Could the GOP Lose the House? Egads!

[Lucille]

They certainly deserve to.

Could the GOP Lose the House? Egads!
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/could-the-gop-lose-the-house-egads/


Sam Wang at the Princeton Election Consortium is the first I’ve seen to even discuss the possibility, and he’s not an unbiased source. But he’s got data to back it up.


Using all polls and median-based statistics to address issues of outlier data gives the median of D+4.0% that I gave. That translates to a narrow 16-seat Democratic majority in an election held today. This would be an unusual outcome. It would involve a Democratic net pickup of over 30 seats, much more than the typical gain for a re-elected president’s party. But 2010 was also an exceptional wave year for the Republicans. Again, think of the pendulum. In any event, this is what the numbers are currently telling us.

Look, I hold no brief for the current batch of House Republicans, including the sainted Paul Ryan. I believe they are hypocritical, hyper-partisan, and unrealistic. No more self-congratulatory group of people ever existed that had less to congratulate themselves on. I mean, voting to repeal Obamacare thirty times? Was that necessary? Meanwhile, a small task like adopting the recommended reforms to save the Postal Service billions of taxpayer dollars languished in the in-box because closing a post office in Pipsqueak, Georgia, might have offended its total population of three.

But, friends, if you think the House Republicans are shallow and ideological, allow me to introduce you to some of the prospective committee chairmen of the House Democrats. For Foreign Affairs, there’s Howard Berman, who wants war with Iran, and the quicker the better. For Natural Resources, Ed Markey. For Energy and Commerce, Henry Waxman. For Education and the Workforce, George Miller. For Judiciary, John Conyers. And for Ways and Means, Sandy Levin (who, while liberal, is at least sane compared to the deposed Pete Stark)...

[acptulsa]

Why not? Everyone else has lost their houses.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

That ouwld not be possible.

[LibertyEagle]

I hope not. The thought of Obama as President with a Democratic Senate and House scares me more than even what we have now.

[cajuncocoa]

I hope not. The thought of Obama as President with a Democratic Senate and House scares me more than even what we have now.I agree.

There's not much difference between the two parties on issues, but they works as team players. With the House and Senate under Dem control, Obama will get everything he wants.

[acptulsa]

I agree.

There's not much difference between the two parties on issues, but they works as team players. With the House and Senate under Dem control, Obama will get everything he wants.

Considering how many of his promises Obama has broken, this probably scares Democrats as much as it scares us. And so it should.

[RickyJ]

That would really suck if Obama wins. The GOP needs the House and the Senate if Obama wins.

[CaptainAmerica]

I hope not. The thought of Obama as President with a Democratic Senate and House scares me more than even what we have now. Im also hoping a republican house with a republican president (romney) doesnt happen either

[pcosmar]

Would it really matter? Would it make a damn bit of difference in the long run?

[acptulsa]

Would it really matter? Would it make a damn bit of difference in the long run?

Maybe. With a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, Obama is out of excuses for not keeping his promises. Now that we've won over most of the Republicans who can be won over, it's time we worked on all of those other disaffeced voters.

[TheTexan]

Would it really matter? Would it make a damn bit of difference in the long run?

Nope. That tyranny train gon keep on truckin' regardless

[cajuncocoa]

Would it really matter? Would it make a damn bit of difference in the long run?I think it does. They care more about their party than real issues; so if we have gridlock, fewer (bad) things can get done.

[TheTexan]

fewer (bad) things can get done.

Isn't Obama getting mostly everything he wants already? Or am I wrong in thinking that

[cajuncocoa]

Isn't Obama getting mostly everything he wants already? Or am I wrong in thinking thatThe GOP hasn't done anything to roll back the things Obama got in his first 2 years, but he could be much worse in a 2nd term.

[cajuncocoa]

Im also hoping a republican house with a republican president (romney) doesnt happen eitherAgreed. Until we can get more liberty people elected, it's always best to split up the two teams.

[matt0611]

No, I don't see it happening.

The house will stay in GOP control, hopefully the GOP can take control of the Senate because it looks like Obama is gonna win.

