Can the GOP win back the House in 2010?

posted at 3:05 pm on August 31, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Maybe the question isn’t so much whether the GOP can win back control of the house, but how quickly that possibility has arisen since Democrats took full control of the Beltway.  Only seven months after securing all of the electoral levers of power, Democrats have plunged themselves into hot water with voters, rapidly losing support for an increasingly radical agenda.  As their $787,000,000,000 economic fix continues to flop and they propose ever-higher levels of spending and government control, the question doesn’t become if, but when and how badly:

After an August recess marked by raucous town halls, troubling polling data and widespread anecdotal evidence of a volatile electorate, the small universe of political analysts who closely follow House races is predicting moderate to heavy Democratic losses in 2010.

Some of the most prominent and respected handicappers can now envision an election in which Democrats suffer double-digit losses in the House — not enough to provide the 40 seats necessary to return the GOP to power but enough to put them within striking distance. …

Historic trends point to Republican House gains in the midterm election, particularly after facing two brutal election cycles where the party lost seats in every region and even in some of the most conservative states in the nation. Over the last five decades, the party out of power has picked up seats in 10 of the 12 midterm elections.

Turnout levels may also work in the GOP’s favor: House Democrats who narrowly won election in 2008 on the strength of high turnout among African-Americans and young voters probably won’t be able to count on that same level of enthusiasm next year in a nonpresidential election.

No, but they can count on a great deal of enthusiasm among their opponents.  Grassroots activists have driven hundreds and thousands of vocal opponents to the Democratic agenda, especially on health care, to normally sleepy off-year August town halls across the nation.  The effort to get union activists as a means of shouting down voters has created even more anger and bitterness.  The older voters, much more reliable in midterm elections, have become thoroughly alienated, as have independents.

Republicans would have to win 40 seats in order to take control of the House, a daunting number, but it’s within reach, Nate Silver argues.  He warned the Netroots Nation that the GOP had between a 25% and 33% chance of pulling it off in 2010, and as the polling continues to slide for Barack Obama and the Democrats, those odds will get better for Republicans.  The analog would be the 1994 elections, which also hinged on overreaching Democratic health care “reform”, and the Republicans won 54 seats to claim the majority and end over 40 years of Democratic domination.

Can they do it again?  The GOP has a much stronger wind at its back than they did in 1994 with the rapid decline of Democratic support, but they need to organize effectively to take advantage of it.  The NRCC needs to build a foundation that will attract the conservative base and independent voters alike.  Their best bet is to focus on economic freedom, fiscal responsibility, less government control, and free-market reforms that make sense.  Republicans have to have a positive message for voters, not just a gainsay of Obamanomics.  They have two easy targets with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to paint Congress as aggressively radical, but that has to be paired with an agenda that wins hearts and minds across a broad spectrum.

If the GOP can do that, they have a good chance of retiring Pelosi from the speaker’s chair, and to reduce Reid’s votes in the Senate (and perhaps to bounce Reid himself out of it).


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I’m getting a chub picturing Reid FIRED and Pelosi walking off in shame and COMPLETELY disgraced.

marklmail on August 31, 2009 at 4:09 PM

And if the GOP wins… THEN WHAT?

They didn’t do such a bangup job last time. Can they remember how to be conservatives?

originalpechanga on August 31, 2009 at 3:09 PM

First of all, if the GOP wins, then we have successfully derailed the collectivist/communitarian agenda of Barack Hussein Obama. If nothing else, you should be on your knees praying for such an outcome.

Secondly, you’re never going to have Congress be as conservative as you would like it. If we get 250 GOPers in there, 50-75 of them are going to be moderates. That’s just a fact of the numbers, just like the left wing of the Democratic party is never going to get congress as liberal as they would like it. There’s a reason they call it the vital center.

The key to conservative governance is to have GOP leaders, primarily (but not exclusively) as POTUS, who really understand what conservatism is, and why it is a superior philosophical construct to what is now known as liberalism.

That was the problem we had under the Bush Administration. GWB thought it was enough to say “I’m a (compassionate) conservative”. It wasn’t enough, and it was clear he just didn’t really get the why of conservatism. Whether you think W was an idiot or brilliant (personally I think it’s somewhere near the middle of the two), it was clear he had never really thought conservatism through.

