GOP upside in House 58 seats?

posted at 2:55 pm on January 25, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Not surprisingly, the New York Times buried this news towards the bottom of an analysis of an explosion of Republican candidates in Congressional races.  After stroking its chin over the calamity of competitive primaries in 2010, the Times mentions the incentive for GOP recruitment in the eighth paragraph:

Stuart Rothenberg, a political analyst who follows Congressional races, said a report he will release Monday will count 58 Democratic House seats in play, up from 47 in December. The number of Republican seats in play has held at 14 in that period, he said. And Democrats expect more of their incumbents to retire, which could put additional seats at risk.

Rothenberg elaborates further at his site:

After a stunning GOP Senate win in Massachusetts and a slew of new polls showing many Democratic incumbents in trouble, it’s hard to argue with the obvious: the Republicans unquestionably have momentum as 2010 begins.

We are adding a dozen new seats to our list of districts “in play” – all of them currently held by Democrats. In addition, we have moved 16 districts within our list – two held by the GOP and the rest currently represented by a Democrat. All of the moves benefit the GOP, either because Republican districts now look safer or Democratic districts appear more vulnerable.

Given that we expect more Democratic retirements in the next few months and anticipate that more Democratic-held districts will increase in vulnerability between now and the fall, we are raising our target for GOP gains to 24 to 28 seats, with higher Republican gains possible. Of course, changes in the national mood between now and November could also benefit Democrats.

This analysis includes another all-but-certain retirement announcement coming today:

Democratic officials said Sunday night that Representative Marion Berry of Arkansas was expected to announce plans to retire Monday, making him the first to quit since the Massachusetts election and opening up another competitive race.

Republicans need a net gain of 40 seats to regain control of the House. That still seems unlikely, though hardly impossible.

Unlikely?  The odds may not be 50-50 for a Republican takeover, but it certainly appears within range.  The Democrats now have 72 vulnerable seats, and the GOP just 14.  If the GOP holds their own seats and takes three-fourths of the Democrats’, they will have have gained 45 seats.  Given the anger in the electorate that has reached all the way into deep-blue Massachusetts, a pickup of 45 seats doesn’t seem out of range at all.

Listed among the Democratic holds are some questionable calls.  First, Anh Cao of New Orleans may well lose his seat after voters there finally cleansed themselves of William “Cold Cash” Jefferson, but Cao isn’t exactly a Tea Party favorite, either — and may well leverage his incumbency for a re-election.  Earl Pomeroy in ND is in big trouble, as he himself acknowledged in an angry rant in a caucus meeting two weeks ago.  Now, with Berry retiring in Arkansas and likely a few retirements coming in the next few weeks, unseating Nancy Pelosi suddenly looks rather attainable.

The Times discusses the divisiveness of primary fights, but that’s not likely to blunt voter anger at Democrats.  Primaries are hygienic devices in normal times, and in this case allows the enthusiasm to be channeled in productive ways.  The GOP base and independents will come out of the primary season fired up and ready to duplicate what Scott Brown did in Massachusetts, and unless the economy roars back to life and starts creating massive amounts of jobs by the summer, Democrats won’t be able to match it.  In fact, the one party that could benefit from primaries to rid themselves of incumbents is not the one that will pursue them.  The lack of challenges to non-retired incumbents on the Democratic side tells you all you need to know about their base’s enthusiasm in 2010.

Update: Rep. Marion Berry makes it official:

It’s one of those days for the Democrats. In addition to Beau Biden deciding not to run for his dad’s old Senate seat in Delaware, Rep. Marion Berry says he will not run for reelection in Arkansas.

In making his announcement, the 67-year-old Democrat cited health reasons. “As a lifelong farmer, time has taken its toll on my health and I am no longer able to serve the district with the vitality I once possessed,” Berry said. The Arkansas Democrat Gazette has a story about his announcement here.

Is Berry telling the truth about the health issue?  The Cook Report listed his seat as a likely Democratic hold, so it could very well be unrelated to the present climate against Democrats — but it certainly didn’t help.  Hopefully, Rep. Berry regains his health in retirement and enjoys many more years with his family.

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

Obama thinks he can save Congress, stating the difference between this ear and 1994 is him.

