Are Democrats looking better for 2010?

[babylonsister]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/are_democrats_looking_better_f.html


Are Democrats looking better for 2010?
Ezra Klein




I'm a bit annoyed that Josh Marshall wrote this post suggesting that Democrats are looking a bit better in advance of the 2012 election. Annoyed because I've been toying with becoming an optimist on the matter myself.

Josh focuses on the poll data, but I'd tell the story a bit differently, with a heavy reliance on the graph -- which Nancy Pelosi's office is touting -- above: It looks to me like Democrats are going to pass health-care reform, and the near-death experience has reminded the base that there's a lot to like about the bill. It also looks like the economy is recovering, and there's still a lot of stimulus money left to flood into the system. That's making Republicans nervous, and so they've been breaking ranks on the Senate's recent jobs bills, with a good number crossing the aisle to vote for them. That suggests that the Democrats have hit on a good legislative strategy to push through the rest of the year. Add in that Chris Dodd is moving forward on financial regulation, and now Democrats have a way to put themselves on the right side of anger at Wall Street.

Come November, you could imagine a Democratic Party that's passed health-care reform, can boast about a fragile economic recovery, and can put the Republicans on the defensive on at least one or two key issues. That lends itself to an argument of accomplishment, a warning that you don't want to switch horses midstream, and normal campaigning. Now, I don't want to go too far in this argument: Optimism here means something like Democrats will lose 20 or 30 seats in the House rather than 50 or 60. Losses are assured. But it's increasingly looking like catastrophic losses aren't.

By Ezra Klein

[Jennicut]

1. If the Dems don't have catastrophic losses I will be happy.

I think if things play out as above( we pass health care, the jobs bill, and tackle financial reform) then things might indeed look better in Nov. for us. Rethugs also have a tendency to always overplay their hand (Newt in 1995 is an example of that). We shall see.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. That will be sufficient for me as well

I'm expecting some losses but what I can't handle happening is the Repubs having free reign for two whole years to be able to totally gum up/control the legislative process and waste a bunch of time and taxpayer money on frivolous and unwarranted investigations. I just hope we turn out in sufficient numbers to keep a 1994-esque scenario from occurring- mostly because the party in power is usually on the defensive and not many people turn out to vote during midterm elections. However, I feel a bit heartened by the fact that a lot of the "establishment" (i.e. electable) GOP candidates are apparently not doing as well as they had hoped and some of them have batshit-crazy "teabagger" challengers. Plus, the polling for President Obama, HCR (which seems destined to pass now in some form or another), and Democrats in general seem to be improving (as is the economy albeit slowly), so it seems increasingly unlikely that the Repubs are going to wrest back control of the House or the Senate. Polling data also suggests that long-term Republican prospects are pretty dim as well, so whatever gains they make now aren't sustainable.

[Jennicut]

3. Some candidates are also doing better then previously thought, although that is mostly

in the Senate.
If Rethugs took over there would be total gridlock and nothing would get done.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. Yup-Yup

Plus, President Obama would have a helluva time getting any more nominees through let alone SCOTUS nominee should, heaven forbid, one of the more liberal justices step down. This is why I get so irritated about people saying that we need to primary/get rid of all of the "Blue Dogs" because, when it comes down to it, it's the numerical majority that ultimately matters, particularly in regards to things like SCOTUS nominees. I'm definitely more worried about the Senate than I am the House- where we have a much larger majority and the Repubs can't cause quite as much chaos with the rules of that chamber.

[Jennicut]

5. It matters very much who has the majority in Congress.

There WILL be two retirements coming from the Supreme Court soon.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. Another thing about the "Blue Dogs"

They get bashed a lot here and I've bashed a few myself (most of the time with just cause) but even though they can be irritating, regressive, backwards, misguided, etc. and gum up the works at times, most of them will still reliably vote for nominees from their own party (and usually most party-sponsored legislation), which makes it even more important that we have a majority from our own party to help guide the SCOTUS nomination process rather than members from the other party.

