Posted on 10/20/2013 1:03:05 PM PDT by neverdem
The 2010 midterm election that swept Republicans into power in the U.S. House of Representatives was a mandate to put the brakes on President Obama and his agenda.
Aside from voters also hoping that Republicans would do something — anything — to boost the economy, restraining Obama was pretty much the issue of that election.
It was the second “wave” election in four years (Republicans were dumped from the majority in 2006). And it had less to do with voters finding Republicans appealing once again and more to do with putting a halt to the Democrats' overreach.
At the center of that overreach was the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare — which is why many of those elected to office in that cycle and re-elected last year have been adamant about repealing it, even at the cost of a government shutdown.
Or even at the cost of losing their seats, which has led to talk of a Democrat-wave election cycle. It is a possibility pushed by paid pundits as reality, but the facts do not support it.
That does not mean a wave election isn't brewing out on Main Street. In fact, early polling indicates the 2014 midterm might produce another electoral shift, but not one that shoves Republicans out of power.
First of all, the playing field of vulnerable GOP seats is too narrow for Republicans to lose their majority, barring a massive wave. (Think 1894, when 107 Democrats were swept out of the House.)
Second, major waves historically have not happened concurrent with the “six-year itch” — the election held in the sixth year of a president's tenure, in which the party holding the White House typically loses a substantial number of House and Senate seats.
And remember that, in the 1996 midterm election of the Clinton era, Republicans lost 18 incumbents but kicked the Democrats' butts in the open-seat races. The Republicans' losses were mostly “wave seats” that they unexpectedly won two years earlier, during their first sweep back into power after 40 years in the political wilderness.
Coincidentally, all of that occurred in the year of another government shutdown — that one over the funding of Medicare, which is a heck of a lot more popular with voters than ObamaCare.
Today, every member of Congress, along with the White House and President Obama, is getting battered in the polls over how they've handled the shutdown, with Republicans taking a slim lead on the voter-anger index.
Kyle Kondik, a House analyst for the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, says that if (and he stresses it's a big “if”) Republicans eventually suffer because of the shutdown, it will not be tea partyers who are hurt.
“While the Republican brand is poor, the president isn't particularly popular — his approval is only in the low to mid-40s, according to polling averages,” said Kondik. “There would have to be an incredible amount of revulsion with the Republicans to deliver the House to the Democrats.”
Plus, historically, there's basically no precedent for the president's party to capture control of the House in a midterm year. Many presidents have held the House in a midterm, but they haven't taken control of it in a midterm.
Kondik pointed to a couple of other things that could keep Republicans from making any big gains. Most significantly, the Democrat targets aren't all that great; before the GOP's historic 2010 sweep, Democrats held 31 of the 150 districts where John McCain beat Obama in 2008 — which gave Republicans a lot of low-hanging fruit to pick off.
“Now, Republicans hold only one of Obama's 150 best districts,” Kondik said. Bottom line: It's almost always better to be the “out” party in a midterm year.
Presidential parties have lost ground in the House in 35 of the 38 post-Civil War midterms, according to Kondik: “Granted, two of the exceptions were recent — Clinton gained seats in 1998, and Bush did in 2002.”
One variable to watch is retirements; it's a lot easier to win an open seat than to beat an incumbent. If Republicans in marginal districts start retiring, that will be a very good sign for Democrats.
So far, that's not really happening.
Salena Zito covers politics for Trib Total Media (412-320-7879 or szito@tribweb.com).
Exactly. When will they stop insulting us? There is but one party, that of big government. It’s going to be a very long haul for anyone focused on rights and freedoms.
One thing is ignored here:
The fact that the Democrats ALONE have identified themselves with Obamacare.
The Republican party has completely opposed Obamacare.
If 20,000 people have signed up for Obamacare - that is the national voting amount of people who LIKE Obamacare enough to buy it.
The rest, not so much, and they vote - IF the Republicans will say, “The reason you lost your job and had your hours cut is Obamacare, and if you didn’t, well, did you look at what happened to the price of your health care?”