Thus we get NCLB. Thus we get prescription drug entitlements. Thus we get a foreign policy that resembles nothing so much as Wilsonian worship at the altar of democracy. Thus we get bailouts of Wall Street. Thus we get immigration reform.

And this is why we must be very careful about our next nominee in 2012. It’s no secret that I’ve been very critical of Sarah Palin. The reason is that, much like with GWB, I get the sense she has not thought conservatism through. Without that intellectual rigor, it becomes far too easy to cave to the moderate Members of congress who, following rational political calculus, demand policies that are decidedly un-conservative.

Many have compared Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan. But that comparison fails on this point. Reagan clearly knew why he was a conservative, and why that conservatism was necessary for America to prosper. it was clear that Reagan had read his Burke, that he was conversant in Friedman, that he could discuss conservatism with Buckley.

And that was the root of Reagan’s success. Compare the period of 1981-1988, when Reagan was dealing with a Democratic H of R’s, to 2001-2006, when Bush was dealing with a GOP HoR. Which period saw a greater advancement of conservatism? Unless you are an idiot or a Bush shill, the answer is clear.

Sorry if this screed is hijacking the thread. I just thought it was important to highlight the importance of intellectual leadership for conservatives.

JohnGalt23 on August 31, 2009 at 4:10 PM

“I can see Nan saying, “That’s not my back you are touching”, and Harry saying, “Its OK, that’s not my hand, either.”

Vashta.Nerada on August 31, 2009 at 3:19 PM”

……. and he is cold as ice.

Seven Percent Solution on August 31, 2009 at 4:11 PM

I think there’ll be quite a lot of flipping, but unless the GOP gets some sort of cogent, coordinated, focused message out there, they’re as likely to be flipped as their Dem counterparts.

People are angry, and when they get angry, and there’s no real positive attraction to counter that anger, anything goes.

Nichevo on August 31, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Great news. We gonna run with McCain again :)

JiangxiDad on August 31, 2009 at 4:13 PM

First of all, if the GOP wins, then we have successfully derailed the collectivist/communitarian agenda of Barack Hussein Obama. If nothing else, you should be on your knees praying for such an outcome.

Secondly, you’re never going to have Congress be as conservative as you would like it. If we get 250 GOPers in there, 50-75 of them are going to be moderates. That’s just a fact of the numbers, just like the left wing of the Democratic party is never going to get congress as liberal as they would like it. There’s a reason they call it the vital center.

The key to conservative governance is to have GOP leaders, primarily (but not exclusively) as POTUS, who really understand what conservatism is, and why it is a superior philosophical construct to what is now known as liberalism.

That was the problem we had under the Bush Administration. GWB thought it was enough to say “I’m a (compassionate) conservative”. It wasn’t enough, and it was clear he just didn’t really get the why of conservatism. Whether you think W was an idiot or brilliant (personally I think it’s somewhere near the middle of the two), it was clear he had never really thought conservatism through.

Thus we get NCLB. Thus we get prescription drug entitlements. Thus we get a foreign policy that resembles nothing so much as Wilsonian worship at the altar of democracy. Thus we get bailouts of Wall Street. Thus we get immigration reform.

And this is why we must be very careful about our next nominee in 2012. It’s no secret that I’ve been very critical of Sarah Palin. The reason is that, much like with GWB, I get the sense she has not thought conservatism through. Without that intellectual rigor, it becomes far too easy to cave to the moderate Members of congress who, following rational political calculus, demand policies that are decidedly un-conservative.

Many have compared Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan. But that comparison fails on this point. Reagan clearly knew why he was a conservative, and why that conservatism was necessary for America to prosper. it was clear that Reagan had read his Burke, that he was conversant in Friedman, that he could discuss conservatism with Buckley.

And that was the root of Reagan’s success. Compare the period of 1981-1988, when Reagan was dealing with a Democratic H of R’s, to 2001-2006, when Bush was dealing with a GOP HoR. Which period saw a greater advancement of conservatism? Unless you are an idiot or a Bush shill, the answer is clear.

Sorry if this screed is hijacking the thread. I just thought it was important to highlight the importance of intellectual leadership for conservatives.

JohnGalt23 on August 31, 2009 at 4:10 PM

I agree, word for word. Were we separated at birth? :) Just kidding. If we were, you’d definitely be the smarter twin.

NathanG on August 31, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Great news. We gonna run with McCain again :)

JiangxiDad on August 31, 2009 at 4:13 PM

That kind of language will get you banned here, champ. Tone it down.

