Posted on 02/19/2022 10:39:25 AM PST by SaxxonWoods
The number of House Democrats not seeking reelection this year has hit a 30-year high — a bleak benchmark reflecting frustrations with the gridlock on Capitol Hill, the toxicity of relations between the parties and the challenges facing Democrats as they fight to keep their slim majority in the lower chamber.
Rep. Kathleen Rice’s (D-N.Y.) announcement this week that she won’t run again made her the 30th House Democrat to call it quits. That’s the most for the party since 1992, when 41 House Democrats decided to retire even as voters were sending their presidential nominee, Bill Clinton, to the White House.
It marks just the third time since 1978 that either party has seen at least 30 retirements in a single cycle, according to figures tallied by the non-partisan Brookings Institution. The last instance was just four years ago, in the 2018 midterms, when 34 House Republicans made for the exits. It was a grim sign of things to come: The GOP went on to lose 41 seats — and the House majority — in a Democratic wave widely viewed as a referendum on then-President Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I’d like to see the Dims beat the record, not just tie it.
4 to tie, 5 for the win.
They are all moving to Florida to swim in the gold. They need a new crop of swine elected. Share the wealth.
Hmm, let’s see... what happened to the Dems in Congress roughly 30 years ago? :)
Retired House members are almost never prosecuted.
Another suspicion is somewhere, some Conservative group is using the same tools which were used in 2018 to get House members to retire.
Representatives live a life of privilege and power few imagine. They do not lose that privilege simply because they become the minority party.
I gather there was a change in the law and if the present people retire now they will be able to fold their unspent reelection funds into a “non-profit.” In other words, they get to keep the money for themselves rather than waste it on running for an office when they think they will lose. Another cause is that it’s “no fun” (not profitable) being the party out of power and the Democrats believe that their party will be out of power, thanks to Biden, for decades...well after those retiring would have died had they managed to remain in office. If they go now, they can use the money in their “non profit” to finance their next career. (The reason Anthony Weiner ran for Mayor of NY wasn’t because he thought he’d win, he wasn’t crazy, it was so he could spend the several million dollars he had rolled into his non profit. You can, for a wild example, buy yourself a building for your campaign headquaters and then rent it out for your personal profit after you lose.)
WE need 55 senate seats to counter the rinos. House is ours.
All 30 are possible picks, plus many others. Our job is to have a real MAGA candidate on the ticket.
The Hill can’t say the obvious: Internal polls convinced these Dems they will lose badly, and they have no hope of an improved economy or better performance by their party to turn that around. Their donor bases know the score and will dry up accordingly. And if they somehow won their own seats, they could look forward to doing nothing but defending Joe and Hunter from investigation and Joe from removal. Cashing in as a lobbyist has to seem compelling.
But this spin by the authors is a testament to their credibility: “figures tallied by the NON-PARTISAN Brookings Institution.” Brookings makes Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi seem like Republicans.
Why Republicans won Congress and many statehouses. Newt and the Contract. The Clinton pivot. Opportunity squandered.
I have been watching the retirements. They are damn near all in hyper safe Dem districts. Very very few are leaving because they fear loss upcoming.
They may expect to be in the minority, but that’s not going to drive anyone away who likes the salary and power.
FR is way way too optimistic about what these retirements say. Far too much attention on them.
“All 30 are possible picks, plus many others.”
Let’s not get ridiculous here: A pickup in the Ghetto Detroit-area district? In Rhode Island? Ghetto South Chicago? “Barrio” districts in Los Angeles and New Jersey? South San Francisco/San Mateo? Ghetto Dallas? And numerous others (Pittsburgh, Louisville...). Not a chance in hell of taking any of those.
Republicans will get Jim Cooper’s seat in Nashville unless/until a bought Democrat judge overturns the Republican map. That’s the ONE (1) seat guaranteed to flip, hopefully with a good conservative (Robby Starbuck) and not the Trump-administration RINO squish who Ivanka has stupidly endorsed in the primary.
There are a handful of other districts which are likely, but by no means *guaranteed*, to flip in Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina (we’ll see about that), and maybe Florida if DeSantis can get his map past the RINO judicial gauntlet.
In February 1991, Bush had an approval rating of almost 90% as a result of the first Gulf War. Bush was viewed as unbeatable. Clinton ended up with the democrat nomination because none of the A list democrats wanted to run.
By the beginning of 1992, Bush was still ahead in the polls and the democrats had a couple of B list candidates fighting it out for their presidential nomination (Clinton and Tsongas). Democrat congesscritters started fleeing a sinking ship, because it seemed clear that they were going to get poured out in the general election.
Then Ross Perot jumped into the election as an independent, splitting the Republican vote, while Bush continued to drop in the polls. As a result, Clinton got elected with only 43% of the popular vote. At the same time, the democrats lost 9 seats in the house and just managed to break even in the Senate.
Two years later, in 1994, a Republican tidal wave took out democrats in state and federal elections around the country. Hopefully, this year will be a repeat of the 1994 elections.
There will be another Perot out there. A nobody who talked big about the debt where the GOP ignored. BJ was an excellent once in a century politician. Obama didn’t need Perot. Table was set in 2006.
This time the anti-debt issue will be anti-Trump. I don’t think the Liz Cheneys out there will gather traction. Democrats hated her father and Trump took out the Bushies.
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.