American Crossroads surveys say Republicans have a shot at winning control of Senate

posted at 10:12 am on August 10, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

We’ve heard plenty of speculation on Republicans riding a wave of discontent and anger back into control of the House in these midterms, so much so that even a pickup of 35 seats will be seen as a disappointing result.  Expectations have been more measured for the upper chamber, with Republicans discussing a pickup of four to six seats as a goal.  A new study by American Crossroads, the consultancy informally advised by Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, hints that the GOP could do better — much better:

The Republican candidate leads on the ballot 47%-39% across the 13 Battleground Senate states. The lead is 45%-37% in the Republican-held states (Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio), and 47%-40% in Democratic-held states (Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and
Washington).

This is not the same as a generic ballot. We tested the specific candidates by name and party in every state but Colorado (where there are no clear primary frontrunners) in which case we tested “Republican” versus “Democratic” candidate. In Florida, we included Charlie Crist as a no party affiliation candidate.

Key findings in the crosstabs include:

  • Independents are voting Republican by 47%-25% across the Battleground states.
  • In the four states John McCain won in 2008, the GOPer leads 46%-36%. In the nine states Barack Obama won, the GOPer still leads 47%-40%, including 50%-38% in the five states Obama won with less than 55%, and 43%-42% in the four Obama 55%+ states.
  • There is a 21 point gender gap. Men are voting GOP 52%-33%, while women split 42% GOP/44% Dem.
  • As seen nearly everywhere else, the Democratic candidates face a wide enthusiasm gap. The GOPer leads 52%-36% among high interest voters (rating their interest as 8-10 on a 1-10 scale, which is 74% of the sample).

American Crossroads used the same pollster and survey methods as the NPR survey in June, which showed that almost all of the competitive districts in the House were held by Democrats.  Politico breaks down the implications:

But taken together, the results suggest Republicans have an opening to make substantial gains this fall, even to the point of putting the Democrats’ 59-seat majority in peril. In eight seats currently held by Democrats – Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Washington – Republican candidates average an edge of seven points over their Democratic opponents, leading 47 percent to 40 percent.

In five Republican-held seats – Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio – GOP candidates hold an average lead of eight points, 45 percent to 37 percent. …

Bolger told POLITICO the American Crossroads poll gave a similar snapshot of the Senate campaign, explaining: “Individual races may turn out okay, but the overall wave is as strong against [Democrats] as it is against Democrats in the House.”

“You’ve got independents voting Republican, two to one, just like McDonnell, Brown and Christie had,” Bolger said, referring to the 2009 victories of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and the 2010 special election win of Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown. “You have the high-interest voters much more supportive of Republicans than the overall electorate, even.”

Republican control of the Senate after this election is certainly possible; the mathematics of it work.  But is it likely?  I’m still skeptical, although not as much as I was earlier in the year.  The election would have to see a tidal wave of Republican activism, independent rejectionism, and Democratic defeatism to roll across the Senate to the extent that it leaves the GOP in charge.   There would be no room for error, either; Republicans have to run the table, winning tough campaigns in Nevada and California that look dicey at the moment.

I’d love to see it happen.  However, getting to 46 or 47 would be enough of a victory to force the Obama White House to the table to get Republican approval on anything getting through Congress in the final two years of Barack Obama’s term.  Reaching 48 or 4: 9 would force Democratic leadership to allow Republican proposals to come to votes on the floor.  Those kinds of numbers will put the GOP in good position to take back control after 2012, when Democrats have a disproportionate number of seats to defend.  With politics being in part a game of expectations, we should be careful not to set the bar too high in the midterms, or we run the risk of turning an actual strategic and tactical victory into a PR defeat.

Update: I got a nice note from Jonathan Collegio, the communications director for American Crossroads, who noted that Rove and Gillespie are informal advisers to AC, not board members or officers.  I’ve corrected the title and the first paragraph accordingly.

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

Rove, Gillespie say Republicans have a shot at winning control of Senate

I’ve said this all along.

trapeze on August 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Don’t slack off. Keep our eyes on the prize . . .

listens2glenn on August 10, 2010 at 10:17 AM

And what will we do with the current RINO leadership in control?

barnone on August 10, 2010 at 10:17 AM

And what will we do with the current RINO leadership in control?

barnone on August 10, 2010 at 10:17 AM

We will watch them keep taxes low, spend like crazy and help the Dems regulate industry.

Why do you ask?

artist on August 10, 2010 at 10:19 AM

And what will we do with the current RINO leadership in control?

barnone on August 10, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Hold their feet to the fire. But unfortunately with Barry still in the White House, even if the GOP made Paul Ryan the Speaker and Jim DeMint the Senate Majority Leader, they still wouldn’t be able to undo much of the damage the administration has done thanks to the Presidential veto.

Doughboy on August 10, 2010 at 10:19 AM

However, getting to 46 or 47 would be enough of a victory to force the Obama White House to the table to get Republican approval on anything getting through Congress in the final two years of Barack Obama’s term.

Ed, thanks for the laugh. Having seen this group at work, I will guarantee you that the Chicago Way of politics would become standard fare. There is nothing- nothing- that makes me think that Obama would bother to speak to Republicans except to reiterate that “I won.”

Physics Geek on August 10, 2010 at 10:22 AM

I think November will be the biggest “take back” of our history.

The Libs will realize that WE ARE NOT EUROPE… WE DON’T WANT TO BE EUROPE.

Ironically, because of our years of LEGAL immigration, those who fled the socialism of Europe and the communism of countries even further away, will probably be the ones to remind us all that: WE DON’T WANT TO BE “THEM”… THAT’S WHY WE LEFT.

I pray for God’s mercy for our country but it doesn’t help that we’re stomping on His Word by murdering out future generations and trying to promote immorral life styles. Guess that’s why it’s called “mercy”.

stenwin77 on August 10, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Even though it’s very unlikely, I truly wish we would take the Senate — so that Obama wouldn’t be able to get any more radicals confirmed in important government positions. With a 53-47 Democratic Senate we would still get the likes of Holder, Jennings, Kagan, et al confirmed easily.

jwolf on August 10, 2010 at 10:24 AM

There would be no room for error, either; Republicans have to run the table, winning tough campaigns in Nevada and California that look dicey at the moment.

right. there is no room for error, and Mr. Murphy is always along for the ride. For both sides.

ted c on August 10, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Get the House.
Get the Senate.

Impeach and remove.

Rebar on August 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM

And what will we do with the current RINO leadership in control?

barnone on August 10, 2010 at 10:17 AM

How about working on solutions that even a humbled leftie president would be unable to refuse. Incremental changes not grand sweeping changes almost guaranteed to get a veto that could not be overrode.(example would be passing legislation that did away with pre-conditions in health insurance and allowed parents to extend their kids coverage until age 26).
Since the Dems have more vulnerable seats in 2012 they may be inclined to go along on some of these.

Bradky on August 10, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Impeach and remove.

Rebar on August 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Unrealistic and unwarranted. Serious suggestions to do so are the BEST way to ensure the rubber band snaps back in 2012 and you have large majority of dems for house and senate

Bradky on August 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM

My ideal remains nine. That leaves the Dems nominally in control but having to deal with a much more fiscally conservative chamber – looking at who the candidates this cycle are.

There is also room for massive gains next cycle, there’s a lot of fat in that Dem class.

lizzie beth on August 10, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Meanwhile, behind closed doors, the Rats are plotting.

OldEnglish on August 10, 2010 at 10:30 AM

And what will they do with their new power?

Make bipartisan kissyface so the the media and electorate won’t think they’re mean and nasty and negative republicans?

For reasons of that near-certainty, and for other reasons, I’m not sure majorities right now would be in our best interest.

We need majorities in 2012 under President Palin.

rrpjr on August 10, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Unrealistic and unwarranted.

Bradky on August 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM

It is so because of political expediency, or because 0bama doesn’t deserve impeachment?

Rebar on August 10, 2010 at 10:32 AM

I have to disagree with the conventional wisdom stated here that even with a healthy GOP improvement, Obama will “come to the table” and respect the GOP and move to the center.
I believe that he will go in exactly the opposite direction, and REALLY F-things up with the distructive policies he’s put forth and be even more contentious.

Why? you ask.

I had a friend who was a hopeless cad and serial cheater in his marriage. Other than this, he was a nice guy.
But he lived his life by 3 rules, which I believe Obama knows about.

The 3 rules are -

1. If you are going to get blamed for it, you might as well do it.

2. If you don’t know about it, it never happened.

3. There is no such thing as “more pissed off”.

Think about it. This is exactly the way Captain Kickass runs his administration.

Following the rules, Obama is going to get blamed for anything that happens, he works overtime at keeeping us uninformed, and we are already PO’ed at his performance.
Guess what – we are going to get more of his BS.

gonnjos on August 10, 2010 at 10:33 AM

I am not buying this. Republicans can take back the House, but I see no resonable way they can hit the Senate too.

Johnnyreb on August 10, 2010 at 10:34 AM

We need to use Chris Christie’s blunt honesty when pointing out the madness of the progressive agenda.

And we need to exhort people to realize that the government can never give them anything of value, whether it be a home of their own or an unemployment check. True happiness in life is about personal responsibility and achievement, be it ever so modest. That is what the left doesn’t understand. Earning brings satisfaction. Entitlement cannot ever do that.

