2010 Mid-Term Elections

[Nicodeme Depape]

The Senate looks very promising for the Democrats, not a single Democratic seat is a tossup seat--they are all Republican seats.

On the other hand, the House is going to be hard to defend. Although I think we'll hang onto our majority, albeit slightly reduced.

My predictions:

Senate:
60-64+ Dem
40-36- Rep

House:
230+ Dem
200- Rep

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Hopefulliy, Obama picks Judd Gregg as Commerce Sec and Paul Hodes win the special and we pick up probably OH and MO all likely hood and get to 62.

[Lunar]

Hopefulliy, Obama picks Judd Gregg as Commerce Sec and Paul Hodes win the special and we pick up probably OH and MO all likely hood and get to 62.

Just like Burris, Bennet, & Gillibrand won their special elections?

[Padfoot]

The Senate looks very promising for the Democrats, not a single Democratic seat is a tossup seat--they are all Republican seats.

On the other hand, the House is going to be hard to defend. Although I think we'll hang onto our majority, albeit slightly reduced.

My predictions:

Senate:
60-64+ Dem
40-36- Rep

House:
230+ Dem
200- Rep

I think that's a bit to optimistic.  There are several Democratic seats that, under the right conditions, would be competitive.  Republicans are positioning themselves to hit Reid hard.  Plus, Obama's cabinet choices have caused some major headaches for the Democrats on the Senate front.  He's added two seats (NY and DE) for them to defend, one of which will be open.  Not to mention that Bennet is an untested statewide candidate, Burris was appointed by a disgraced Democratic governor, and Gillibrand is likely to face a primary challenge from the left.

That's not to say the GOP doesn't have some major problems of its own with 4 open seats to defend, 3 of which are in swing states.  Plus they have several vulnerable and/or unpopular incumbents who Democrats are already targeting.

All in all, Senate Democrats will probably have an easier time than Senate Republican in 2010 but I don't think we can go so far as to assert they won't be on the defensive in at least some states.  I think Democrats are actually better positioned in the House, especially if Republicans continue to whip their members together on every single issue.  I think Democrats could flip up to 20 more seats but I think they'll also be losing 10-15 they currently hold.  If I had to make a prediction right now I'd go with something close to this:

Senate: 61D-39R
House: 264D-171R

[Spaghetti Cat]

The Senate looks very promising for the Democrats, not a single Democratic seat is a tossup seat--they are all Republican seats.

On the other hand, the House is going to be hard to defend. Although I think we'll hang onto our majority, albeit slightly reduced.

My predictions:

Senate:
60-64+ Dem
40-36- Rep

House:
230+ Dem
200- Rep

I think that's a bit to optimistic.  There are several Democratic seats that, under the right conditions, would be competitive.  Republicans are positioning themselves to hit Reid hard.  Plus, Obama's cabinet choices have caused some major headaches for the Democrats on the Senate front.  He's added two seats (NY and DE) for them to defend, one of which will be open.  Not to mention that Bennet is an untested statewide candidate, Burris was appointed by a disgraced Democratic governor, and Gillibrand is likely to face a primary challenge from the left.

That's not to say the GOP doesn't have some major problems of its own with 4 open seats to defend, 3 of which are in swing states.  Plus they have several vulnerable and/or unpopular incumbents who Democrats are already targeting.

All in all, Senate Democrats will probably have an easier time than Senate Republican in 2010 but I don't think we can go so far as to assert they won't be on the defensive in at least some states.  I think Democrats are actually better positioned in the House, especially if Republicans continue to whip their members together on every single issue.  I think Democrats could flip up to 20 more seats but I think they'll also be losing 10-15 they currently hold.  If I had to make a prediction right now I'd go with something close to this:

Senate: 61D-39R
House: 264D-171R

yeah, not going to happen.....

[Nym90]

In a neutral political environment, Republicans pick up 5-10 House seats, Democrats gain 2-3 in the Senate.

If Obama is still very popular, Democrats hold even or gain up to 10 seats in the House, and pickup up to 5-6 in the Senate.

