| 0 |
Subject: 2010 Elections
Posted by: Wilmer McLean
- [30359185] Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 06:59
The time has come...predictions and hopes! ;) |
| 1 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 08:56
|
I predict that the Reps will F-A-I-L, in their much ballyhooed effort to retake control of the Legislature.
They may gain a very limited, small number of seats; but those gains (if any) will fall far short of rightwing pundits predictions.
For better or worse, the Republicans are still the "party of no", with no answers beyond "we oppose this President and all that he attempts, even if we suggested what he is trying to do".
I for one, would like to think the American voter capable of seeing thru the smoke and mirrors, at least on occasion.
|
| 2 | Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 09:05
|
Four to six seat gain in the Senate.
Fifty to sixty seat gain in the House.
The high side if it were held today or if nothing significant happens to change the current trends.
|
| 3 | Mith
ID: 482583111
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 09:41
|
50 to 60 would be something. Too far out to offer a guess. Plenty can and will happen between now and then.
|
| 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 11:09
|
Some seats (due to retirements) the Dems are certain to lose. Others will be very competitive and it is hard to project total changes at this point. If I had to go out on a limb, I would have to put it at 20-25 Dem losses, virtually none of them in Blue districts.
The Senate is a little more interesting, particularly since the most competitive race will be here in PA, but in one very real sense it is moot: Dems do not have the 60 votes to override "the nuclear option (I)" but Republicans have virtually no chance at all of taking a majority. And, mathematically, the Republicans cannot win a total of 60 seats.
So much depends upon the economy in late October. Baldwin is right about it being the high tide. I can't help but think that economic trends would seem to support the idea of a very gradual recovery, putting Dems in the position of taking "credit" for it, right or wrong.
|
| 5 | Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 14:05
|
Two big factors. I keep hearing from Dem insiders that they are really going to go for broke as if the next 6 months were the only chance they would have to make the big changes they have in mind.
I'm not disagreeing that this is their window of opportunity, but the more they do that, the higher their losses in November.
The desperation to find a politically explosive symbolic event that will turn the political tide will be enormous. The MSM will certainly play up and fan the flames from whatever events they can find or invent from now till November.
|
| 6 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 14:08
|
The desperation to find a politically explosive symbolic event that will turn the political tide will be enormous.
I think this has been the case for the conservative media for quite some time.
|
| 7 | Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 17:31
|
That was certainly what they were doing running Pelosi and the black caucus thru the Tea Party.
|
| 8 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 17:37
|
I just read that Sarah Palin, who promised to donate her $100,000 speaking fee to political causes, hasn't donated really anything at all. Palin has made about $12 million since leaving halfway through her term in July, but has only donated a few thousand dollars herself, and none to her PAC. Her PAC (SarahPAC) has paid a lot of consulting fees but hasn't paid much money to candidates.
Frankly, this is the time to pump money into candidates (particularly grassroots ones), so this strikes me as a pretty dumb move not to financially support Tea Party candidates more directly.
|
| 9 | Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 18:19
|
Deja vu
Can we see the actual promise please?
|
| 10 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 18:35
|
sure.
Palin Defends Tea Party Convention, Says Speaking Fee Will Go to the 'Cause'
"I will not benefit financially from speaking at this event. My only goal is to support the grassroots activists who are fighting for responsible, limited government -- and our Constitution," (Palin) wrote (in a USA Today column which was posted to her Facebook page.)"In that spirit, any compensation for my appearance will go right back to the cause."
|
| 11 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 20:10
|
Oh, come on now, that left-wing whackjob site can't possibly be tr-- oh, never mind.
|
| 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 20:49
|
That's like double coupon day.
|
| 13 | Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 21:26
|
I will keep my eye on this. Altho maybe she is less legally obligated to disclose her giving than Obama is obligated to meet the requirements of 8 USC 1401.
It has been clear for a long time that she thinks getting rich from public speaking beats being a public servant officially.
It's also clear she isn't the perfect conservative great hope. She's just hogging the oxygen from Tancredo or some better candidate. If we never heard from her or McCain ever again I could live with it.
I do love the way she irritates the lefties. There is entertainment value in that.
|
| 14 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 22:12
|
I do love the way she irritates the lefties.
the thing is, she really doesn't irritate us. it's the right's obsession with her that is irritating, because it's very clearly style over substance.