And yet… he doesn’t realize that he’s as toxic as those Housing Assets he tried to save.

Enoxo on January 25, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Please God, let one of them be Kieth Ellison in MN-5…

Bruno Strozek on January 25, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Get a mop.

Trusser13 on January 25, 2010 at 3:01 PM

I foresee congressional security having to use the Jaws of Life to pry the speaker’s gavel from Pelosi’s clutching rat claws.

Bishop on January 25, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Please God, let one of them be Kieth Ellison in MN-5…

Bruno Strozek on January 25, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Depends on how many muslims turn out to vote.

But, yes, the congressman from jihad needs to go.

wildcat84 on January 25, 2010 at 3:02 PM

The Democrats now have 72 vulnerable seats, and the GOP just 14.

Unprecedented?

Wethal on January 25, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Please, let one be Niki Tsongas, MA District 5

sultanp on January 25, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Pudding shortages are rampant.

lorien1973 on January 25, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Don’t worry zero and three Obama is sure he is the one that he has been waiting for.

The audacity of ignorant arrogance.

jukin on January 25, 2010 at 3:02 PM

I hope Alan Grayson is one of them… as well as Barney Frank.

If those two lose their seats, I’ll be happy even IF we don’t take back the House.

Enoxo on January 25, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Please God, let one of them be Kieth Ellison in MN-5…

Bruno Strozek on January 25, 2010 at 2:59 PM

I’m hoping that a number of the more powerful Dems bow out when it becomes clear they’re headed back to the minority, especially the ones who will likely be the subject of major investigations if the House flips, like Bawney Fwank and Charlie Rangel.

teke184 on January 25, 2010 at 3:03 PM

I foresee congressional security having to use the Jaws of Life to pry the speaker’s gavel from Pelosi’s clutching rat claws.

Bishop on January 25, 2010 at 3:02 PM

There isn’t enough Botox to keep her from frowning when that happens.

Wethal on January 25, 2010 at 3:03 PM

And it’s only been a year. Just think what another year will reveal?

Electrongod on January 25, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Don’t say “unseat” Pelosi, Ed. It makes it sound as if she would actually lose her House seat. That would only happen if she voted against the NARAL position on any bill and was immediately primaried by someone other than Cindy Sheehan.

fiatboomer on January 25, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Put the gavel down and step away Nancy.

farright on January 25, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Still missing is the 2010 equivalent of the Contract With America. In order to duplicate the 1994 success the House (and Senate) Republicans should try to nationalize the election. That can’t be too hard with the low hanging fruit of Obamacare, Cap & Tax, the economy, etc.

Consider a visit to Conservative Talk Forum by clicking on my name.

trapeze on January 25, 2010 at 3:04 PM

You know, maybe some of those pundits were right…let Obama win, it will work in our favor.
If Obama keeps going we will win the House, and the Senate, and he will be humiliated.

right2bright on January 25, 2010 at 3:05 PM

But the Democrats have their “secret weapon” in Barack Obama, a man so revered that you must utter his name with reverence.

LOL

J_Crater on January 25, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Ed, you’re such a class act.

RachDubya on January 25, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Here’s hoping Obama just keeps on fighting for the American people.

txhsmom on January 25, 2010 at 3:06 PM

The harder Obama fights the more seats will flip. It’s like quicksand ain’t it?

trubble on January 25, 2010 at 3:07 PM

All this with 98% of the media fellating Obama and the donks.

jukin on January 25, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Get a mop.
Trusser13 on January 25, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Ask Obama if you can borrow his (if he’ll let you talk long enough to make the request). He’s ‘cleaning up the messes he inherited’ and wants us to shut up so he can do his job or something.

Buy Danish on January 25, 2010 at 3:07 PM

unseating Nancy Pelosi suddenly looks rather attainable.

No, I want her to stay and watch what she destroyed, crumble around her. I want her to watch as the Republicans take over, and she becomes insignificant…she just becomes a side show, a PIP (previously important person)…Nancy the pimp, becomes the pip…

right2bright on January 25, 2010 at 3:07 PM

I would be willing to keep Ellison if it meant that Betty McCollum got kicked to the curb.

