2010 Midterm Election Predictions

Bassman said:

Oh goodie, a brand new presidential portrait of our Dear Leader!!!

Click to expand...

Humor...a difficult concept....:mrgreen:

Bassman said:

No, I am correct, or do I need to bring in the governorships and state legislatures in also???

Click to expand...

If you're so correct, why are you ignoring Celticlord's link showing that the Republicans have had significant periods of time in both sections of Congress and in the white house. Furthermore, governorships and state legislators are not DC.

You'd be best to shape up. If you think that the behavior you pulled on 4forums will work here, you're out of luck. Daewoo and Steeeve knew what you were and largely ignored you. People here won't be so kind.

Try this. A bit more accurate

obvious Child said:

If you're so correct, why are you ignoring Celticlord's link showing that the Republicans have had significant periods of time in both sections of Congress and in the white house. Furthermore, governorships and state legislators are not DC.

You'd be best to shape up. If you think that the behavior you pulled on 4forums will work here, you're out of luck. Daewoo and Steeeve knew what you were and largely ignored you. People here won't be so kind.

Click to expand...

Shape up?? So I cannot be passionate about MY country and the direction that I do not want it to go in??

If healthcare reform passes with a government option (at minimum), I think the Republicans have a good chance of seat gains in both chambers (more in the House). That may not equate to a majority in either for them, but they will get some back.

If healthcare starts to fade out, and fade out now, not much will change. If Democrats continue to push for it, even if it fails, Republicans will make gains. The degree of those gains depends on if it passes or not.

Nothing will energized the Conservatives in this country like government-controlled healthcare of any form.

To be specific regarding the Senate, if certain healthcare reform passes:
Safe Democrat = CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, IN, MD, NV, NY, ND, OR, VT,
Possible turn to Republican: AR, WA
Probable turn to Republican: CO, PA

Bassman said:

Shape up?? So I cannot be passionate about MY country and the direction that I do not want it to go in??

Click to expand...

I meant stop lying. And your little state legislature comment was clearly a tangent to get away from your failure to prove that Democrats have controlled the Federal government.

obvious Child said:

I meant stop lying. And your little state legislature comment was clearly a tangent to get away from your failure to prove that Democrats have controlled the Federal government.

Click to expand...

Lying about what?? That the DEMOCRATS HAVE HELD CONGRESS (HOSTAGE) FOR FORTY F*CKING YEARS!!! and that out of those administrations, Democrats have held the Presidency longer??

Bassman said:

Lying about what?? That the DEMOCRATS HAVE HELD CONGRESS (HOSTAGE) FOR FORTY F*CKING YEARS!!! and that out of those administrations, Democrats have held the Presidency longer??

Click to expand...

And, oh my god, with that being the case, we have ended up as the greatest nation on Earth. Those damn democrats...

Hey guys, can we move past the partisanship here and kinda actually talk about predictions for 2010. I think we have been sidetracked enough for awhile.

Redress said:

And, oh my god, with that being the case, we have ended up as the greatest nation on Earth. Those damn democrats...

Click to expand...

Ahem:
War on poverty-failure
Increased and deficit spending-wrote the book on it

Bassman said:

Lying about what?? That the DEMOCRATS HAVE HELD CONGRESS (HOSTAGE) FOR FORTY F*CKING YEARS!!! and that out of those administrations, Democrats have held the Presidency longer??

Click to expand...

And now you change your argument. Instead of discussing divided government as it is constituted, you now only want to talk about Congress. Too bad that Celticlord was clearly discussing the legislative and executive branch.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/54233-2010-midterm-election-predictions-3.html#post1058189527

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress]United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

You keep ignoring how only rarely since 1945 has any one party held Congress and the White House at the same time.

Constantly changing your argument to avoid admitting you are wrong is a sign of weak skills.

obvious Child said:

And now you change your argument. Instead of discussing divided government as it is constituted, you now only want to talk about Congress. Too bad that Celticlord was clearly discussing the legislative and executive branch.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/54233-2010-midterm-election-predictions-3.html#post1058189527

United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You keep ignoring how only rarely since 1945 has any one party held Congress and the White House at the same time.

Constantly changing your argument to avoid admitting you are wrong is a sign of weak skills.

Click to expand...

And as I stated before, to hell with "divided" government. I want Liberalism to be destroyed and for a truly Conservative Constitutional form of government to be restored!!! Hell we fought, bled, and died to break away from Europe, why the hell are we trying so hard to emulate her??

Bassman said:

Shape up?? So I cannot be passionate about MY country and the direction that I do not want it to go in??

Click to expand...

Oh please. Cry someone else a river.

