You call this a big Republican victory??

[CTLawGuy]

Yes, Tuesday was bad for us, I know that, but it could have been worse.

1994 was much better for the Rs. They couldn't even win the Senate this time. In 1994 they won 54 seats from Dems including the speaker's seat. In 2010 they won 60, the 6 seat difference between which IMHO doesn't make up for not winning the senate.

And they could have won the senate. At the end of the day the senate will be 53 dems - 47 Repubs.

They couldn't beat horrendously unpopular Harry Reid because they nominated a nutjob candidate. (That would be 52 dems, 48 repubs.)

They gave away DE by cutting off shoo in candidate Mike Castle in exchange for Christine O'Donnell (who is not a witch I am told) (51 dems, 49 repubs)

WV has voted Republican at the presidential level since Bill Clinton and can't stand president Obama, and they couldn't turn that into a victory??? (50 dems 50 Rs)

by nominating horrible or needlessly controversial candidates in KY and AK, in addition to NV and DE, they took resources away from races where they lost narrowly, such as CO and WA, resources that likely would have put them over the top. (48 dems 52 Rs).

The republicans had a much bigger opportunity and blew it.


To give you an idea of the importance of the senate: (1) with the house and senate, they can send politically perilous bills, designed to hurt Obama's standing, to him to sign or veto. Without control of the senate, these bills will get killed in the senate and never reach his desk. (2) dems will still fully control (subject to the filibuster which will be reformed) the judicial nomination process. There will be no fights over Obama's supreme court nominees.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. yes it was a big republican victory

it wasn't the ultimate big republican victory, but it was pretty big.

As to final points - without 60 votes in the senate neither party can have its way. (Even with 60 votes our party couldn't manage to have its way, but their party is far more disciplined.) There will of course be a continuation of the massive blockade on all Obama appointments and that will include fighting supreme court nominees. There will be no reform of the filibuster.

[Island Blue]

2. Yes, I do.

Not because of what happened on the national level, but because of what happened on the state level in a least 20 states - they changed hands from D to R. That's bad news.

[iamjoy]

8. Some One Else Gets It

And the next state legislatures, along with state governors will be drawing the lines to make up the districts for Congressional and Legislative (state rep) seats. Since these governing bodies are now mostly Republican, they will be drawn to favor candidates from that party. This will stack the deck to ensure Republican victories over the next 10 years. What is worse is all those Republican governors will "help" President Obama's challenger in 2012.

It's only going to get worse.

[whyverne]

3. Yeah, but the Steelers lost too.

Please forgive me, I can't stop making sports analogies.

It was only one game.

[babylonsister]

4. Redistricting; yes, very big.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-states-20101104,0,5095782.story

Republicans nationwide given an edge in redistricting

[stray cat]

5. The democrats lost big but they could have been destroyed

[FBaggins]

7. +1

[FBaggins]

6. Yep... I call it that because that's exactly what it was.

This is the largest republican House majority since 1946... and with ten races still too close to call, it could be the largest since the 1928 election.

The gubernatorial races were horrendous.

The state legislative races tell the real tale. Twenty legislatures lost (more if you count "lost to a tie") with something like 600 seats dropped. Both a record number (70 years plus) of losses (in legislatures and seats) and the highest number of republican legislature members since the depression.

And those loses have a massive impact on redistricting (which '94 didn't impact).

Yes. It was worse than 1994. It wasn't as bad as it could have been... but it was worse than '94.

[iamjoy]

9. The Senate Is Gone In Two Years

the only reason we kept the Senate now is because most of the seats up for re-election were being defended by Republicans. Democrats didn't have as many seats to defend. In two years it will be a different story, with more Democrats up for re-election in the Senate.

Of course, I'm assuming the situation won't improve in two years. I think the Republicans are already looking at 2012. They know if things are still crappy in 2 years, people won't blame them, just as people didn't blame Democrats who took back Congress in 2006 for the lousy situation in 2008. Look for 2012 to be a repeat of 2008, only in reverse.

And of course, as has been mentioned, the disaster at the state levels will help ensure Republican control of government for another 10 years.

Sorry, I see very few bright spots or reason for optimism.

[sweetapogee]

10. I have been trying to say the same thing.

Also, if you look at those dems in the US Senate who are up for re-election in 2012 and how their state voted this week, the situation is even worse. For example, in my state PA, Toomey was elected to replace Specter in a statewide puke rout of dems. In 2012, Sen. Casey is up and this I'm sure will be in the back of his mind when he votes between now and Nov. 2012. I think it is a mistake to ignore this simple fact of life.

US Senate in 2012, 21 Dems, 10 Reps, 2 Independents Plus the WH up for re-election. It all hinges on the economy and you are correct iamjoy, we are not going to be able to blame the puke house for a sluggish economy, which at that point will be contained within the entire 1st term of President Obama.

If calling republicans the party of "no" was really effective this time, then we must consider the real possibility that the pugs can and will use that label on us in 2 years. I think, a good game plan for the 2012 election is to formulate a realistic plan for paying down some of the national debt. We are not going to have a recovery of any value while still bleeding trillions in red ink. First stop the bleeding or at least get it under control. Patient treatment will be painful. You can replace some lost blood with saline but it is no real replacement and once the patient goes into shock, saline will not help anymore. If our timing is bad on this we will get clobbered next time around, in my opinion.

[babylonsister]

11. The 'situation' is starting to improve...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x506043

[sweetapogee]

12. This is an IV saline drip...

"Federal Reserve's announcement that, in a long overdue attempt to stimulate the economy, it will buy $600 billion worth of U.S. Treasuries over the next year."

If it works, the patient survives. If it doesn't, we get clobbered in 2012.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. The Fed Is Pushing On A String At This Time

Interest rates are effectively zero.

That's why this talk of incipient inflation from the right is so insipid.

[sweetapogee]

14. not only that ...

they are doing it with borrowed money. It's like saying to a friend, "lend me $10.00 at 6% interest so that I can lend it to my brother (who can't make his credit card payments now) for 3% interest".

[QC]

15. It's only a flesh wound.

[ProSense]

16. Remember how Republicans were acting after 2006?

Compare the current to the soon-to-be landscapes:

There will be significant turnover in House and Senate leadership when legislatures convene next year. Currently, 32 House Speakers are Democrats and 17 are Republican. Next year, this will change to 30 Republicans and 15 Democrats. Chambers in Colorado, Oregon and Washington remain undecided and Nebraska is nonpartisan. In terms of Senate presidents, in January 30 Senate chambers will be led by Republicans and 17 by Democrats. Currently, there are 26 Democrats and 24 Republicans. Chambers in New York, Oregon and Washington remain undecided.

By those numbers and the logic of Republican controll for the next decade, Democrats were supposed to control the political landscape for at least that amount of time.

To the point: After 2006, Republicans began regrouping immediately, and did so with all the cockiness they could muster.

Democrats spend too much friggin time sulking and predicting doom.

In politics, anything is possible.