• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2010 Midterm Election Preditions

What will be the result of the 2010 midterm elections in the US?

  • Republicans will sweep to victory in both houses of Congress

    Votes: 2 4.8%

  • Republicans will make significant gains but only win back one house of Congress

    Votes: 7 16.7%

  • Republicans will make modest gains but Democrats will retain majorities in both house of Congress

    Votes: 16 38.1%

  • The number of seats controlled by each party will remain about the same

    Votes: 11 26.2%

  • Democrats will control even more seats than now

    Votes: 4 9.5%

  • I thought we were an autonomous collective

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • Total voters
    42
Just came across this post at Firedoglake, one of the largest lefty blogs.

Stupak Amendment Passes; 64 Dems Ask for Primary Opponents
Click to expand...

The Stupak Amendment stripped abortion coverage from the Health Care bill; as you can see, about 1/4 of all House Democrats supported it. But as far as the Firedogs are concerned, those Democrats need defeating in the primaries. My goodness, they're just like a bunch of Tea Partiers!

And look at the sidebar; calls to stop Eshoo (Democrat from California) and a fundraising effort to support any candidate who runs against Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark):

Please donate to our efforts on the ground in Arkansas to defeat ConservaDems -– help us reach $30,000.
Click to expand...

There were also 37 nays among Democrats in the House on the Health Care Bill; how much you want to be that Kos and Hamsher will be supporting candidates who run against them?
 
Brainster said:
Just came across this post at Firedoglake, one of the largest lefty blogs.



The Stupak Amendment stripped abortion coverage from the Health Care bill; as you can see, about 1/4 of all House Democrats supported it. But as far as the Firedogs are concerned, those Democrats need defeating in the primaries. My goodness, they're just like a bunch of Tea Partiers!

And look at the sidebar; calls to stop Eshoo (Democrat from California) and a fundraising effort to support any candidate who runs against Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark):

There were also 37 nays among Democrats in the House on the Health Care Bill; how much you want to be that Kos and Hamsher will be supporting candidates who run against them?
Click to expand...


You do recognize the difference between bloggers making such statements and National Party officials and representatives making such statements, don't you?
 
Depends on the unemployment rate at election day.

>12%: GOP may take over majority in one or both houses.
10-12%: GOP have major gains, senate supermajority gone, but no majority.
8-10%: Moderate GOP gains, senate supermajority in danger.
6-8%: No major difference.
<6%: Democrats win additional seats.
 
Republicans will make gains, but I can't say if they will take one of the houses or not. Somewhere between 2 and 3, I think (I picked number 2).

McHrozni
 
skeptigirl said:
I'm curious who votes for people like Michelle Bachman. She's an absolute nut job.
Click to expand...

According to CQ Politics, Bachmann's district contains suburbs for Minneapolis and St. Paul.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-MN-06

In the U.S., suburbs are often Republican and white, at least currently. It would be worthwhile to find out how the 6th District was drawn up. Did Republicans control the legislature during redistricting?

Congressional District 6, Minnesota
Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights
http://fastfacts.census.gov/servlet...t=fph&pgsl=500&_content=&_keyword=&_industry=

Minnesota Congressional Districts by Land Area, Rural Population, and Urban Population
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cd109th/MN/ur_c9_27.pdf


Campaign Contribution data is available here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?id=MN06&cycle=2008

In 2008, Bachmann received some campaign contributions from a figure involved in a scandal. So, she gave the funds away to an evangelical Christian group that fights drug and alcohol addiction in teenagers. Unfortunately, they also fight against Halloween and Pokemon. :rolleyes:

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2008/10/bachmann_donate.php

Meanwhile, Bachmann has been receiving a lot of money from outside her district, apparently from contributors in states (and D.C.) which went to Obama in 2008.
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2009/10/bachmann_drawing_significantly.php
 
GreyArea said:
Meanwhile, Bachmann has been receiving a lot of money from outside her district, apparently from contributors in states (and D.C.) which went to Obama in 2008.
Click to expand...

Okay, when you draw from the whole country, I guess it is easy to find enough crazies to fund the crazy candidates.

The question is how, in such a small population, you find enough crazies to vote for the crazy. How large a segment of the population of her state have to be crazy to elect such a whacked out drooler?
 
I just read on the Ed Schultz board that there is now an official Tea Party certified in Florida, and that they intend to support and fund candidates around the country in 2010.

This is good for America and the Democratic Party.

I see the Senate going as much as 65% D.
 
(Shrug)

Currently Democrats control both houses. This means that by definition their influence after the 2010 elections can (a) stay the same, or (b) diminish.

It is likely they'll lose influence since mid-term elections for congress are often partially a "protest vote" against the sitting president's party or policies. We saw this, in any case, with both Bush and Clinton. Go back in history practically as long as you'll like and you'll see the same.

Prepare for pundits screaming over what this blindingly obvious prediction, if it comes to pass (which I am willing to bet), really means.