POS Betty refused to attend a support the troops rally back in 2003 and for that she deserves eternal disrespect.

Bishop on January 25, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Unless the Democrats can convince voters the faces of their party are not Harry, Nanzi and King Barry, they are screwed.
These 3 slugs are toxic- and wait til Obama doubles down on the snarky arrogance Wed. night.

jjshaka on January 25, 2010 at 3:09 PM

110 or bust

El_Terrible on January 25, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Alan Grayson’s seat is marked as a Tossup… and Barney Frank’s district went a bright shade of solid red in the Brown election.

Enoxo on January 25, 2010 at 3:09 PM

While us folks on the right can disagree with each other on some hot button social issues, if a candidate runs on a fiscally conservative platform (and votes accordingly) we should crush these elections!

search4truth on January 25, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Kennendy’s Senate seat was in play until a week or two before votes were cast, so I imagine that ALL seats are potentially in play. We just don’t know it yet.

LeeSeneca on January 25, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Nice Congress you have there ….

CoffeeBreak on January 25, 2010 at 3:14 PM

We still have a long way to go. And especially now it will be harder because the democrat corruption machine is going to kick into high gear and not only the Kennedy and Clinton goons will be in rare form, but the Obama and his Chicago thugs will be out in full force now. The media will out and out lie about republicnas just to protect their investment in this meat head we have as president. Republicans need to remind people of the facts and cut through the MSM propaganda and left wing lies.

mozalf on January 25, 2010 at 3:15 PM

How many of these retiring Dems went into 2009 thinking, “how cool, I’ll just go in to the caucus and have a toke or two of some ‘government is your friend’ weed, and maybe a ‘goodies for my district’ beer,” and come staggering out the other side with images of Harry and Nancy handing out straps and syringes, and dead-eyed auto manufacturers laying on the floor in their own waste — the needles of statism still stuck in their arms….

I suspect that you’ll be seeing quite a few Dem retirements from non-competitive districts.

cthulhu on January 25, 2010 at 3:15 PM

I wish “Triple J” were among the vulnerable.
Alas, in my area there are several “R’s” that are now “D’s”.
The moves were political. If you’re not a democrat here-you don’t get elected.
*grrr*

annoyinglittletwerp on January 25, 2010 at 3:15 PM

The trouble with retirements is that they free up the Dem to vote for Obamacare without fearing the voters in Novamber.

Then, again, if you’re retiring, you can vote against Obamacare, knowing there’s not much Pelosi can do to you in revenge for ten months, and she might need to come back to you for a vote. Wonder how many are aching to tell Pelosi to go pound sand after living under her tyranny.

Wethal on January 25, 2010 at 3:16 PM

I just want a balanced Congress that has to follow the Constitution.

This career-politician crap has to stop. They get too powerful and start telling candidates who can run or not and you end up with a$$holes like Charlie Rangel, Reid, Pelosi.

Punditpawn on January 25, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Nancy has got to be counting her IOU’s to see if she has enough to stay in power. All those Democrats who believed “Barry’s got your back” have got to be thinking “I’VE BEEN SCREWED!”

GarandFan on January 25, 2010 at 3:18 PM

What? No trolls?

I wonder why.

hillbillyjim on January 25, 2010 at 3:18 PM

The lack of challenges to non-retired incumbents on the Democratic side tells you all you need to know about their base’s enthusiasm in 2010.

heh

cmsinaz on January 25, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Yeah, Barry. Scott Brown and all these potential House members gone are because we love you and the job you’re going.
Putz.

kingsjester on January 25, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Of course, changes in the national mood between now and November could also benefit Democrats.

not if dear leader keeps pressing ahead with his agenda

cmsinaz on January 25, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Still missing is the 2010 equivalent of the Contract With America. In order to duplicate the 1994 success the House (and Senate) Republicans should try to nationalize the election. That can’t be too hard with the low hanging fruit of Obamacare, Cap & Tax, the economy, etc.

Consider a visit to Conservative Talk Forum by clicking on my name.

trapeze on January 25, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Actaully coming out with something like that would be more for show and not necessairly help. What will work this year is grassroots efforts

ConservativePartyNow on January 25, 2010 at 3:22 PM

So if the GOP retakes the House but not the Senate(which is a likely scenario), that means we’ll have 2 years of gridlock. Which at least guarantees no more unread trillion dollar bills getting passed.