If Obama's approval ratings tanks, Republicans could gain up to 30-40 House seats and 3-4 Senate seats, in an absolute best case scenario.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Hopefully, the Republicans can gain slightly in both houses (and I say that as a Democrat, albeit a smart Democrat).  I think that a party with a super-majority in either Chamber is horrible for the country.  I hope no liberal Democrat wants to completely stamp out all Republicans, or vice-versa.  This country desperately needs the Republicans to gain at least 2-3 seats in the Senate and at least 5-10 seats in the House.  The moment either party gains a supermajority, the moment this country starts going in the crapper for two years.  Of course, then again, it would only last two years as the supermajority party would likely be crushed in the next couple election cycles.  That's what happened when the Republicans got up to a 55-45 majority in the 2004 elections and could have increased their lead in 2006, but the country got sick and tired of Republican rule and threw the Republicans out of the majority in 2006.  The same will happen to the Democrats, guaranteed, if they gain a super-majority.  Remember this fact, neither party is better than the other.

I hope Judd Gregg does not accept the Commerce post simply for the reason that the Democrats should not be allowed to have a super-majority.  He's still likely to lose re-election, but at least the Democrats wouldn't gain a super-majority this time around.

[Brittain33]

In a neutral political environment, Republicans pick up 5-10 House seats, Democrats gain 2-3 in the Senate.

If Obama is still very popular, Democrats hold even or gain up to 10 seats in the House, and pickup up to 5-6 in the Senate.

If Obama's approval ratings tanks, Republicans could gain up to 30-40 House seats and 3-4 Senate seats, in an absolute best case scenario.

Makes sense to me, although I haven't run the exact scenarios for the last senate seats to fall in either direction.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Where exactly are these House seat gains going to come from? I can think of maybe five at best: Castle and Kirk if they retire/run for Senate, Calvert since he barely scraped by, and maybe Paulsen or Terry.

[jamestroll]

Hopefully, the Republicans can gain slightly in both houses (and I say that as a Democrat, albeit a smart Democrat).  I think that a party with a super-majority in either Chamber is horrible for the country.  I hope no liberal Democrat wants to completely stamp out all Republicans, or vice-versa.  This country desperately needs the Republicans to gain at least 2-3 seats in the Senate and at least 5-10 seats in the House.  The moment either party gains a supermajority, the moment this country starts going in the crapper for two years.  Of course, then again, it would only last two years as the supermajority party would likely be crushed in the next couple election cycles.  That's what happened when the Republicans got up to a 55-45 majority in the 2004 elections and could have increased their lead in 2006, but the country got sick and tired of Republican rule and threw the Republicans out of the majority in 2006.  The same will happen to the Democrats, guaranteed, if they gain a super-majority.  Remember this fact, neither party is better than the other.

I hope Judd Gregg does not accept the Commerce post simply for the reason that the Democrats should not be allowed to have a super-majority.  He's still likely to lose re-election, but at least the Democrats wouldn't gain a super-majority this time around.

Carnahan will beat Roy Blunt, and if you don't like it; too bad!

[Brittain33]

Where exactly are these House seat gains going to come from? I can think of maybe five at best: Castle and Kirk if they retire/run for Senate, Calvert since he barely scraped by, and maybe Paulsen or Terry.

Cao is a gimme. There are always the seats that could fall in case of a retirement or a strong challenge. Reichert, Bill Young, McCotter, Gerlach, Dreier, Peter King. California overperformed for Obama but I would watch out for big swings in the suburban/exurban Sacramento seats. If Buchanan vacates, well, remember how the last open seat race went.

I'm listing these seats as potential wins in case of a strong Democratic year and/or retirements. As of now, I'd list none of them other than Cao as so much as a toss-up.

[Meeker]

Hopefully, the Republicans can gain slightly in both houses (and I say that as a Democrat, albeit a smart Democrat).  I think that a party with a super-majority in either Chamber is horrible for the country.  I hope no liberal Democrat wants to completely stamp out all Republicans, or vice-versa.  This country desperately needs the Republicans to gain at least 2-3 seats in the Senate and at least 5-10 seats in the House.  The moment either party gains a supermajority, the moment this country starts going in the crapper for two years.  Of course, then again, it would only last two years as the supermajority party would likely be crushed in the next couple election cycles.  That's what happened when the Republicans got up to a 55-45 majority in the 2004 elections and could have increased their lead in 2006, but the country got sick and tired of Republican rule and threw the Republicans out of the majority in 2006.  The same will happen to the Democrats, guaranteed, if they gain a super-majority.  Remember this fact, neither party is better than the other.

