Patrick Ruffini thinks it could go that high. I wouldn’t be shocked. And if it does, it would probably portend them taking back the Senate as well. The only thing that the Dems have going for them this year, relative to 1994, is that they won’t be blind sided. But other than that, everything looks worse for them.
21 thoughts on “Seventy Republican House Seats?”
Comments are closed.
not 70, but right now it looks like 50.
I’d be pleased with 40 — but if the numbers go higher than that I won’t complain.
Not that it will really matter–Republicans have a bushel of millstones around their necks. McCain. Steele. Christ. Voinovich. Snowe. Collins. Etc
I should really clarify… I mean with a small or even decent but nowhere near veto or filibuster proof majority, even in both house and senate, Republicans will be unable to repeal or even significantly dent the very damaging “reforms” that the dems appear to be just in the middle of. At the same time, the negative effcts of these monstrous bills will begin to be felt right as 2012 election season rolls around… So what are the odds the republicans, having no big acomplishments, bigger deficit, bigger debt, and no really broadly popular presidential candidates on the horizon, win more seats or the presidency?
I’m not exact Eyore but I don’t see the miraculous perfect storm that happened for the dems in 2008 happening again in reverse in 2012. Face it folks. Long live the constitutional republic of the United States. She was beautiful while she lasted.
If the republocrats gain control of either house, then Obama will probably be re-elected.
It’s what Rahm Emmanuel wants. That formula worked for clinton.
Blow the congressional majority and then campaign against the GOP speaker.
Boehner will make a perfect foil for this.
“It’s what Rahm Emmanuel wants. That formula worked for clinton.”
The formula worked for Clinton because well, he was Clinton. Clinton never sold himself as a Messiah either.
Clinton also had a near-monopoly on the media tha no longer exists.
Superman could leap from tall buildings and survive. Obama is not Clinton and is too arrogant to understand his limitations.
He has hubris in quantites Bill Clinton could only dream of.
It might be more than 70. It’s not a normal political year. Extreme predictions might be valid, but so might more-extreme predictions.
I’m disappointed that Obama has ANY support. I know you can fool some of the people some of the time, but this guy…
Is democracy really that unstable?
I think that Democrats either think this is falling on their swords for a noble cause, and they’ve all got jobs waiting in lobbying firms, anyway, or they’ve been brainwashed to believe that Obama’s wondrous oratory will save their skins.
I just hope the Republicans can keep from screwing this up and in 2012. I’d dearly love to see Nancy Pelosi given a new office with a rat problem.
Yes, well, if the Reps do take back both chambers – they best control the ‘spend at all costs’ members or it is back to the Dems in 2012.
Might pay attention to the soon-to-be 51st state – Puerto Rico, and how that will change the numbers. Not to mention its congressional delegation will be larger than 25 states. Things were happening in this regard Thursday, as I understand it, in D.C.
I disagree that the Demonrats won’t be blindsided, Rand. There seems to be an awful lot of “The Tea Parties are just small numbers of racist astroturfers and anyway LA LA LA WE CAN’T HEAR THEM!!!” sentiment among the Petulant Left. I suspect that there will be a lot of Kaelist shock on both coasts come November.
The Democrats will fix this by cheating. They’re already gearing up for massive fraud at the polls. I’m afraid true democracy in America is done for; we’re living under a one-party oligarchy which will continue until the Democrats have a major schism.
By definition. That’s why you always see those “a republic, not a democracy” quibbles.
AST,
If Nancy Pelosi gets the office, by definition it WILL have a rat problem….
Cool. Whatever gives us gridlock. Let BO have the office — no one’s done more to unify the GOP since Reagan. I’d just as soon keep the GOP out of the WH until they can field a serious candidate. In the meantime, a Dem WH is a perfect foil for the grassroots movement.
Not to mention if he is going to emulate Clinton, he better be speaking to Ross Perot.
Incidentally, remember that bizarre veto this January? My current guess is that Obama was already testing the waters for a future Republican congress. We might see some Constitutionally questionable fun and games once next January comes up.
If the GOP could come up with decent candidates they’d have a shot at 100-150 seats this year. The voters out there are *angry* in a sense they haven’t been in a very long time. I don’t look to 1994 for a model for this year; I look at 1938 when the public was totally fed up with the New Deal and wanted it gone. That year the Democrats lost 80 seats; 10 Senate seats and 70 House seats. I think we’re looking at that kind of year.
Perhaps — perhaps not. Remember, quite a few people really don’t like the Bush Republicans as well. It hasn’t been that long.
There is a good bit of dissatisfaction with both major parties currently.