Doughboy on January 25, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Don’t worry. President Toonces already has a plan.

‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”

A plan to make it more like 70-80 seats. :-)

MNHawk on January 25, 2010 at 3:23 PM

It is way too early for Repubs to be doing victory dance. The Repub leadership has proved itself to be an incompetent at management as the Obama crew. And then if, we did win, what exactly the Repub leadership do?? Obama and Dems may be in the pocket of the trial lawyers and unions, but the Repubs are in the pocket of the US Chamber of Commerce and the same DC tax lobbyists that have given us the IRS and the 10k page tax code. Where is the change??

We need candidates that will finally confront the Islamist terrorists by taking the gloves off our military, unless of course we want to spend another trillion dollars and thousands of US lives fighting and endless war for the next 30 years. We need candidates that will actually cut taxes, not just make deals for industries with good lobbyists, and lets face it, the R’s and the D’s both do this.

Nah, long way to go to actually get some decent change

georgealbert on January 25, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Still missing is the 2010 equivalent of the Contract With America. In order to duplicate the 1994 success the House (and Senate) Republicans should try to nationalize the election. T

trapeze on January 25, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Actually, I’m not sure we need to go through those lengths. Unemployment @10% and 3.4 million jobs lost tend to do the job better than having to go through some show about “contracts.”

BradSchwartze on January 25, 2010 at 3:24 PM

The only thing we have to fear is Obama himself, and Nancy and Harry and Barmy Fwank.

Dhuka on January 25, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Marion “Retiring For Health Reasons” Berry takes a parting shot at Obama in the Arkansas Dem-Gazette today for the serious hazard POTUS now poses to the “health” of Berry & all his Dem colleagues , via Glenn Thrush @ POLITICO

leilani on January 25, 2010 at 3:25 PM

All of these estimates may end up being low if Obama and his congress continue to pillage the producers in order to push their socialist dreams. Have the estimators considered the huge amount of cash in the hands of those who have worked and played by the rules for 40 years, and who see the democrats trying to destroy the country they love? The power of those folks contributed to the Scott Brown victory, and it will be unleashed again for the November elections.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 25, 2010 at 3:29 PM

I want to see that wench’s face when she has to hand the gavel over.

SouthernGent on January 25, 2010 at 3:29 PM

What I want is a conservative take over of both houses…I don’t care what party they represent.

d1carter on January 25, 2010 at 3:30 PM

I think the Obama/Democrat machine is going to be dumping some of their pols. to avoid defeat. They are like the mafia. They will do anything to maintain their hold on power. Remember how they told Toricelli to move aside a couple of weeks before the election for senator in NJ? They held the seat.

So, too, Dodd was pushed aside because they think the popular Dem Richard Blumenthal will win. I think Harry Reid is next. They will tell him he can’t run for re-election. Oscar Goodman, who leads against republican opponents is going to slotted in for the dems. And I am almost sure they are going to tell Pelosi to step aside as speaker and elevate Steny Hoyer. They are very, very good at attaining and maintaining power.

chris999 on January 25, 2010 at 3:31 PM

So if the GOP retakes the House but not the Senate(which is a likely scenario), that means we’ll have 2 years of gridlock. Which at least guarantees no more unread trillion dollar bills getting passed.

Doughboy on January 25, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Gridlock is good for the economy, and it’s good for freedom. Why do we need full-time “law-makers” anyway? What in the hell do we need new laws for every damn year? I like gridlock.

Rational Thought on January 25, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Nancy may hold on to her deep blue SF seat, but she may lose her Speakership. If it finally sinks in to her brain that she could indeed, be back in the crowd, possibly not even caucus leader, given that she lost the House, I wonder what she’ll do.

Try to distance herself for Obowma? Try to triangulate to the center? This should be entertaining to see what she’ll do to hold on to that gavel.

Wethal on January 25, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Yawn.

