The US elections in November, 2010.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm just waiting for Palin to pull a Ross Perot when she doesn't get the nomination.

'Tis my dream. Other than the dream of her actually getting the nomination.

'tis my dream that she never get the nomination for candidacy for President, because she has a fair chance of winning. Perhaps not a clear probability, but she has enough of a base to put her within striking distance, and I really don't want to see her in higher office than she has already held.

[Coito ergo sum]

Time will tell. But, liberals never fail to underestimate people. You folks love the snarky one-liners, but the reality is pretty scary. These folks are kicking ass and taking names.

Take Rubio in Florida - he went from "unelectable" to a 14 point lead: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68E55P20100915

O'Donnell just raised $500,000 in ONE DAY, and may hit $1,000,000 raised in just a few days.

And, look what happened in Alaska.

John Dingall's seat in Michigan is in doubt: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42191.html

Rubio has a sensible platform focusing on the economy. He just needed name recognition. O'Donnell's kind of the opposite.

The point was that Rubio was the tea party favorite, and was initially given not a change in hell, and he is now handily in the lead.

Underestimating this movement is not good for the Democrats.

[Coito ergo sum]

Democrats running anti-health care reform ads: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42257.html

[Ian]

Underestimating this movement is not good for the Democrats.

I don't think most Democrats are underestimating it. I'm trying not to (I think my assessment of Delaware is pretty reasonable). But I think the Republicans may be overestimating it. The Tea Party is a serious double-edged sword.

For the GOP to re-take the House, several key things have to happen.

First, Democratic enthusiasm to vote has to be low. Compared to 2008, it will be much lower: Obama's not a candidate, Bush is long gone, the economy is no longer in freefall but the recovery has been sluggish and precarious, and younger/minority voters turn out to the midterms less anyway. But the Tea Party, ironically, will do much to stimulate this enthusiasm. They generate a lot of fear amongst moderate voters, and certainly among Democrats. As "diverse" and "leaderless" as their movement is, they have actual candidates running for office, candidates who have displaced establishment Republicans... as well as a high-profile, uber-divisive figurehead in Sarah Palin. This gives Democrats and otherwise-unenthusiastic moderates some genuine targets to vote against. And by the way: the Democratic campaign commitees aren't hurting for cash. As the campaigns get into full-swing, the much-discussed "enthusiasm-gap" will close some between now and November. Just how much remains to be seen of course.

Secondly, Independents have to be overwhelmingly backing the Republicans. The wind is definitely at the GOP's back, and polls have shown indies more likely to vote for the GOP, but this warrants some scrutiny. If the economy surges in September and into October, if new issues come to the forefront (Congress is back in session: immigration legislation, DADT, Elizabeth Warren, the new START treaty and other issues are gestating and coming up before November)... and once again if the Tea Party continues to scare middle-of-the-road voters, the independent vote could be a bit less lopsided than many Republicans are hoping for. Also, it bears mentioning that independents generally don't vote in midterms as much as they do in Presidential election years. Midterms tend to be more about rallying the party troops rather than winning the middle for this very reason.

Thirdly, Republican enthusiasm has to be high. This seems to be taken for granted, and I have little doubt that it'll remain overall higher than Democrats over the next seven weeks - such is the nature of midterm elections. But it won't be universally high. In places where the Tea Party candidates has seized the GOP nomination, you can bet that their supporters will be enthusiastic, but moderate Republicans already have mixed reactions. Some will ignore them and stay home, some will hold their noses and vote for them anyway, and a few may even hold their noses and vote for the Democrat. I'm talking about Nevada, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Florida - and those are just the high-profile Senate races. And in other places, just how high is it going to be in favor of very moderate GOP candidates (aka RINOs in Tea Party-speak) going up against incumbent Democrats? I guess we'll see.

The GOP needs 42 seats to win back the House (yeah, every talking head pundit keeps mentioning 39, but that assumes not a single GOP incumbent will lose; in fact three of them are almost guaranteed to lose to their Democratic challengers). 42 is a very big number, even when the wind is blowing your way. But while I refused to make a prediction in July, and even though I still say a week in politics is a long time, now that it's mid-September I'm going to go ahead and make a prediction, if for no other reason than to give Coito something to talk about: the GOP will win the House, but their majority will be less than ten seats. As for the Senate, I've already made a bet about that: The Democrats will hold it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Underestimating this movement is not good for the Democrats.

