Senate & House expectations

Here are some potential narratives that we will see with the Senate elections:

Democrats are expected to maintain control, losing between 6-8 seats. Except for Dick Morris, who now has up to 14 Dem Senate seats on the flip list. Uh, no way. If it goes over 9, its all about Joe. If its 10 or above, then its gone.

The Republican gains. There are three groups of potential Republicans:

Tea Party: Nevada’s Sharron Angle, Alaska’s Joe Miller, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, Colorado’s Ken Buck, Utah’s Mike Lee, Florida’s Marco Rubio, and Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

Establishment: Reps. Mike Castle of Delaware, John Boozman of Arkansas, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Dan Coats in Indiana, Roy Blunt in Missouri and Rob Portman of Ohio,

Mixed: Dino Rossi of Washington, Carly Fiorna of California, Linda McMahon of Connecticut, John Raese of West Virginia 

Already, this Tea Party vs Establishment is becoming part of the narrative. Where they actually make the gains is going to determine the story.

Here is a potential narrative that we will see with the House elections:

I have been noticing something peculiar that perhaps others have too. Am not sure if you recall, but Chris Bowers did some posts about how, if a wave election came, then the most likely losers would be blue dog Dems. However, in the campaigns I am watching, it is the blue dog, moderate dems that can point to something they voted against (bailouts, stimulus, HCR...) that may wind up with appeal to this years swing Independent voters.

Meanwhile, I am seeing some 'bubble' incumbent solid vote Dems, who haven't had a competitive race since the netroots began, that could wind up being washed ashore because they voted for everything, have no middle appeal, and are not running a modern-day campaign.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

13 Comments

What establishment?

Who wants to bet that once in office the "anti-establishment" will be just the same as the "establishment"? As much as one would like to see a faction in the GOP like the Blue-dogs in the Dem party, it's simply not going to happen. And looking at the list of candidates and their stated positions I can't see much to differentiate them from your normal rabid republican.

by vecky 2010-09-09 02:53PM | 1 recs
In 1982

a number of GOP Senators were able to hold on despite a President more unpopular than Obama and a generic ballot worse than today's.

Look at the list in Wikipedia at the GOP members who survived:

Caiifornia - Wilson won by 7 as a moderate pro-choice Republican

CT: Weicker won by running as a liberal Republican

PA: Heinz won by running as a moderate

RI: Chaffee ran as a moderate

VT: Stafford won attacking Reagonomics (I worked for his opponent in that race, I remember it well, especially the wrong call ABC made on election night)

Everyone of the Senators were on tough ground, in a tough economy.  I well remember Democrats thinking they could win all of these races.  They won by doing what the blue dogs did: by putting distance betweent themselves and the President.

They didn't.

 

by fladem 2010-09-09 04:12PM | 1 recs
RE: In 1982

Yep. You need some anti-Obama street cred in order to survive these days. Is there even one endangered senator that has any? They have no one to blame but themselves. People like Jerome, Jane Hamsher and John B. Judis have been furiously sounding the alarm and have endured terrible treatment from our supposed comrades for their contrarian bravery. Who did they listen to? Jon Chait and that vicious, diminutive fellow with 9½ fingers who work for the president, among others.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-09 05:56PM | 0 recs
RE: In 1982

Yes, Feingold has it. Reid has added to his a tiny bit of late over the mosque.

Bennet is trying in CO.

But the list ends there. Its why people like Boxer and Murray now look likely to lose.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-09 06:00PM | 0 recs
RE: In 1982

When I say anti-Obama street cred I'm talking specifically about ObamaCare, finreg (Feingold voted against it; too bad it's probably the least-known of the monstrosities); 787bn Keynesian pump-priming; antipathy towards the Tea Party set; that's all I can think of at the movement. Harry Reid's opposition to the Ground Zero mosque is like Obama and Bill 'DOMA' Clinton's opposition to gay marriage. No one can believe they're sincere.