BobMbx on August 31, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Man, that’s a scary, scary picture you posted, Ed. I might have nightmares tonight.

NoLeftTurn on August 31, 2009 at 4:17 PM

I agree about Sarah Palin, JohnGalt. I remember those left-wing a-holes protesting in Dallas, I believe, protesting, holding signs reading, “Sarah Palin: Cheney in a Dress” or something along that line. Sarah Palin is a lot like George W. Bush. They’re both of average intellect and very likeable. Don’t get me wrong, I like both of them. They seem genuinely charming and caring. That’s really all I’m asking from both sides. Take Joe Lieberman, for example. Liberal, but charming and easy to get along with. You certainly can’t say that about Boxer, Pelosi, and Reid.

NathanG on August 31, 2009 at 4:19 PM

They’ll win it back, then screw it up yet again so we can continue this circle of failure.

antoniojvr on August 31, 2009 at 4:20 PM

JohnGalt23 on August 31, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Very good perspective and explanation.

belad on August 31, 2009 at 4:21 PM

Great news. We gonna run with McCain again :)

JiangxiDad on August 31, 2009 at 4:13 PM

You just gave McCain a heart attack.

fogw on August 31, 2009 at 4:21 PM

What state do you live in? I think Huckabee won my state, Texas, in the primaries.

NathanG on August 31, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Iowa.

Well if they start running a platform in support of gay marriage and abortion, they will lose my vote.

atheling on August 31, 2009 at 3:57 PM

That’s fine, but Steele needs to create a big tent over economy and liberty for state elections and recruiting people who can win. Heck, even Obama says he is against gay marriage.

I’ve been called a RINO for not always towing the line on social issues, which is absurd. That has too end. I’m am fiercely against Obama’s policies both foreign and domestic, and yet people still have the gall to tell me I am a RINO.

I’m sure there are plenty of qualified potentials for office out there who share my beliefs who would do well representing some districts.

jhffmn on August 31, 2009 at 4:21 PM

No, but they can count on a great deal of enthusiasm among their opponents. Grassroots activists have driven hundreds and thousands of vocal opponents to the Democratic agenda,

should this word be from?

jerrytbg on August 31, 2009 at 4:23 PM

I’m just happy to read that there are a lot of people out there who are as fed up with this Congress as I am, with those two clowns pictured above in particular. You could replace them with Mr. Potatohead and we’d be better off than we are now.

scalleywag on August 31, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Sorry if this screed is hijacking the thread. I just thought it was important to highlight the importance of intellectual leadership for conservatives.

JohnGalt23 on August 31, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Let me see if I can summarize this, using my conservative intellect:

The plan for 2010/2012:

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

That’s all you need to know….

BobMbx on August 31, 2009 at 4:24 PM

I’ve been convinced from day one this would happen. It was almost a foregone conclusion the Dems would overreach and piss everybody off — thus ushering in a GOP comeback.

I just hope the GOP doesn’t blow it once they get back in like they did last time. Acting like democrats is a good way for republicans to lose again.

jonezee on August 31, 2009 at 4:25 PM

Well if they start running a platform in support of gay marriage and abortion, they will lose my vote.

atheling on August 31, 2009 at 3:57 PM

A prinicpled stand, to be sure. But, if that happens, where does that leave you for a representative? Imadinnerjacket?

“There are no homosexuals in Iran. I don’t know who told you this…:

BobMbx on August 31, 2009 at 4:26 PM

And if the GOP wins… THEN WHAT?

They didn’t do such a bangup job last time. Can they remember how to be conservatives?

originalpechanga on August 31, 2009 at 3:09 PM

It’s kinda funny, after the elections folks were bagging on the GOP big time, then as The Pantload started working his magic, that talk sort of disappeared, and folks were kinda pulling for them and asking why they wasn’t Steele jumping into the fray. Now, we’ve come full circle as the inevitability of Democruds being turned out rises. and we’re back to railing about how the GOP better do a better job than last time.

Not saying this is bad at all, at least we have not lost our perspective.

VoyskaPVO on August 31, 2009 at 4:29 PM

The whole gay marriage thing was a great issue for them in 2004, but 2006 produced a whole lotta Dems, didn’t it?

I don’t recall gay marriage being an issue at all in 2006. It was definitely not one of the most prominant and it definitely didn’t lose the Republicans the election.

