Pedro Picasso's head exploding

[franksolich]

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x41344

Oh my.

ProgressOnTheMove  (357 posts)      Sun Dec-06-09 10:05 AM
Original message
 
I don't think that poll about 2010 is that bad.

Remember less people call themselves Republican than ever before and even with 60 % turnout for Democrats it would probably beat their 80 % of what is a smaller piece of the pie. That's how another poll says we make gains of 2-4 seats probably 3 if job gains by that time. Sure plenty of reason not to vote, but if we remember all McCain's promises to cut everything still lots to vote against in 2010.

Oh, I dunno.

If one looks at old newsmagazines from the mid-1970s, one finds that people who called themselves Republicans were at a lower nadir than as it currently is.....and then the Republicans lost the presidency in 1976 by a razor-thin margin; if the votes had been honestly counted, Gerald Ford probably actually won.

So stick that up the rectal aperture and smoke it.

sabbat hunter (1000+ posts)        Sun Dec-06-09 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
 
1. don't forget

that people identifying as independents are about 33% of the voting population. They are the ones who the election will swing on. If they come out for republican candidates strongly it will be an R year. If they are split evenly or come out strongly D it will make it a Democratic year.

Chances are based on history the Democratic party will lose 2-3 senate seats and a dozen in the house, as party sitting in the WH tends to lose in off year elections seats in the house and senate.

Actually, the Sunday hunting primitive needs to look at some, uh, other things.

In the 2010 Senatorial elections, the number of Republican seats up is vastly larger than the number of Democrat seats, and the more seats a party has at risk during mid-term elections, the more likely it is to lose some.

On the flip side of the coin, as for the 2010 House races, there's so many vulnerable Democrat seats that a Republican gain would be significantly more than just a "dozen;" maybe even enough to take back the House.  As it is now, it looks likely to be far more than a "dozen," but things can change in the twinkling of an eye.

Best to simply sit back, wait, and watch, to see how it evolves.

verges  (1000+ posts)      Sun Dec-06-09 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
 
4. Historically, that is the case.
 
But I'm not sure there has ever been a historical parellel to today's situation.

The Republicans are disintegrating before our very eyes like never before. The current Dem administration is still replacing the most incmpetent, disastrous administration in the history of our country. If the economy continues to make small gains (large would be better ) All the Dems will have to do is remind people of how close we came to disaster and that they would most likely be worse off if the Republicans were in control. They are the party of No. They haven't offered alternate solutions. A vote for the Republicans in 2010 is a vote for the Keystone Cops.

Oh, I dunno.

Pedro Picasso:

Atman  (1000+ posts)        Sun Dec-06-09 10:26 AM
NOMINEE FOR TOP PRIMITIVE OF 2009
Response to Original message

2. You're going to make the doomsdayer's heads 'splode.

You point out a very valid problem with so many of these polls -- who cares if the entire GOP is "energized?" I bet that even our 60% is bigger than their 100%. So-called independents are another problem, though. They're much like "libertarians," in that not that many of them actually exist in practice. The majority of them are just a)Repubs pretending they never voted for Bush in 2000/2004 and b)Dems who are afraid they'll wind up looking like those stupid Bush supporters if Obama's plans don't work out. When the rubber meets the road, most of them will gravitate back to the Red or Blue column as they always have.

It's just cooler to say your an indi these days. The fear we should have is that a snakeoil salesman like Joe Scab really kicks up the "Indi" torch and hoodwinks voters into believing he's not actually a neocon-loving right wing extremist. Remember, it was just last season that Scab was admonishing all his guests to "STOP TALKING ABOUT RECESSION! THERE IS NO RECESSION!" The man's an idiot, but he's got the right-wing media machine behind him, a three-hour infomercial every morning, and he's a shameless liar who thinks he can get away with murder. Perfect GOP material.

mcablue (220 posts)      Sun Dec-06-09 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
 
3. Which poll are you talking about?

Yeah, inquiring minds want to know, but it's too early to matter yet anyway.

Sky Masterson  (1000+ posts)        Sun Dec-06-09 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
 
5. I bet we lose about 20-30 seats

My old rep in Kansas isn't running again so I'm sure the pukes will pick up his seat.. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

60% turnout for the party in power in mid-terms?  The OP is on crack.

[thundley4]

Trust on Issues
Voters Continue to Trust GOP More on Most Top Issues

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues

Generic Congressional Ballot
Republican Still Lead By Seven on Generic Ballot

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

Partisan Trends
Number of Democrats Falls to Four-Year Low

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

The third one should be especially alarming to DemonRats, considering that people  often want to be associated with the perceived winner.  Maybe people aren't thinking of the DimRats as winners.

[BlueStateSaint]

Coach, I've heard that, with the special elections for various Senate seats due to the elevation of some Senators to the Obamessiah's cabinet, the actual number of Dem Senate seats up for grabs is 19, the same number as the Republicans.  Total of 38 Senate seats in play in 2010.

