Handicapping 2010

Townhall.com ^ | January 25, 2009 | Salena Zito

[StatenIsland]

After last Tuesday's pomp, circumstance and, at times, over-the-top love-fest language, it is hard to imagine the Democrats will be especially vulnerable in 2010's races for Congress or state governorships.

From 1934 through 2006, with the exceptions of 1998 (during the Clinton impeachment) and 2002 (following the 9/11 terrorist attacks), a president's party has lost an average of some 26 congressional seats in midterm elections.

In 2010, 34 U.S. Senate seats will be up for grabs, along with all 435 in the U.S. House.

However, with Senate vacancies created by Vice President Joe Biden (Delaware), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (New York) and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (Colorado) forcing special elections in 2010, 36 states face Senate contests -- including New York, with two.

With a special election required in Illinois for the remainder of President Obama's old term, that adds up to 38 Senate contests nationwide.

If health or age create two vacancies in Massachusetts and West Virginia, that would make 40 Senate contests in 38 states, all in one election cycle.

"I sincerely doubt that the Democrats are likely to lose that many in 2010," says Lara Brown, a political scientist at Villanova University.

She expects a net loss of between five and 10 seats in the House.

"The seats to watch are going to be those conservative Democratic or Republican-leaning districts that Democrats picked up in 2006 and 2008," Brown says.

In the Senate, the election turf appears more favorable to Republicans than it did in 2008. Yet with four GOP retirements already announced, it will not be smooth sailing.

Brown says the Florida seat of retiring Sen. Mel Martinez will be especially difficult for the GOP to hold, assuming former Gov. Jeb Bush doesn't backtrack and decide to run. If Republican Rep. Connie Mack runs, though, he would be a formidable challenge for Democrats.

Republicans also have retirement headaches with the Senate seats of George Voinovich of Ohio and Kit Bond of Missouri. Both will be very competitive races on which the GOP likely must spend substantial sums.

Democrats have to be favored in Ohio, given the strength of the state party and the field of candidates -- but don't discount U.S. Rep. Ron Portman, a Cincinnati Republican, as a candidate who could win.

[StatenIsland]

Pennsylvania's Senate seat held by Arlen Specter is one to watch. Now that a primary race is out of the question, it will be Specter versus one of many potential Democrats.

In Kentucky, Sen. Jim Bunning won in 2004 by just 1 percent. That could be a very close race again, which has Republican decision-makers urging Bunning to retire.

"Senate races -- more so than the House races -- recently have swung with the 'national mood' in elections," says Brown. "You saw Republicans pick up seats in 2002 and 2004, and Democrats pick up seats in 2006 and 2008."

Even if President Obama succeeds in working with Congress to pass legislation, the effects of those policies likely will not yet be felt by Americans in 2010. The public is more than likely to believe that, with Democrats in control, government isn't doing enough.

Barring another economic or foreign-policy crisis, the partisan pendulum is likely to swing once again, and Republicans will do better in 2010 than in the past two elections.

"The only two seats where I imagine that the Republicans will have a chance to take them will be Sen. Salazar's seat in Colorado and Reid's seat in Nevada," Brown says.

Now, knocking off Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be a moral victory for Republicans, similar to their defeat of former majority leader Tom Daschle in 2004. But that still won't get the GOP anywhere near a 51-vote majority.

Brown says to watch the special election in Illinois; lots of drama playing out there might help Republicans. Will scandal-era-appointed Democrat Roland Burris decide to run for a full Senate term? Will Burris be challenged by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.? What if special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation expands to include more Democrats besides Gov. Rod Blagojevich?

That may make Illinois in 2010 for Democrats similar to Ohio in 2004 for Republicans, when a governor's scandal felled nearly the entire GOP state slate.

For Republicans nationally, it all depends on recruitment. Luckily for them, retirements so far have come early enough to find quality candidates and to raise money.

Their fortunes largely rest on their relationship with President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress: Hold Democrats' feet to the fire, and Republicans could be called "obstructionists"; be too agreeable, and they'll be accused of playing "yellow-bellied roll-overs."

[Dr. Thorne]

The election of 2010 will be similar to 2008 in this way: If the economy is still on the skids, Americans will begin the process of blowing Democrats out of their seats all across America. We are now a nation desiring instant gratification. The Democrats have that long to turn the economy around, but will not be able to do so because you cannot "fix" capitalism with socialism.