Gay marriage couldn’t even pass in California, so even if they did mention it too much, it didn’t lose Republicans the election.

Seems to me the economy and the Democrat’s success at painting the Republicans as corrupt, helped the Democrats take Congress. Social issues made zero difference.

The economy and the Democrat’s corruption/incompetence will be the path the Republicans take to recapture Congress and perhaps national security.

NoDonkey on August 31, 2009 at 4:31 PM

..spew factor upon viewing that pic == 94%

That must’ve been photoshopped!

VoyskaPVO on August 31, 2009 at 4:33 PM

NathanG on August 31, 2009 at 4:16 PM

I could have sworn this was about 2010, not the Presidential candidate of 2012, so let’s return to the congressional elections, which, in real time, come first.

What exactly does the GOP have to offer, other than that it’s not the Democratic Party?

Don’t get me wrong. I want to see these Democratic miscreants swept away like a tidal surge, but unless the GOP gets its act together — soon — and captures the public imagination with a coordinated message of positive policy, what future is there?

As long as the ossified ghosts of yesterday, in the persons of John McCain and Orrin Hatch, haunt the airwaves as the face of the GOP, we will have chaos.

Nichevo on August 31, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Olympia snowe
this is off topic but it has to be posted here. She is going to cave and side with the libs on healthcare. Burn her phones at her offices. Pick a zip code or a town in Maine, call her office saying you represent a group of seniors and let her know she’s out if she votes with the libs. Better yet, take a page out of alinskys rules for radicals and say your moderate democrats against the bill. Stop her now before she caves! Call now!!

texaninfidel on August 31, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Agreed NoDonkey, but what I meant about 2006 was that the Republicans focused two years earlier on social issues, rather than on economic issues, which I believe helped lead to the 2006 failure. I didn’t mean 2006 elections were about social issues. Not at all. One or two were, though. Missouri comes to mind.

NathanG on August 31, 2009 at 4:34 PM

could have sworn this was about 2010, not the Presidential candidate of 2012, so let’s return to the congressional elections, which, in real time, come first.

What I meant is this website, I guess. Everybody keeps talking about who’s running in 2012, when probably none of them have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning against Obama. Won’t the presidential nominees start running right after the November elections next year? I also meant focusing energy, money, etc. on Congress. As many of us can see, I believe, the Republicans are starting to look like they’re late in the game to opposing the Dems in 2010. They’d better start now, and start strong.

NathanG on August 31, 2009 at 4:38 PM

Everybody keeps talking about who’s running in 2012, when probably none of them have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning against Obama.

Folks were saying the same thing about the incumbent in late 1977. How did that turn out?

BobMbx on August 31, 2009 at 4:41 PM

I’ve been called a RINO for not always towing the line on social issues, which is absurd. That has too end. I’m am fiercely against Obama’s policies both foreign and domestic, and yet people still have the gall to tell me I am a RINO.
jhffmn on August 31, 2009 at 4:21 PM

You are exactly right. We need to quit eating our own. We do not all have to think alike. Pro-life, pro-choice, gay marriage, conceal and carry. These are issues we can disagree on. There is so much more we do agree on and that should be our focus moving forward. It is our only hope if we are going to stop this socialistic agenda.

bopbottle on August 31, 2009 at 4:41 PM

The bottom line for so very many is to get rid of as many incumbents of both parties as possible. The politicians refuse to listen, any election that un-employs a few hundred would be welcome to most Americans…Unlike 1994, folk are not waiting for republicans to do anything serious…folk are doing it themselves from town halls to marches…wait for 9/12

JIMV on August 31, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Only if they can come up with a coherent conservative message as well as overcome ACORN.

That will be a tall order.

Dave R. on August 31, 2009 at 4:44 PM

NathanG on August 31, 2009 at 4:34 PM

I still don’t get you, I don’t recall social issues being prominant in 2004 either.

I don’t know how many lessons there are to take from 2006 and 2008, other than Republicans need to act like Republicans in order to turn out the Republican vote.

However, you may be right in the sense that Republicans won’t need social issue to turn out the Republican base, because we have such hatred of the Democrats, that I for one will crawl over broken glass to vote against Democrats and for a viable opposition.

And why turn off so-called “independents” with social issues that for the most part, are difficult to make a difference with anyway.

NoDonkey on August 31, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Folks were saying the same thing about the incumbent in late 1977. How did that turn out?