/crr6 off

Good Lt on January 25, 2010 at 3:34 PM

‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”

a narcisist behaves like a narcisist… who’d have thunk it

gatorboy on January 25, 2010 at 3:34 PM

So if the GOP retakes the House but not the Senate(which is a likely scenario), that means we’ll have 2 years of gridlock. Which at least guarantees no more unread trillion dollar bills getting passed.

Doughboy on January 25, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Since all appropriations bills mus originate in the House, the GOP could send over only fiscally conservative budget bills (might have to deal with Rep. Young from Alaska about his pork, as well as a few others).

Every time a bill got amended over in the Senate, it would need 60 votes to get past cloture. The Dems would have to go along to get something passes.

“We’re just trying to save the taxpayers money” would be a good 2012 campaign slogan. “There’s only gridlock because the Dems want to tax and spend.”

Sounds good to me.

Wethal on January 25, 2010 at 3:36 PM

The good news for Nancy is that it looks like there will be enough democrats left to get up a euchre game – provided no one has a prior engagement.

Aviator on January 25, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Am I mistaken, or does San Fran Nan have man-hands?

BuckeyeSam on January 25, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Pelosi will be history as Speaker even if the Dems “only” lose 30 seats.

She is toxic and her own party will start to treat her like she is radioactive.

At least 1 or 2 Dems have announced that they will not vote for her as Speaker in 2011.

Watch for quite a few more to follow in the run-up to the mid-term elections, particulalrly when incumbent Dems are not sleeping nights over seeing billboards with themselves and Pelosi springing up in their districts.

Pelosi is the GOP’s and tea partiers’ goodluck charm for the upcoming elections.

molonlabe28 on January 25, 2010 at 3:37 PM

The difference between Slick and 0bama is going to cost him re-election as well as getting creamed in the mid-terms. By 95, slick had moved so fast to the center, he could’ve phoned in the 96 campaign. I gave no $$ to the GOP that year and the only event I attended was a speech by Jack Kemp. Me and about 50 other people.

Lou Budvis on January 25, 2010 at 3:38 PM

Michael Barone thinks as many as 155 are vunerable.

barnone on January 25, 2010 at 3:38 PM

Am I mistaken, or does San Fran Nan have man-hands?

BuckeyeSam on January 25, 2010 at 3:36 PM

It’s the difference between a botoxed face and hands that show her real age, which I’d put at around 150 in witch years.

Rational Thought on January 25, 2010 at 3:40 PM

On another note;
GOP – do not give any promises to Democrats that switch parties to back them in the primaries! By Dollars Word or Action

barnone on January 25, 2010 at 3:42 PM

If the Democrats would quit trying to “bend the arc” of economic realities to suit their social aims, they might quit stepping in doo-doo every time they gain a majority.

hillbillyjim on January 25, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Oh don’t worry about the botox queen…if we take over the house, the demos will just change the rule of the speaker being of the majority party claiming it wasn’t good for the country anyway…

Ltlgeneral64 on January 25, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Obama: ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’

Which probably made his audience nostalgic for Bill Clinton, while the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy becomes vaster with millions of registered Independents.

Steve Z on January 25, 2010 at 3:43 PM

58 will become 68 which will become 78. The beat goes on.

technopeasant on January 25, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Oh my goodness: Obama’s song: “You got me babe”! But where is his Cher?

Dhuka on January 25, 2010 at 3:45 PM

My guess is Nancy is going down before the election, probably in a couple of months because she is so toxic, republicans will make her a campaign issue. I think she’s toast and theyr’e going to put the more moderate sounding Hoyer in as speaker. Obama is moving to tighten his control over the party. Obama and Rahm will twist her arm. They’ll bring her the bad news from the focus groups and say “Nancy you have to do this for the good of the party”.

chris999 on January 25, 2010 at 3:51 PM

This may be a conservative number. See MA Special Election…

dogsoldier on January 25, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Since all appropriations bills mus originate in the House, the GOP could send over only fiscally conservative budget bills (might have to deal with Rep. Young from Alaska about his pork, as well as a few others).

Every time a bill got amended over in the Senate, it would need 60 votes to get past cloture. The Dems would have to go along to get something passes.

“We’re just trying to save the taxpayers money” would be a good 2012 campaign slogan. “There’s only gridlock because the Dems want to tax and spend.”

Sounds good to me.