[depakid]

11. Actually- blue dogs brought you Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito

so I wouldn't count on their votes in a pinch.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. Yeah, they're fairly non-partisan when it comes to SCOTUS nominees (unfortunately)

but they haven't held up any Democratic SCOTUS nominess AFAIK. Of course, there have been very few opportunities for Democrats to select SCOTUS nominees over the past 30 years. I think, what, maybe a grand total of 3 (two during Clinton's terms and one during Obama's first term)? :shrug:

[depakid]

10. They'll very likely come at the end of this term- confirmation hearings will be this summer

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jennicut]

18. 20 to 30 in the House would be good. Basically, not taking the majority back. I think it is 40 seats

needed to take back the House but I need to check on the exact #. 40 or more would be catastrophic. we would lose the House. The Senate matters little, I don't think we will lose all of the seats. We lost the magic super majority anyway (if we ever had it, with Lieberman and conservadems.) It would be 10 seats the Rethugs would need. 1 short of that is fine for us.

Here is what Larry Sabato thinks will happen:

"While the Crystal Ball believes 2010 will reverse Democratic gains at all levels, there is still no convincing evidence that a GOP wave will deliver Republicans the majority in the House. Examining history and House races on a district-by-district basis shows instead that Republicans are headed to a more typical, if better than average, midterm year, picking up between 24 and 30 seats as the Crystal Ball has predicted since September. The average pick-up in a midterm year (since 1946) is 22 seats and Republicans should exceed that, but the magic number of 40 still seems out of reach, as of February." http://themoderatevoice.com/63446/sabatos-crystal-ball-republicans-will-make-house-gains-but-probably-not-take-control/

I say we lose 20 to 30 seats, a little better then the typical for the out of power party, but not like 1994.

[Clio the Leo]

6. The GOP and their Scott Brown excitement happened too early.

And neither Rove nor Steele expect the Repubs to retake either chamber of Congress.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. I think that they had a premature eLection

!!!!!

[RBInMaine]

7. With New Healthcare, Jobs, Banking, and Energy bills AND a not-worsening economy we will be ok.

First, they MUST pass the healthcare, jobs, energy and banking bills going into the fall. The stars ARE lining up on all of these. Next, the economy must look like it is at least not getting worse, and we'll be in even better shape if we see some modest economic gains. So we need some ACCOMPLISHMENTS to run on to prove we can govern and are trying to do what is right for the country, and we need the economic bleeding to stop. Finally, we need to get united in a firm attack message against he GOP. They must be branded as the party of "NO AND OBSTRUCTION AT ALL COSTS EVEN IF IT HURTS AMERICANS." They need to play the Jim Bunning filibuster clips a thousand times. Do all this, and we will keep our losses to a minimum and retain control.

[Cosmocat]

13. I have been saying this for months ...

The media WANTS to turn it into a big republican run, but the very things you noted have been what I have been saying all along, and someone else made a point about the wing nuts overplaying their hand ...

There are going to be midterm loses in overextended districts, but it is simply going to cut into the margin, not take either chamber ... The Senate might get a little tighter than we like, but the house will still have a good functional majority ...

[mikekohr]

20. DING ! DING! DING!

dead on analysis.

mike kohr

[secondwind]

9. I have a "fantasy" about our prospects, and a part of it is that Obama is going to

give amnesty to millions of aliens, who will be prospective "citizens" by 2012, and that Texas will turn BLUE. There are 9 million illegals in Texas.

If I had to bet on this situation, I'd say the Republicans are very anxious about healthcare passing, about the illegal immigrant situation getting resolved, and of course, the two vacancies in the Supreme Court.

WE NEED TO KEEP A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE COME NOVEMBER!!!

I, for one, will work my ass off for anyone, anytime, even flying to other states if need be.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saltpoint]

16. I think so. It would be a good idea to prepare extensive and hard-hitting

ads aimed directly at the Republicans' official strategy to obstruct.

It just seems that we could afford to throw a faster fast-ball.

[old mark]

19. Yes. nt