Posted on 08/20/2009 2:17:07 PM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies
Charlie Cook, one of the best political handicappers in the business, sent out a special update to Cook Political Report subscribers Thursday that should send shivers down Democratic spines.
Reviewing recent polling and the 2010 election landscape, Cook can envision a scenario in which Democratic House losses could exceed 20 seats.
"These data confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Today, The Cook Political Report’s Congressional election model, based on individual races, is pointing toward a net Democratic loss of between six and 12 seats, but our sense, factoring in macro-political dynamics is that this is far too low," he wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Too bad we cant throw all the bums out.
255-38=217
38 net change is the break even point.
49 rats sit in seats won by McCain.
61 rats sit in seats won buy Bush in 2004.
HR3200 touched the 3rd rail of politcs.
I see a historic defeat for dems. Although it isnt a right left thing. It is a Freedom and Indepence thing vs Tyranny.
As I’ve posted before, there will be 125 new people in congress in Jan 2011. Already we know that Mel Martinez, Voinovich, Kay Bailey Hutichson,Jim Bunning and Roland Burris will not be in the senate. MY guess Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Chris Dodd and Harry Ried will No longer be in the Senate either. If Death care like HR 3200 is shoved down our throats through reconciliation, Gillibrand, Lincoln , Kaufman DE, and Bennet CO are likely to go down.
If the Seniors really understand HR 3200, tell me Why Dorgan, Bayh and Boxer are really safe! Hell for that fact why would Finegold,Murray and Wyden be considered safe?
Thanks RANT\off
1047 signitures isnt much.
Oops forgot Spectre!!!!
lol Martial Law
Too funny, it would be hilarious to see nancy with a 1 vote majority.
“But the Dems will still be the majority even with a 20 seat loss, right?”
Yup GOP would still be under 200 and Dems at 235 ... but why would it be this GOOD for the Dems in 2010, if after a *campaign* of Repubs cutting through the media clutter, we make people realize what they’ve bought into?
The only scenario that makes nov 2010 better than aug 2009 for the Dems polling-wise would be if the economy is gangbusters. possible, but not likely due to how the dems are managing it.
I think a shift of 6-8 pts to the GOP and a 25-40 seat gain is more in the ballpark of what you might expect. 1994 was almost 50 seats IIRC. 2010 will be another 1994 IMHO.
“At this point, the smart money would bet on large Republican gains in the House but not enough to take control.”
Yes. And that might actually be convenient for 2012, since our takeover in 1994 enabled Clinton to triangulate his way to reelection, and on the Senate side we have no hope of getting a majority in 2010 unless its a huge Tsunami. lets not get hopes up.
A 218-218 type House would be absolute chaos. Fun.
I would rather take the House and Senate in 2010 and run Obama into the ground so as to make him unelectable in 2012. Then again, I would also like to win the lottery next week.
Doh!I must have been thinking Marshall Guitar Amps.
I don’t think people are interpreting the Cook report correctly.
Charlie Cook is hard core in the tank for democrats.
Cook only grudgingly reports positive news for Republicans and tends to exaggerate democrat prospects.
This should be multiplied by about a factor of three to be even in the ballpark.
Bush was a strong leader because of his strong showing in 2002— a cycle which usually is among the worst for the incumbant party.
Generically the dems should lose about 25 seats just on that logic alone. Combined with the record decline of Obama’s popularity, it could easily get over 50 seat change in the House.
I did the same the other day, boy some freepers are nasty.
I have wrote comments complaining about the destruction of our language yet my own grammar skills are quite lacking.
Sometimes I get unsolicited private advise from other Freepers. It's a good thing.
R’s need to hang Pelosi, Frank, and Murtha (remember him?) and Democrat corruption, arrogance, and SOCIALISM around the necks of all of the other Democrat Representatives, and get real citizen-patriots to run against the Democrats in every single stinking district.
“You voted for Pelosi to be Speaker, you’re responsible for what this country has been through the past two years!”
Possibly add Obama to that list if the steady decline in his popularity and approval poll numbers continues into 2010.
I agree with what you are saying but it needs to be conveyed that Democrats gained control of Congress in 2007.
In that respect, all aspects of economic malaise and the profound aspects of deficit spending are decisively the fault of democrats— it is not incidental or latent.
One can view January 2007 as the beginning of the end of America’s well being.
I thought about writing “last four years” rather than “last two years” but then I thought that might lend to further confusion and “lies.” But yeah, the people need to know that the economic decline started when Dem’s took control of Congress.
understood.
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.