2012-Clinton/Richardson v. Pawlenty/Ensign

[Kaine for Senate '18]

In 2008, Hillary Clinton defeats Mitt Romney 326-212 in the EC, and 52.47-47.53 in the PV.  The Democrats gain six seats in the Senate, and ten in the House.  After taking office, she begins bringing the troops home, and the last ones leave Iraq in July 2011.

Hillary continues Bill's policies, and she raises taxes once in her first term.  In early 2011, she announces she will run for reelection, and so does Richardson.  The economy is stable, with unemployment and gas prices down slightly.  Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty runs unopposed for the GOP nomination, and selects Nevada senator John Ensign as his running mate.  Please discuss with maps.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The Dems would get smoked in the 2010 midterms, and the 2012 election would result in a GOP pickup of 9 seats in the senate and a modest Pawlenty victory.  However, Hillary breaking 300 EV votes let alone 325 is near impossible.  Rudy is the only candidate who could break 300

[Хahar 🤔]

You can't argue with prosperity.

[Josh/Devilman88]

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Dems would get smoked in the 2010 midterms, and the 2012 election would result in a GOP pickup of 9 seats in the senate and a modest Pawlenty victory.  However, Hillary breaking 300 EV votes let alone 325 is near impossible.  Rudy is the only candidate who could break 300

How do you figure that the Dems would get smoked?

[DownWithTheLeft]

The Dems would get smoked in the 2010 midterms, and the 2012 election would result in a GOP pickup of 9 seats in the senate and a modest Pawlenty victory.  However, Hillary breaking 300 EV votes let alone 325 is near impossible.  Rudy is the only candidate who could break 300

How do you figure that the Dems would get smoked?

Let's see, I know hackery and false senses of confidences makes this hard to imagine, but if the Democrats controlled the presidency and 59 seats in the senate, they are not doing anything but getting smoked in 2010.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Dems would get smoked in the 2010 midterms, and the 2012 election would result in a GOP pickup of 9 seats in the senate and a modest Pawlenty victory.  However, Hillary breaking 300 EV votes let alone 325 is near impossible.  Rudy is the only candidate who could break 300

How do you figure that the Dems would get smoked?

Let's see, I know hackery and false senses of confidences makes this hard to imagine, but if the Democrats controlled the presidency and 59 seats in the senate, they are not doing anything but getting smoked in 2010.

I call smoked losing 6-9 seats in the Senate, and 15-20 in the House.  Do you think they would lose that many seats?

[Lief 🗽]

The Dems would get smoked in the 2010 midterms, and the 2012 election would result in a GOP pickup of 9 seats in the senate and a modest Pawlenty victory.  However, Hillary breaking 300 EV votes let alone 325 is near impossible.  Rudy is the only candidate who could break 300

How do you figure that the Dems would get smoked?

Let's see, I know hackery and false senses of confidences makes this hard to imagine, but if the Democrats controlled the presidency and 59 seats in the senate, they are not doing anything but getting smoked in 2010.

You've just restated your earlier point. What exactly would the Democrats do that would lead to a Republican landslide? Bush and the Republicans controlled the government for 2 years, and they gained seats.

[War on Want]

The Dems would get smoked in the 2010 midterms, and the 2012 election would result in a GOP pickup of 9 seats in the senate and a modest Pawlenty victory.  However, Hillary breaking 300 EV votes let alone 325 is near impossible.  Rudy is the only candidate who could break 300

Oh yeah after the economy is stable and the troops are out of Iraq, Hillary Clinton looses. WTF! on Giuliani getting 300+ EV's. He might get 260 or 270 if he is very lucky but he would not win any Kerry states.

[Person Man]

Who knows. This election could be very close or it could totally destroy the game plan for the looosing~ party the for the next election.

Realistically, our country has never sustained a polarized electorate for 12 years. I think something will probably give. The war in Iraq seems to be won (for now) and yet the majority of the American people are against it. The war issue will be decided on whether we should forgive the republican party for a war that the dems almost sabatoged or whether the GOP should be punished for starting a war that turned out to be a real war. The latter appears to be happening. The economy appears to be what it is. They will probably be a slow down by housing until there is a reccesion caused by the bursting global bubble. Race will be the GOP's wild card, but religion will probably take a back seat.

I predict that ultimately, people will be tired of the GOP and probably vote them out like 53-46. It will probably be Romney v. Clinton and probably look like this:

The senate will be 54-1-45 (Lieberman will go totally indy)


The house will be 236-199.

This election will probably be the last election of our little polarizing period....but I don't know how. I am just worried about how America will cope with being so polarized if it continues.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The Dems would get smoked in the 2010 midterms, and the 2012 election would result in a GOP pickup of 9 seats in the senate and a modest Pawlenty victory.  However, Hillary breaking 300 EV votes let alone 325 is near impossible.  Rudy is the only candidate who could break 300

How do you figure that the Dems would get smoked?