Wethal on January 25, 2010 at 3:36 PM

In 2011-2012, Obummer will still be President, and could veto bills he thinks aren’t liberal enough, and there wouldn’t be the votes to override. This could lead to serious gridlock and possibly a government shutdown, which Clinton used to his advantage in 1995, although Republicans might be able to paint Obummer as an obstructionist.

If 2010 resembles 1994 and the Republicans take the House, will Obama get the hint and move to the center a la Clinton, or stubbornly try to fight AGAINST a House majority? If he tries to govern from the left, communication will be key, to paint Obama as the stumbling block, not the Republican House.

Steve Z on January 25, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Am I mistaken, or does San Fran Nan have man-hands?

BuckeyeSam on January 25, 2010 at 3:36 PM

It’s the difference between a botoxed face and hands that show her real age, which I’d put at around 150 in witch years.

Rational Thought on January 25, 2010 at 3:40 PM

If you want to get an idea of how old a woman is, check the back of her hands. Veins, wrinkles and/or brown spots. Hard to get rid of any.

Wethal on January 25, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Kennendy’s Senate seat was in play until a week or two before votes were cast, so I imagine that ALL seats are potentially in play. We just don’t know it yet.

LeeSeneca on January 25, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Agreed. Dems hold 256 seats. All 256 seats should be in play.

MassVictim on January 25, 2010 at 4:00 PM

This would be more than a seismic shift: this would be a Botoxic shift!!!

AubieJon on January 25, 2010 at 4:02 PM

I would be willing to keep Ellison if it meant that Betty McCollum got kicked to the curb.

POS Betty refused to attend a support the troops rally back in 2003 and for that she deserves eternal disrespect.

Bishop on January 25, 2010 at 3:08 PM

What we need to do is not worry about Betty and Ellison so much as we do about winning the governorship and trying to take back the legislature. If Minnesota loses a congressional seat (a distinct possibility) but the Republicans are in control, we can redistrict Mpls. and St. Paul into one district and then they can fight it out like cats in a sack for 2012. And we would also save Bachmann’s seat, too, which the DFL has already promised to eradicate if redistricting occurs.

Mr. D on January 25, 2010 at 4:03 PM

I foresee congressional security having to use the Jaws of Life to pry the speaker’s gavel from Pelosi’s clutching rat claws.

Bishop on January 25, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Considering the passion she exhibited when she first held it, I don’t think anyone will want to touch it after what she has probably used it for. It would be better to simply make a new one.

csdeven on January 25, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Steve Z on January 25, 2010 at 3:54 PM

It’s possible, but I don’t think Obama can convincingly move to the center. And if he complains there’s gridlock because of his veto, he has to explain why the GOP won’t spend more. Of course, he can trot out the hardluck case the Dems always have available.

Even before 2012, he may have to raise taxes, and that will turn off voters as well.

By 2011 or 2012 (hey, by the end of this month) the thrill of Hope and Change will be gone. Obama will be an uninspiring politician who can’t talk without his teleprompter.

Clinton was a charming rascal and a fast-talking con artist. Gingrich was more Grinch-like, which may have been a factor in Congress being blamed for the government shutdown. Put the right GOP happy warrior face on fiscal conservatism and Obama will fare poorly in comparison.

Wethal on January 25, 2010 at 4:06 PM

I think that 2010 will end the phony debate about what these early races “mean.” It will become quite clear.

Here’s my own take. The GOP definitely lost the presidential race, because people just were that mad at Bush. We were in a war, due to what MANY saw as a lie, and we also hit a crash. If you don’t think people connect that with the crash, then you’re darn naive. They do. And Obama’s message, “I inherited this,” resonates with many people. Poll after poll confirms that.

However, that’s not the entire story. We also know that Fannie and Freddie co-enabled the secondary market, which really did support the crash. Is this due to loans to schmucks? Good gravy, no. It is due to the expanding the secondary market lending and the involvement in government-guaranteed lending standards. That’s true.

Then, we come to the bailouts. Bush AND Obama were, apparently, scared enough by the global implications that they anted up, and they anted up big-time, with the bailouts.

Some of you hate that. I disagree.

I think I was scared, too.