And it’s all about individual pursuit of happiness, is it not?

disa on August 10, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Rebar on August 10, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Both. He has done nothing to warrant impeachment and the GOP would never get enough Democrats to go along with them if they tried.

Bradky on August 10, 2010 at 10:35 AM

BTW, my friend lived by these rules until his wife’s very large brothers beat “The Word” into him.

gonnjos on August 10, 2010 at 10:36 AM

Unrealistic and unwarranted.

Bradky on August 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Agreed.

It is so because of political expediency, or because 0bama doesn’t deserve impeachment?

Rebar on August 10, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Because what, precisely, would you impeach him for? For being an inexperienced idiot? For being as far left as you predicted? These are not crimes.

If someone wants to investigate his campaign fundraising machine that accepted small donations from all over the world and disabled the internet device identifying the source, great…do it.

Until then, let’s stick to elections and democratic solutions.

Jaibones on August 10, 2010 at 10:36 AM

I have to disagree with the conventional wisdom stated here that even with a healthy GOP improvement, Obama will “come to the table” and respect the GOP and move to the center.

gonnjos on August 10, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Of course he won’t. That would be bowing his head to the man, and HE WON.

So expect more craptastic moves from Barry Soetero. At least we can hold him in check if we take the House.

disa on August 10, 2010 at 10:37 AM

As for this prediction of taking the Senate, I am unpersuaded. In Illinois, the state and national GOP blew it completely. An easy pickup for conservatives, and it might not happen; and if it does, the winner will be a Maine-esque RINO POS, Mark Kirk. You just wait — this a$$hole makes Lindsay Graham look manly and conservative.

Dingy Harry looks likely to hold on against Angle, thanks to a brain dead campaign there. And if Snooki Crist wins, then forget about it.

Jaibones on August 10, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Jaibones on August 10, 2010 at 10:36 AM

Well put

Bradky on August 10, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Meanwhile the GOP will have McCain, Graham, Collins, and Snowe doing their best to grovel to the demorats.

Majorities are going to mean less and less if the cowardly RINO’s keep mucking everything up.

Bishop on August 10, 2010 at 10:40 AM

After listening to Rove yesterday, I don’t think he gets it. He has that insider mentality of it’s dem or repubs seeking power, he doesn’t see PROGRESSIVISM at all, he doesn’t see the path we are on just who is in charge not where we are going. The insiders are so distant from the reality as to what is happening to this country because they just look at who has power by party and not by the radical ideology the left is pushing. The most you can get out of the insiders is that bo is a liberal. The insiders are dangerous to this country.

tim c on August 10, 2010 at 10:40 AM

Ironically, because of our years of LEGAL immigration, those who fled the socialism of Europe and the communism of countries even further away, will probably be the ones to remind us all that: WE DON’T WANT TO BE “THEM”… THAT’S WHY WE LEFT.

I pray for God’s mercy for our country but it doesn’t help that we’re stomping on His Word by murdering our future generations and trying to promote immoral life styles. Guess that’s why it’s called “mercy”.

stenwin77 on August 10, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Not ironic at all – they know what they’re talking about. I’ve heard Russians call in to Beck and Rush, and describe their dismay at what is happening here.

Going to the Lincoln Memorial on 8/28 for the Restoring Honor rally, stenwin?

disa on August 10, 2010 at 10:41 AM

With a 53-47 Democratic Senate we would still get the likes of Holder, Jennings, Kagan, et al confirmed easily.

jwolf on August 10, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Hey, with a 53-47 Republican Senate we could end up with more winnahs. Snow, Collins, Grahamnesty et al.

disa on August 10, 2010 at 10:43 AM

Ideal situation: GOP takes house gets 47 in the senate.

This way nothing Obawa wants gets done in 2011 or 2012 but Obama can’t seriously blame the GOP for the 2010-2012 depression when Dems control 2/3 branches of govt.

angryed on August 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Unrealistic and unwarranted. Serious suggestions to do so are the BEST way to ensure the rubber band snaps back in 2012 and you have large majority of dems for house and senate

Bradky on August 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Refusal to secure the borders, and his jackassery in Arizona are already treason.

disa on August 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Boy, I don’t see Mark Kirk that far ahead in Illinois at all. I thought it was more of a toss-up (though how it can be, given Alexi G’s baggage, I can’t fathom.)

lizzieillinois on August 10, 2010 at 10:46 AM

We need majorities in 2012 under President Palin.

rrpjr on August 10, 2010 at 10:30 AM

+1

fesofee on August 10, 2010 at 10:46 AM

If we take the house and get 46 or so in the Senate, as long as that includes Reid, that will be good enough to get some things done.