Dear Leader is not taking this country in a good direction at all...but what you fail to appreciate is that the checks and balances in our government are not merely between the political parties, but between the governing institutions. The power of the Presidency is muted by the power of the Congress. The national agenda of the President is thwarted by the parochial interests of Congressmen. These things are true regardless of which party controls which segment of the federal government.

What we are seeing with the anger over health care is public resentment of the incompetence and the insensitivity of both the Congress and the White House in tending to the nation's business. The people want the health care systems in this country made better; they do not want "reform for reform's sake." Congressmen are more vulnerable to this anger than the President, who is shielded from the voters' ire until 2012. Many Congressmen are thus put in a position where their political interest runs counter to the President's political interest--regardless of party affiliation.

If the Anti-Republicans were truly a disciplined, unified party, they would be quite dangerous, as they would be able to enact more of their agenda. They are not disciplined, and, as the public reprobations Queen Nancy, Henry Taxman, et al, have handed down on the Blue Dogs illustrate, they are not all that unified, either. Their indiscipline will thwart (and has already thwarted) Dear Leader's ruinous agenda--thank God!

You tilt at a windmill that is as airy as the wind itself.

Bassman said:

And as I stated before, to hell with "divided" government. I want Liberalism to be destroyed and for a truly Conservative Constitutional form of government to be restored!!! Hell we fought, bled, and died to break away from Europe, why the hell are we trying so hard to emulate her??

Click to expand...

Amusing coming from a man who has repetitively praised the Republicans despite the Republicans being liberals. If you want a truly conservative form of government, check out the Front National. :rofl

celticlord said:

Oh please. Cry someone else a river.

Dear Leader is not taking this country in a good direction at all...but what you fail to appreciate is that the checks and balances in our government are not merely between the political parties, but between the governing institutions. The power of the Presidency is muted by the power of the Congress. The national agenda of the President is thwarted by the parochial interests of Congressmen. These things are true regardless of which party controls which segment of the federal government.

Click to expand...

Not with Queen Bee Pelosi and Dingy Harry Reid in lockstep with Der Komissar.

What we are seeing with the anger over health care is public resentment of the incompetence and the insensitivity of both the Congress and the White House in tending to the nation's business. The people want the health care systems in this country made better; they do not want "reform for reform's sake." Congressmen are more vulnerable to this anger than the President, who is shielded from the voters' ire until 2012. Many Congressmen are thus put in a position where their political interest runs counter to the President's political interest--regardless of party affiliation.

If the Anti-Republicans were truly a disciplined, unified party, they would be quite dangerous, as they would be able to enact more of their agenda. They are not disciplined, and, as the public reprobations Queen Nancy, Henry Taxman, et al, have handed down on the Blue Dogs illustrate, they are not all that unified, either. Their indiscipline will thwart (and has already thwarted) Dear Leader's ruinous agenda--thank God!

You tilt at a windmill that is as airy as the wind itself.

Click to expand...

Wanna bet?? The Blue Dogs will cave, just like they always do!! The Democrats are more united than you think!

Alex said:

If healthcare reform passes with a government option (at minimum), I think the Republicans have a good chance of seat gains in both chambers (more in the House). That may not equate to a majority in either for them, but they will get some back.

If healthcare starts to fade out, and fade out now, not much will change. If Democrats continue to push for it, even if it fails, Republicans will make gains. The degree of those gains depends on if it passes or not.

Nothing will energized the Conservatives in this country like government-controlled healthcare of any form.

To be specific regarding the Senate, if certain healthcare reform passes:
Safe Democrat = CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, IN, MD, NV, NY, ND, OR, VT,
Possible turn to Republican: AR, WA
Probable turn to Republican: CO, PA

Click to expand...

I think if health care passes this year, and it does not have a major negative impact on most people(I don't think it will), it will be a mostly nonissue in the actual outcome of the midterms. The people it will most influence in voting are not the swing voters who will decide the elections. I think the economy will be a much bigger issue. If unemployment is still high, expect decent republican gains, if low, small gains to a status quo situation.

Redress said:

I think if health care passes this year

Click to expand...

which it won't

and it does not have a major negative impact on most people(I don't think it will),

Click to expand...

wanna bet??

it will be a mostly nonissue in the actual outcome of the midterms. The people it will most influence in voting are not the swing voters who will decide the elections. I think the economy will be a much bigger issue. If unemployment is still high, expect decent republican gains, if low, small gains to a status quo situation.

Click to expand...

Ahh yes, back to that pesky little disaster of Dear Leader's.

Redress said:

I think if health care passes this year, and it does not have a major negative impact on most people(I don't think it will), it will be a mostly nonissue in the actual outcome of the midterms. The people it will most influence in voting are not the swing voters who will decide the elections. I think the economy will be a much bigger issue. If unemployment is still high, expect decent republican gains, if low, small gains to a status quo situation.

Click to expand...