May as well ping the author.
Historically speaking if Obama is popular and the economy good they have a good chance at about breaking even. Speaker Pelosi part 2 is a 0% chance crack pipe dream, that only happened the first time cause they won a ton of GOP leaning seats during the peak of Bush hate in 2006 and 2008 (the rest of the party ran ahead of Obama in 2008), I don’t see that repeating. They’ll need a big win with coattails in a POTUS year or the midterm of an unpopular Republican to win the House with the current lines.
IMO unless Obama is very popular, they aren’t gaining House seats at all. Midterm House gains from the President’s party, 2002, Bush was still very popular (and redistricting was an even bigger factor), 1998, Clinton was very popular in a booming economy, GOP was being blasted for impeaching him, they gained 5. 1962 the democrats gained in the Senate and only lost a couple in a House that went down to 435 from 437, Kennedy was popular. 1934 was before Presidential approval ratings but FDR was popular and the GOP hated and weak on a level never before (or since) seen.
We have more targets than them, they have few of genuine concern imo. I’d rate CA-31 (which we would have lost in 2012 if not for Cali’s new jungle primary resulting in 2 Republicans running in the general), FL-13 (tossup, maybe an edge for us if we run the widow, best district of these 4, the others lean rat) and C0-6 (Obama won but so did our targetted incumbent) and NY-19 (45.9% Romney, one of our weakest) where they are running some rich queer, as their top targets. I’m not very worried about seats Romney won. I certainly would bank on taking more than 4 of theirs.
I would be shocked if they had a net gain of any size unless Osama suddenly hits 60% approval, House Republicans approval rating doesn’t matter, if he’s at 45%, forget it, they can’t gain federally. We’re unlikely to gain a whole lot but I don’t know, 5-10. Democrats have no reason to turn out, pissed off conservatives do. Another 2010 could still happen, I would say Cruz’s rebellion makes it more likely than less.
Reid Ribble doesn’t have a challenger yet that I know of.
I’m more worried about a few Governorships, Florida especially. Some of our incumbents aren’t popular.
What do you think guys?
This weekend's Journal Editorial Report on FNC showed an ad McAuliffe is using against Cuccinelli--all lies but slickly produced and targeting young swing voters, trying to make them think Cuccinelli is an extremist. If it works we'll see even more of that next year.
I like your analysis.
For reference:
CA-31 - Gary Miller
FL-13 - The now deceased Bill Young
C0-6 - Mike Coffman
NY-19 - Chris Gibson
I would agree that Gibson’s opponent is weak, but New York is heavily pro-homo, so that might boost him.
Ribble actually did better than I though last time. Won with 55%, and Romney won that district. He’ll probably survive.
What’s your take on the race for Tammy Duckworth’s district in Illinois? We have an Indian candidate, and the area has a sizable Indian population. Duckworth won here by 9 points over Joe Walsh. I’d like to see her gone.
I think two big targets are Patrick Murphy (the drunk dirtbag who cheated against Allen West), and Kyrzten Sinema in Arizona who barely beat Vernon Parker last time.
Of course, we’ll be trying to take out those red state rats like McIntyre and Barrow. Mia Love might just be able to take out Matheson this time. She’s learned a lot from the near miss in 2012.
I think we may need to draw up a comprehensive list of competitive races on both sides before the start of the new year. I would like to increase our majority if possible, even if its just by 7 or 8. That makes it harder for the rats in 2016.
It’s hard for Republicans to stay on message when you have such division within the party ranks.
Even if they had a unified message, they do not have the bully pulpit or the press to project the message.
But it would certainly be very advantageous if the GOP developed a unified message and stuck to it.
The GOOBs are going to sink themselves when they “reach across the aisle” to the commie ‘RATS to pass amnesty and make one way border jumping “the law of the land.”
That’s nice. The gop stands to pick up seats in 2014. That’s relevant to conservatives because....?
Before we get a third party, we need a second party.
