Charlie Cook is making me nervous:
It’s easy to look at what appears to be a gigantic Republican 2010 midterm election wave in the House and feel a little slack-jawed, but not so much surprised. There were plenty signs well over a year ago that Democrats were facing grave danger, but even when expecting an onslaught, one can still be shocked at its size and unrelenting force. It would be a surprise if this wave doesn’t match the 52-seat gain on Election Night in 1994, and it could be substantially more.
A lot of polls are narrowing, but the corporate money flowing into these campaigns is really putting a thumb on the scale.
“They’re widening the field, it’s just a stunning thing,” said a senior White House official, voicing what in political parlance is known as a prebuttal.
“These guys have been able to put down $500,000 or $1 million in a congressional district that wasn’t on radar screens and make the race competitive,” the official added. “In a congressional district, the dynamic can be affected by a million bucks in a way that a statewide race can’t.”
I am not happy.
if you want to be even more depressed, read this: http://nymag.com/news/politics/69130/
Still think that the “sane republicans” are part of the Obama coalition? I think what we’re seeing in Florida and Alaska where there’s a viable independent candidate is that the GOP candidate IS GOING TO GET 45% NO MATTER WHAT. When other sensible alternatives are thrown into the mix, its only democrat leaning independents who dems themselves who take the bait of the reasonable moderate who can make everyone get along.
The article is sort of silly but I think it does explain why a lot of the “sane republicans” haven’t really been fighting the tea party thing or coming to Obama’s defenses either: they are laying the groundwork for a massive betrayal of Obama in 2012.
I read the first page but I am not going to read the next six pages. From what I read, it confirms my point. He needs Bloomberg in the tent.
Agreed, but whereas your argument seems to say (and apologies if I don’t have it quite right) that the GOP’s embrace of the tea party is what puts Bloomberg in the Obama big tent, the argument in the article seems to say that it actually does the opposite: it gives Bloomberg the opening he’s always wanted and always tried to cultivate to create the Tom Friedman-adored billionaire technocrat party who will save us all. I think the article is silly because it neglects to mention the fact that people, other than those who write for and read NY Mag, don’t really like Bloomberg that much. The scary thing for me though is that given what’s happening with Murkowski and Crist, GOP voters are pretty happy with their tea party options and really don’t like the plain vanilla conservatives like Crist Murkowski. Who really thought 6 months ago that if Crist ran as an independent Rubio would still comfortably get 45%? To that point, who gets to 40% faster in a three way race with Bloomberg as spoiler: Obama or Palin?
Part of what we’re seeing is a result of the typical Bloomberg-Republican being dealt out of the GOP. Remember the spectacle of Bloomberg telling Pam Gellar and her acolytes to GFThemselves??
The GOP is smaller than ever, and less popular than ever. Unfortunately, in this economy, people aren’t excited about going to vote for incumbents. They’re excited about punishing somebody.
A presidential election is a different animal.
we just have to plug away, BooMan
…election results (even if Democrats don’t lose either house of Congress) would finally put a cork into the pie holes of all those folks – amateurs and professionals alike – who treat elections such as 2008 as the beginning of a generation (or two) of Party X’s or Party Y’s rule.
But, of course, they won’t.
Republicans are probably pretty much done as a national party if they don’t take either chamber this year. Given that this will be their best chance at doing so in a while due to demographic trends, the rise in Obama’s popularity that will likely come about in subsequent years, and the increasingly anti-Tea Party sentiment growing among the electorate, it will be very hard for party leaders to argue that they can win in 2012, 2014, or 2016 if they can’t do it now. Mark my words: there will be chaos if they lose, and we may even see a serious third party movement creep up in 2012 (especially if someone like Romney is the nominee).
This is the moment where we can seal a progressive Democratic majority for years to come.
Six more calling and canvassing days. Make ’em count.
Well, Join the club. I was tired of the Bush incompetency. To say that Obama is a disappointment is beyond a gross misunderstatement by 2 or 3 magnitudes.
Maybe Obama wanted to ‘heal’ the country.
Maybe no one could reasonably expect the back lash of racism.
But by the time he had been in office for 60 days, these things were obvious.
And, here is the real problem. POTUS was just too timid. Instead of calling them out, he kept trying to get along. Between Obama and a Dem Congress they should have rolled over the repubs. Reid should’ve said what Frist said, “You want to filibuster, we’ll get rid of the filibuster.”
Nope they were too timid, wanted to play nice and they got bullied and humiliated.
I early voted. A straight Dem vote.
It’s not like it’s uniquely Obama’s fault. It’s been happening to Democrats my entire life. Dean was the only breath of fresh air I’ve ever known.
And Al Franken.
Honestly? Amy K. has been more visible than Franken who seems to be marginalized or muzzled. That probably comes with the turf of being an new senator but.