It's also clear she isn't the perfect conservative great hope. She's just hogging the oxygen from Tancredo or some better candidate. If we never heard from her or McCain ever again I could live with it.
so i guess she's no longer "Reagan in a skirt" to you, as you once called her?
honestly, this is most revealing post from you in quite some time.
not only is it an admission that you made a mistake in your previous judgments and statements on her, but really does a good deal of your "message" over the last 18 months or so.
|
| 15 | Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 22:29
|
I can concede that she owes McCain a solid, but it's hard to hear her endorse McCain over the much superior J.D.Hayworth.
Her conservatism is hardly as well thot out or as convincing as Reagan, but then Reagan had a lot more time and experience formulating his.
If she's not Reagan, her instincts are better than 80% of the Republicans in government I know.
|
| 16 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 17:03
|
John McCain: Illegal immigrants intentionally causing accidents on the freeways
[Insert snarky response here]
|
| 17 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, May 19, 2010, 08:04
|
interesting results from yesterday's elections
a more liberal candidate wins in PA, a Tea partier in KY, a Democrat in PA in a conservative-leaning district, and a run-off in Arkansas.
i'm not sure this says much more than voters are fickle and want to "vote the bums out", but not necessarily for members of a different party.
|
| 18 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, May 19, 2010, 08:07
|
Good article here on the elections...
...with a small analysis of the once race that pitted a Dem vs. a Republican.
The district is majority Democratic but socially conservative, and Republicans eyed the seat as the perfect locale to make it a bellwether for November. Their candidate, businessman Tim Burns, railed against Democratic rule in Washington, attempting to tie Democrat Mark Critz with Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, neither of whom are especially popular in the 12th. For his part, Critz, a longtime Murtha aide, arguing that voters cared more about what was happening in Washington, Pa., than in Washington, D.C.
Some Republicans are saying that one of the reasons they lost is that they were at a numerical disadvantage because the Democratic Senate primary brought out a huge number of Democrats. They insist that the results will be different in November, when the same two candidates run again. But others will argue that this was the kind of seat the GOP needed to win if it was going to make huge gains in November, and there will be a lot of recrimination over why they failed.
|
| 19 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, May 19, 2010, 08:30
|
The GOP's special failure
All the evidence pointing to monster Republican House gains this fall—the Scott Brown upset win in Massachusetts, the scary polling numbers in once-safely Democratic districts, the ever-rising number of Democratic seats thought to be in jeopardy—was contradicted Tuesday.
In the only House race that really mattered to both parties—the special election to replace the late Democratic Rep. John Murtha in Pennsylvania’s 12th District—Republicans failed spectacularly, losing on a level playing field where, in this favorable environment, they should have run roughshod over the opposition.
|
| 20 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, May 19, 2010, 09:45
|
comments on some comments...
|
| 21 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, May 19, 2010, 10:03
|
First thoughts: The Outsiders
*** Spare some change? If you go back to Scott Brown’s victory in January -- or even Obama’s in 2008 -- voters still seem to be sending the message that they want change. This has been a frustrated and angry electorate since 2006, and that’s why we’re seeing this anger at Washington, on both sides. By the way, it’s worth remembering that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison lost her Texas gubernatorial primary back in March, so we have -- for now -- three incumbent senators who have lost this year: Hutchison, Bennett, and Specter.
*** Is this really 1994? Here’s another lesson we learned from last night: A good campaign can overcome a tough political environment. In the only contest pitting a Democrat against a Republican, Mark Critz (D) defeated Tim Burns (R) in the special congressional election to replace the late Rep. Jack Murtha (D) in Pennsylvania. As we’ve pointed out, this isn’t a good sign for the GOP in its quest to take back the House in November. Why? Because this was a race that Republicans -- in this kind of political environment -- should have been able to win. Yes, Democrats outnumber Republicans in the district. And, yes, the Dem turnout in the competitive Sestak-vs.-Specter primary helped Critz (though the statewide Dem turnout wasn't overly impressive). But this was the only congressional district in the country that John Kerry won in ’04 but Obama lost in ’08, meaning that it was ripe for the picking. Remember, back in 1994, Republicans were the ones winning House special elections. But can this be ’94 all over again if the Democrats are the ones winning these things -- four straight this cycle (PA-12, NY-23, CA-10, NY-20) and seven since 2008 (IL-14, MS-1, LA-6). By the way, there was a ton of finger-pointing among House Republicans after they lost the NY-23 special late last year; it could be worse internally after last night.
|
| 22 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Wed, May 19, 2010, 10:21
|
FTR, Bennett wasn't ousted by voters, who likely would have returned him to the senate according to polls, had there been a primary.
|
| 23 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, May 19, 2010, 11:34
|
Primaries tend to be all over the map, since the vast middle voters (those registered independent) don't vote.