If there is one thing politicians fear, it is losing their power. We have to make an example of Reid and get enough other wins to make Durbin and Schumer uncomfortable.

Vince on August 10, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Bishop, spot on…..

cmsinaz on August 10, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Majorities are going to mean less and less if the cowardly RINO’s keep mucking everything up.

Bishop on August 10, 2010 at 10:40 AM

Reagan never had a house majority and had the senate majority the first six years. You are being unrealistic if you think that either party is going to have a majority that completely trumps the other.
Health care is a good example of why it won’t work – yes the dems reconciled this to signature and enactment but it will likely cost them majority of the house.

Bradky on August 10, 2010 at 10:49 AM

There are some good grounds for impeachment starting with “meddling” in Kenya to push a marxist Constitution with 20 odd million of U.S. Taxpayer dollars.

tim c on August 10, 2010 at 10:49 AM

disa on August 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Did you call for Bush’s impeachment on the same grounds?

Bradky on August 10, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Majorities are going to mean less and less if the cowardly RINO’s keep mucking everything up.

Bishop on August 10, 2010 at 10:40 AM

If you win big enough, they will fall in line. What, do you think they are there for public service?

Vince on August 10, 2010 at 10:50 AM

If there is one thing politicians fear, it is losing their power. We have to make an example of Reid

Vince on August 10, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Who obviously didn’t learn anything after we made an example of Daschle in 2004.

fesofee on August 10, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Vince on August 10, 2010 at 10:50 AM

I think in reality the ones you consider “RINO” would be the power players in the senate because they could pull Dem support on key bills.

Bradky on August 10, 2010 at 10:52 AM

You never know what could happen between now and November, like a really bad scandal unexpectedly taking down a Dem not on the list, or health problems, ect. Byrd kicked the bucket, and there are rumblings about an investigation into the Gov of WV. If he goes down, there is one nobody counted on opening up, for example.

Brian1972 on August 10, 2010 at 10:53 AM

•There is a 21 point gender gap. Men are voting GOP 52%-33%, while women split 42% GOP/44% Dem.

Are you kidding me? What is wrong with these women?

MississippiMom on August 10, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Who obviously didn’t learn anything after we made an example of Daschle in 2004.

fesofee on August 10, 2010 at 10:51 AM

It’s the Republicans who didn’t learn anything. By 2008 they had screwed things up enough to give it all back. A good butt kicking will bring the dems in line then we just have to make the Republicans remember who got them their power.

Mostly, it’s the fault of the voters.

Vince on August 10, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Are you kidding me? What is wrong with these women?

MississippiMom on August 10, 2010 at 10:57 AM

They are waiting on Obama to take care of their children for them with free health care, free day care, free school supplies, free housing, free auto insurance, free cars, free gas, free electricity, all because he said Yes We Can!

Brian1972 on August 10, 2010 at 11:00 AM

There is a 21 point gender gap. Men are voting GOP 52%-33%, while women split 42% GOP/44% Dem.

I’m not sure how the split for women compares to polling in the past, but someone needs to explain the position of women to me. They want to meet and marry Alpha males but vote for Beta males? Those who are married tend to be very practical, yet they can’t see through liberal nonsense. I can see that about a third of men are just silly people, but I simply don’t understand what drives women in their voting patterns. Abortion, homosexual marriage? What is it?

BuckeyeSam on August 10, 2010 at 11:02 AM

A good butt kicking will bring the dems in line

Vince on August 10, 2010 at 10:57 AM

No it won’t, it will just change their communication strategy to get enough voters to pull the lever their way, so then they can resume the left wing nonsense once again. They will lie in wait and bide their time until they get another shot at the wheelhouse. Until then, it will be obstruct and undermine everything anyway possible.

They are not going to change their objectives.

Brian1972 on August 10, 2010 at 11:03 AM

BuckeyeSam on August 10, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Single moms, to a large extent.

Brian1972 on August 10, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Brian1972 on August 10, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Maybe so, but I still find it hard to believe. Someone explain it to me like I’m a five-year-old. Don’t women understand that those free things have to be paid for by someone? And when it’s paid for by taxpayers with the government as middleman it costs so much more.

BuckeyeSam on August 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Unless the R’s find some real leadership, ’10 will be a one hit wonder. The economy is going to get worse before it ever gets better no matter what road map Ryan comes up with.

Kissmygrits on August 10, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Don’t women understand that those free things have to be paid for by someone?

Yes, and that someone is anyone but them.

And when it’s paid for by taxpayers with the government as middleman it costs so much more.