I don't think most Democrats are underestimating it. I'm trying not to (I think my assessment of Delaware is pretty reasonable). But I think the Republicans may be overestimating it. The Tea Party is a serious double-edged sword.

Absolutely it is a double edged sword. But, latest Rasmussen poll, today, had a 10 point spread between O'Donnell and Coons. Coons in the lead. That is not insurmountable, and we've seen thing change in other races.

I agree with Rove's comments about her though. She's said some weird stuff. She is against male masturbation because if a guy masturbates then what is she there for....??? Unfortunately, there are plenty of idiots out there that think that shit.

For the GOP to re-take the House, several key things have to happen.

First, Democratic enthusiasm to vote has to be low. Compared to 2008, it will be much lower: Obama's not a candidate, Bush is long gone, the economy is no longer in freefall

Not sure about that....foreclosures and home repossessions just set a new all time record today. Other than a painted on perception, I'm not sure that much has really changed. We're still collapsing.

but the recovery has been sluggish and precarious,

There hasn't been a recovery, yet. At best, there is a sluggish and precarious stabilzation, or more properly put: a slowing down of the pace of decline.

and younger/minority voters turn out to the midterms less anyway. But the Tea Party, ironically, will do much to stimulate this enthusiasm. They generate a lot of fear amongst moderate voters, and certainly among Democrats. As "diverse" and "leaderless" as their movement is, they have actual candidates running for office, candidates who have displaced establishment Republicans... as well as a high-profile, uber-divisive figurehead in Sarah Palin. This gives Democrats and otherwise-unenthusiastic moderates some genuine targets to vote against. And by the way: the Democratic campaign commitees aren't hurting for cash. As the campaigns get into full-swing, the much-discussed "enthusiasm-gap" will close some between now and November. Just how much remains to be seen of course.

Secondly, Independents have to be overwhelmingly backing the Republicans. The wind is definitely at the GOP's back, and polls have shown indies more likely to vote for the GOP, but this warrants some scrutiny. If the economy surges in September and into October, if new issues come to the forefront (Congress is back in session: immigration legislation, DADT, Elizabeth Warren, the new START treaty and other issues are gestating and coming up before November)... and once again if the Tea Party continues to scare middle-of-the-road voters, the independent vote could be a bit less lopsided than many Republicans are hoping for. Also, it bears mentioning that independents generally don't vote in midterms as much as they do in Presidential election years. Midterms tend to be more about rallying the party troops rather than winning the middle for this very reason.

Thirdly, Republican enthusiasm has to be high. This seems to be taken for granted, and I have little doubt that it'll remain overall higher than Democrats over the next seven weeks - such is the nature of midterm elections. But it won't be universally high. In places where the Tea Party candidates has seized the GOP nomination, you can bet that their supporters will be enthusiastic, but moderate Republicans already have mixed reactions. Some will ignore them and stay home, some will hold their noses and vote for them anyway, and a few may even hold their noses and vote for the Democrat. I'm talking about Nevada, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Florida - and those are just the high-profile Senate races. And in other places, just how high is it going to be in favor of very moderate GOP candidates (aka RINOs in Tea Party-speak) going up against incumbent Democrats? I guess we'll see.

The GOP needs 42 seats to win back the House (yeah, every talking head pundit keeps mentioning 39, but that assumes not a single GOP incumbent will lose; in fact three of them are almost guaranteed to lose to their Democratic challengers). 42 is a very big number, even when the wind is blowing your way. But while I refused to make a prediction in July, and even though I still say a week in politics is a long time, now that it's mid-September I'm going to go ahead and make a prediction, if for no other reason than to give Coito something to talk about: the GOP will win the House, but their majority will be less than ten seats. As for the Senate, I've already made a bet about that: The Democrats will hold it.

Well, obviously, there are no guarantees, and yes, the Republican enthusiasm needs to be high, and Dem enthusiasm low. However, the one thing I think you give too much credence to is the idea that the economy can "surge" or "turn around" in the next 60 days. Frankly, there is not an economist on the planet that gives that a snowball's chance in hell. There is no rebounding economy. We're on on slow uphill climb. We're AT BEST leveling off, but still declining. That is going to crush the Dems in November.