BobMbx on August 31, 2009 at 4:41 PM

True, but he wasn’t part African-American. I can just see the guilt trips that the media, among others, will put people on if Obama is close behind in the polls near election day. He’s got the liberals, the minorities, and really, most black Republicans, in his corner. Although I agree partially; there will definitely be less independents and liberal Republicans voting for him, that’s for sure. I see your point. Polls now have Mike Huckabee as the leading contender in the polls against him though. I can’t see Huck winning the presidency, can you? :)

NathanG on August 31, 2009 at 4:45 PM

Everybody keeps talking about who’s running in 2012, when probably none of them have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning against Obama.

Why, because he’s done such a great job?

Not a day passes when he doesn’t totally crap the bed. He’s a disaster on wheels.

I never understand the unbridled pessimism on our side. If you really think this clown Obama is unbeatable, what’s the point of even involving yourself in politics? Might as well give up and give in.

NoDonkey on August 31, 2009 at 4:47 PM

I still don’t get you, I don’t recall social issues being prominant in 2004 either.

I don’t know how many lessons there are to take from 2006 and 2008, other than Republicans need to act like Republicans in order to turn out the Republican vote.

However, you may be right in the sense that Republicans won’t need social issue to turn out the Republican base, because we have such hatred of the Democrats, that I for one will crawl over broken glass to vote against Democrats and for a viable opposition.

And why turn off so-called “independents” with social issues that for the most part, are difficult to make a difference with anyway.

NoDonkey on August 31, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Agreed. I will walk through fire myself to bring down the leadership of Reid/Pelosi. I have to disagree about 2004 though, still. The state gay marriage amendments brought a lot of social conservatives to the polls, didn’t they?

NathanG on August 31, 2009 at 4:47 PM

Republicans will take back the house as the public recoils in horror regarding the marxist agenda pedaled by the democrats. this isn’t what people had in mind when they heard Hope And Change. Now you’ve got an army of offended people of all types. It will be a landmark election and Dear leader will be effectively neutered.

exceller on August 31, 2009 at 4:47 PM

Olympia snowe
this is off topic but it has to be posted here. She is going to cave and side with the libs on healthcare. Burn her phones at her offices. Pick a zip code or a town in Maine, call her office saying you represent a group of seniors and let her know she’s out if she votes with the libs. Better yet, take a page out of alinskys rules for radicals and say your moderate democrats against the bill. Stop her now before she caves! Call now!!

texaninfidel on August 31, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Excellent point! Throw her out of the party! NOW! I’m tired of that lefty turncoat. we need a thread on THIS, not some stinking magic broom.

Jeff from WI on August 31, 2009 at 4:48 PM

NathanG on August 31, 2009 at 4:45 PM

Any Republican thinking about Obama in 2012 would be wise to keep their heads low until the last possible moment.

Look what they did to Palin. They will lie about, slander and try to destroy anyone who tries to unseat this jackass.

That all has to be taken into consideration. Especially while this guy self-destructs.

NoDonkey on August 31, 2009 at 4:50 PM

NathanG on August 31, 2009 at 4:47 PM

Both 2006 and 2008 were an uphill climb.

To win during either cycle, Republicans would have had to run a brilliant, flawless campaign. The winds all favored the Democrats.

All those winds have changed. Relentless media cheerleading for the Democrats has been exposed as a complete sham and a lie. Obama has been exposed for what we all knew he was, an unqualified, corrupt, incompetent radical leftist.

McCain was not our best candidate and it’s just as well we got him out of the way in 2008. I don’t think any Republican would have had a prayer that year, in retrospect.

NoDonkey on August 31, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Any Republican thinking about Obama in 2012 would be wise to keep their heads low until the last possible moment.

Look what they did to Palin. They will lie about, slander and try to destroy anyone who tries to unseat this jackass.

That all has to be taken into consideration. Especially while this guy self-destructs.

NoDonkey on August 31, 2009 at 4:50 PM

I agree, especially about Sarah Palin. They don’t care about what the truth is about her, and it’s starting to slip into the Republican Party too. Look at who’s ahead in the polls. Not her, but Romney. I don’t think there is a perfect nominee. Maybe the person who will get the nomination is someone we aren’t even talking about yet. I still think Paul Ryan will run and also Bobby Jindal will decide to run at the last minute. He certainly needs to run. He knows a lot about healthcare, so he would be a great candidate.