Expect to hear "the death of liberalism" or "the end of the Obama era" a lot.
 
Or newscasters referring to the American people having had a huge temper tantrum.
 
I heard Hannity on the radio yesterday crowing about the huge conservative landslide pending for 2010.

It seemed so utterly mindless. In 1993, Clinton tried to pass health care, and there was a huge Republcan win in 1994. Hannity's sure it will happen again. He seems to have not noticed that maybe some things are a little different in 2010 than they were 16 years ago.

Large majorities such as exist now for the Democrats tend not to last very long, so it seems likely that the GOP will pick up some seats, but I don't sense a groundswell of momentum for conservative ideas that might lead to a Republican landslide.
 
I still think that the formation of a new party, calling themselves the Tea Party, will damage the GOP badly. Their apparent plan is to challenge the sane Republicans wherever they may appear. Rep Cao is one of their prime targets already.

They are sure to draw mostly crazies and fundies.

As though the GOP needed to lose more of its power base.:D
 
Skeptic said:
(Shrug)

Currently Democrats control both houses. This means that by definition their influence after the 2010 elections can (a) stay the same, or (b) diminish.

It is likely they'll lose influence since mid-term elections for congress are often partially a "protest vote" against the sitting president's party or policies. We saw this, in any case, with both Bush and Clinton. Go back in history practically as long as you'll like and you'll see the same.
Click to expand...

It was something of that in 2006 and 1994, but the Democrats didn't do badly in 1998 and the Republicans didn't underperform in 2002, either. Part of the reason the party in the White House tends to lose seats in the mid-year election simply has to do with the absence of the president on the ticket. In a presidential election year, the party winning the White House tends to pick up seats in marginal districts, because the party winning the White House tends to be upbeat and vote, while the party that loses tends to think, "What's the use of voting?" with a consequent loss of seats down ticket. In 1996, despite Clinton's reelection, the Democrats only picked up 8 seats in the House; hence in 1998 they actually managed to gain a few seats in the House rather than lose them.

In 2000, Bush did not win by a large margin (in fact, he lost the popular vote), and the GOP actually lost 2 seats in the House that year. Hence they did not have a lot of seats that were vulnerable in 2002, and in fact they picked up 8 seats. In 2004, when Bush defeated Kerry, the GOP picked up a few seats, and thus, barring other circumstances, should not have been terribly vulnerable in 2006. But of course other circumstances did apply, and the GOP got crushed, losing 31 seats to the Democrats. In 2008, the Democrats picked up an additional 21 seats.

So it is my feeling that the Democrats are bound to lose seats both for the "lack of presidential coattails in an off-year reason" and for the "other circumstances reason".
 
Brainster said:
It was something of that in 2006 and 1994, but the Democrats didn't do badly in 1998 and the Republicans didn't underperform in 2002, either. Part of the reason the party in the White House tends to lose seats in the mid-year election simply has to do with the absence of the president on the ticket. In a presidential election year, the party winning the White House tends to pick up seats in marginal districts, because the party winning the White House tends to be upbeat and vote, while the party that loses tends to think, "What's the use of voting?" with a consequent loss of seats down ticket. In 1996, despite Clinton's reelection, the Democrats only picked up 8 seats in the House; hence in 1998 they actually managed to gain a few seats in the House rather than lose them.

In 2000, Bush did not win by a large margin (in fact, he lost the popular vote), and the GOP actually lost 2 seats in the House that year. Hence they did not have a lot of seats that were vulnerable in 2002, and in fact they picked up 8 seats. In 2004, when Bush defeated Kerry, the GOP picked up a few seats, and thus, barring other circumstances, should not have been terribly vulnerable in 2006. But of course other circumstances did apply, and the GOP got crushed, losing 31 seats to the Democrats. In 2008, the Democrats picked up an additional 21 seats.

So it is my feeling that the Democrats are bound to lose seats both for the "lack of presidential coattails in an off-year reason" and for the "other circumstances reason".
Click to expand...

Further complicating this picture is that there are not equal numbers of Dems and Reps up for re-election each year. Change of the status quo is always a popular voter sentiment, and when there are more Dems up for re-election, it makes sense that they are going to face tougher battles hanging onto their seats. In a way, term limits might help this issue some, as voter party preferences then wouldn't always come into conflict with the "throw the bums out" urges.
 
Brainster said:
So it is my feeling that the Democrats are bound to lose seats both for the "lack of presidential coattails in an off-year reason" and for the "other circumstances reason".
Click to expand...

Actually, there is a way to deal with that problem.

1.) Fund a really acceptable but weak Republican candiddate with too much sense to appeal to the hard core of the GOP to knock out the rightwing lunatic Republican, and fund the lunatic alternative right wing nut to siphon off the crazy contingent. This is really going to dilute the core constituency of the GOP.

2.) Duck-tape the Republican candidate to the Rushblob and Michael Steele.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom