In the 2009 election at U4prez a Republican won for the first time ever, and a fiscally conservative Independent won the independent primary. Not only that, the Independent took votes from both primary parties. U4prez has always leaned a little left, with previous elections going to moderate Democrats, or left leaning independents. Does this bode well for the GOP in 2010?
Those looking ahead to the 2010 elections continue to focus on the elections of 1994. The better comparison is 1938. When we look more closely at the elections of 1994 and 1938 we come to the conclusion that not only is a GOP takeover in the house likely, it is almost a foregone conclusion.
The politically oriented television shows, talk radio and the web are filled with chatter about 1994 and the Republican takeover of Congress. While there are some parallels we cannot look to 2010 without also taking a hard look at 1938. In 1994 President Bill Clinton’s approval rating was actually rising from a low of 40 in late August to 48 in late October just before the elections. This would seem to indicate that voters were pinning the blame on Congress, and not the President. In 1938 Franklin Roosevelt lost a whopping 71 house seats despite a late October approval rating of 60% which further makes the case that a Congress doesn’t need an unpopular president to cause a big loss of seats. Another interesting parallel is that the races in ‘38were largely ideologically driven, and not necessarily party driven. Roosevelt campaigned for liberal Democrats who supported the New Deal in primaries against incumbent conservative Democrats. In the end just a single conservative Democrat lost his seat.
We see some pundits today arguing that President Obama’s high approval dictates that his party may not lose control of the house. As we have shown, a high approval rating will not help.
Let’s first examine 1994 and the primary reasons for the shift in voter sentiment.
Health Care debacle
The Hillary Care legislation was perceived as a takeover, poorly constructed and done in secret. Also led the populace to believe Democrats were incompetent.
Corruption
The bounced checks scandal affected both parties, but was largely tied to the Democratic Party’s leadership, and resulted in the loss of the seat held by the Speaker of the House Tom Foley.
Contract with America
New Gingrich’s contract with America was a tangible document that voters could point to as a guide for getting the government under control
These three factors combined resulted in the loss of the house despite a recovering economy. The experts were predicted big gains for Republicans, but very few saw the tidal wave of voter anger and even fewer predicted the GOP would win the House.
The results for the Democrats were 52 seats lost in the house, and 8 seats in the Senate.
15 Democrats who had been elected in 1992, lost in
1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_State
s_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1994
In 2006 31 new Democrats were elected to congress. 24 more seats were captured by the Democrats in 2008. All 55 of these seats are at some level vulnerable. The story of 1938 tells us that if the economy doesn’t improve, many more will be vulnerable.
Now let’s take a look at the 1938 races.
In 1936 Democrats picked up seats in the House, and FDR was reelected. In 2008 Democrats picked up seats in the house and Democrat Barack Obama was elected
In 1938 the primary reason for the Republican gains was the economy. The “Roosevelt Recession” had pushed unemployment back up to nearly 20%. Another issue in 1938 was that Union violence and strikes were spreading, and many of these Unions were tied to the Democrats in the minds of the voters. Today we see a similar (albeit much less violent) connection between the Democrats and SEIU, and Acorn. After four years with control of Congress, and two years of a Democrat in the White House, so far things have clearly gotten worse economically.
The 1938 races were decided along ideological lines, more than party lines. Although the Republicans picked up 71 seats, the number was buttressed by the number of fiscally conservative Democrats who held on to seats, or beat Democrats who were New Deal supporters. The shift thus was widespread and put an immediate end to Roosevelt’s big government programs.
The economy was much better in 1994.
Some misconceptions about the past.
1978 should be used as a better guide than 1994.
1978 was actually a pretty good year for Democrats in Congress. They lost just three seats in the house, and 3 in the Senate. Jimmy Carter’s mid term however was completely different than what we expect in 2010. The unemployment rate had fallen over the last sixteen months and there were still lingering effects of Watergate.
All Politics is local.
When things are going well, this is true. But history shows us when the economy is bad, all politics are not local. Nor are all politics national. The lesson of history is that when unemployment is high, all politics, and all elections are decided on very personal issues.
If we look at the losses in 1994, we can see that already, 55 seats should be considered high risk.
Looking at some specific House races
Florida
The Democrats have a big problem in Florida where there are currently 10 Democrats up for reelection in 2010. Suzanne Kosmas soundly defeated Republican Tom Feeney in the 2008 election, but even she didn’t feel comfortable voting for the Health Care legislation. She did how every vote for cap and trade, so her seat is clearly in jeopardy. Perusing the blogs we find that many on the left will abandon her because she didn’t vote for the Health Care bill, but many independents are going to paint Democrats with a broad brush, and piling Cap and Trade on Top should all but insure a pick up here for the Republicans. The 24th district in Florida is an easy pickup for the GOP, as is the 8th district where Alan Grayson hails from. But this is just the beginning. In the 22nd district Ron Klein supported the health care bill. Even before he cast that vote his approval rating was slightly below 50%. In the 2nd district Allan Boyd has become a fixture, and is considered safe, but when we look a little closer we see that if the GOP offers a formidable challenge, Boyd could be shown the door. Boyd won big in 2008 but he won in a district that was carried by McCain.
Wexler seat goes GOP
Democrats lose 4 seats, possibly 5
Senate
Republicans are hoping to pick up two or three seats in the Senate in 2010. They should be much more confident. If the races are targeted for the state, they will do quite well, and could even get control of the senate. That is a long shot, but as you will see, not as long as it was six months ago. The Senate races are even more like 1938 than the house races. There are 18 Democratic seats up for election in 2010.
- Blance Lincoln Loss for Democrats
, can’t get over 50% in the polls, moderate so won’t get an influx of out of state money. State Senator Bob Johnson is considering a primary challenge. Which of course will further deplete funds. The latest polls show that she trails every Republican challenger, and won in 2004 with only 54% of the vote.
Pickup for GOP
-Patty Murray Loss for Democrats (but it should be close if economy stabilizes)
The State of Washington, which is considered solidly Blue. But in 1994 the state turned out Democratic party congressmen, including the speaker of the house Tom Foley. Washington State has an independent streak that does not bode well for Senator Murray. And the independents are leaving the Murray tent in droves. According to SurveyUSA Senator Murray had an approval rating of 56% in June which had eroded substantially to just 47% by August. According to Seattle Weekly the numbers among independent voters show a massive shift away from Murray. When we pull all of this together, and consider that this seat was considered completely safe just a few months ago, it becomes clear that Murray has a tough road ahead of her, and this will probably go GOP.
-Chris Dodd loss is at this point a foregone conclusion
Dodd is closely tied to the banking collapse and doesn’t lead any of his potential opponents in polls.
-Harry Reid a huge loss for Democrats
Reid is the Senate Majority leader and the state of Nevada has suffered from the housing collapse. Nevada has become accustomed to an always growing economy and some of the lowest unemployment numbers in the nation. As of September the unemployment rate is a whopping 13.5%. This is nearly Deperession era unemployment, and when the real numbers of people who have given up is factored in, it’s even worse.
-Arlen Specter loses
Specter flipped to the Democrats, but there is a real chance he may not even when the Pennsylvania primary. Pat Toomey has been in the race longer than anyone else, he is building name recognition across the state, and will win comfortably.
-Kirsten Gillibrand loss in New York
This is for Hillary Clinton’s old seat, and if Rudy runs, game over Gillibrand.
-Illinois open seat goes Red
This was a contrary pick just two or three months ago, as most believe Illinois will stay Blue. Lately polls have shown GOP contender Ron Kirk as much as seven points ahead of potential Democratic challenger Alexi Giannoulias.
-Michael Bennet loses in Colorado
Already trailing Jane Norton, Bennet will lose. Colorado continues to do better than than average when it comes to unemployment, but the trend they have followed since September of 2008 is the same. In other words, they started off in a better position. The voters in Colorado are not immune to the fear spreading across the rest of the nation, if the economy gets any worse, Bennet is out for sure. If things get a little better, he could retain the seat, but it looks to be a long shot at this point.
Why 2010 could actually be worse than 1994 for Democrats
The old bromide that all politics is local doesn't hold up in a bad economy. We see this pattern historically repeated, and 1938 was no exception. All politics and all elections are personal.
The key to 2010 is the independent voter
This is the current thinking and if it holds up, it is bad news for Democrats. But if we see a repeat of 1938, there is much worse news. The key will be the independent voter, and two specific types of Democratic Party voters. These are not the Reagan Democrats, rather they are people who have lost their jobs, and have no immediate hope of finding another job, or those Democrats who fear losing their jobs. When an election becomes personal all bets are off and no incumbent is safe.
|
|
| |
|
|
My 2010 predictions are coming true.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/03/
familiar-names-aid-gop-senate-prospects/?feat=home
_headlines
u can keep on waiting BD
lucky started it as a joke a couple weeks ago
Is U4boss your site or luckys?
I know wiz, but all i want is him to fix the run offs and advertise so that the site doesn't get stuck in the same routine it has been on for so long. seriously, how many more blogs from kemp or erock can you stand? seriously, how the hell is this site going to progress any further than what it is now unless you get new people here to start to discuss issues or at the very least put forth thier own idea's.
i am waiting to hear the president drunk on blog talk radio, that should be fun.
Fuckin A Big Doody. I wasn't making fun of you. Besides it was your boy Faustus that published the U4prez constitution not me.
we did and we need not demonstrate anything to anonymous/ musicman
What particle of proof do you have that Gurr cheated? Hmmm? post it!!!
Pretty quick here you will have no site to bitch on anymore.
whats the matter wiz? you were hot to trot on eric gurr to have a constitution when a gay guy pretending to be a woman was sending you her panties to fight against eric gurr, i just want him to advertise and get you a few women on here to creep out with your obnoxious rants.
The predictions here and the reasoning articulated for them are, in my opinion quite rational. I am not quite as confident with some of them as Eric sounds, but I do agree woth them. My lack of confidence is simply because I do not see the GOP getting its act together and being fully able to take advantage of the opportunities being handed to us by circumstrances and sentiments. Hopefully, state Republican organizations can do what I see the national party not doing. But with the momentum on the side of the right, as indicated here, add NJ 3 as a pick up for the GOP and possibly at least 1 other seat. Also, As Eric pointed out in his comparrison to the '38 election, If President Obama can turn his polls around (I think for a number a reason they will get worse) he will still not be able to Democrats. President Obama attached himself at the hip to Jon Corzine in a state that Obama won by 15% and is still popular in. Today Jon Corzine is the Governor-reject who will be out of a job in a few weeks. Obama could not help. In Virginia, the results were so bad for the Democrats that one could say, President Obama may have even helped to hurt Creigh Deeds, because he ceratinly did not help him. Right now, Democrats are losing big in 2010 and the most they can hope for is the ability to stop the hemmorrhaging. Good piece Gurr.
LC.....You really write the stupidest things lately. Are you sure you're not using your flu shot money on more pot, beacuse some of your comments seem to have been made while your high?
Why was the comment I posted deleted?
I love how Gurr pretends how any of the elections were legitimate. First president: Lucky cheated. Second president: Lots of cheating. LC had the better cheaters. Third election: Gurr cheated for the Republicans.
Hey Gurr. When are you gonna kick Big Daddy out. You are like Darth Vader man. Sword fighting with the guy that blew up the Death Star. Cut off his hand and then say, son join me. You kicked me out twice. Once for protesting your banning of the Mohammaed cartoon. And the second time for telling a gay guy to have sex with a bananna. Where is the Justice in the U4prez universe. As Porkins said, before he died. AHAHAHAHAHAHAA FUck it.
More importaqntly what does the U4prez election say about u4prez? nothing but chicanery and fake profiles. also, the user activity is so low that after three years it is pitiful. ADVERTISE AND GET USERS HERE GURR.
LC whos fault is that? Maybe look yourself in the mirror.
The next time i hear some one use the "defining momnet" phrase I am going to puke. Every couple of months the phrase gets thrown around. If no one understand the cyclical nature of politics then I dont know what to tell you. YOu knoe what would be a defining moment? Actually being able to find a real one.
I think this is a defining moment for the Democrats. They need to grow a pair. If they fail at passing health care, like they are balking on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," they need to lose the "progressive" labels. Seriously. I am getting tired of Democrats giving "progressives" a bad name. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, Robert La Follette, and Charles Evan Hughes, had backbones! They went out and fought for reforms until they got 'em. Right now, these guys can't hold up a finger to them......Just my 2c.
This site has been for many mohths u4ImMoreTRUERepublicanThanU. Most of thge true moderates, true independents, and Dems haven't been active in quite a while. It would be nice to see THAT change.
Erock happens to be correct. The GOP can't block anything. That argument is tired and factually incorrect.
FNG how are we?? We can not block it in the House and we can not block it in the Senate without Dem support so get a clue dummy.
I have offered plan after plan that would work and reduce cost, end government run healthcare. U are the clueless one here not me u keep defending a failed system some day u will wake up and realize that then again maybe u will wont your very clueless most of the time.
OK. Are you fucking serious? The GOP is NOT blocking reform! jhahahahahahahahahaha. You are something else erock, I swear you are something else.
Erock, you can't even recognize the problem - skyrocketing health care costs, and even if you do, you don't have any answers. Tell me how you can assure all Americans can see a doctor when they are ill or injured regardless of financial situation and how America will be able to afford to take care of all the sick, infirmed, poor and elderly people when the costs are going straight up and the numbers of people on these rolls are going up - up - up!. You haven't a fucking clue. The ONLY way to do it is a National Health Insurance payed for by everyone and covering everyone. That's just the way it is. It would be real nice if capitalist America had an answer but there just isn't. You will realize it some day.
Yes it is Unconstitutional and so far u have not proven otherwise. And sorry but the GOP is not blocking reform its up the Dems to either pass or not pass it.
Erock I can assure you, a National Health Insurance would not be "unconstitutional." What a stupid argument against universal health coverage - it's "unconstitutional." How? Why would you say such horseshit. That;'s what I mean, Reopublicans are throwing around unsubstantied crap all teh time regarding health care. The insurance industry is really effective in controlling the Republican party. Really effective.
U just don't get it you are in favor of a nanny state that is anti-American and anti-Freedom. If people wanted heatlhcare they would purchase it millions of them do not. Plus u would destory the plans that millions of Americans CHOOSE to have and like. U are a tyrant.
Your brain is unconstitutional.
Erock, everyone will be covered. If they want to go pay cash for their health care that's fine too. Stupid and uneccesary but hey, sure if they want to.
The government running healthcare is unConstitutional.
I'll paraphrase from the constition, in fact the preamble - the government is there to provide for the general welfare of the country and nothing could be more important than the health of our citizens. If you want to maintain an untenable and corrupt system, too bad. We can no longer afford it as a nation.
A mammogram should be done as often as a female wants it done. Who is the government to say o hey wait every 2 years??? Wow hopefully during that 1 off year u don't get cancer. What a joke.
not everyone wants healthcare insurance thats false statment. Also further more whats run by the government right now thats effective and efficient? Name 1 program. Also luckly for all of us u will never be President.
Ecock, where preytell did you get your information regarding mammograms. They are currently recommended once per year for women over 40 and the recommendation is to reduce that to every two years untik 50 whereupon it would be done every year again,.
I know it seems counterintuitive, Ecock, but some things have to be run by the government because it's more effective and efficient. IF you want all Americans covered, there is absolutely no other way to do that other than covering everyone, unless you just want to buy health insurance for everyone and have it administered by Halliburton.
And by the way, I realize the government has no clue how to run health care, but when I am president, the government will instantly have a clue.
FNG show me exactly where in the Constitution it says its the governments job to run healthcare? also if u support national health insurance u support government run healthcare. And u have no common sense.
What does the U4prez election say about 2010? Well the Democrats got their man in office and quit debating. They are going to have to be on the defensive in 2010. Republicans and conservatives dominated after the presidential election here, because they were irritated and became more partisan, sharper and more critical. Socialist tried to come into the debates, but were shot down numerous times. Socialist rhetoric cannot be backed up by the financing the government is using.
