For House Democrats 2012 will be at least as bad as 2010, but chances are it will be worse

coachisright.com ^ | July 28, 2012 | Kevin "Coach" Collins

[jmaroneps37]

“If this were just our candidates versus their candidates, I would sign an affidavit that we would pick up 35 seats” so says Congressman Steve Israel the Democrat in charge of getting the House back.

This false bravado sums up a big part of the Democrats’ problem: not being able to acknowledge there is a problem.

A hand wringing New York Times analysis lays out the grim situation for its Party, “The overall dynamic favors Republicans, who look poised to maintain their hold on the House. More Democrats than Republicans have retired in districts where they were endangered, and more Republicans benefited from the decennial redistricting, leaving the Democrats with too small a cushion of Teflon incumbents as they try to regain a majority in the House. Of the 80 races viewed as most competitive by The New York Times, based on polls and interviews with independent analysts, 32 are leaning Republican, 23 are leaning Democratic and 25 are tossups.”

The reality is that these numbers indicate the GOP is poised to win over 50 of these race and maybe more. Because of the cumulative effect of both elections this would be worse than 2010 for the Democrats who could see their numbers fall to the fewest since 1931.

Why this will happen

With less than four months to go compared to 2008 conservative Republican enthusiasm is 16 points higher and liberal Democrat enthusiasm is 22 points lower. Democrats from local candidates to Barack Obama have no coherent plausible message.

Together they have made America sick so what can they say?

They can’t even keep their “We hate” list straight.

They’ve tried to get their base to hate Bain Capital, but couldn’t make their charges stick because they are lies.. hate the TEA party…..

[jmaroneps37]

If the pollsters used a real model for turnout Obama would be down 55/44 and that would insure a blow out at both the House and Senate level as well. This is going to be ugly for the Democrats.

[fortheDeclaration]

Agreed.

As soon as the Democrats gained control of the Government they rammed through their dream of Socialist health care.

They can never be trusted with power again.

[Paladin2]

"As soon as the Democrats gained control of the Government they rammed through their dream of Socialist health care. "

And their butt-buddy Roberts made it stick, even in the face of popular opposition.

[mrreaganaut]

The important question is whether it will be ugly for America: do the Republicans deserve to win, and can Romney even defeat Obama?

I have seen this turkey fly before: Ford, Bush, Dole, McCain; the ‘electable’ candidates. Romney’s record shows no policy disagreements with Obama, though the media claims that he is a ‘conservative’ as he runs for President. The Republican House and Senate candidates seem even less inclined to admit (or even to share) Tea Party positions than they did in 2010.

This seems a lot like Nixon/Humphrey, Ford/Carter or Dole/Clinton. No matter which candidate wins, big government rolls on.

[justa-hairyape]

No matter which candidate wins, big government rolls on.

The candidate that wins, will be the one that big government needs the most. That will be Romney. We have two big military actions on the horizon. Policing Syria (yes it's Iraq) and destroying Iranian Nuclear Facilities (yes it's Syria plus Iraq). Obama is too weak and has only minority military backing. Romney is strong with majority military backing. Obama just delivered the debt load, big government wanted. Although big government probably was hoping for at least some productive returns from that debt load. Unless of course they were just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Obama beat McCain because they wanted to balloon the debt (McCain suspended his campaign) before the World War. Actually, ballooning the debt after the war is not very productive.