Now, we’re into the aftermath. Reminds me of a divorce.
The “aftermath,” when you really work out the details, is far, far uglier than the big dramatic moment.

That’s where we’re at.

AnninCA on January 25, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Mr. D on January 25, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Ed Gillespie is in charge of a group working with the Republican Governors to target state legislatures, governorships and secretaries of state this fall and in 2012. All are important for redistricting and election challenges. Minnesota had an ACORN secretary of state in 2008, as did Ohio.

Wethal on January 25, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Toast?

The Cook Report offers this surprising comment on the intensity gap: “If this level remains constant, you can count on the Democratic majority in the House being toast this fall.”

I think we will remember this month as the one where a GOP House went from hard to imagine to quite possible; perhaps future months will make it seem even more likely.

UPDATE: Overnight, the conventional wisdom changes. From FiveThirtyEight.com: “Think others are too conservative on projecting GOP gains. We don’t have a House model yet, but GOP seems as likely as not to take House.”

01/25 03:33 PM Share

More from Geraghty. Cook Report and 538 weigh in.

Wethal on January 25, 2010 at 4:15 PM

I foresee congressional security having to use the Jaws of Life to pry the speaker’s gavel from Pelosi’s clutching rat claws.

Bishop on January 25, 2010 at 3:02 PM

The mental image of that event brought a smile to my face.

heshtesh on January 25, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Let’s take the Senate too. That will be in reach if the keeping pushing i.e. immigration reform, card check. Also, the NY terrorist trials will be going on during the election. The Senate, as well as the House, is within reach.

Dale on January 25, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Less Dem’s in the house, less Nancy pics on the blog.

WIN-WIN

anniekc on January 25, 2010 at 4:26 PM

Better be ready to offer real solutions.

AnninCA on January 25, 2010 at 4:26 PM

And that means, don’t offer up someone with vague language.

The voters have “been there, done that one.”

Fair or not fair, the voters AREN’T going to go for the bait twice.

AnninCA on January 25, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Minnesota had an ACORN secretary of state in 2008, as did Ohio.

Wethal on January 25, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Sure did. Mark Ritchie was instrumental in delivering Al Franken to the U.S. Senate. Getting rid of him is pretty close to Job One around here.

Mr. D on January 25, 2010 at 4:30 PM

“As a lifelong farmer, time has taken its toll on my health and I am no longer able to serve the district with the vitality I once possessed,” Berry said.

I had no idea Berry was a cocoa farmer.

Rovin on January 25, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Please let one of them be David Price NC-4. Highly unlikely since the PRCH* is part of this district.

*People’s Republic of Chapel Hill

Sparky on January 25, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Something must be going on the RNC just took my resume.

Think there is a push on to get more boots on the ground.

So would appriciate any help from any hotairians !

William Amos on January 25, 2010 at 4:49 PM

We’re going to need a bigger garbage scow, boys!

drunyan8315 on January 25, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Isn’t it about time to show Michael Steele some love now?

I’m not a Steele fan, I can take him or leave him, but with Rothenburg projecting a possible GOP takeover of the House in 2010 if the prevailing trend continues don’t you think it may be time to give the man some slack and some credit for the Brown upset victory.

technopeasant on January 25, 2010 at 4:56 PM

I want their heads on pikes.

Highplains on January 25, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Unseat Pelosi???

YES WE CAN!!!!

Dig deep, we are the ones we’ve been waiting for…or..something.

NTWR on January 25, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Oh my goodness: Obama’s song: “You got me babe”! But where is his Cher?

Dhuka on January 25, 2010 at 3:45 PM

She’s out shopping for more big ugly belts.

jodetoad on January 25, 2010 at 5:18 PM

I WANT TO BELIEVE!

…but they’re not called the stupid party for nothing.

Iblis on January 25, 2010 at 5:31 PM

I want their heads on pikes.

Highplains on January 25, 2010 at 4:58 PM

I like your train of thought …

ya2daup on January 25, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Oh my goodness: Obama’s song: “You got me babe”! But where is his Cher?

Dhuka on January 25, 2010 at 3:45 PM

‘Chelle is not credible in that role… so they brought back the Plouffe-ter.

ya2daup on January 25, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2