BuckeyeSam on August 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM

This is where they don’t give a crap. Many of them couldn’t care less about any of the issues we talk about here, as long as they get theirs, it’s all good. Whoever has to pay for it, doesn’t matter as long as I get mine.

That is too often the sad truth.

Brian1972 on August 10, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Rove had said on last Thursday’s Hannity that he believed the GOP would pick up only 35 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate. I don’t share Rove’s view of the House; I’m more in line with Morris.

madmonkphotog on August 10, 2010 at 11:11 AM

If you win big enough, they will fall in line. What, do you think they are there for public service?
Vince on August 10, 2010 at 10:50 AM

I don’t believe you, especially in the case of Mac, this will be his last term and he knows it, might as well go out with a bang.

There are two ways out of this morass:

1) Someone like Christie proves to be the real deal and manages to bring everyone else along somehow by getting himself in higher office.

2) Things keep going as they are now, just different aholes running the place, and it all collapses to the point that bad bad things start happening. Then it gets rebuilt, hopefully better.

Bishop on August 10, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Because what, precisely, would you impeach him for?

Jaibones on August 10, 2010 at 10:36 AM

The Joe Sestak bribery scandal, the BP Shakedown, taking over GM in violation of the 5th amendment, forcing banks to accept TARP funds they didn’t want, illegal funding of Pro-Abortion and Pro-Sharia Kenyan Constitution using taxpayer dollars in direct conflict with U.S. law, refusal of his constitutional duty to enforce immigration law and protect the nations borders, use of “czars” to bypass the Senate, the firing General inspector Walpin.

And those are the impeachable offenses that don’t even need an investigation, start digging in 0bama’s closet and far worse skeletons will certainly fall out.

You may or may not agree that impeachment proceedings are politically expedient – but there can be no doubt that never has a president deserved impeachment more than 0bama.

Rebar on August 10, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Rove had said on last Thursday’s Hannity that he believed the GOP would pick up only 35 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate. I don’t share Rove’s view of the House; I’m more in line with Morris.

madmonkphotog on August 10, 2010 at 11:11 AM

That was as far as he was willing to go at that time based on what data he had available. He says he won’t get out ahead of the numbers and surveys he uses, and that all the primaries are not settled yet so we don’t know who exactly will be facing who in the general in some of these races.
Once all the primaries are done, he will know more for sure.

That is his cautious approach.

His assessment is expected to change from week to week as we get closer to election day.

Brian1972 on August 10, 2010 at 11:16 AM

I can see that about a third of men are just silly people, but I simply don’t understand what drives women in their voting patterns. Abortion, homosexual marriage? What is it?

BuckeyeSam on August 10, 2010 at 11:02 AM

A lot of the women I speak with just don’t want to pay attention. They don’t really care about “politics” they’ll tell you, so they vote for the person they think is “nice” or “funny” or “cute”. These women don’t seem to understand (or care) that politics and voting directly impact their day to day lives.

Women like this are forever susceptible to the Bill Clintons of the world, and they will always buy into the fabrication that the GOP is just full of mean, old men.

MississippiMom on August 10, 2010 at 11:16 AM

I think in reality the ones you consider “RINO” would be the power players in the senate because they could pull Dem support on key bills.

Bradky on August 10, 2010 at 10:52 AM

yea and your hillarious! Captain Queeg McCain tried that on appointments and how is that workin out for him when the Dems are in power?
Oh no more gang of 14 blocking radical appointments anymore? Imagine that!

That is exactly why the RINOs must go with the Demrats!

Common AZ wise up and retire Captain Queeg hes’ way past his expiration date!

dhunter on August 10, 2010 at 11:18 AM

MississippiMom on August 10, 2010 at 10:57 AM

They WANT to kill their babies?

dhunter on August 10, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Vince on August 10, 2010 at 10:57 AM

You get no argument from me on the Republicans but my point was that Reid became minority leader after Daschle was thrown out of office. Now, he’s in danger of being thrown out (hopefully) for being even worse than Daschle was.

fesofee on August 10, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Women like this are forever susceptible to the Bill Clintons of the world, and they will always buy into the fabrication that the GOP is just full of mean, old men.

MississippiMom on August 10, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Then we should beat the living crap out of them. :)

Brian1972 on August 10, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Even if we do take back the house and maybe, maybe the senate, we still have to be on them to do the right thing. I’ve seen it happen all too many times when some new blood with all of the right stuff gets out East, they are sucked into that sewer in D.C. and become “one of them”.

Mirimichi on August 10, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Maybe so, but I still find it hard to believe. Someone explain it to me like I’m a five-year-old. Don’t women understand that those free things have to be paid for by someone? And when it’s paid for by taxpayers with the government as middleman it costs so much more.