NathanG on August 31, 2009 at 4:56 PM

From the picture displayed on the home page I wonder what dingy Harry is doing to poor nanny Pelosi. Is he being a dirty Harry? He sure looks intelligent and inspiring doesn’t he.

RealityCheck4 on August 31, 2009 at 4:56 PM

How about we in this forum put together the new Contract With America and send it to the NRCC? Here are my ideas:

1. Cancel the rest of the “stimulus” and return the money.
2. Repeal any health care reform that includes a government takeover or fails to adequately control costs.
3. Implement tort reform.
4. Reform government budgeting rules to encourage savings.
5. Outlaw earmarks.
6. Eliminate or severely restrict pork barrel spending.
7. Implement term limits (existing members will be grandfathered)
8. ????
9. ????
10. ????

Kafir on August 31, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Can the GOP win back the House in 2010?

No. Two reasons:

1. ACORN will steal enough elections to make sure Dems never lose again.

2. Americans are lazy and will vote for Dems because getting free stuff is easier than working for it.

angryed on August 31, 2009 at 5:04 PM

We’d pretty much have to run the board to take over the senate. I’m not saying that it is impossible. But impossible can be seen from a house built there.

MarkTheGreat on August 31, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Kafir on August 31, 2009 at 4:58 PM

#2 is a non-starter. The main bill being pushed doesn’t kick in until 2013. We won’t know its cost control features until long after that.

#4 should include a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. No loopholes, no opt-outs(except maybe for a declared war). You must balance the budget. A mandatory rainy day fund of say 5% would fit nicely here also

chemman on August 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM

MarkTheGreat on August 31, 2009 at 5:04 PM

I believe there are 36 Senators running this cycle. 18 from each party. To take back the Senate we need to elect 29 conservative Senators to give us 51 and avoid Joe as the tie breaker.

chemman on August 31, 2009 at 5:10 PM

A prinicpled stand, to be sure. But, if that happens, where does that leave you for a representative? Imadinnerjacket?

“There are no homosexuals in Iran. I don’t know who told you this…:

BobMbx on August 31, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Straw man. I never said I wanted to hang gays. I just don’t believe in gay marriage. They can have their civil unions, but marriage is between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

Let’s not emulate Europe.

atheling on August 31, 2009 at 5:11 PM

I still think Paul Ryan will run and also Bobby Jindal will decide to run at the last minute. He certainly needs to run. He knows a lot about healthcare, so he would be a great candidate.

NathanG on August 31, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Jindal is already on record for stating that he will not run. He plans to run for a second term as governor.

atheling on August 31, 2009 at 5:13 PM

8. ????
9. ????
10. ????

Kafir on August 31, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Drill, baby, drill.

atheling on August 31, 2009 at 5:15 PM

I want the GOP to win but not if it causes what happened in the 90s where the GOP taking over saved Clinton and got him re-elected, I think that it won’t be the same b/c obama is way left to Clinton.

lavell12 on August 31, 2009 at 5:17 PM

Jindal is already on record for stating that he will not run. He plans to run for a second term as governor.

atheling on August 31, 2009 at 5:13 PM

A lot if not a majority of candidates say that.

lavell12 on August 31, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Can the GOP win back the House in 2010?

Of course the GOP can win the house and senate back. With Cap and Trade, plus Obama-Care socialized medicine shoved down America’s throats, the RATS have committed suicide.

The only problem that I foresee, are there enough hospital beds for all of the wounded congressional RATS.

byteshredder on August 31, 2009 at 5:20 PM

As bad as Obama and the Dems policies are it will depend on the state of the economy and job market. If some how the economy gets better than the Dems will stay in power even if the policies suck but if the economy sucks still then the GOP is in power. People are too lazy and stupid to figure out why things happen.

lavell12 on August 31, 2009 at 5:22 PM

And if the GOP wins… THEN WHAT?

They didn’t do such a bangup job last time. Can they remember how to be conservatives?

originalpechanga on August 31, 2009 at 3:09 PM

They did a good job being conservatives between 1995 and 2000, holding Clinton’s feet to the fire on spending.

