Posted on 10/31/2010 6:46:20 PM PDT by kristinn
“All I need to do is figure out where that 130th seat will come from.”
Star Parker, CA-37
+++++++++++++++++++
Or James Watkins - WA 1!
LOL
Hardly. While we may fall short of +10, we will have an evenly divided Senate that will be completely unable to enact Obama's agenda. Moreover, we will be able to block Obama judicial nominations, provided our Senators have the will to do it.
...Gallup's Oct. 28-31 survey of 1,539 likely voters... finds 52% to 55% of likely voters preferring the Republican... and 40% to 42% ...the Democrat... on the national generic ballot -- depending on turnout assumptions... Gallup's historical model suggests that a party needs at least a two-point advantage in the national House vote to win a majority of the 435 seats.
Would be great if liberalism was added to the dust heap of humanity.
“From now on we have to pay attention all of the time and keep them on a short leash...It’s going to take quite a few elections to undo the mess that is facing us.”
Absolutly right. After we celebrate for a few days/weeks, we’d best determine how we’re going to approach the future, and how we’re going to measure success, and then hold our public servants to the measuring stick. Frankly, I’d love to see term limits - as I think career politicians are a huge cause of the problems and the longer they stay out there in DC, the more bought off they (all) become.
‘The next question is “Will the Republicans be as deaf as Scott Brown and the Democrats?” They’d better listen up, or they’ll be kicked out too.’
I agree.
I LIKE your number!
‘Hardly. While we may fall short of +10, we will have an evenly divided Senate that will be completely unable to enact Obama’s agenda. Moreover, we will be able to block Obama judicial nominations, provided our Senators have the will to do it.’
Furthermore, it will be MUCH more Conservative than it was a few short years ago. Many RINOs and RATs gone. Then there’s 2012 that looms large, and weighs heavily on the progressives/professional politicos...
I’m looking forward to watching Dim candidates taken by surprise. The supposedly “safe” ones that have not taken any precautions like arranging for boxes of phony ballots to be used “just in case”. The ones that failed to take the precaution of having recounts and judges in their pockets because they never needed them before.
I've always believed that these results were a reflection on the Clinton impeachment -- the House was rewarded for impeaching him, but the Senate was punished for the travesty they made of the trial.
That really makes no sense, as the 1998 elections were in November, 1998, while the House impeached him on December 19, 1998, and the Senate failed to convict on February 12, 1999.
The idea was to help black people elect black Representatives.
It worked, but it had a blowback ~ by concentrating black Democrats in those districts, it left other districts whiter and more Republican.
Those districts were also more competitive and the Republicans have been better able to take the House more often than in earlier periods.
Testimony was given in court, evidence taken, all was reported. The result was predicted ~ namely that black people would get elected to Congress and white people would gain majorities under the Republican banner rather than the Democrat banner.
Newt Gingrich talks it about it quite openly ALL the time, as does Dick Morris, Pat Caddell, etc.
It's certainly not hidden.
Now, with a slight kick toward the Republicans, all those districts balanced fairly evenly between Republicans and Democrats flip over to the Republican brand and the Democrats are out.
Look Rahm Emanuel also worked this over the last two elections. He saw that the Democrats were not going to win many districts running extreme Leftwingtards so he came up with the more conservative Blue Dog Democrats, got everybody to just shut up about gun control, and he was able to take minor dissatisfaction over "W" to flip those districts to the Democrats!
May I suggest another solution. Session limits.
The problem with term limits is that it disenfranchises voters who may want to keep an effective Representative or Senator. Plus, it enhances the influence of permanent staff -- who are an entrenched part of the Washington establishment.
Indeed, you might say that it is Washington itself that is the problem. But, if Congressional sessions were limited to 180 days, our Representatives and Congressmen wouldn't be staying in Washington year-round, wouldn't be taking up residence there. On the other hand, it would be necessary for them to maintain an actual home among their constituency -- and spend a significant amount of time there. They would remain a part of their district, rather than become a creature of Washington.
Many state legislatures work with session limits -- often 90 days every two years. And if Congress can't get their work done within 180 days, the nation will probably be better off for it.
That’s the “most optimistic” scenario I think. It’s not the “you’ve got to be kidding” scenario.
Of the 6 “safe” D Senators which do you think will lose? I think you need 2 of the 6 in order to get to 15
Your prediction still wouldn’t break the 1894 House record. Granting the increase House size we need +159 for that. But I’d take your prediction ;-) I’m not sure where Senate +15 would fall historically; there weren’t elections for it in 1894.
I've already confessed my mistake. I should've been referencing the 2000 results in the House and Senate.
I think you are both a bit off-base on the number of truly safe seats ... it’s quite a bit higher - in the 165 range or so... But they have put about 110 seat out of the safe column, and a Tea-nami could flip 70-80 of them.
If 100 seats flip, you’ve got the Dems back to 160 seats ... which would be truly horrific for them ... and great for America.
160 - 100 - 175.
After every election, the party that wins says the other party is dead. “These results signal that we’ll be in power until the end of time” Then they govern, and the people don’t like them, and they get wiped out in 2 years, and then the other side says they’ll be in power forever.
Sorry, I knew that part. I meant this, esp the stuff in caps:
“Barring widespread vote fraud we will very shortly have CONSTITUTIONAL MAJORITIES, and as was discussed on Hannity tonight with Pat Cadell, that means PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT for the next two years.
This is one of those emergency fallback provisions the Founders stuffed into the Constitution. They did so cleverly and almost no one notices it. However, they were all very familiar with the practice. So, welcome to 1790!”
OK
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.