BuckeyeSam on August 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM

I think it comes down to several reasons:

1. The moochers who want “free” stuff

2. Women are natural caretakers and the Dem message of caring and helping the little people appeals to their emotions. (Of course, we know this message is total BS)

3. No matter how much women’s lib has advanced this is still a paternalistic society and secretly women feel inadequate and have “Cinderella Syndrome”

4. Total freaking liberal insanity and/or stupidity. ie: abortion, women’s lib, affirmative action, etc.

mrsmwp on August 10, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Control of the House with a reasonably energized majority means control over the purse, which could and should be used to bring to heel runaway Executive Branch operations like EPA and DOJ.

Lisa Jackson needs to spend a lot of time testifying under oath. Frankly, I’m betting she’d quit first. Holder’s got a lot to answer for as well.

What we do NOT need is a lot of social-con pot-banging. Another bit of Terri Schiavoish nonsense and in a heartbeat the GOP will have lost 15% of the independent vote for another decade.

On the Senate side, realistically I think a 4 vote shift means the Dems no longer have unfettered control over the agenda, but it’s always a crapshoot because of all the squishes, with which both sides are blessed but the GOP seems have in greater abundance.

JEM on August 10, 2010 at 11:26 AM

JEM on August 10, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Calling all social-cons!

Grab your bangers, man the pots!

Battle Stations!

Brian1972 on August 10, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Comment just eaten, will try again.

Women vote Dem for several reasons:

1. Some are moochers who want “free” stuff

2. Some are natural caretakers who buy into the Dem message of taking care of little people. (Totally BS)

3. Regardless of the advances of women’s lib, this is still a paternalistic society and many women feel inadequate at taking care of themselves or their kids and are trapped in the “Cinderella Syndrome” waiting for rescue. Since many have eschewed marriage and traditional values, that leave Uncle Sam as the “rescuer”

4. Some are just evil and/or crazy liberals and must have abortion, affirmative action, etc.

mrsmwp on August 10, 2010 at 11:32 AM

test

mrsmwp on August 10, 2010 at 11:33 AM

For those wishing for Obama’s impeachment – sorry, no.

Unless and until something turns up that’s in the ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ bucket, and it’s clearly and evidently so to the public at large, it’d be a fool’s errand.

It’s not impossible that something might turn up, but it’s not something that should actively be pursued.

Impeaching Clinton was a blunder, just one of several from that GOP Congress, the whole Lewinsky situation gave a President who was wearing out his welcome a whole new lease on life.

JEM on August 10, 2010 at 11:37 AM

I noticed that there was no post on HA on the new Rasmussen poll showing Angle now trailing Reid 43%/45%. May people regret tossing a reliable Republican vote away for a bunch of stupid pipe dreams.

In theory, we could take the Senate without Nevada, thanks to the Wisconsin and Washington being more competitive than expected. It means winning in California though. And that assumes the TP folks don’t blow up our chances in Delaware.

year_of_the_dingo on August 10, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Brian1972 –

Plugging the holes re federal funding of abortion is an easy social-con win, there’s broad enough public support and it’s easy enough to show that this administration’s been talking out both sides of its mouth.

JEM on August 10, 2010 at 11:46 AM

year_of_the_dingo on August 10, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Calling all Tea Partiers, on to Delaware!

Brian1972 on August 10, 2010 at 11:47 AM

And what will we do with the current RINO leadership in control?

barnone on August 10, 2010 at 10:17 AM

At every available opportunity (suspicion of dithering) Ridicule, Shame, Boo, Yell, Chase out of Pizza joints etc…

antisocial on August 10, 2010 at 12:04 PM

I’m more in line with Morris.

madmonkphotog on August 10, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Isn’t that the same guy who said for two years that the epic matchup of all time would happen in 2008 between Hillary and Condi Rice?

Bradky on August 10, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Yeah, last time we ‘seized’ control of the Senate, our majority leader couldn’t wait to share power with the Democrats. All we’ve got to look forward to with the GOP in control is being lied to even more and having our intelligence insulted. See that little 14th amendment feint being made by Gramhamnesty? That’s going to become standard fare. GOP Senate first order of business will be giving Obama amnesty from the right. When those folks become legal, kiss 2012 and subsequent elections good-bye.

austinnelly on August 10, 2010 at 12:15 PM

When those folks become legal, kiss 2012 and subsequent elections good-bye.

austinnelly on August 10, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Had people had the good sense to vote for the Bush-Kennedy immigration bill the earliest anyone would have been eligible to vote would be 2021 (2024 for POTUS).
Hope you are happy with where that took us. Yes the same polls like now that said 70% want border control and the illegal problem solved also said 58-60% of same respondents supported path to citizenship for those already here. Inconvenient fact the Reps and Dems that torpedoed the bill would like to ignore.