I was damn pleased to see Sestak beat Spector in PA.
The special election was (I believe) the only "real" election (resulting in an actual seat), was in PA and it went to the Democrat to replace Murtha. No change in the map there. Except for the moderate Scott Brown's win in the MA US Senate special election, the Dems have won each of the others, including NY-23 which was a party switch.
|
| 24 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, May 19, 2010, 12:02
|
some thoughts on Sestak's win....
|
| 25 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138
Wed, May 19, 2010, 15:18
|
Wanted Spector to win. Toomey could beat him easily. Going to be pretty tough against Sestak.
|
| 26 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, May 19, 2010, 15:37
|
I agree. Sestak is actually a pretty good guy, and a good speaker as well. I watched him during the health care town hall debates and he handled things quite well--his grasp of the very complicated legislation seemed pretty tight, and he handled some very tough protesters pretty well.
Tommey is going to have a much bigger battle on his hands with Sestak.
|
| 27 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, May 19, 2010, 16:44
|
Looks like Bennett is considering a write in campaign
|
| 28 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 12:15
|
This seems like an outlier to me: Rick Perry and Bill White tied in TX governor race
I realize that many of the Tea Party darlings peaked far too early and have fallen hard (look at the current standing of those state AGs who threatened to sue the federal government over health care, for instance). But it seems unlikely to me that the GOP is fractured in Texas, of all places, for a Dem to sneak into the governor's chair.
Worth watching, anyway.
|
| 29 | Mith
ID: 37540118
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 12:35
|
Re: #5
Your first factor looks like a bust. After two months, I don't believe the pace has really quickened, certainly not to "go for broke".
We have the realization of your second factor in the Deepwater Horizon accident, which occurred two days after you wrote that. So far I think it would seem to help the Dems more than the GOP.
From the persepctive of the swing voter, the GOP is split between the Palin-led camp that has attacked Obama for going too easy on BP and the Limbaugh side which attacks him for going to hard on BP. To a political moderate observer, this exposes at least half of the GOP as petty political opportunists (yes I know that describes everyone in politics but voters have sadly short memories).
Meanwhile, the environmentalists have settled their ire on BP and on Bush era deregulation - and not the Obama administration.
I don't know how much weight I'd offer your two factors but at the moment neither seems to be going the GOP's way, according to your assessments.
|
| 30 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 13:23
|
but it seems unlikely to me that the GOP is fractured in Texas, of all places, for a Dem to sneak into the governor's chair.
i'm not so sure it's that simple.
1. Bill White was elected mayor of Houston, the 4th largest city in the US, three times. Houston also just elected a lesbian to be their mayor. Granted, Houston's political make up is probably weirder than anywhere else in the US.
2. Of the 47 governors of Texas, only 6 have been Republicans. Granted, four of the last 6 have been republicans, and in the last 31 years only 8 have been with a Dem at the helm.
but i think a big thing here to consider is not so much the political parties of Rick Perry and Bill White, but rather, what Texans feel about them.
a lot of people are souring on Perry. He's a little too slick for his own good, and he's starting to get that "elitist" tag, which i think is a no-no down here.
in my neighborhood, i see Bill White signs everywhere, and nary a Rick Perry sign. and I live in Tarrant County, the second most conservative county in the U.S, behind Orange County.
|
| 31 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 49816225
Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 06:46
|
BUTT
...for the heck of it.
|
| 32 | Boldwin
ID: 481011122
Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 22:34
|
BUTT
Apr 18, #2 - Four to six seat gain in the Senate.
Fifty to sixty seat gain in the House.
|
| 33 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 03:12
|
Nice call, Boldwin.
|
| 34 | Boldwin
ID: 0102036
Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 07:22
|
<----reality-based
|
| 35 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012
Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 13:00
|
I predict that the Reps will F-A-I-L, in their much ballyhooed effort to retake control of the Legislature.
For the win!
|
| 36 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 13:30
|
Well, he's half right.
|
| 37 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 16:38
|
Re 34 - Even a stopped clock gets the right time twice a day!
|
| 38 | Boldwin
ID: 0102036
Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 18:46
|
Hardly random guesses but you know that.
|
| 39 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 19:44
|
Credit where it is due.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
|