Posted on 07/07/2010 2:10:36 PM PDT by Drango
There's less than four months to go before the November midterm elections, and by the looks of things now, Republicans have a legitimate shot at capturing control of the House.
That's the sense of Stuart Rothenberg, the widely respected political analyst who publishes the conveniently-titled "Rothenberg Political Report." Stu sat down and talked politics with All Things Considered host Robert Siegel for an interview that will air this evening.
Of the 435 seats in the House, Democrats currently hold 255, Republicans 178, and there are two vacancies — the Republican seat in Indiana where Mark Souder resigned and the Democratic seat in New York where Eric Massa quit. There are no plans to hold a special election to replace Massa — Gov. David Paterson (D) says the state can't afford it, though Republicans are convinced that he doesn't want to give the GOP a shot at picking up the seat in a special, which it probably would. The Indiana seat is likely to stay in Republican hands in a special election.
So, if we're assuming 179 GOP seats going into November, that means they would need a net gain of 39 to take control of the House and make John Boehner speaker. Doable?
Absolutely, says Rothenberg. He sees a whopping 80 seats in play this year, all but a dozen or so held by the Democrats. "There are enough seats on the table that the Republicans could net the 39" needed for control, he said. "Substantial Republican gains," but it's "premature" to say whether they win a majority.
It's not surprising, of course, for the president's party — in this case, the Democrats — to lose seats in a midterm election. "Voters who were enthusiastic for a new president often do not turn out two years later," he said. Rothenberg points out that other than the exceptions of 2002, where the GOP picked up seats "probably because of 9/11," and 1998, where Democrats made gains because of Republicans "overplaying their hands on impeachment," the party that controls the White House loses congressional seats in the midterm elections.
That's not to say that the GOP won't lose a few of their own seats as well. Stu listed Charles Djou in Hawaii, Joseph Cao in Louisiana and the open seats in Delaware (vacated by Senate candidate Mike Castle) and Illinois (by Senate candidate Mark Kirk) as potential or likely Democratic pickups.
But for the most part, the change is going to go in the opposite direction — towards the GOP. Yes, it's only July, but Rothenberg says that "the general direction of the election is clear." Only the "magnitude" — how many seats, which districts — is uncertain, for that will "change up to the last minute."
Another 1994, where the Republicans won control of the House and Senate? "That's premature," he said. "It depends on the economy and the jobs numbers. Right now I don't think we're there yet. There will be damage to the Democratic side, but not like '94."
Change of control in the Senate is less likely, he noted. Of the 36 seats up in November, 18 are held by each party.
Currently the Senate makeup is 56 Democrats, plus two independents who vote to organize with the Dems, plus the vacancy in West Virginia that will most assuredly be held by a Democratic appointee. For the Republicans to gain control, they need to pick up a net of 10 seats: "Difficult," Stu said. He sees a GOP gain of perhaps five to eight seats. "They will need more states to come into play," he said, "before they have any chance of netting 10."
Democrats would love the the May special election in Pennsylvania's 12th District to be the model. In that race, to succeed the late John Murtha (D), Republicans ran a national campaign — anti-Obama, anti-Pelosi, anti-Washington — while Democrats focused on the local economy. And the Democratic candidate, Mark Critz won.
But November is "going to be about Barack Obama and the economy," Rothenberg said. "You don't see numbers like these" — so many more vulnerable Democratic seats than Republican seats — "if it wasn't a national election. There is a definite political wave building here, like we saw in 2006 and 2008. Only this time it's in the Republicans' direction."
Note: Check out this poll of 70 House districts conducted in June for NPR by Democrat Stan Greenberg and Republican Glen Bolger that forecasts significant gains for the GOP.
Weren’t the pundits saying, six months ago, that the Senate would turn, but not the house?
All this catering to the moonbat base SHOULD wake up the rest of normal American that we have a leftist loon in the White House and we need a Republican Congress to keep a short leash on him.
I really they are waking up as evidenced by the news this morning that Zero is at only 38% approval among indies. Things like that NASA story surely are not helping him in the middle.
I think Obama thought he could go way left now and then veer back to the middle just before Nov. I don't think it's going to work. I think he's going to be reaching just to get his base out all the way thru election day.
It looks very promising.
NOT doable if the ‘Pubbies don’t start getting out a message beyond “We’re not Democrats!”
How many of those elections will be stolen, like in Minnesota etc.? “”
ACORN is still very busy, working on stealing another election.
NObama gave them billions for a reason.
It was a pre-purchase of services.
They are trying to raise the bar for a Republican “victory.” Anything less than a turnover in the House and Senate will be trumpted as a “victory” for Obama and an “endorsement” of his policies.
fyi bump
Best result for Republicans is to take the House, and win about 8 more seats in the Senate. Darrell Issa, as committee chairman, will open Sestak hearings in the House. But the Democrats will continue to get the lion’s share of the blame for the economy, because they will still have the White House and the Senate, and the economy will still stink to high heaven next year.
I think it points to a vacuum that will be filled in a yet unknown manner. This does not appear to be far-fetched. We are perceived, correctly, to be economically weak; and our foreign policy is purposefully weak. There are therefore at least two vacua to be filled. We might have a civil war or dictatorship. If so, nobody will be counting seats in either case.
My tag line says it every post I make.
BANK ON IT !!
Which means Franken was..........
designed to make a joke of US legislation. And, legislators.
They only need to gain a couple of Senate seats in order to sustain the filibuster more easily. In some ways it might be good if Reid is reelected and Dems keep control. Make Reid and his ugly disposition the main face of congressional Dems. This will not help them in 2012. Having said that I find him to be awful and I hope he loses his own seat. But if he wins there is some silver lining at least.
At this point it looks as if Repubs take control of the House it will be by a very tiny margin. I hope they don’t have a lot of “moderate” defectors trying to side with the Dems to give them a working majority.
Too many voters, who believe that their representative or senator is a good guy and that it is the voters in the other states who have a bad representative and senator.
The GOP has to tie each and every Democrat to Obama in their ads and ram it down their throats. We have to play it all out- we have to go all in or else we lose.
Thanks for the ping!
I think at this point Karl Rove and James Carville are new BFF. Obama is going to fall flat on his ass and take most of those morons with him.
Rothenberg isn’t a bad analyst. Most of them appear to me to be a little too favorable to the rats. (Their wishful thinking hopefully rather than mine).
I think the House will turn. I wouldn’t be shocked if more seats are netted than in 1994 or 1946.
The Senate is interesting. The GOP is sure to come close but getting over the top will require some good fortune in the tossup races. It’s not uncommon for most of the close races to break to one party. In 2000 and 1986 the rats won most close races.
The better news, long term, is that the Dems have many more seats to defend in 2012 and 2014, many of whom will be vulnerable first termers.
So if the Tea Party movement can maintain momentum, preventing the GOP from returning to stupidity form, you could have a filibuster-proof GOP majority after the 2014 elections.
We don't need a veto proof majority. All we need to do is win control of the House because all spending bills must originate in the House.
We can than defund every Obama program and all of the wasteful agencies (EPA, DOE, DOEd, Interior, etc) if our Republicans have enouth gumption. That's all the more reason to elect conservatives instead of RINOs.
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.