Then came George W. Bush, who did a good job shortly after 9/11, but didn’t handle the Iraq war or Katrina well in 2005-2006, and forgot how to communicate with Congress. Bush was too gung-ho on massive, “comprehensive” take-it-or-leave-it plans, and that’s not how Congress works–he should have talked to GOP leaders in Congress to find out what COULD get passed, and let GOP Senate leaders try to twist the arms of a few Democrats to get past filibusters.

Obama is actually doing what the 2005-06 Republicans did in reverse–over-reaching to the left and ignoring the middle, trying to do too much to fast, and Republicans should give him enough rope to hang himself (politically).

Another issue that hurt the GOP in 2006 and 2008 was bribes and kickbacks for pork-barrel projects, the Abramoff scandal, and the K street project. Voters don’t like that from EITHER party. If the GOP retakes the House, they’ve got to steer clear of such things, and let the Democrats get caught with their hands in the cookie jar or their weenies in the wrong places. Since the electoral losses are fairly recent, the lessons probably won’t be forgotten for awhile, anyway.

Republican candidates need to propose conservative solutions before the election, then do what they promised once elected. If the GOP wins the House in 2010, some House proposals will run into Obama vetoes and Senate filibusters, giving them an issue for campaigning for the Senate and White House in 2012.

Steve Z on August 31, 2009 at 5:25 PM

http://www.blowoutcongress.com

msmystery on August 31, 2009 at 5:30 PM

And the bigger question is,, if they win it,, will they understand what they need to do to keep it??

JellyToast on August 31, 2009 at 5:33 PM

Of course the GOP can win the house and senate back.
byteshredder on August 31, 2009 at 5:20 PM

Do you ever bet on such things?

I’ll bet you as much as you feel you can afford to lose that the GOP will not take back the US Senate. It isn’t going to happen. Saying that we can is the worst sort of indulgence of fantasy.

JohnGalt23 on August 31, 2009 at 5:37 PM

The GOP wins when people are asked to vote for generic Congressional candidates. But all the three GOP front runners lose to Obama–even as unpopular as he now is–when people are asked to vote for specific Presidential candidates. I suspect you’ll see the same problem arise when specific Congressional GOP candidates are named because there’s clearly a huge divide in the GOP over the “big tent” types and the “principled conservative” types.

Jimbo3 on August 31, 2009 at 5:39 PM

They’ll win it back, then screw it up yet again so we can continue this circle of failure.

antoniojvr on August 31, 2009 at 4:20 PM

It is a most impressive and dizzying circle of failure, isn’t it?

sisterchristian on August 31, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Yes, Most of the Clown Posse will be ousted…….

BigMike252 on August 31, 2009 at 5:45 PM

The GOP wins when people are asked to vote for generic Congressional candidates. But all the three GOP front runners lose to Obama–even as unpopular as he now is–when people are asked to vote for specific Presidential candidates.
Jimbo3 on August 31, 2009 at 5:39 PM

Not surprising, since the front-runners are known mainly through negative typecasting by the media. Palin the dumb bimbo, Romney the rich Mormon, Huckabee the wild-eyed theocrat.

ddrintn on August 31, 2009 at 5:45 PM

You know, it’s been a while since I’ve heard any of the fools speaking of the need of a second stimulus lately.

jack herman on August 31, 2009 at 5:54 PM

[The GOP] need[s] to organize effectively to take advantage of it.

It’s actually much simpler – and much more difficult – than this. The GOP needs to put forth good candidates. They haven’t been doing that with sufficient consistency. Good candidates are those that have not only the right views and values, but a principled understanding of why they’re right and the ability to articulate those reasons.

Find candidates like that – especially for the Presidency – and the GOP could win elections for the next 100 years with ease. Instead, it chiefly fronts pragmatist fools who occasionally say things that are not excessively offensive.

It looks good by comparison, to be sure. The leading Democrats are all Progressives, i.e. Fascist Lite. But that doesn’t make the GOP predominantly in favor of protecting individual Constitutional rights; at least, not nearly often or consistently enough.

Someday, the average Republican politician may understand that being moral is practical (i.e. wins votes by supporting policies that produce freedom and prosperity). ‘Til then, they’re going to continue to be on the defensive, and rightly so.

JDPerren on August 31, 2009 at 6:03 PM

The TEA Party organizations have put up candidates and they will have activists galore to assist them bring out the voters. I have been picketing and protesting since Obama and congress started this spending spree. I will be one now involved in politics and I have not been active in politics for over 35 years.

amr on August 31, 2009 at 6:13 PM

The problem is organizing the Republican Party. I agree with expressing individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, and other conservative values. The Republican Party has shown that when they are in power they are just a lesser evil than the Democrat party.