I hope Judd Gregg does not accept the Commerce post simply for the reason that the Democrats should not be allowed to have a super-majority.  He's still likely to lose re-election, but at least the Democrats wouldn't gain a super-majority this time around.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hopefully, the Republicans can gain slightly in both houses (and I say that as a Democrat, albeit a smart Democrat).  I think that a party with a super-majority in either Chamber is horrible for the country.  I hope no liberal Democrat wants to completely stamp out all Republicans, or vice-versa.  This country desperately needs the Republicans to gain at least 2-3 seats in the Senate and at least 5-10 seats in the House.  The moment either party gains a supermajority, the moment this country starts going in the crapper for two years.  Of course, then again, it would only last two years as the supermajority party would likely be crushed in the next couple election cycles.  That's what happened when the Republicans got up to a 55-45 majority in the 2004 elections and could have increased their lead in 2006, but the country got sick and tired of Republican rule and threw the Republicans out of the majority in 2006.  The same will happen to the Democrats, guaranteed, if they gain a super-majority.  Remember this fact, neither party is better than the other.

I hope Judd Gregg does not accept the Commerce post simply for the reason that the Democrats should not be allowed to have a super-majority.  He's still likely to lose re-election, but at least the Democrats wouldn't gain a super-majority this time around.

Like it would magically change everything anyways. Coleman is still delaying Senator Franken from taking office. Lieberman is no Democrat (well neither is Sanders, but that's a good thing for him). And Ben Nelson is a DINO. He was one of 4 Senate "Democrats" to support a permanent repeal of the estate tax. I mean it'd be unfair if the Gates children had to pay a penny in taxes when they inherit.

[Sam Spade]

I'm staying on the sidelines in making predictions right now because what is presently happening to the American/world economy and what will likely happen to the American/world economy before the 2010 elections means to me that only the *most popular* DEM/GOP incumbents in the *most* red states/blue states can be termed "safe" for all intents and purposes.

I mean this with all the seriousness that it sounds of.

[Mr.Phips]

I'm staying on the sidelines in making predictions right now because what is presently happening to the American/world economy and what will likely happen to the American/world economy before the 2010 elections means to me that only the *most popular* DEM/GOP incumbents in the *most* red states/blue states can be termed "safe" for all intents and purposes.

I mean this with all the seriousness that it sounds of.

There is no way that things will not have gotten better in time for 2010.  The recession started in 2007 and will not last three years.  We are probably pretty close to hitting the trough and the stimulus spending will only help fuel the recover in 2010. 

The last recession we had like this was the 1981-1982 one where the unemployment rate went up to 10%.  The trough of that recession was in November 1982, when the recession was around 15 months old and within a few months, the economy was booming.  Since this recession started in November 2007, the trough should come in May or June 2009.   

[Sam Spade]

I'm staying on the sidelines in making predictions right now because what is presently happening to the American/world economy and what will likely happen to the American/world economy before the 2010 elections means to me that only the *most popular* DEM/GOP incumbents in the *most* red states/blue states can be termed "safe" for all intents and purposes.

I mean this with all the seriousness that it sounds of.

There is no way that things will not have gotten better in time for 2010.  The recession started in 2007 and will not last three years.  We are probably pretty close to hitting the trough and the stimulus spending will only help fuel the recover in 2010. 

The last recession we had like this was the 1981-1982 one where the unemployment rate went up to 10%.  The trough of that recession was in November 1982, when the recession was around 15 months old and within a few months, the economy was booming.  Since this recession started in November 2007, the trough should come in May or June 2009.   

I don't really want to have to bump this post in a couple of years, buddy, but... 

One other thing - this is a depression, not a recession.

[Psychic Octopus]

Senate: 61-39 Dem Majority

House: Republican gain of 8.

[Mr.Phips]

I'm staying on the sidelines in making predictions right now because what is presently happening to the American/world economy and what will likely happen to the American/world economy before the 2010 elections means to me that only the *most popular* DEM/GOP incumbents in the *most* red states/blue states can be termed "safe" for all intents and purposes.

I mean this with all the seriousness that it sounds of.