“Gripe or fight, it’s your choice!”
Agreed. What we don’t agree on is that the gop is worth fighting over or for.
“What exactly does a majority GOP in the Senate get us?”
The same thing we got when the gop had the Senate AND the House AND the Presidency AND the majority of Supreme Court appointments....nothing that we’d want.
“What do you think guys?”
Not too bad of an analysis, except this part:”Democrats have no reason to turn out, pissed off conservatives do.” If the gop continues as it has, conservatives won’t have much reason to turn out, either.
I wouldn't say I'm impressed but she's raised a boatload of money already, 200K. Words can't describe how much I hate Suckworth. I hate it when they use war injuries for political purposes like that d-bag Max Cleland.
I'd say our best target in IL is the downstate 12th where State Rep. Mike Bost is running against freshman rat Enyart in a district that Obama won by an eyelash. I'd rate the 8th as second, Walsh did better than I thought he would do in 2012, Suckworth isn't that formidable.
I think two big targets are Patrick Murphy (the drunk dirtbag who cheated against Allen West), and Kyrzten Sinema in Arizona who barely beat Vernon Parker last time.
Most def. We have 3 targets in AZ, the 1st and 2nd (which was stolen) districts were even closer than the 9th and both of them voted Romney. Martha McSally is considering a rematch in the 2nd and 2 State Reps (one of them the Speaker) have already announced for the 1st.
I would agree that Gibson’s opponent is weak, but New York is heavily pro-homo, so that might boost him.
I don't think he's particularity strong but I didn't mean to imply he's necessary weak, his asset is his money. He's gay "married" to co-founder of Facebook/owner of the New Republic, Chris Hughes.
“State Rep. Mike Bost is running against freshman rat Enyart”
Isn’t Bost the guy who went nuts on the state House floor? I liked that guy! And Enyart... that name rings a bell. I swear I read something about him having communist ties.
Suckworth essentially accuses anyone who goes against her of being ‘anti-disabled’ or some other BS. She’s a fraud.
Just be glad she is not a senator, because if Blago had gotten his way, that might have happened.
In Arizona, another air force pilot is running against Sinema funnily enough. Wendy Rogers.
I was under the impression McSally is in for facing down Barber again. She’d win by 4 points in a rematch and I think she knows it. Barber was buoyed by Obama’s coattails.
If we can knock off 3/5 of the Democrat’s congressional delegation in Arizona, I’d be happy. Oh, make that 3/7. The rats have McShame and Flake too.
“State Rep. Mike Bost is running against freshman rat Enyart”
Isn’t Bost the guy who went nuts on the state House floor? I liked that guy! And Enyart... that name rings a bell. I swear I read something about him having communist ties.
Suckworth essentially accuses anyone who goes against her of being ‘anti-disabled’ or some other BS. She’s a fraud.
Just be glad she is not a senator, because if Blago had gotten his way, that might have happened.
In Arizona, another air force pilot is running against Sinema funnily enough. Wendy Rogers.
I was under the impression McSally is in for facing down Barber again. She’d win by 4 points in a rematch and I think she knows it. Barber was buoyed by Obama’s coattails.
If we can knock off 3/5 of the Democrat’s congressional delegation in Arizona, I’d be happy. Oh, make that 3/7. The rats have McShame and Flake too.
“And Enyart... that name rings a bell. I swear I read something about him having communist ties.”
LOL. I said he was a Soviet sleeper agent, I didn’t even remember that. I guess I hate any rat coming from the military, I wonder WTH is wrong with them.
Yes, Bost had that rant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhbRcDZiJJc
You’re right McSally is a go and is the top fund raiser of any House candidate in the state raking in nearly 400K in the last period. Poltics1 only had her as a maybe, missed her announcement I guess. I got them to add Hale in IL-16 BTW.
Who do we like in AZ-9, Rogers or Parker? Or a third choice former AZ State (and briefly NFL) Quarterback Andrew Walter? I never heard of him, he wasn’t very good.
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.