Posted on 01/25/2006 6:50:33 PM PST by UCAL
Guest contributor Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, sees good things for House Democrats in the months ahead.
With a little over nine months to go until Election Day, Democrats are headed for gains in the United States House of Representatives. The only question is exactly how big those gains will be.
Democrats need a net gain of fifteen seats to get to the magic number of 218 seats and control of the chamber. That would make Representative Nancy Pelosi Speaker, install Democrats as chairs of House committees, and fundamentally change the political environment on Capitol Hill and nationally for President George W. Bush's final two years.
I recently raised my projections of likely Democratic gains to five to eight seats based on the continued deepening of the Abramoff scandal and continued voter sentiment for change. While it is still difficult to "count" eight certain Democratic House takeovers, the combination of macropolitical factors and credible Democratic opportunities add up to likely Democratic gains in the mid-single digits.
But, like the Federal Reserve, which often signals future interest rate shifts by noting that it has a "bias" to higher or lower rates, I like to indicate whether my projected range is likely to move one way or the other. And my current view is that projections of Democratic gains are more likely to grow than to shrink.
While Republicans could benefit from improved news from Iraq, perceived progress in the war on terror, an ethics/reform agenda, or future circumstances that no one can now anticipate, I think it far more likely that the political landscape, which currently tilts to the Democrats, could tilt even more toward Democratic House candidates later this year.
While a 15-seat Democratic gain remains difficult, I no longer think it impossible. Yes, Republicans do have a structural advantage in the House, and Democrats don't have as many top tier challengers at DCCC chairman Rahm Emanuel would have you believe he does. But the electorate's mood allows for Democratic prospects to improve further over the next nine months. Stay tuned.
-- Stuart Rothenberg is editor of the Rothenberg Political Report and a columnist for Roll Call.
For example the teapot dome scandal in the Harding administration. Harding was a republican who sold very valuable government owned oil fields to supporters for peanuts. His secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall took the blame and went to prison. The press referred to the secretary of the interior as Harding's Fall guy.
Did it hurt Reupbicans? Harding's Vice president was elected in 1924 with 70 percent of the vote. The republicans won huge majorities in the House and Senate. As far as election returns were conserned the Teapot Dome scandal was a tempest in a teapot.
Think that was a long time ago? Look how Iran Contra hurt Reagan and the Repubilcans? You say it didn't. I guess it hurt Republicans about as much as Whitewater and Monica hurt Clinton and the Democrats.
There is no historical president that election outcomes are determined by scandals. Yes Carter beat Ford after Watergate and Bush beat Gore after Monica. But the scandals were not the reason.
The odds of Democrats doing better in the house are quite slim. Democrats demanding that terrorists be free to talk to other terrorists embeded in the USA is the biggest loser I can imagine.
That will make post midterm election november all the more fun...
Needs BARF ALERT.
IOW, his mood ring tells him........
Delusional. The national influence at local elections will be minimal, and despite that, the majority of voters understand what the republicans and President Bush have been trying to do and also believe that the Democrats have been wrong and obstructionist. The signs are all over the place, such as real, non-rigged polling, decline of MSM readership/viewership. I for one predict a republican GAIN in both houses of Congress.
I don't have any idea. The Republicans haven't done themselves proud, but Democrats keep getting crazier and crazier. I can't see the Rats picking up support, but I can see the Pubbies losing it.
Obviously I hope he is wrong, sure depends on whose column we read though, actually nobody knows with certainty.Reminds me though of the 1998 election, all the talking heads and everyone else were saying the republicans were a shoe in for gaining even more seats, well they did a good job, because alot of non-thinking republicans stayed home, figuring we were in, their one vote won't make a difference, so we lost seats that year, we must vote regardless of what is said and by whom, just vote.
You forgot VooDoo.
Yeah, I love the smell of liberal shock and horror the morning after an election. We've been lucky to enjoy it for the past ten years or so!
I guess 1990's Democrat Vice Presidents get a pass on that.
The pundits said the same thing in '02. The fact is, the Dems probably WILL gain seats this fall. Then again, they may very well not. Who knows? Nine months is an eternity in politics.
Rothenberg is correct in my opinion, as I have posted previously with my own numbers. I currently have the GOP losses in the House at about minus 10. But the season is early, and events matter a lot on this one. But the GOP is poorly positioned, unless events move their way, on Iraq, and on scandals, and on the time for a change itch in the sixth year of a presidential term. Stu has a 2-4 loss in the Senate presently. I think it is more on the order of 1-3, because of NJ. I certainly hope Burns of Montana does not run, because I mark him up as a loser. Florida is now basically near hopeless.
Ping
I've seen this jughead Rothenberg a couple times on TV. He isn't very intelligent.
And during the Clinton years guess who got to take over the Elk Hills Reserve in California ?
Algore's family's patron, Occidental Petroleum.
Surprise !
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.