The Senate is going to be tough for the Repubs, but that's why I made the bet a while back. Sure bets are no fun.

Some weird trend is occurring in politics that I think is rather disturbing, though. The trend is that people like Palin and O'Donnell can get elected. I mean....come on...

[Ian]

I don't necessarily disagree with your take on the economy, but I'm sure you're aware that not everyone out there has the same take as you. BTW - how do you figure we're "still declining"? (Also, this contradicts your earlier sentence, "We're on a slow uphill climb.")The GDP is most decidedly in positive growth territory, albeit very low lately. If we were still declining, it would still officially be a recession. The GOP's argument boils down to "we can get things moving faster." I think you're just giddy getting to say things like "crush the Dems".

Despite your expert analysis on the economy, the Democrats still have some talking points. A few days ago Obama spent the better part of an hour on a speech devoted to the economy. He couldn't do that if he were saying nothing more than "we've leveled off". Passage of the small business bill, installation of Elizabeth Warren in the new Consumer Protection Bureau, and a deal about the future of the Bush tax cuts will be some discussion points in the next few weeks, ones that campaigning Republicans would generally rather not have.

Anyway, enough of the friggin' economy. That's not the point of this thread. We're both right about the weird trend that's happening. The implications of the Tea Party are scary, and not even fully understood by anyone. When it emerged last year, I don't think their financial backers imagined candidates supplanting mainstream Republicans to the detriment of the GOP's ability to retake the Senate. Furthermore, what's going to happen within the GOP in November if the Dems hold the Senate on account of a handful of Tea Party candidates' losses? And Good Heavens, what'll happen within the GOP if Democratic voters become angry and fearful enough about Palin and her like to hold back the flood and keep the House by a few seats? And what'll happen when some of those elected Tea Party types find themselves having to actually sit down and deal with Democrats? Will they even try, or will they remain "ideologically pure", despite what it does to moderate Republican legislation? And what happens in 2012 when Palin decides she can win the GOP nomination, and maybe does? (Well, I can tell you what'll happen that November!)

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't necessarily disagree with your take on the economy, but I'm sure you're aware that not everyone out there has the same take as you.

Anyone of any repute?

BTW - how do you figure we're "still declining"?

Highest foreclosure rate and highest number of home repossessions in history - right now. Not a year ago, but right now. Unemployment just ticked up, and is projected to go up again. Rate of deficit increase still itself increasing. Deficit as a percentage of GDP shows no signs of slowing its increase. Stock market is showing signs of a major collapse, per the Hindenburg Omen....among many other things.

(Also, this contradicts your earlier sentence, "We're on a slow uphill climb.")

Typo - I meant - "not" on a slow uphill climb.

The GDP is most decidedly in positive growth territory, albeit very low lately. If we were still declining, it would still officially be a recession. The GOP's argument boils down to "we can get things moving faster." I think you're just giddy getting to say things like "crush the Dems".

It came back up, but looks like a "dead cat bounce." http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economi ... Symbol=USD It's declining again.

Despite your expert analysis on the economy, the Democrats still have some talking points. A few days ago Obama spent the better part of an hour on a speech devoted to the economy. He couldn't do that if he were saying nothing more than "we've leveled off". Passage of the small business bill, installation of Elizabeth Warren in the new Consumer Protection Bureau, and a deal about the future of the Bush tax cuts will be some discussion points in the next few weeks, ones that campaigning Republicans would generally rather not have.

Anyway, enough of the friggin' economy. That's not the point of this thread. We're both right about the weird trend that's happening. The implications of the Tea Party are scary, and not even fully understood by anyone. When it emerged last year, I don't think their financial backers imagined candidates supplanting mainstream Republicans to the detriment of the GOP's ability to retake the Senate. Furthermore, what's going to happen within the GOP in November if the Dems hold the Senate on account of a handful of Tea Party candidates' losses? And Good Heavens, what'll happen within the GOP if Democratic voters become angry and fearful enough about Palin and her like to hold back the flood and keep the House by a few seats? And what'll happen when some of those elected Tea Party types find themselves having to actually sit down and deal with Democrats? Will they even try, or will they remain "ideologically pure", despite what it does to moderate Republican legislation? And what happens in 2012 when Palin decides she can win the GOP nomination, and maybe does? (Well, I can tell you what'll happen that November!)