My prediction: A financial storm consisting of a mixture of commercial mortgage failures, resetting Alt-A mortgages, derivative meltdowns, rising energy costs, insolvent banks, overreaching Democrat tax policies, inflation and a continued Dow slide toward 6000 will enrage the American people. They will start the "de-Democratization" process by electing 30 Republicans and Independents to the House and at least 5 Republicans to the Senate. Obama will campaign furiously for his agenda with a "stay the course I have set" and "blame Bush" message. Americans will have already started to realized the monstrous error they made in Obama's election, but it will take until 2011 for the general consensus to be that he is an incompetent and a hard-line Socialist. He will be openly mocked and hated by everyday Americans and lose in a landslide to whoever runs against him in 2012.

He will be branded as the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century by historians.

[philman_36]

You have to wonder if the whole Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle (which is what really started the slide) wasn't just a bear trap cleverly laid before blind, lemming-like Dems by the Pubbies so that they would get the blame for the poor economy in 2010.
If it was a trap the Dems sure stepped in it...with both feet!

[Woebama]

The 2010 elections are critical if we are to have some semblance of freedom for our children and grandchildren. I suggest a minimum of 1.8% of income on an ongoing basis to political causes. Why 1.8%? Because it’s a typical amount that the left extorts through union dues for their political causes. If you make 100,000 that translates to about $35 a week . . . week after week it adds up and makes a difference.

[anniegetyourgun]

Wishful thinking, Dr. Because the Republicans didn’t plan for succession, we will be living in a one-party system for years to come. The majority of the American electorate will be bought and paid for in 2 years....even more than they are now. The Republic is lost, and we have entered a socialist democracy era. Worse yet, “the one” will prevail for a second term, and only after that will he be unmasked....but, by then it will be too late.

[pistolpetestoys]

My sentiments exactly.Any dem seat that is threatened will be taken care of through character assasination(Sarah Palin) or outright theft by ACORN.As long as they can keep 50.01% of the public on the government dole,they will continue the philosophy of “we won,screw you.”

[Dr. Thorne]

Nice try, but you forget the dumbed-down education most Americans have received and how so many have become de facto wards of the state. This will actually work against the Dems when the economy tanks in a heretofore unprecedented fashion, proving their inability to perform the basic duties of the Nanny State. The unwashed will scream like babies whose bottles have been ripped from their lips.

The Dems cannot provide from a bare cupboard. Even the brainless Dem electorate will start to understand the Dem's failure when socialist handouts won't be enough to buy a Happy Meal.

However, when the change comes, look out! The conflicts in the streets won't be between the Left and Right. It will be between the Self-Sufficients and the Dependents. When the government can't support the Dependents, they will decide that they have the right to take what they need from those who have prepared for the coming disaster. There could be a breakdown of societal norms on every level. Make sure your guns are locked and loaded.

[RetiredArmy]

The public is more than likely to believe that, with Democrats in control, government isn't doing enough.

How much more could/would Americans expect the government too do? Hell, the government is already at a bankruptcy break speed in putting this country into 3d world status now. Do Americans expect us to get there faster? Don't forget, along with many of the things mentioned in the first couple of posts here, that the illegals getting all benefits is going to be a massive dollar drain. Free health care, give away programs for illegals is going to cost billions. Billions we simply do not have any more.

[M.K. Borders]

I would like to point out something I hear no one speaking about.

Obama won Indiana by 1%. Mitch Daniels, Indiana's conservative and very effective Governor won re-election in the same election by close to 30%. A blowout.

So what are we to believe? Are we to believe that the same kind of voter who would select Obama also selected Daniels.

Would it not be far more prudent to believe that the conservative voters in Indiana, in mass, walked out on McCain by making no selection for President and then voted for Governor?

Will those voters return and when?

[The Great RJ]

2010 could be a banner year for Republicans as after two years of tax and spend policies the recession will be worse, the US dollar will be darn near worthless, unemployment will be in double digits and inflation will be approaching double digits. Obama's energy policies will push gasoline prices back to over $4 per gallon and the loss of new refining capacity will produce shortages and long lines at the pump. While there will be attempts to still blame Bush in the MSM, the over hype of what Obama was going to do in his presidency will make him look like a failure.

Despite this, Republicans could flub the opportunity by nominating RINOs. I hope to see some primary challenges to get rid of the old tired leadership in the GOP.

[Common Tator]

The turn out in Indiana was large.. There were few who did not vote.