There is no way that things will not have gotten better in time for 2010.  The recession started in 2007 and will not last three years.  We are probably pretty close to hitting the trough and the stimulus spending will only help fuel the recover in 2010. 

The last recession we had like this was the 1981-1982 one where the unemployment rate went up to 10%.  The trough of that recession was in November 1982, when the recession was around 15 months old and within a few months, the economy was booming.  Since this recession started in November 2007, the trough should come in May or June 2009.   

I don't really want to have to bump this post in a couple of years, buddy, but... 

One other thing - this is a depression, not a recession.

This is not a depression.  If this is a depression, look for capitalism in its current form to cease to exist. 

[Sam Spade]

I'm staying on the sidelines in making predictions right now because what is presently happening to the American/world economy and what will likely happen to the American/world economy before the 2010 elections means to me that only the *most popular* DEM/GOP incumbents in the *most* red states/blue states can be termed "safe" for all intents and purposes.

I mean this with all the seriousness that it sounds of.

There is no way that things will not have gotten better in time for 2010.  The recession started in 2007 and will not last three years.  We are probably pretty close to hitting the trough and the stimulus spending will only help fuel the recover in 2010. 

The last recession we had like this was the 1981-1982 one where the unemployment rate went up to 10%.  The trough of that recession was in November 1982, when the recession was around 15 months old and within a few months, the economy was booming.  Since this recession started in November 2007, the trough should come in May or June 2009.   

I don't really want to have to bump this post in a couple of years, buddy, but... 

One other thing - this is a depression, not a recession.

This is not a depression.  If this is a depression, look for capitalism in its current form to cease to exist. 

That may just happen.  There are many alternatives actually - be prepared for any and all to occur.

You have to remember, I am only making "economic" predictions right now.  I really don't know what the political ramifications are of this yet.

[Padfoot]

  I think Democrats could flip up to 20 more seats but I think they'll also be losing 10-15 they currently hold.

yeah, not going to happen.....

Why not?  I'm guessing that the types of legislation that will be coming through Congress over the next two years will force at least a couple dozen members of the House on both sides to make some hard decisions about going with their district or their party.  Depending on what their decisions are and how the legislation fairs, they may end up displeasing their constituents.  Not to mention that they'll probably be some open seats, deaths, and resignations that could cause some changes.  So I really don't think a Dem net of +5 with about 20-30 seats changing hands is that far fetched.

[justfollowingtheelections]

To quote Phil, anything can happen in 2 years

I think the Democrats will do a lot better than expected both in the House and the Senate and I of course disagree with the closeted Republican from Oklahoma.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

This is not a depression.  If this is a depression, look for capitalism in its current form to cease to exist. 

You mean, like, if the government started getting massive stakes in the nation's banks?  And the auto industry?  And if banks stopped wanting to make loans to anyone?

...

...This "recession" is bad news.

[Mr.Phips]

This is not a depression.  If this is a depression, look for capitalism in its current form to cease to exist. 

You mean, like, if the government started getting massive stakes in the nation's banks?  And the auto industry?  And if banks stopped wanting to make loans to anyone?

...

...This "recession" is bad news.

More than that.  Im thinking of the government taking over the financial and banking industries completely. 

[Sam Spade]

This is not a depression.  If this is a depression, look for capitalism in its current form to cease to exist. 

You mean, like, if the government started getting massive stakes in the nation's banks?  And the auto industry?  And if banks stopped wanting to make loans to anyone?

...

...This "recession" is bad news.

More than that.  Im thinking of the government taking over the financial and banking industries completely. 

Uh, not every bank is insolvent and not every bank will be insolvent, regardless of how bad this gets.

Still, your end result is entirely possible because the key point is that most of the "big banks" - BAC, C, WFC, JPM, etc. are all completely underwater

Here's the key point:  Trying to prop these banks up with government lending or buyout of their assets or nationalizing them without cramdown of their bad assets (one in the same solution actually) with not only crash our markets but will also endanger the stability of the US government and its funding mechanisms as a whole.

There are no solutions I can think of where the market doesn't crash again at some point in the near future, but we must make sure to choose a solution that does not screw up the stability of the US government or its ability to maintain funding.

I can't repeat this enough.  And Obama needs to stop dicking around on this matter.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The 2010 Democrats will certainly break 60 seats in 2010 just as the Republicans did in 2006