Bradky on August 10, 2010 at 12:21 PM

I’m not sure how the split for women compares to polling in the past, but someone needs to explain the position of women to me. They want to meet and marry Alpha males but vote for Beta males? Those who are married tend to be very practical, yet they can’t see through liberal nonsense.

BuckeyeSam on August 10, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Single women are the ones who skew women to Democrats. Single women with kids….fuhgettaboutit.

Makes sense. If you’re a woman with 2 kids and no baby daddy in the picture, of course you’ll vote for the part that gives you free stuff. Married women, not so much.

angryed on August 10, 2010 at 12:24 PM

I noticed that there was no post on HA on the new Rasmussen poll showing Angle now trailing Reid 43%/45%. May people regret tossing a reliable Republican vote away for a bunch of stupid pipe dreams.
year_of_the_dingo on August 10, 2010 at 11:42 AM

A couple polls had marcia coakley ahead of Scott Brown. Remember “Ted Kennedy’s Seat?” It aint over till the poll in November. And polls are bulldung.

dogsoldier on August 10, 2010 at 12:25 PM

I am not buying this. Republicans can take back the House, but I see no resonable way they can hit the Senate too.

Johnnyreb on August 10, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Unless American Crossroads has some polling data not picked up by other polling firms (including Rasmussen), taking the Senate seems like a stretch.

Republicans will probably pick up seats in ND, AR, IN, and PA, and probably DE if Castle wins the primary, which would bring us to 46 seats if we don’t lose any open GOP seats (FL and OH are still vulnerable, MO, NH, and KY seem to be held for now).

There are 5 races that could go either way: NV, CO, IL, WI, and WA, and Republicans would have to win all 5 (and hang on to FL and OH) to take the majority in the Senate. It’s POSSIBLE, although the Republican candidates seem to be shooting themselves in the foot in NV, CO, and IL, while running surprisingly strong challenges in blue-state WI and WA.

A more likely scenario would be about 47 or 48 Republicans in the next Senate, including a few RINOs, but enough to hold filibusters together. If Republicans take the House, they can cut off funding for Obama’s agenda, but they won’t be able to force their own agenda over a Democrat majority in the Senate and Obama’s veto.

This is where Republicans in Congress will have to be SMART. If the House veers too far right, they will never get anything through the Senate, but it will be up to Senate Republicans to use the threat of a filibuster to negotiate with centrist Democrats (especially those up for re-election in 2012, such as the two Nelsons (NE and FL), Landrieu(LA), Webb(VA), Casey(PA), Tester(MT), Johnson(SD), and McCaskill(MO) to get something constructive through the Senate. If Obama vetoes everything, HE will be viewed as obstructionist, and could lose in 2012.

The question will then be, who is the better triangulator, Obama or the Senate Republicans?

By the way, Johnnyreb, how is the turnout in the CT primary?

Steve Z on August 10, 2010 at 12:28 PM

If Angle was here, I would tell her to STFU about God and gays and abortion etc. and just talk about Reid’s disasterous economic policies and saying the War in Iraq was lost.

Speedwagon82 on August 10, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Calling all Tea Partiers, on to Delaware!

Brian1972 on August 10, 2010 at 11:47 AM

NOT a good idea. Castle may be a RINO, but taking him out in the primary would guarantee that the Democrats hang on to this seat. We’re better off with Castle, who will vote with us 50% of the time or so, than with Coons who will vote liberal ALL the time.

We need SMART power!!!

Tea Partiers, how about going to NV, CO, IL, WA, WI, FL, and MO, where things are close?

Steve Z on August 10, 2010 at 12:38 PM

Republicans have a shot at winning control of Senate.

From your lips to God’s ears.

If Angle was here, I would tell her to STFU about God and gays and abortion etc. and just talk about Reid’s disasterous economic policies and saying the War in Iraq was lost. Speedwagon82 on August 10, 2010 at 12:37 PM

She’s not out there saying anything about it, Reid’s ads are doing that. She believes the Bible is true as did virtually all of our founding fathers. Does this belief in God and the Bible disqualify her in your eyes? She’ll win amigo, Reid is universally hated in Nevada by anyone who still has brain cells left.

Mojave Mark on August 10, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Impeaching Clinton was a blunder, just one of several from that GOP Congress, the whole Lewinsky situation gave a President who was wearing out his welcome a whole new lease on life.

JEM on August 10, 2010 at 11:37 AM

..this POTUS is so-o-o-o-o pathetic, I’m thinking of starting a petition to repeal the 22nd amendment *and* drafting Bill Clinton to run against Obama in the 2012 Dem primary.