I agree with the statements on the economy also. But if healthcare passes, it will not go into effect until 2013. Many Conservatives will see getting out to vote as a chance to stop it before it is too late in 2013.

Bassman said:

which it won'twanna bet?? Ahh yes, back to that pesky little disaster of Dear Leader's.

Click to expand...

I know this is hard, but can we maybe talk about the 2010 elections. Lots of threads to be all hyperpartisan in, and that are actually about issues.

Alex said:

I agree with the statements on the economy also. But if healthcare passes, it will not go into effect until 2013. Many Conservatives will see getting out to vote as a chance to stop it before it is too late in 2013.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's not conservatives or liberals who decide elections for the most part, it's swing voters, who I think are less passionate about the whole thing. You are much more on top of state by state stuff, are there enough states with large enough conservative bases that have democrat congressmen that might swing?

Redress said:

Yeah, but it's not conservatives or liberals who decide elections for the most part, it's swing voters, who I think are less passionate about the whole thing. You are much more on top of state by state stuff, are there enough states with large enough conservative bases that have democrat congressmen that might swing?

Click to expand...

Right now, New York's Democrats are not in the greatest shape. With the recent coup in the Senate, and Gov. Paterson enjoying a paltry 18% approval, fortunes may just turn for the GOP in NY and perhaps we may be able to get rid of Chuck You Schumer and Hildebeast Gillebrand!!!

.

Projections at this point in time are wild ass guesses. The Health Care Reform issues are so huge the eventual results of whatever bill is (or isn't) passed will be impacting.

Thought at this juncture is that Obama is losing his glow. Too many examples/records of him contradicting earlier positions on his health care proposals. His blatant goal seems to be single payer (total govt control) and he will likely get burned as that evidence mounts.

If the Democrats run away from Obama in in the 2010 elections they have a good chance of maintaining power. If not, they are running a risk.....



.

Cole said:

.

Projections at this point in time are wild ass guesses. The Health Care Reform issues are so huge the eventual results of whatever bill is (or isn't) passed will be impacting.

Thought at this juncture is that Obama is losing his glow. Too many examples/records of him contradicting earlier positions on his health care proposals. His blatant goal seems to be single payer (total govt control) and he will likely get burned as that evidence mounts.

If the Democrats run away from Obama in in the 2010 elections they have a good chance of maintaining power. If not, they are running a risk.....



.

Click to expand...

What is your take on GOP prospects for 2010??

My prediction is a smaller voter turnout (due to party disillusionment), and a minority rule by the Democrats.

The GOP still has some restructuring to do, and it has not shown signs it is committed to doing so.

Redress said:

Cuz I am bored, what do you think will happen in the 2010 elections? I am not including repubs gaining in the Senate, since numbers kinda make it unlikely.

Poll options up.

Click to expand...

I see democrats losing a few seats but probably not enough to make a difference since those democrats will be replace with rinos.I do not see a **** load of democrats and rino republicans being booted even if the republicans ran ads saying how the democrats and Obama white house called you fake or unAmerican for protesting so-called health care reform or how they got this country into bigger debt. Majority of voters have a short attention span and by the time midterms come around it will be old news just like Obama attending a racist anti-American church for twenty years or associated with a terrorist.

Redress said:

Yeah, I am aware of that, though it is a nice summary. I have said that I do think checks on a single party in power are a positive. I am going to enjoy this period of democrats in pretty much total power, but I don't think that is healthy in a long run. There needs to be a strong opposition, which unfortunately, the republican are not handling well. Admittedly, we did not handle it well from 2000 to 2006 either.

Click to expand...

I want to bring this back to the foreground, because I think people need to broaden their thinking about political opposition in this country.

We too easily buy into the myth of party dominance and party governance. The chaotic health care debate in Washington, with the major disputes occurring within the majority party, as Blue Dogs and Progressives duke it out over competing priorities, should be enough to demonstrate that American politics is rather more complicated.

There are several polar opposites embedded in the federal government:

• There is the obvious pairing of the major political parties, which typically adopt "liberal" vs "conservative" rhetoric.
• There is the Executive vs the Legislative, with both entities vying for control of the same policy areas (White House "czars" vs Congressional oversight committees.
• There is the national agenda of the President vs the parochial agendas of 100 senators and 435 Congressmen
• There is the patrician, deliberative, formal Senate vs the more rowdy, rambunctious, and informal House of Representatives.

In looking at any piece of controversial legislation, any substantive agenda, and how it wends its way through the government, we have to realize that there are more dimensions to the politics than who has a "D" and who has an "R" after their name on the Congressional roster.

Effective governance for any politician is grasping these intertwined competitions and finding the common locii where debate, discussion, and even compromise are possible--as well as recognizing when compromise is impossible.