Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 24, 2010 16:25:09 GMT -8
Barack Obama is nothing if not a gambler, and it turns out that he is a gambler willing to roll the dice with virtually everything in the pot. The Massachusetts vote was heralded as the turning point after which the Democrats would be in decline. You still hear pundits (on the right) saying very much the same thing, even after ObamaCare has become law.
If I were the Republicans, I would not break out the bubbly just yet. Barack Obama's vision of a semi-socialist America very similar to Sweden or, dare I say it, East Germany without the Stasi, is on track and many Americans still seem to shrug when that is pointed out to them.
Getting down to brass tacks, here is what is up for grabs in November. Of course, voters will select representatives to sit in all 435 House seats. In the Senate, members will be chosen for 33. Currently, Dems have 253 members in the House, the Republicans 178 (that leaves 3 seats open). In the Senate, it's 59 for the Dems and 41 for the GOP.
I think it virtually impossible that the Republicans will not pick up seats in both houses. The question is, how many in each? In order to retake the House, the GOP has to have a net gain of 40 seats. What would give them a very, very precarious 218 to 217 majority. In the Senate, they would have to have a net gain of 10. A net gain of 9 would not do (unless Joe Lieberman, nominally an independent, were to switch sides) since the Veep would break any 50-50 ties. Please don't bet even a dime on that happening. Significant gains by the GOP in the Senate are possible, but outright capture is virtually impossible.
As for the House, I would have said that the GOP had an even chance of pulling off the big upset, but that was before ObamaCare became law. I think that ObamaCare will be seen to be a disaster, but the full dimensions of that disaster may not be evident for another decade. Way to late to sway the voters this Nov. I now believe that the Republicans are in very serious trouble. They will make gains, but it's possible that their gains will be like the baseball team that scores 8 runs in the 9th but loses because they were behind by 12 at the end of the 8th.
Here is what I think. . .
If the Republicans score a net gain in the House of fewer than 20 the President and his followers will basically laugh at the GOP as they pop the corks on dozens of champagne bottles. Let's say the new House has 197 Republicans. That still means the Dems have 238, giving them a smaller but still impressive 41 seat majority. Since there has been so much talk of a Republican takeover of the House, that kind of showing in an off year election would be par for the course, especially in a recession year. (The GOP lost seats in 1982, don't forget, and that was a recession year.)
If the Republicans score a net gain in the House of 30 seats, Obama will not be able to laugh it off, though his party would still be in the majority. Certainly, no contentious legislation such as ObamaCare would have a chance. On the other hand, the Republicans would not be able to do much either, and might well be blamed for any gridlock. After all, they were blamed (though not convincingly) by the Dems this year for the prolonged battle over health care. With over 200 seats, such a claim might be more credible. That would hurt the Republican brand.
The only way for the Republicans to score a knockdown (a knockout would only be possible in 2012) on the President is if they take back the House. Dick Morris keeps saying that the GOP may pick up a net gain of 50-60 seats, perhaps even more. I think that is not likely, but a gain of 40-45, depending on how things go between now and November, is clearly a possibility. Remember, I used neither the word "certainty" nor even "probability.
In the Senate, I think the GOP will increase it numbers by as many as 5 or 6. More than 6 is a lot to ask for, but a gain of 7 or even 8 would not be a complete shock. For the Dems, a GOP gain of only 2 or 3 would be seen as a good outcome; Harry Reid (if he's still around) would smile and pour the bubbly in that case.
The long and the short of it is this: unless the Republicans can take back the House and increase their numbers in the Senate by several, the Obama Juggernaut will roll on. But looming down the road is the election of 2012. Right now I would put the Republicans' chances of unseating Barack Obama at maybe one out of three, maybe less. If Obama wins again, expect the Congress to even more Democratic in 2013.
If that happens, there might still be a party called Republican after 2012, but it may not be worth the trouble for today's Republicans even to try to return to power. By the end of a second term, Obama's dream of a European social democracy, heavily laden with entitlements that can be neither canceled nor paid for, might well become a reality. In that case, the Republicans will be reduced to promising the electorate that they will do an even better job of handing out government largess that the Dems. That's what has happened in Europe, where even governments that understand that they have promised too much face an angry population unwilling to listen to reason about how the ship of state is in trouble.
Once used to massive entitlements that require very little of them, the common man does not want to hear anything about how the ship of state is heading over the edge of the world as are the sailing vessels in those old paintings.
And after two terms, Obama will likely have packed the Supreme Court with a couple more "wise latinas" or their ilk, making it virtually impossible that even the most far-reaching extensions of Federal power would be stuck down.