[sailingaway]

I don't know, but I saw that the other day Nate Silver at the NY Times said the chance of the GOP taking the senate had fallen from 70% a month ago to 30-something% now.

[FriedChicken]

I hope that GOP keeps the house and we beef up our Liberty ranks there a bit more too. We come close to winning the senate but just short of it and then in 2016 we get a liberty president, a liberty house and a GOP majority in senate.

If its not too late by then. That's a optimistic scenario but still doable.

[Smart3]

If we get rid of Walsh, Bachmann, West, King and Ryan, then the Democrats can have the majority for all I care.

I'm voting Dem in November anyways, since I can't vote anything else. (corrupt racist Republican vs a Conservative Democrat)
___

For the record, I think the GOP will actually improve on their majority, thanks to new districts in R areas.

[Lucille]

Oh well. Let the D party have the majority and let them do their worst.

"Let's keep goin'!" /Thelma

http://cinepad.com/images/thelma.jpg

A Democratic Swing
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/a-democratic-swing/


As I’ve observed the race since then, I have only become more convinced that what has changed the dynamics of this election has been a fundamental reevaluation not merely – or even primarily – of the two candidates, but of the two parties. This election is becoming nationalized, and it is becoming nationalized in the context of an across-the-board swing in the direction of the Democrats.

The reason, I think, is a simple one. The Republicans Party – not just the Romney campaign, but the party as a whole – is running on nothing. They are running on the presumption that the country has already rejected the Democrats, and that therefore it is their turn. They are behaving as if choosing Democratic governance was some kind of “experiment” that didn’t work out, and now the American people will, of course, come back to their natural home.

By contrast, the Democrats actually made a case for their party. They explained what their party has done, and why they should be able to set the national agenda. They defended their foreign policy, their economic policy, and their social policy in strong, unapologetic terms.

Obviously, if you already strongly disagree with those policies, you weren’t likely to be convinced. But if you are inclined to agree with them, the experience of the convention must have been energizing. And if you have diffuse or muddled opinions, the contrast in approach was hard to miss.

What I was looking for, two weeks ago, was a sign that a broad partisan shift was happening. Here’s what I said:


[I]f the conventions really have moved the polls permanently, they may have moved the partisan needle, and not just Obama’s favorability. Rationally, voters who trust Obama personally, but are skeptical of his policies, might be inclined to ticket split. But if voters have formed an impression that they trust the Democrats more than the Republicans, then ticket-splitting is not rational. If the generic Congressional numbers move with the Presidential race numbers, we’ll have some indication that it’s the latter and not the former.

What has happened since then is exactly what I was anticipating. The generic Congressional ballot has shifted in the Democrats’ direction, to a 2-point lead according to the RCP average. More strikingly, a number of Senate races have shifted sharply in the Democrats’ direction, from Wisconsin to Massachusetts to Virginia. I picked these three races in particular, because they are races not races where “candidate quality” is a plausible cause of Republican troubles (as in, say, Missouri). Scott Brown is a highly popular Senator. Tommy Thompson is a highly popular former Governor. George Allen is, if not highly popular, nonetheless a former Senator. One of them is an incumbent; none of them are running against incumbents. If they lose their elections, it won’t be because they are personally unpopular, or because they just couldn’t overcome the popularity of their opponents, or because they are individually out of ideological step with their constituents. If they lose their elections, it will be because they have an “R” next to their names.
[...]
But for right now, what we’re seeing, I believe, is a rejection not merely of Mitt Romney and his inept campaign, but of the Republican Party as it has chosen to represent itself in this election. And I suspect it is too late to reverse that judgment – the best the GOP can hope for is that something catalyzes American distrust of Democrats to match.

I’ve been saying this from the beginning of the campaign, and I stand by it. Mitt Romney is a lousy candidate – tin-eared, brittle, easily-bullied, someone basically nobody thinks of as a natural leader. But he is not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is the party he is leading.

Thanks, neo-Trots!

[fr33]

We all know the GOP as we know it is heading for a cliff. They appeal to the low info voters and provide no policies or philosophies.

[tony m]

I hope not. The thought of Obama as President with a Democratic Senate and House scares me more than even what we have now.

