A GOP takeover? Really?

[ProSense]

The (D)oomed Party

Adam Serwer of the American Prospect is guest blogging on The Plum Line this week.

Massive Democratic losses in the House are past the level of conventional wisdom -- because of the state of the economy, a GOP takeover is almost at the level of foregone conclusion. Today Larry Sabato piles on:

Given what we can see at this moment, Republicans have a good chance to win the House by picking up as many as 47 seats, net. This is a "net" number since the GOP will probably lose several of its own congressional districts in Delaware, Hawaii, and Louisiana. This estimate, which may be raised or lowered by Election Day, is based on a careful district-by-district analysis, plus electoral modeling based on trends in President Obama's Gallup job approval rating and the Democratic-versus-Republican congressional generic ballot (discussed later in this essay). If anything, we have been conservative in estimating the probable GOP House gains, if the election were being held today.

But as Jonathan Martin reports, the Senate now looks like its in serious danger of flipping as well, with Senate races in Wisconsin, California, and Washington that looked fairly safe for Democrats tightening. Sens. Russ Feingold (Wisc.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), and Patty Murray (Wash.) are looking vulnerable:

All three had won their last elections comfortably. And they were stockpiling the sort of money that flows readily to three-term senators.

But with the political environment turning toxic for Democrats and incumbents, Murray drawing perhaps her toughest possible opponent and Boxer and Feingold facing self-funders, the three Class of 1992 veterans are in the fight of their long political lives as the battle for control of the Senate moves from traditional battlegrounds to blue state venues.

Sabato offers some grim historical perspective, writing, "Since World War II, the House of Representatives has flipped parties on six occasions (1946, 1948, 1952, 1954, 1994, and 2006). Every time, the Senate flipped, too, even when it had not been predicted to do so."

With two of the most progressive Senators in tough election battles, one has to wonder what progressives plan to do post-election if the worse-case scenarios play out?

If these three Senators lose, Republicans hold these seats for the next six years.

Frankly, I believe all three, Boxer, Feingold and Murray, will prevail.

[RussBLib]

1. would not surprise me

Democrats continue to stumble around with an incoherent message. Against a unified machine like the Republicans/FOX, they look ineffectual and confused.

In my opinion, the Dems didn't go "big" enough: too many compromises on the big-ticket items. They leave healthcare companies in control, leave the big banks in control, they left the Bush Gang untouched. This is really not "change we can believe in."

Tell ya what...if the Dems do NOT recind the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, they are going to suffer massive defections from the party. And I will be one.

What a pathetic state of affairs.

[ProSense]

5. Well,

"Democrats continue to stumble around with an incoherent message. Against a unified machine like the Republicans/FOX, they look ineffectual and confused."

The message is crystal clear to me. The spin on the left is where a lot of the noise that will impact liberals is coming from.

Fox is not going to sway a liberal or moderate Democrat's opinion.

"Tell ya what...if the Dems do NOT recind the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, they are going to suffer massive defections from the party. And I will be one."

They don't have to do anything except let them expire. The Republicans would need 20 Democrats to vote with them to expand the tax.

People like to think there will be defections, but it never happens. Why? I'm in NJ, and you should see all the people crying about Christie. Hard lesson to learn, but crying isn't going to reverse the damage this asshole is doing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Well, that's the kicker, isn't it?

"The Republicans would need 20 Democrats to vote with them to expand the tax."

If those Dems (and you know who they are) vote with the republicans they WILL lose the left of the party, possibly forever.

At a time when the teaparty and the republicans are tearing themselves apart, Dems will have to WORK at losing congress - and I wouldn't put it past them.

[ProSense]

7. There are

not even five Democratic Senators who support extending the tax cuts for the rich.

[emulatorloo]

10. I think your crystal ball may need repair

There are only a handful of Dems who would vote with the Republicans to extend the tax cuts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. You sure about that? How many would if Obama said he wanted to

extend them? Maybe, authorize them to continue for another, say, two years, till the financial crisis is past.

What happens then?

[Ozymanithrax]

9. What is this unified machine you are talking about?

I've been paying careful attention, and see no unified message from the right except Obama is a Socialist Muslim that will kill their women and rape their dogs?

[Peacetrain]

2. Oh my good GOD, prosense..who in their right mind would vote republican

I don't care how mad anyone is.. or how low information they are.. surely we do not forget that quickly..

[RussBLib]

3. we don't forget

not the "we" that are Democrats. But if the public actually thinks that Republicans would do a better job than the Democrats, that only shows that the Democrats don't know how to communicate.

That's a big "if." I still think a lot of the dissatisfaction is media-driven.

[emulatorloo]

11. What frustrates me at the moment is that ONLY RACHEL MADDOW reports on Republican BS

and researches and goes beneath the surface.

Every other media outlet takes the Republican claims at face value.

[Phx_Dem]

14. Seriously.

:fistbump:

[Phx_Dem]

13. I say this with great sadness . . alot of Americans are fucking stupid.

The fact that the GOP is up in the generic poll after all the damage they did during the Bush administration, and what they have not done for the past 18 months (anything to help the country or their constituents). It's mindboggling, but not surprising.

[SnakeEyes]

15. I can't believe they are up by so much...

Republicans rarely lead. In 1994 they only had like a 3-5 point advantage, close to any margin of error for a poll.

I think the inaction and no ideas is actually helping them since it means they aren't spewing their far right, anti-middle/poor class, rhetoric.

[blue sky at night]

4. thanks for the post....

i agree that only insanity will help the gop prevail, but your post had me worried....until your last sentence.

[WI_DEM]

8. Why are the progressive Senators in trouble? Don't tell me the base won't...

get off their asses and vote for good progressive democrats!?