Well, we get what we vote for, and in 2006 we voted for the unsustainable welfare state whose sad consequences can be seen today in the travail of Greece. That's what we voted for, friends, and if any voter says to you, "Hey, I didn't know we were going to get this," don't give him any sympathy.
AzWm
If I were the Republicans, I would not break out the bubbly just yet. Barack Obama's vision of a semi-socialist America very similar to Sweden or, dare I say it, East Germany without the Stasi, is on track and many Americans still seem to shrug when that is pointed out to them.
Getting down to brass tacks, here is what is up for grabs in November. Of course, voters will select representatives to sit in all 435 House seats. In the Senate, members will be chosen for 33. Currently, Dems have 253 members in the House, the Republicans 178 (that leaves 3 seats open). In the Senate, it's 59 for the Dems and 41 for the GOP.
I think it virtually impossible that the Republicans will not pick up seats in both houses. The question is, how many in each? In order to retake the House, the GOP has to have a net gain of 40 seats. What would give them a very, very precarious 218 to 217 majority. In the Senate, they would have to have a net gain of 10. A net gain of 9 would not do (unless Joe Lieberman, nominally an independent, were to switch sides) since the Veep would break any 50-50 ties. Please don't bet even a dime on that happening. Significant gains by the GOP in the Senate are possible, but outright capture is virtually impossible.
As for the House, I would have said that the GOP had an even chance of pulling off the big upset, but that was before ObamaCare became law. I think that ObamaCare will be seen to be a disaster, but the full dimensions of that disaster may not be evident for another decade. Way to late to sway the voters this Nov. I now believe that the Republicans are in very serious trouble. They will make gains, but it's possible that their gains will be like the baseball team that scores 8 runs in the 9th but loses because they were behind by 12 at the end of the 8th.
Here is what I think. . .
If the Republicans score a net gain in the House of fewer than 20 the President and his followers will basically laugh at the GOP as they pop the corks on dozens of champagne bottles. Let's say the new House has 197 Republicans. That still means the Dems have 238, giving them a smaller but still impressive 41 seat majority. Since there has been so much talk of a Republican takeover of the House, that kind of showing in an off year election would be par for the course, especially in a recession year. (The GOP lost seats in 1982, don't forget, and that was a recession year.)
If the Republicans score a net gain in the House of 30 seats, Obama will not be able to laugh it off, though his party would still be in the majority. Certainly, no contentious legislation such as ObamaCare would have a chance. On the other hand, the Republicans would not be able to do much either, and might well be blamed for any gridlock. After all, they were blamed (though not convincingly) by the Dems this year for the prolonged battle over health care. With over 200 seats, such a claim might be more credible. That would hurt the Republican brand.
The only way for the Republicans to score a knockdown (a knockout would only be possible in 2012) on the President is if they take back the House. Dick Morris keeps saying that the GOP may pick up a net gain of 50-60 seats, perhaps even more. I think that is not likely, but a gain of 40-45, depending on how things go between now and November, is clearly a possibility. Remember, I used neither the word "certainty" nor even "probability.
In the Senate, I think the GOP will increase it numbers by as many as 5 or 6. More than 6 is a lot to ask for, but a gain of 7 or even 8 would not be a complete shock. For the Dems, a GOP gain of only 2 or 3 would be seen as a good outcome; Harry Reid (if he's still around) would smile and pour the bubbly in that case.
The long and the short of it is this: unless the Republicans can take back the House and increase their numbers in the Senate by several, the Obama Juggernaut will roll on. But looming down the road is the election of 2012. Right now I would put the Republicans' chances of unseating Barack Obama at maybe one out of three, maybe less. If Obama wins again, expect the Congress to even more Democratic in 2013.
If that happens, there might still be a party called Republican after 2012, but it may not be worth the trouble for today's Republicans even to try to return to power. By the end of a second term, Obama's dream of a European social democracy, heavily laden with entitlements that can be neither canceled nor paid for, might well become a reality. In that case, the Republicans will be reduced to promising the electorate that they will do an even better job of handing out government largess that the Dems. That's what has happened in Europe, where even governments that understand that they have promised too much face an angry population unwilling to listen to reason about how the ship of state is in trouble.
Once used to massive entitlements that require very little of them, the common man does not want to hear anything about how the ship of state is heading over the edge of the world as are the sailing vessels in those old paintings.
And after two terms, Obama will likely have packed the Supreme Court with a couple more "wise latinas" or their ilk, making it virtually impossible that even the most far-reaching extensions of Federal power would be stuck down.
Well, we get what we vote for, and in 2006 we voted for the unsustainable welfare state whose sad consequences can be seen today in the travail of Greece. That's what we voted for, friends, and if any voter says to you, "Hey, I didn't know we were going to get this," don't give him any sympathy.
AzWm
