Posted on 12/30/2009 9:09:10 AM PST by truthandlife
The trend is not the Democrats’ friend. At least not in 2010. The party of the sitting president almost always suffers losses in midterm congressional elections. To that time-tested dynamic now add voter angst about high unemployment, big deficits and controversial legislation. Expect Senate majority leader Harry Reid to lose his effective 60-seat supermajority and Nancy Pelosi to hand the House back to the Republicans. Here’s why 2010 is looking like 1994 all over again:
1. Virginia and New Jersey. Big GOP wins in the gubernatorial races not only highlighted discontent with incumbents by recession-weary voters, they also greatly helped Republicans with candidate recruiting for 2010.
2. History. More big political change isn’t predicated on America rekindling its love for the Grand Old Party. A recent poll had the Republicans finishing a distant third in popularity behind a fictional Tea Party and the actual Democratic Party. Yet American politics has a regular ebb and flow. In 13 of the past 15 midterm elections going back to 1950, the party in control of the White House has lost an average of 22 seats in the House. In 10 of the past 15 midterms the party running the Senate has lost an average of three seats.
3. Mean Reversion. Democrats have a wide field to defend after huge victories in 2006 and 2008. Particularly in the House, there are lots of Democrats in places with a proven willingness to vote Republican. Currently 47 of them are in districts won by both John McCain in 2008 and George W. Bush in 2004. And voters in those districts may be especially unhappy with a Democratic legislative agenda that causes many Americans mixed feelings.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.reuters.com ...
“fictional Tea Party”
If we add the results of the fictional Tea Party to that of the republican party we end up with a LANDSLIDE victory in 2010.
They so want the fictional Tea Party to be a third party and defeat the GOP.
Makes me a little nervous. If the GOP, who are a bunch of lib-enabling cowards (mostly) win too big in 2010, then I fear the voters will be more inclined to return King Jerkus to the WH in an act of “balance”. Kind of a 1994-96 thing. Am I wrong?
Where’s The Contract with America part II?
I don’t know - Dems have a HUGE pile of money in their corner in the form of the Porkulus. Most of that money gets spent in Sept/Oct of next year.
ACORN and Unions will be out in force.
And last but not least, don’t count the vote until the liberal activist judges do.
It doesn’t matter anyway: The Republican leadership is a bunch of RINOs interested in “reaching across the aisle” to help the Dems.
Makes me a little nervous. If the GOP, who are a bunch of lib-enabling cowards (mostly) win too big in 2010, then I fear the voters will be more inclined to return King Jerkus to the WH in an act of “balance”. Kind of a 1994-96 thing. Am I wrong?
NO YOU ARE NOT WRONG...THAT IS MY GREATEST FEAR... AND /OR we get another BUSH that won’t lift a finger to fight for conservatives.
Reuters just cottoned on?
e Freepers have been saying that the Democrats will lose the House in 2010 for months!
I think you misunderstood. There is a Tea Party movement but no actual political party called "Tea Party" with any candidates running for any office.
And that is supposed to give me oomfort? Not with this bunch of republicrats ...
Ummm..where was your ACORN in the very closely fought, “toss-up” right to the line, where 0bozo REPEATEDLY campaigned for Corzine in the New Jersey Governorship elections last month?
ACORN and the Unions are now the Achilles’ Heel of the Dems. I personally hope to see purple shirts and ACORN drones everywhere next year.
I’m in a very blue part of Ohio. Many of the more moderate Democrats I know understand and fully support gridlock in Washington.
We all agree that the best case senario for us, the common taxpayer is to have one party in the White House, and the other party control at least one house, and preferably both houses of Congress.
The less the government can “accomlish”, the better off we are.
You’re *assuming* there will be an election in 2010. The way things are going, I’m not so sure...
Absolutely agree! Legislatures generally make mischief. I prefer them gridlocked.
So what if your right, I'd rather have Obama with a Congress he can't control and that will investigate and even obstruct than an Obama with the Congress we have now or even with a small but controlling majority.
Grid lock looks pretty good to me right now.
I don't care whether you get comfort or not.
What I care about is that right now, most voters in this country want the criminal Pelosi, Reid, Charlie Rangel and the rest of the motely gang of Democratic Party gangsters out of power.
The thought of driving the loony left, totally insane Queen Pelosi out of office gives ME plenty of comfort.
Yes, I agree. This is a diabolically clever strategy designed to take vote-buying to a whole new level.
If the Dems lose the House in 2010, it will likely be to a pack of RINOs (or spineless Republicans - same thing), so what exactly is going to change? We’ll be driven off the cliff at a more stately pace, rather than the lemming-like, headlong rush that the dems have been driving?
His most revealing moment was when he took a completely Democrat scandal, the Jefferson case out of Louisiana, and jumped in defending Jefferson, turning it into a bipartisan mess. What I fear is that the Republicans are sitting and waiting to put back in the same kind of pasty, pork-laden insiders as Hastert. They've been doing their best to stick "moderates" in when it's clear the party base is tired of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.