Posted on 10/20/2011 4:40:02 PM PDT by randita
Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said that “There is nothing I love as much as a good fight.” If so, he would’ve hated where the House is headed for the next decade, because by and large it likely won’t have all that many good fights.
Instead of looking at the House through the competitive races, consider instead the uncompetitive races — the large number of seats that should be safe for one party or the other for the foreseeable future. Based on the latest Crystal Ball ratings, less than one in four of the 435 House seats will be competitive next year, and if one only considers the seats we rate as “leaning” to one party or the other or as “toss-ups,” there are only 46 truly competitive contests, or about 10% of all House seats.
Chart 1 shows our ratings for every race in the House, listed by state. The “safe” seats on the respective Democratic (150 seats) and Republican (186) sides show where the two parties are strongest in the House looking forward to the next election and beyond. The note below the chart details some of the assumptions we made in compiling these ratings. Needless to say, this chart is subject to change as the national redistricting picture gets clearer and challengers emerge on both sides.
(Excerpt) Read more at centerforpolitics.org ...
Crystal Ball Report
I hope they keep quoting FDR since apparently, none of the SOBs have learned anything from FDRs economic policies, which also apparently, libtards and progressives always resort to or attempt to mimic in economic downturns.
heads up and learn a bit, FDR lovers: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
Though I like the color Red, I object to its application to GOP candidates.
...less than one in four of the 435 House seats will be competitive next year, and if one only considers the seats we rate as "leaning" to one party or the other or as "toss-ups," there are only 46 truly competitive contests, or about 10% of all House seats.We need term limits.
The Red State/Blue State divide will show up again to one degree or another. The Presidential election will probably be decided in some ten states. The House elections, IMHO, will be decided more by redistricting than anything else. Incidentally, keep a close eye on the Justice Department, which may try to help the DemocrRATS in states like North Carolina and Texas.
Sorry. Not buying it.
We do NOT need term limits.
If the American voters really are this stupid, we’ll continue to get the government we deserve.
A couple of quotes attributed to Ben Franklin:
“What sort of government have you given us, Mr. Franklin?
“A Republic if you can keep it.”
“Democracy works until the people realize they can vote
themselves funding from the trasury.”
Maybe not exact quotes, but it’ll do.
So, in other words, if the American voters go for term limits, you’ll live with it. Thanks.
Word up, check out my tagline.
Some of us have been on this issue for years.
Voters are too stupid not to keep reelecting pieces of crap every 2 years so I think we do need term limits.
Staffers should be limited too to prevent “power behind the throne” situations as Fieldmarshaldj has suggested.
I wouldn’t favor a 3 term limit for the House or anything like that but I’m sick and tired of the “lifers” in both chambers.
I think that it is patronizing to voters to tell them “we won’t let you vote to reelect your representative, for your own good.” If someone is doing a good job representing you in the legislature, why should I be prevented from reelecting him and forced to elect someone second-best (or have a liberal elected because the best exponent of conservative principles is barred from running despite not having any legal or ethical violations? And do you think that term limits have improved the quality of legislators and reduced electoral politicking in states like California or Florida (where politicians are constantly running for new office due to term limits? I’m all for reducing the advantage of incumbency by reining in government, getting rid of the seniority system for chairmanships, eliminating limits on campaign contributions, limiting the amount of public money that legislators can use for “meetings with constituents” and “informative mailers,” charging campaigns for a portion of legislative staffers’ salaries if they also do campaign work, etc. But I can’t countenance anyone telling me that I can’t reelect someone who is doing a good job in office, just like I won’t abide someone forcing me to change barbers or brokers because “they’ve been serving you for too long.”
I think that it is patronizing to voters to tell them “we won’t let you vote to reelect your representative, for your own good.” If someone is doing a good job representing you in the legislature, why should I be prevented from reelecting him and forced to elect someone second-best (or have a liberal elected because the best exponent of conservative principles is barred from running despite not having any legal or ethical violations? And do you think that term limits have improved the quality of legislators and reduced electoral politicking in states like California or Florida (where politicians are constantly running for new office due to term limits? I’m all for reducing the advantage of incumbency by reining in government, getting rid of the seniority system for chairmanships, eliminating limits on campaign contributions, limiting the amount of public money that legislators can use for “meetings with constituents” and “informative mailers,” charging campaigns for a portion of legislative staffers’ salaries if they also do campaign work, etc. But I can’t countenance anyone telling me that I can’t reelect someone who is doing a good job in office, just like I won’t abide someone forcing me to change barbers or brokers because “they’ve been serving you for too long.”
I don;t think it’s patronizing at all.
Both parties have looted us and the US Treasury for the last fifty years. Many people have been in the same seat for 35 or more years.
The longer you have power, the more corrupt you become.
We need term limits to prevent such people from establishing empires, as they are prone to do.Look at the results of this current crop of DC elites,a nd where we are headed.
They should not serve forever, nor have a pension for doing so.
At least a barber won’t steal you blind.
I'm with you on this one. People with honor and integrity should term limit themselves, like Toomey did in PA-15. I respected him for making that promise and keeping it.
Oh it's extremely patronizing, I don't deny that.
You make good points but I would design the system to deal with the fact that a large proportion of voters are dimwits. That's why I'm think that you are probably right about unicameralism. In an ideal world I don't see how it would cause a problem but in the real world it could allow the horrible legislation that's frequently introduced to pass more easily.
For every Jesse Helms there are 2 or 3 Ted Kennedys or Dick Lugars. Reagan would have won a third term but so in my opinion would have Clinton.
Some kind of a cap for total congressional service seems like a good idea to me. 20 or so years sounds like enough. Barbers don't have the kind of control over our live that a Senator does.
Perhaps you are right and it wouldn't change much. Crap may be replaced with crap like in California but at least we'd have a better chance of replacing a veteran jerk (which out number good veterans) with somebody better. Though it would eliminate those sweet occasions when ancients like Oberstar and Skleton finally go down.
“...For every Jesse Helms there are 2 or 3 Ted Kennedys or Dick Lugars. ...”
Truer words never spoken, brother...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.