Obama has always been good at talking, especially double talk. And, how in the world is installing Elizabeth Warren in the Consumer Protection Bureau something hat is an indicator that the economy is turning around? And, the small business bill is another conversation - but, that's a load of shit too.

About the Bush tax cuts - 31 Democrats have come out stating that they should be extended for all taxpayers.

I don't think many folks thought it likely the Repubs would take the Senate anyway. The House, yes, but not the Senate.

[Ian]

And, how in the world is installing Elizabeth Warren in the Consumer Protection Bureau something hat is an indicator that the economy is turning around? And, the small business bill is another conversation - but, that's a load of shit too.

About the Bush tax cuts - 31 Democrats have come out stating that they should be extended for all taxpayers.

I don't think many folks thought it likely the Repubs would take the Senate anyway. The House, yes, but not the Senate.

I never said anything about Warren's appointment as proof of an economic turnaround. I wasn't even trying to make a case that the economy is turning around - I was mentioning that there will be a few discussion points that don't help the Republicans very much. I mentioned her appointment because what it means will be a campaign discussion point, and many Republicans will try to avoid it because they don't want to get drawn into a banks vs. citizens argument during a weak economy. And you may think the small business bill is shit, but whether it is or not isn't all that relevant over the next seven weeks - I mentioned it because that, too, will be a talking point, one the Republicans won't be eager to jump on for the very same reasons as the discussion about Warren.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, how in the world is installing Elizabeth Warren in the Consumer Protection Bureau something hat is an indicator that the economy is turning around? And, the small business bill is another conversation - but, that's a load of shit too.

About the Bush tax cuts - 31 Democrats have come out stating that they should be extended for all taxpayers.

I don't think many folks thought it likely the Repubs would take the Senate anyway. The House, yes, but not the Senate.

I never said anything about Warren's appointment as proof of an economic turnaround. I wasn't even trying to make a case that the economy is turning around - I was mentioning that there will be a few discussion points that don't help the Republicans very much. I mentioned her appointment because what it means will be a campaign discussion point, and many Republicans will try to avoid it because they don't want to get drawn into a banks vs. citizens argument during a weak economy. And you may think the small business bill is shit, but whether it is or not isn't all that relevant over the next seven weeks - I mentioned it because that, too, will be a talking point, one the Republicans won't be eager to jump on for the very same reasons as the discussion about Warren.

Hardly anybody cares about another government agency to do little or nothing to serve its supposed intended purpose.

Take a look at the EEOC. They've set it up so people, in order to sue their employer for discrimination, have to file a charge before the EEOC within 360 days of date of the event they are complaining about. The EEOC is a pointless bunch of paper-pushers who do little or nothing to help an aggrieved employee. They send a letter to the employer, who then sends a response, and almost invariably the EEOC throws up its hands and says, "well, we can't figure out what went on here, so we're dismissing your case and you can go ahead and sue." Right? That's what happens. So, some bullshit billion dollar federal "consumer protection agency" isn't going to do jack squat, and if there is 20% of the population that thinks it will, I would be surprised. Every fucking state has a consumer protection agency that ALREADY handles consumer protection problems, and they don't do shit either.

The Consumer Protection Agency isn't going to help citizens deal with banks - not a bit.

Regarding the small business bill - the sentiment out on the street is that whatever this Congress puts forth is hollow and fruitless. Only 25% of the entire population trusts the government - lowest on record - and Congressional approval rating had been as low as what? 11%?

If there is any issue I am positive the Republicans are not scared about is whether Warren was appointed to the Consumer Protection Agency, and I think most folks already are skeptical about the small business bill, because they're skeptical of everything this government is doing right now.

[Ian]

The Consumer Protection Agency isn't going to help citizens deal with banks - not a bit.

That must be why banks seem to be so nervous about it! I'm glad you have your GOP-issued crystal ball handy though.
I can't imagine conservatives said such things about the FDIC back in 1933. Wait, yes they did!

Regarding the small business bill - the sentiment out on the street is that whatever this Congress puts forth is hollow and fruitless. Only 25% of the entire population trusts the government - lowest on record - and Congressional approval rating had been as low as what? 11%?