Maybe that's the idea of the article? So, better vote for Romney?

[TheTexan]

Maybe that's the idea of the article? So, better vote for Romney?

Indeed. Manipulation through fear

[thequietkid10]

We all know the GOP as we know it is heading for a cliff. They appeal to the low info voters and provide no policies or philosophies.

Yeah, there less the party of free markets and the power of the individual and more the party of angry talk show host and business interests.

[sailingaway]

Maybe that's the idea of the article? So, better vote for Romney?

or campaign for those running for House and SEnate.. I'm pretty sure people want gridlock, they just have to figure out who will win the White House then they can vote against it in the Senate and House.

[TheTexan]

I'm pretty sure people want gridlock

That's a good point. They want gridlock. Even the democrats. The politicians may want to actually push policies, but the people themselves don't really care about the policies, they just like the sport of the game. There's no sport if there's no competition. And the politicians want this as well. They live/thrive on left vs right. Their base would be nonexistant without it.

I wouldn't be too afraid of the Democrats getting both the House and the Senate. It's not like it opens the door and allows them to run rampant... they're already running rampant. Can't really run much faster without revealing the motives of the men in charge

[cajuncocoa]

or campaign for those running for House and SEnate.. I'm pretty sure people want gridlock, they just have to figure out who will win the White House then they can vote against it in the Senate and House.There's ZERO chance my congressional district could be won be a Dem. I'm not even sure if there's one running.

[AuH20]

Oh well. Let the D party have the majority and let them do their worst.

"Let's keep goin'!" /Thelma

http://cinepad.com/images/thelma.jpg

A Democratic Swing
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/a-democratic-swing/



Thanks, neo-Trots!

Sorry but I'd like to keep my 'assault weapons' for the time being without getting into a full-fledged firefight with the feds. I don't want NWO puppet and Fabian scumbag Obama with a rubber-stamped Dem Congress. All the infantile folks who are cheering for top to bottom dem control think it's all a game without real-life repercussions.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

If we get rid of Walsh, Bachmann, West, King and Ryan, then the Democrats can have the majority for all I care.

I'm voting Dem in November anyways, since I can't vote anything else. (corrupt racist Republican vs a Conservative Democrat)
___

For the record, I think the GOP will actually improve on their majority, thanks to new districts in R areas.

I don't get it. Those aren't even bad people by Republican standards, as far as Walsh, Bachmann, and King(Steve) go. West and Ryan aren't the absolute worst either.

[AuH20]

I don't get it. Those aren't even bad people by Republican standards, as far as Walsh, Bachmann, and King(Steve) go. West and Ryan aren't the absolute worst either.

Exactly. It's laughable that they want to discard those politicians ahead of the real problems.

[pcosmar]

think it's all a game without real-life repercussions.

I think it is all a rigged game without any recourse.
I think that there is no damn difference between "R" and "D" on any issue of substance.
Sure they bicker over minor issues and where to divide the profits.. but on any of the major issues they are in lock step.

I have been a witness over and over again for 40 years,, and BOTH Party Conventions this year made it crystal clear.
There is no difference between them.

[AuH20]

I think it is all a rigged game without any recourse.
I think that there is no damn difference between "R" and "D" on any issue of substance.
Sure they bicker over minor issues and where to divide the profits.. but on any of the major issues they are in lock step.

I have been a witness over and over again for 40 years,, and BOTH Party Conventions this year made it crystal clear.
There is no difference between them.

Republicans for the time being act as a buffer against O's wildest dreams. That's all I care about. Tie the SOB's hands up. Buy us time. Expose the republican old guard who are plotting to make deals with him. I'd say the grassroots is 3 to 4 cycles from getting their hands on leadership.

[TheTexan]

Republicans for the time being act as a buffer against O's wildest dreams.

What have they held Obama back from so far?

[AuH20]

What have they held Obama back from so far?

The house without Boehner's help have kept him restrained. They stopped the tax increases as well as the farmer "relief" bill. They also gutted an EPA bill with ridiculous oversight on alleged global warming activities. And he cannot pass any type of follow up stimulus. Conversely, the Republican senate is horrible (they will make deals with Obama if he gains a majority, mark my words). But the House under the circumstances has done a relatively good job.