Swing voters determine who wins in Indiana. Swing voters determine who wins in 16 states. Swing voters, sometimes called moderates, do not vote on ideology. They vote based on two simple criteria. They vote for the most likable candidate who promises to do the most or them.

If the moderate voters like a candidate they will vote for that candidate. If both candidates are equally likable they will vote for the candidate that they think will do the most for them (not society at large.. not the economy.. but for them). For moderate voters ideology is never a factor.

There is a lot of election history in which moderate voters will in the same election vote for a very liberal candidate for one office and a very conservativew one for another office. That is what happened in indiana... the swing voters went for the Governor. They also went for Obama.

If the views that persuade Conservatives persuaded Moderates, all Moderates would be Conservatives.

[anniegetyourgun]

I would expect the latter (societal breakdown) long before I would expect conservatives to take back the majority. The GOP is dead.

[PhiKapMom]

Check the numbers and see if you have a lot of ballots in Indiana that ONLY voted for President. We had 117,000+ in Oklahoma although it didn't make any difference here as ZERO still couldn't win a county.

A lot of the in-person and absentee voter fraud came through ballots only voting for one person ballot — President. Here in Oklahoma we almost lost a State Senate race due to voter fraud of ACORN.

Everyone needs to start checking their local precincts and see if the voters are legit. We cannot wait until the summer of 2010 and start yelling. You can force the local election board to take off fraudulent voters with perseverance.

That is also why I support Ken Blackwell for the new RNC Chair because he understands the magnitude of ACORN voter fraud. He is conservative and won't be silenced or give in. Everyone needs to call/write your national committeeman/woman and State Chair to ask them to vote for Ken Blackwell. He is not a member of the RNC which is exactly what we need. No members after the last two debacles.

[bill1952]

>Arlen Specter is one to watch. Now that a primary race is out of the question,

Why is a primary race out of the question?

>it will be Specter versus one of many potential Democrats.

Aside from the caucus, what would the difference be anyway?

[bill1952]

Soory, but that is just plain wrong.

they will vote for the candidate that they think will do the most for them

Thats not even remotely correct - that would be a liberal.

They vote for the most likable candidate who promises to do the most or them. No. Bush did not promise to give away the economy to them like the liberals are currently doing.

McCain lost because he was nothing at all that was much different from the real deal leftist libs.
It isn't called McCAin/Kennedy for nothing.
Or the Keating gang.
Or the gang of whatever.

His positions simply were not worth pulling the lever.

And that is why he, and almost any RINO, will lost the big one forever.

Hell, I will contribute to anyone who would run against him in the primary - He was, and is, worthless.

[Vigilanteman]

Specter is, by no means, a shoo-in, even in a primary. One good thing he does is a lot of town hall meetings and not just when he is running for re-election. Pennsylvania is a big state, populationwise, and he has managed to visit our county regularly. But he lost to Pat Toomey from the other side of the state in 2004 and is really beginning to show his age.

The sorry state of the national economy is a leading indicator here, especially in the industrial SW of the state. Rendell lost here big in 2004 while the houseplant (Bob Casey Jr.) was easily elected based on his famous family name. I see things getting really ugly in 2010. Specter's greatest gift so far is a crowded list of GOP stars going for the governor's office. But I expect the likely candidate or two will emerge before year-end and one of the others could opt to challenge Specter.

[bill1952]

Well, I still own the family home in Montgomery County.
Let me know what can be done to help when the need arises.

[supercat]

McCain lost because he was nothing at all that was much different from the real deal leftist libs.

RINOs work to convince liberals that they're not really going to do all the mean nasty things conservatives want to do. Reagan worked to convince people that the things conservatives wanted to do weren't mean and nasty. Which strategy worked better?

[philman_36]

"You have to wonder if the whole Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle (which is what really started the slide) wasn't just a bear trap cleverly laid..."

The Last Trillion-Dollar Commitment - The Destruction of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Serious observers questioned whether they should be allowed to continue to hold mortgages and MBS in their portfolios--by far their most profitable activity--and Senate Republicans moved a bill out of committee that would have prohibited this activity.
Under these circumstances, the need to manage their political risk became paramount, and this required them to prove to their supporters in Congress that they still served a useful purpose. In 2003, as noted above, Frank had cited an arrangement in which the GSEs' congressional benefits were linked to their investments in affordable housing.

SNAP!