Republicans are just as pork happy as the democrats, and when they go for the “big tent” party they have virtually the same message as the Democrat Party.

When moderates cry for the “big tent” they are basically the same socialists as the Democrat Party. “Big tent” Republicans are worse than Blue Dog Democrats.

Rode Werk on August 31, 2009 at 6:24 PM

We should not care if the GOP wins back the House in 2010. We should only care if the GOP loses itself and abandons conservatism by 2010.

If we don’t win in 2010, it only means that it takes more than two years to prove that socialism brings political corruption and economic degeneration.

elfman on August 31, 2009 at 6:26 PM

Republicans will still lose if they run as “conservatives”.

The electorate:

Socialists (= “liberals”): 30%
Libertarians, real/classic liberals, independents: 40%
Conservatives: 30%

As long as American politics is about conservatives vs liberals, the Obamacrats will win.

The choice that counts is between socialism vs capitalism. Republicans can only win if they defend capitalism, liberty and the Constitution and run as anti-socialists.

I don’t see conservatives do that, certainly not wimpy figures like Huckabee. Palin is moving towards a more explicitly anti-socialist, independent position though.

Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas in 1948:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

That is the spell Republicans have to break. By going on and on about true conservatism vs liberalism they are digging their own graves – and ours.

modifiedcontent on August 31, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Only seven months after securing all of the electoral levers of power, Democrats have plunged themselves into hot water with voters, rapidly losing support for an increasingly radical agenda.

Peel back the onion, baby! We’re all crying now.

BacaDog on August 31, 2009 at 6:44 PM

And the bigger question is,, if they win it,, will they understand what they need to do to keep it??

JellyToast on August 31, 2009 at 5:33 PM

OK. We’re in the majority! Pleeeeese Mr. Democrat, please let us share power with you on the committees so we can appear bipartisan. Pleeeese give us approval for who we choose for our leadership. Pleeeese don’t call us names if we try to be, uh, Republicans. Pleeeese let us agree to your proposals for a, b, or c, which are not what we really wanted to do, just so we can say it was “bipartisan.”
Pleeeeeese.

Dan. on August 31, 2009 at 7:38 PM

What difference will it make if the GOP wins back the house in 2010? These republicans are nothing more than lesser democrats anyway.

paulsur on August 31, 2009 at 9:04 PM

Hmmmmm

It doesn’t help the Democrats when liberals snigger and call protestors “teabaggers”.

memomachine on August 31, 2009 at 10:00 PM

As long as the social cons stick to fiscal conservative complaints, we have a decent shot at upsetting the House Dims.

Speedwagon82 on August 31, 2009 at 10:10 PM

That must’ve been photoshopped!

VoyskaPVO on August 31, 2009 at 4:33 PM

It’s real according to Snopes. And it cracks me up every time I see it!

Advocate For Change on September 1, 2009 at 2:49 AM

Damn right we’re going to get the congress back. We the people have seen what the far left does and wants to do and we don’t like their marxists ways. We are capitalists! Not socialists/communists! We will mobilize and conquer to stop this fraud of a so called president as he tries to takeover our country!

Rene C on September 1, 2009 at 9:31 AM

Steele needs to attract the best, brightest and most conservative candidates that he (the party) can find. Notice I said MOST. We’re not going to get everything we want at first, but unless we get this fiscal and health care mess cleaned up, the rest of it won’t make any difference. That’s why I can bring myself to support someone like Rudy for Governor of NY State. We all know that the downstate libs, who outnumber conservatives umpteen to one are going to have their way with him, but they voted for him twice. I know that I sound like I’m selling out, but most moderates like him, are not stupid. They’re also not immovable, that’s why they’re moderates. After we get the commie threat (yeah, I said it, so sue me) taken care of and get this country headed back to rationality, then we can start to hammer away on other social issues. But remember, if we don’t get a handle on the mess that Zero and his gang are trying to inflict upon us at the moment, nothing else will matter when we’re in the gulag or the grave.

Mr. Grump on September 1, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Can the GOP win back the House in 2010?

On this issue, I’d recommend investing heavily into foot bandages, and crutches. Because soooo many RATS have shot themselves in the foot. Enough said!

byteshredder on September 1, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2