[Shane Harris]

I hope that tea-party republicans get control of senate and maintain control of house and obama wins re-election.

[pcosmar]

Republicans for the time being act as a buffer against O's wildest dreams.

NO. They Aren't. They are the same team. That is the Fucking Illusion of Choice.
It is a rigged game. They are both owned and run by the same people and it is not "We the People".

[supermario21]

We need to elect as many Republicans as possible so we can get to fighting them early. If BHO gets reelected, all we're going to be doing is saying no. We need to be saying no, but we'd look more effective saying no to the Lindsey Graham's and John McCain's of the world rather than all the Dems.

[TheTexan]

The house without Boehner's help have kept him restrained. They stopped the tax increases

Spending is a tax. There is the fact that obamacare is a huge tax that a certain Republican let through, but generally they certainly haven't slowed down Obama's spending. They've added fuel to that fire.


as well as the farmer "relief" bill.

A sizeable amount of Republicans voted for that in the Senate. It's also not a new bill.. it's an extension to an old bill, and the Republicans generally only oppose "provisions" of the new bill. Overall they like the bill.

The bill will pass eventually. Probably sooner than later. This isn't "holding Obama back." It's political posturing.


They also gutted an EPA bill with ridiculous oversight on alleged global warming activities.

Peanuts.


And he cannot pass any type of follow up stimulus. Conversely, the Republican senate is horrible (they will make deals with Obama if he gains a majority, mark my words). But the House under the circumstances has done a relatively good job.

This may be true, for now. But I wouldn't expect this to remain the same. The house is simply compromising less because its election season. After Obama wins, and if the GOP still has the house, they'll be back at their normal game.

When you consider the magnitude and scope of Obama's failures, from economics, individual rights, global affairs... preventing another "stimulus" isn't near enough justification IMO to make the claim "we must get Obama out of office at all costs!"... the person who would be replacing him would be the same, except for stimulus, you might get a war with Iran, just for example.

Romney isn't any "less bad." He's the same thing. Slightly different flavor. Different label.

[AuH20]

NO. They Aren't. They are the same team. That is the Fucking Illusion of Choice.
It is a rigged game. They are both owned and run by the same people and it is not "We the People".
Not the strong block of dissenters in the House. They are the only reason Obama hasn't gotten what he's wanted. He's even stated publicly that he felt sympathy for Boehner because Boehner has no control over them. Boehner wants to make deals with the O but can't. The Senate on the other hand is a travesty. Many Republican senators are waiting to take a dive at the first sign of difficulty. There are many good old boys that reside in the Senate.

[TheTexan]

Not the strong block of dissenters in the House. They are the only reason Obama hasn't gotten what he's wanted. He's even stated publicly that he felt sympathy for Boehner because Boehner has no control over them. Boehner wants to make deals with the O but can't.

Political theater. I would bet a large sum that many of these people "standing their ground" were not so long ago pushing the same policies they are today fighting against.

[anaconda]

The Democrats currently have a 50 seat deficit in the House. How does a "net gain of 30 seats" get them a 16 seat majority?


Update: I was not thinking straight. When one party "wins" a seat the other loses. So, the difference is two, not one.

[pcosmar]

They are the only reason Obama hasn't gotten what he's wanted.

What makes you think Obama has any choice in "what he wants"?
He wants what he is told to want. The same as Bush before him and Clinton before that.
he same as Romney will if he gets the job.

He will do as he is told or he will be removed,, violently and permanently.
Kennedy was, Reagan was warned.

These guys don't run shit.

[oyarde]

I don't know, but I saw that the other day Nate Silver at the NY Times said the chance of the GOP taking the senate had fallen from 70% a month ago to 30-something% now.I would say , slightly less than 50. Harry is a very destructive man .That is all I have to say about that.

[anaconda]

I would say , slightly less than 50. Harry is a very destructive man .That is all I have to say about that.

Destructive to the Republicans, apparently..

[oyarde]

I personally view it as all over , ( The Republic ), Ben Franklin had it , " When the people find that they can vote themselves money , that will herald the end of the Republic ".