[franksolich]

Coach, I've heard that, with the special elections for various Senate seats due to the elevation of some Senators to the Obamessiah's cabinet, the actual number of Dem Senate seats up for grabs is 19, the same number as the Republicans.  Total of 38 Senate seats in play in 2010.

Well then, that would tend to favor against Republicans losing seats.

Normally, there's only 33-35 seats up.

I can't see where it's reasonable for Republicans to expect to pick up Senate seats (however I think it's reasonable for Republicans to expect to pick up dozens, scores, of House seats), but this makes it look a bit better.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

These "people" are perpetually furious at THEIR congress and THEIR president...

...but WE are the ones coming apart at the seams?

[Ralph Wiggum]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues
 http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
 http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

The third one should be especially alarming to DemonRats, considering that people  often want to be associated with the perceived winner.  Maybe people aren't thinking of the DimRats as winners.

But Rasmussen is just a right-wing mouthpiece. (DU mode)

[AllosaursRus]

the economy continues to make small gains (large would be better )

What the hell are these idiots smokin'? Guess what, DUmb as a sack 'o hammers, the economy sucks because of your heros in both houses of congress. We're gonna' kick your ass in 2010!

[Crazy Horse]

Atman  (1000+ posts)        Sun Dec-06-09 10:26 AM
NOMINEE FOR TOP PRIMITIVE OF 2009
Response to Original message

It's just cooler to say your an indi these days.

I'm proud I'm unaffiliatd............I vote what I want to vote.......not what some party tells me

And in the great state of NC I can vote i either primary..........my choice

[GOBUCKS]

The only thing in the middle of the road is a dead armadillo.

[Chris]

I'm surprised there are states that still require party affiliation to vote.  My brother lives in Ohio, and he had to register as a Republican to vote in the primary.  I didn't have to register a party affiliation, but I was more concerned about the GOP nominee than the Democrat, so that was the party I cast my vote for.

[Oceander]

Something off-topic 'cause it just really struck me on this thread - doesn't anyone teach DUmmies basic grammar and spelling?  The errors in almost every post of theirs are so bad, even I can spot them!

[USA4ME]

Atman

Remember, it was just last season that Scab was admonishing all his guests to "STOP TALKING ABOUT RECESSION! THERE IS NO RECESSION!" The man's an idiot, but he's got the right-wing media machine behind him, a three-hour infomercial every morning, and he's a shameless liar who thinks he can get away with murder. Perfect GOP material.

You and 3 others are the only one's on earth who watch Joe Scarborough... or PMSNBC for that matter.

........ frickin' dimwit..........

.

[BlueStateSaint]

Well then, that would tend to favor against Republicans losing seats.

Normally, there's only 33-35 seats up.

I can't see where it's reasonable for Republicans to expect to pick up Senate seats (however I think it's reasonable for Republicans to expect to pick up dozens, scores, of House seats), but this makes it look a bit better.

I talked to my aunt, who was a local Conservative Party bigwig (until they started to endorse candidates that weren't conservative), and I told her that the over/under for 2010 for Democratic losses in the House was 100 seats--and I was taking the over.  She told me that she could easily see that happening.

[franksolich]

I talked to my aunt, who was a local Conservative Party bigwig (until they started to endorse candidates that weren't conservative), and I told her that the over/under for 2010 for Democratic losses in the House was 100 seats--and I was taking the over.  She told me that she could easily see that happening.

One has to reap where the crops are, and it's the House.

I assume we might be able to hold our own, or even gain one or two, in the Senate, despite the odds, but the House is where it's at, in 2010.

The House alone would be good; remember how the late not-lamented Tipsy O'Neill as Speaker of the House during the 1980s obstructed a lot of the good things that Ronald Reagan wanted to do.  The Democrats didn't need the Senate too, to rein in Reagan's reforms and programs and lower taxes; all they needed was the House.

A pick-up of 100 seats would be great, but it's too early.

As far as I'm concerned, at the moment, a pick-up of any number of seats, even less than that, would be nice, so as to rein in Bela Pelosi.

[BlueStateSaint]

One has to reap where the crops are, and it's the House.

I assume we might be able to hold our own, or even gain one or two, in the Senate, despite the odds, but the House is where it's at, in 2010.

The House alone would be good; remember how the late not-lamented Tipsy O'Neill as Speaker of the House during the 1980s obstructed a lot of the good things that Ronald Reagan wanted to do.  The Democrats didn't need the Senate too, to rein in Reagan's reforms and programs and lower taxes; all they needed was the House.

A pick-up of 100 seats would be great, but it's too early.

As far as I'm concerned, at the moment, a pick-up of any number of seats, even less than that, would be nice, so as to rein in Bela Pelosi.

Yeah, it's early yet.  But, the tsunami is forming.  The over/under for Senate pickups is eight, I would think.  I'd take the over there, too.