People like u FNG are clueless. Government does not and will not have the answers for this problem. IF I could keep my medicare and medicade money I would have my own insurance by now. Further more you out on a limb with no facts millions of Americans perfectly healthy choose NOT to have carry insurance. Also I have facts to support my side u have none zero nothing. Government messed up heatlhcare to start with and they are not going to fix it. They have no money to offer such a service zipp nadda also Medicare and Medicade are about to go broke. Also when is the last time government ran anything effecitivly? They have not. Also the only way for them to control the costs will to take over the WHOLE heatlhcare which will mean telling people in the industry from Doctors to specialists how much they can make thats socialism and has FAILED. Also are u okay to tell your daughter that she needs to wait till she is 50 to get a mamogram??? As an advisory board suggested to the White House? Gee I hope my daughter doesnt get cancer at 49. What a fucking joke. U are a big government clown. End of discussion.
Furthermore Erock, I am 100% against government health care. But I am 100% for government health insurance.
I would scrap medicare, medicaid, and the VA Health system and institute a revenue nuetral, self-sustaining system that would ensure every individudal is covered for basic and catastrophic health care. As such the government would indeed have firm control over the administration of our health resources. I'm sorry, but they bloody well should have a handle on it, it's a matter of fucking general welfare and national security so don't tell me the government has no business in health care. In fact, they have failed us by not taking this corrupt and hyper-expensive monkey off our collective backs years ago. It has nothing to do with ideology, it has to do with common sense.
We lower the debt by putting in place a system that pays for itself. That's easy.
I know you absolutely hate the federal government, and it is just sooooooo "chic" to complain about the government nowadays. But if you would open your mind, Quaid, open your mind. If we don't do something drastic, the government won't be able to take care of all the old, poor, infirm, and handicapped while the filthy rich and corrupt as hell insurance industry makes handsome profits by getting to cover hard-working young families, only. People like you Erock and no insult intended, but let's say "conservatives", throw around a bunch of unfounded assumptions. Or try to scare wealthy Americans by claiming they may have to actually wait in line once in awhile if everyone gets to see a doctor. Will you answer me one question honestly Erock, Smashey and the rest of you - DO YOU WANT AN AMERICA WHERE ANY CITIZEN WHO NEEDS TO SEE A DOCTOR CAN DO SO REGARDLESS OF HIS FINANCIAL SITUATION?
And if you'd like to continue with some questions, - WOULD YOU LIKE AN AMERICA THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT FUTURE DEFICITS FOR HEALTH CARE COSTS...
and WOULD YOU LIKE AN AMERICA WHERE OUR INDUSTRY IS NOT CHOKED AND SADDLED WITH HEALTH CARE RESPONISIBILIES THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY INSANELY EXPENSIVE?
50% of the nation say that healthcare is not the job of the government. What we should offer is to pay the debt off, lower spending, and get Washington off of people's back.
What are the Republicans gonna offer America? More tax breaks? Oh Boy! I swear that if the Republicans would get the penises of the insurance company CEOs out of their mouths, they might have time to put together a slick-ass, efficient national health plan of their own. What Republicans need to realize is that America has decided that we want any American citizen to be able to go see a doctor when they are sick or injured. And we don't want the hospital worrying about whether the patient is gonna pay or not - he WILL BE insured.
Having all democrat control is a bit disconcerting.
I would be very comfortable with a Republican House or Senate.
Then u can not really complain when people don't vote 3rd party.
l
na. i don't care to be either. i don't put my faith in government at all. how can i campaign for no government if i am campaigning door to door trying to get people to go out and vote? lol
And again I ask u lucky u a precient leader for a 3rd party? do u go door to door during an election for a 3rd party??? If not then no duh a 3rd party wont win.
Hmm? Well both parties should lose seats if it were up to their performance to independents who vote for neither party. Unfortunately, I am not going to give the American public that much credit because they will continue to pick candidates from these two parties over and over again because they are like crack addicts that can't kick the bad habit.
I do think that the GOP if they wake up and start to reach out to fiscal Libertarians as I did they may be able to take on the Dems. People are worried about the National Debt.
|
|
<< Home