The War Planner on August 10, 2010 at 1:15 PM

I’ve said this all along.

trapeze on August 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Ditto. The day Obama was elected I said the Dems will overreach and lose both House and Senate.

Let’s hope the Republicans drop a fiscally-responsible contract on America come late September.

John the Libertarian on August 10, 2010 at 1:18 PM

For those of you who say, it would be better strategically to have the Dems in charge so Obama can’t use the Rs as a foil going into 2012, or that Rinos would be in charge etc. I have five words for you that should serve as a good goal and reason for winning the Senate:
Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jeff Sessions.

txmomof6 on August 10, 2010 at 1:22 PM

If after the election, Harry Reid has lost, and the count is 51-49 for the Republicans, and the democratics offered Miss Graham the position of Senate Majority Leader if he switches parties, would he go for it?

slickwillie2001 on August 10, 2010 at 2:11 PM

“Because what, precisely, would you impeach him for? For being an inexperienced idiot? For being as far left as you predicted? These are not crimes.

Jaibones on August 10, 2010 at 10:36 AM”
———————

I would impeach him for a very simple thing:

Intentional dereliction of duty to his oath of office – for not only refusing to protect one of the states of our republic from foreign invasion – Bush did this – and this is why at thje end I was profoundly disillusioned with George W.

But Obama crossed the Rubicon in actively suing the state of Arizona to prevent her from protecting her citizens from foreign criminals who are robbing, raping and killing Arizonans.

The active suing of Arizona is plainly and inarguably impeachable and I stand on that point.

Whether you think Obama SHOULD be impeached is one thing – but if the political will were to be gathered, the case for impeachment of the president is starkly clear and simple.

The day he directed federal lawyers to sue Arizona, he committed an EMINENTLY impeachable offense.

cane_loader on August 10, 2010 at 2:33 PM

I can’t emphasize it enough:

The day that President Barack H. Obama directed federal lawyers to sue the state of Arizona to prevent it from protecting itself, arrogating to the federal government the right to refuse to enforce the duly passed laws, and to attack those trying to enforce them, he committed a grievous offense against the Union – the most grievous since South Carolina fired upon Ft. Sumter in 1861.

That day in 2010 will grow more important as time passes and its shadow lengthens.

By this single action, President Obama became a domestic enemy of the United States of America.

cane_loader on August 10, 2010 at 2:45 PM

I can’t emphasize it enough:

The day that President Barack H. Obama directed federal lawyers to sue the state of Arizona to prevent it from protecting itself, arrogating to the federal government the right to refuse to enforce the duly passed laws, and to attack those trying to enforce them, he committed a grievous offense against the Union – the most grievous since South Carolina fired upon Ft. Sumter in 1861.

That day in 2010 will grow more important as time passes and its shadow lengthens.

By this single action, President Obama became a domestic enemy of the United States of America.

cane_loader on August 10, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Please.. you have got to be kidding. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 come to mind rather quickly.
He asked the judiciary branch to rule on a legislative matter. Even Charles Krauthammer, no squish, said he was glad it would be heard in court.

Bradky on August 10, 2010 at 2:49 PM

“he committed a grievous offense against the Union – the most grievous since South Carolina fired upon Ft. Sumter in 1861.”

—–

Good grief, let me put a finer point on what was already, in my opinion, obvious:

“the most grievous DOMESTIC offense since South Carolina fired upon Ft. Sumter.”

I don’t know where your mind or head is at, but you’ve got to be seriously warped if you try to employ academic reductionism in reduce the Feds’ forbidding a state from defending itself against invasion when the Feds are grossly in violation of their duty to enforce the law, to a “legislative matter.”

In your language, 9/11 was an aviation malfunction.

Oh, please. People who think narrowly like lawyers, and lose ALL contact with common sense, will be the death of America.

cane_loader on August 10, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Name me the last time a President sued a state that was being invaded, and argued that his administration had the right to allow the invasion should continue.

Repeat – most grievous offense against the Union by the Federal government (and look up theso that you can read with understanding) since 1861.

Next.

cane_loader on August 10, 2010 at 3:14 PM

“(and look up the word, ‘Union’ – hint – it is not synonymous with ‘America,” ‘The United States,’ or ‘the Republic’ – so that you can read with understanding)”

cane_loader on August 10, 2010 at 3:16 PM

In your language, 9/11 was an aviation malfunction.

Oh, please. People who think narrowly like lawyers, and lose ALL contact with common sense, will be the death of America.

cane_loader on August 10, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Get a grip. You are being delusional.

Bradky on August 10, 2010 at 3:36 PM