Approval ratings of "Congress" mean squat. They're always, always, always abysmally low; whether it's a record or not means little. I don't care much for Congress either... but I like my Congressman very much.
Incumbents are usually re-elected to the tune of around 95%. A thoroughly "anti-incumbent year" might mean that only 85% of incumbents will be here next year.

[Coito ergo sum]

The Consumer Protection Agency isn't going to help citizens deal with banks - not a bit.

That must be why banks seem to be so nervous about it! I'm glad you have your GOP-issued crystal ball handy though.
I can't imagine conservatives said such things about the FDIC back in 1933. Wait, yes they did!

The new agency is not like the FDIC. The FDIC is the Federal Deposit Insurance Company. It's not an enforcement agency. The new CPA has a billion dollar budget (and if you had Bush create something like this, without Congressional oversight as 'bama has set it up, you'd get all sorts of outcry from the Democrats - of course, it's Obama doing it, so no biggie...he's the good guy).

Regarding the small business bill - the sentiment out on the street is that whatever this Congress puts forth is hollow and fruitless. Only 25% of the entire population trusts the government - lowest on record - and Congressional approval rating had been as low as what? 11%?

Approval ratings of "Congress" mean squat. They're always, always, always abysmally low;

Not that low - we've hit a new low. LOL

People think Reid and Pelosi are the problem, not the solution. And Obama buyer's remorse is huge.

whether it's a record or not means little. And yet incumbents are usually re-elected to the tune of around 95%. A thoroughly "anti-incumbent year" might mean that only 85% of incumbents will be here next year.

We'll see.

I just wish the Congress would stop fucking spending money we don't have. I don't care who gets elected anymore. If they'll stop spending, Repub, Dem, Three Toed Sloth - I'll vote for them. Because frankly, I've had it.

We heard all sorts of shit spewing out of Obama's mouth during the election season. Everything was going to be "Paygo" remember? Lie. No more earmarks, remember? Lie. Nobody making under $250,000 would see a dime of tax increase, right? Lie.

I'm sure McCain would have been no better - he railed against earmarks too, and I'm sure he wouldn't have done shit about them.

If I could send one message, it would be stop the fucking spending. No more bailouts of private companies.

Remember when a bailout was something tremendously amazing to even contemplate? Iacocca had to come to Congress, hat in hand, begging for what now would be a measly bit of spare change. Grudgingly, and with shouts from some that it was unconstitutional to do it (probably rightly so), they handed out the money, and stood their tapping toes until Chrysler paid it back, early. Now, suddenly the government is just a failsafe safety net and we have welfare for corporations the likes of which we've never seen! Need some money??? Come to Congress!

Too big to fail has to be a concept that goes by the wayside. Let the fuckers fail. Fuck 'em. Once they fail, they can file bankruptcy, which is more than enough protection - and then someone will swoop in and take care of it or buy up the assets.

What happened with all these wall street bailouts is that Wall Street douchebags kept themselves out of jail by running to Congress and getting money to keep their company's afloat AND avoiding scrutiny of their books. Bank on it.

We sat here a couple of years ago and heard Congressmen tell us that we had to act, or the economy was going to take soon, like immediately. Did you ever see anyone name who all the economists were that reviewed the data? Did we ever get to see the data? Of course not. Why? Because it was fucking payola here and back-scratching there.

Rant over.

[Warren Dew]

'tis my dream that she never get the nomination for candidacy for President, because she has a fair chance of winning.

Indeed. Lots of Democrats were rooting for Reagan in the 1980 primary too because they thought he was unelectable.

Fortunately, Reagan didn't start WWIII as the Democrats feared, and otherwise worked out far better than we had any right to expect. That doesn't mean Palin would also work out well.

[Trolldor]

If Reagan performed 'better than expected' then my god America must have been an incredibly depressing place.

[Ian]

If Reagan performed 'better than expected' then my god America must have been an incredibly depressing place.

We had malaise mixed with disco by the late 70s. It was a nightmare.

[Tero]

Don't underestimate the appeal of libruls who do nothing. It may be the safest, most predicatble choice for many undecideds. Them teapartiers look to angry and too much of a bunch whiners. Taxes are hurting me....healthcare is hurting my feelings...I need my freedoms so I can go lie down in my trailer and smoke and drink and watch Family Guy.