  Outer banks which center around Greenville (where I am), this area is rather democratic.  The western Appalachian is heavy republican.  The south-central Charlotte area is heavy democratic.  And the southeast coastal area is pretty republican.  With the right candidate this can be a second straight Democratic candidate.  Unfortunately I have not heard anything on the news down here about the 2010 election - something needs to break for this to become competitive.  All it takes is one good candidate and a good ad showing two old guys on rocking chairs talking about "What happened to the Liddy Dole I knew" and the republican candidate is cooked.  I'm not sure if Burr is ineffective or if North Carolinians have as negative view of him as they did of Dole.  We shall see what happens here.
LA - "DC Madam" is all I have to say.  If exploited the proper way, who knows, we might have 2 DEM senators from LA.


I don't see any Democratic seats in serious danger, but there are ones on the cusp (however, unlikely to become competitive based on the news).  AR would be on the cusp if Huckabee was running, but he is not.  CA could be, but Governator is polling 9pts behind Boxer.  DE could be competitive with Mike Castle, but it won't since he prob wont run.
HI - if Inoyue retires, it is in play.
NV - if the economy tanks, Reid could be in trouble, which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world (since I can't stand Reid)


NY-B (Gillibrand) is not in danger of switching hands, only Gillibrand herself is in danger based on how she votes.  If she doesnt suit the people of NY she could be ousted pretty fast in the primary.

[Lunar]

You underestimate Specter.  Last time he got the Unions out there campaigning for him too, it shouldn't surprise anyone that he's voting with Obama on key issues.  He's a good politician at positioning himself.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

People almost never get "tired" of veteran Senators.

[Dan the Roman]

People almost never get "tired" of veteran Senators.

Though they can feel that those Senators are tired of the job and respond accordingly. Ie. Roth in 2000, Thurmond almost in 1996, Bunning in 2004. Of course Specter is in stronger shape than either in the general. His threat will be a primary.

As someone who usually argues that Democrats are underestimated, I have a hunch right now that Democratic odds in both Florida and Ohio are greatly overestimated on this board, and that Kentucky(where the economy will count) and Missouri(where I suspect Steelman will be the GOP nominee) both may trend badly for them over the next two years. Also Feingold is worth watching, his support is far less deep than is often assumed. Ditto for Lincoln.