To the extent Feingold has any (I'm not ready to cede that point), it's precious little. In the Obama era we needed that badass guy who cast the lone Patriot Act 'nay' vote--in the immediate aftermath of 9/11!--to show up. He didn't.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-09 06:07PM | 0 recs
RE: In 1982

Your confusing legislation vs. rhetoric. In fladem's example, the R senators voted for most of the Reagan agenda (Kemp-Roth, Budget, TEFR, patco etc). They distanced themselves in rhetoric mainly, as much they had too, and even that is generally overstated.

by vecky 2010-09-09 06:43PM | 1 recs
RE: In 1982

These were the no votes on the bank bailout:

NAYs -- 25

Republicans Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Cochran (R-MS) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Enzi (R-WY) Inhofe (R-OK) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Vitter (R-LA) Wicker (R-MS)

Democrats Cantwell (D-WA) Dorgan (D-ND) Feingold (D-WI) Johnson (D-SD) Landrieu (D-LA) Nelson (D-FL) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Wyden (D-OR)

Independent Sanders (I-VT)

There's Russ.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-09 11:44PM | 2 recs
Republicans were talking about getting 60 Senate seats at the beginning of 1982

There plan was to pick up Harry Byrd's old seat and the open New Jersey seat for 55 and then beat Melcher in Montana, Cannon in Nevada(which they actually did), Riegle in Michigan, and Sasser in Tennessee for 59.  They then thought they could get to 60 by beating either Bentsen in Texas or Ted Kennedy in Massachussetts. 

You have to remember that it took until Labor Day of 1982 before the there was an actual sense that Republicans were in trouble. 

Up until then they also thought they could buck history and pick up 20 seats(they needed 25 for a majority) in the House and then get a handful of Southern Democrats to switch parties and give them control of the House.

 

by Kent 2010-09-09 07:43PM | 0 recs
RE: Republicans were talking about getting 60 Senate seats at the beginning of 1982

I vividly remember the off-year convention that was held in '82.  Their was significant optimism in the Democratic party well before September.  Unemployment was well over 9 that summer.

Your memory is different than mine.  And they were delusional if they thought they were beating Ted...

by fladem 2010-09-09 11:20PM | 1 recs
RE: Republicans were talking about getting 60 Senate seats at the beginning of 1982

Republicans actually recruited a self funder against Kennedy that they thought would at least give him a scare.

They even made noises early on about beating Sarbanes in Maryland and Daniel Patrick Moynihan in New York, but their favored candidates fell apart before the primary.

God I miss this election.  Had McCain won we could have had another 1982, but no, we had to forfeit majorities for a generation so "the one" could win.

 

by Kent 2010-09-10 12:28AM | 0 recs
GOP vying their way

Government per see, not just the Republican and Democrats, should mend their ways. They should be there for the people but it seems that the government itself is the problem. People should not expect lot from the government since they always find a way to disappoint American people.

We help Americans move to Asia for jobs and prosperity. Learn more at http://www.pathtoasia.com

by rhea 2010-09-10 07:40AM | 0 recs
New Narrative

It appears to me like the MSM and, of course, the New Right's lackeys like Rasmussen and FOX, have been driving the "Dems in Trouble" narrative for their own purposes.

 

Rasmussen was drafted to keep contributions flowing into Right-wing coffers in spite of the fact they had little to bring to the table in terms of legislative godies.

FOX has been driving wingnuts to Town Halls and TeaParty meetings since Obama took office.

When you look at the facts, when you take actual samples of Registered voters, I am seeing the Dem masses doing their usual post-Labor-Day wake-up, and all of a sudden Gallup sees a 10-point swing in generic Party voting in our favor.

We have to start to get to work.  The same phone efforts, the same posting in public sites, the same canvassing and campaigning that got us iinto power, will keep us in power.

 

WEe donot need to be talking triage, or who's going down.

 

If we turn out, we win.

 

Simple.  The GOPigs know it; the have been driving turnout for months with this ridiculous Socialist-debt-Muslim fearmongering, now we have to get people to realize that having GOPigs in power again will truly be a disaster of horrendous magnitudes for America.

 

  the

by dembluestates 2010-09-11 05:17PM | 0 recs
The generic #'s aren't that bad

The last Gallup I think had us even and the last Q poll had the Repubs up 5 or 7.

IN '06 and '08 we had solid double digit leads in most or all the generic polls when we rolled up big gains.

Its about turnout and that scares the hell out me.

The GOP is pretty solid ... those people vote.   Democrats?  Not so much.

Back in '06 this site was flooded w/ posts talking up D candidates, links ot Act Blue, etc.   It was all about the election and a lot of people were posting.

Today?  Not so much.   I think we are toast.   Not that we have to be, just that we will be.    God help us.

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-14 06:42PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads