Two things have happened recently to drive home the point that the Republican Party is in massive decline. The Democratic Caucus in the U.S. Senate reached sixty members and we saw three potential 2012 GOP presidential careers’ unexpectedly implode. Where are they going from here?
The GOP might regain some momentum by winning the governor’s races this November in either/both New Jersey and Virginia, but their prospects of picking up seats in the 2010 Senate elections look exceedingly bleak. The Democrats have very strong candidates running in Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky, and New Hampshire in what should all be open seats. The Republicans will have to stage upset victories in all four of those seats and find a way to win elections in Delaware, Colorado, or Connecticut to gain any ground. And most of the emerging races are on Republican ground. Texas could become a competitive seat once Kay Bailey Hutchison resigns to run for governor. It remains to be seen if Charlie Crist will prevail in Florida’s closed GOP primary. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina is polling terribly and could become vulnerable if the Democrats find a strong challenger. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana could have difficulty weathering his diaper-wearing visits to the Cat House if Rep. Charlie Melanchon gets in the race.
The Dems have a little housecleaning to do. They will have contentious primaries in Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. But they should be favored to win all of those races. My best guess is that the Democrats will pick up a net of four to six seats, giving them 64-66 senate seats for the 112th Congress.
The House is another matter. The Dems will probably lose at least a couple of seats. There are only a handful of vulnerable Republicans left in the House, so unless they have a lot of retirements, the odds are that they’ll win more contests than they lose. But, even here, it’s highly doubtful that they Republicans can net even a dozen seats, and that will barely change the dynamics of Congress at all. In fact, the most vulnerable Democrats are already voting with the Republicans half the time anyway.
In short, there does not appear to be any near-term relief coming for the Grand Old Party. And, if they take another beating in 2010, their next obstacle will be the post-census redistricting which will be controlled in many states by the Democrats. A bunch of Republican seats will just get carved out of existence for the 2012 races, and a decade of deep minority status will set in.
Finally, if the party doesn’t show any signs of life through 2010, then it’s likely that no new leaders will emerge to challenge for the presidency. They have no one now, and there is nobody on the horizon. The last time this happened was when Eisenhower failed to recruit an ideological successor and his vice-president lost to Kennedy. The GOP tilted badly to the right and nominated Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona in 1964. Goldwater got crushed and the Democrats entered the period of their greatest dominance in the post-war period. We appear to be on a similar trajectory. Which makes this all the funnier.
Funny, I used to think Michael Jackson was bizarre but he can’t hold a candle with the Rep’s in the room. Peter what’s his name from Fox just can’t let Whacko Sarah go, at least he didn’t premise that she had gone overboad and pulled a Specter by changing parties. Ick.
I’m a strange mix of cynic and optimist, so I am only moderately surprised about the degree to which the Democrats seem unwilling to press their advantage legally by enforcing the letter of the law on the at least some Republicans for their misrule. But, I was right about a different thing. When the Republicans lost the ability to control the national narrative, the narrative changed and left them looking like borderline lunatics.
They seem incapable of avoiding damaging themselves with almost every single declaration they make. It truly does look like a death spiral.
Betcha.
Watch.
AG
AKIP maybe?
she and the first dude have some history with them.
it’d probably play well in dixie.
.
From Faux news:
She [Sarah Palin] should also lead the nation’s mothers to oppose mandating replacement of incandescent light bulbs with the new mercury poison gas bulbs.
About 50 percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal-fired power plants. When coal burns to produce electricity, mercury naturally contained in the coal releases into the air. In 2006, coal-fired power plants produced 1,971 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, emitting 50.7 tons of mercury into the air–the equivalent amount of mercury contained in more than 9 billion CFLs (the bulbs emit zero mercury when in use or being handled).
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Why do you think there’s any question about Illinois? There will be a nasty primary if Burris runs, as he will, but I don’t see a strong outlook for any Republican. Much as I despise the Madigan dynasty, Lisa will probably be the candidate and will win easily.
PA seems much more complicated. If Specter wins the primary, will he get enough Dem voter turnout and support? Will he get significant residual Rep votes? If Sestak or somebody wins, will Dem power players quietly cut him off at the knees to teach a lesson?
Specter will easily win reelection. Even I am struggling with replacing a guy who will probably be a cardinal on the Appropriations Committee with a freshman backbencher in Sestak.
There is a very small possibility that Sestak will win the primary (unless Specter’s health falters) but there is no chance that Specter will lose to Toomey. Maybe Gerlach could give him a run for his money, but I sincerely doubt it.
I think you mean “they’ll win more currently-blue districts than they’ll lose currently-red ones.”
Given that this is the House, in which the entire body is up for re-election every two years, if either party “win[s] more contests than they lose,” they become the majority party. Which pretty clearly isn’t what you’re predicting.
yes, thanks for the correction. That is what I meant.
watch for it. To conservatives, he’ll look like the “real deal” alternative to Mittens and Huckabee, a fresh face with the look of a presidential candidate.
Though Thune’s resemblance to actor Brian Thompson does freak me out.
they really do exist in an alternative reality.
comparing sarah p. to st. reagan…oh boy…peter should share whatever drug he’s using.
l find it fascinating watching a political party self-destruct.
I think the comparison to Reagan is pretty apt, if remarkably confessional. Both were dim-bulb showbiz second stringers who knew how to grab the main chance. Palin could probably accumulate enough clever/evil handlers around her to do as much damage as Reagan.
l disagree. apples and oranges.
she had the best handlers money could buy, and she bombed. ronnie was into role playing and ego gratification, and was, within reason for the times, able to come across as a kind of benevolent father figure. he went wherever the wind, or his handlers, blew him.
the barracuda may have the ego and lust for power just as badly, but her agenda is all me, all the time. she doesn’t play well with others.
she’ll not get a second chance. she’s toast.
I’m not too worried about the Republicans– they are hopeless. But I worry a lot about the Democrats and our corrupt media culture. The default political posture in this country is a sort of bullshit “centrism,” which is really a Broder-ish euphemism for preserving the status quo and protecting the entrenched interests. And too many of our Democrats are part of that club.
I totally agree.
What’s the point of having 60+ Senate seats if they’re all Bayh-style “centrists” who shed legislation to pieces?