Let's see, I know hackery and false senses of confidences makes this hard to imagine, but if the Democrats controlled the presidency and 59 seats in the senate, they are not doing anything but getting smoked in 2010.

I call smoked losing 6-9 seats in the Senate, and 15-20 in the House.  Do you think they would lose that many seats?

If they come close to 60 seats in the senate, yes.  Especially if you look at the 2010 senate picture for the Dems, and even more bleak 2012 which I think they could easily lose double digit seats

[Person Man]

Actually, the dems lost enough in '04 so that '10 is a little more manageable. '12- now that will be a duzey...

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Dems would get smoked in the 2010 midterms, and the 2012 election would result in a GOP pickup of 9 seats in the senate and a modest Pawlenty victory.  However, Hillary breaking 300 EV votes let alone 325 is near impossible.  Rudy is the only candidate who could break 300

How do you figure that the Dems would get smoked?

Let's see, I know hackery and false senses of confidences makes this hard to imagine, but if the Democrats controlled the presidency and 59 seats in the senate, they are not doing anything but getting smoked in 2010.

I call smoked losing 6-9 seats in the Senate, and 15-20 in the House.  Do you think they would lose that many seats?

If they come close to 60 seats in the senate, yes.  Especially if you look at the 2010 senate picture for the Dems, and even more bleak 2012 which I think they could easily lose double digit seats

2010 is not a problem for us, the toughest seat to defend will be either Reid, Salazar, or Bayh.  The GOP is almost guaranteed to lose Bunning's seat, especially if he gets the nomination.  You're right, 2012 has the potential to be very bad for us.

[Lief 🗽]

The Dems would get smoked in the 2010 midterms, and the 2012 election would result in a GOP pickup of 9 seats in the senate and a modest Pawlenty victory.  However, Hillary breaking 300 EV votes let alone 325 is near impossible.  Rudy is the only candidate who could break 300

How do you figure that the Dems would get smoked?

Let's see, I know hackery and false senses of confidences makes this hard to imagine, but if the Democrats controlled the presidency and 59 seats in the senate, they are not doing anything but getting smoked in 2010.

I call smoked losing 6-9 seats in the Senate, and 15-20 in the House.  Do you think they would lose that many seats?

If they come close to 60 seats in the senate, yes.  Especially if you look at the 2010 senate picture for the Dems, and even more bleak 2012 which I think they could easily lose double digit seats

2010 looks very, very good for the Dems, so I'm not sure where you're coming from. Arizona, Kansas, South Dakota, Missouri, Kentucky, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Ohio all present Democratic pickup opportunities. Republicans have, at best, Nevada, Colorado and Arkansas up for grabs.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Dems would get smoked in the 2010 midterms, and the 2012 election would result in a GOP pickup of 9 seats in the senate and a modest Pawlenty victory.  However, Hillary breaking 300 EV votes let alone 325 is near impossible.  Rudy is the only candidate who could break 300

How do you figure that the Dems would get smoked?

Let's see, I know hackery and false senses of confidences makes this hard to imagine, but if the Democrats controlled the presidency and 59 seats in the senate, they are not doing anything but getting smoked in 2010.

I call smoked losing 6-9 seats in the Senate, and 15-20 in the House.  Do you think they would lose that many seats?

If they come close to 60 seats in the senate, yes.  Especially if you look at the 2010 senate picture for the Dems, and even more bleak 2012 which I think they could easily lose double digit seats

2010 looks very, very good for the Dems, so I'm not sure where you're coming from. Arizona, Kansas, South Dakota, Missouri, Kentucky, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Ohio all present Democratic pickup opportunities. Republicans have, at best, Nevada, Colorado and Arkansas up for grabs.

I have to disagree with you.  Arkansas is not up for grabs.  Blanche Lincoln is pretty firm in that seat; she survived in 2004, when Bush won the state; I doubt she would lose with a Clinton in office.

[auburntiger]

The Dems would get smoked in the 2010 midterms, and the 2012 election would result in a GOP pickup of 9 seats in the senate and a modest Pawlenty victory.  However, Hillary breaking 300 EV votes let alone 325 is near impossible.  Rudy is the only candidate who could break 300

How do you figure that the Dems would get smoked?

Let's see, I know hackery and false senses of confidences makes this hard to imagine, but if the Democrats controlled the presidency and 59 seats in the senate, they are not doing anything but getting smoked in 2010.

I call smoked losing 6-9 seats in the Senate, and 15-20 in the House.  Do you think they would lose that many seats?

If they come close to 60 seats in the senate, yes.  Especially if you look at the 2010 senate picture for the Dems, and even more bleak 2012 which I think they could easily lose double digit seats

2010 looks very, very good for the Dems, so I'm not sure where you're coming from. Arizona, Kansas, South Dakota, Missouri, Kentucky, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Ohio all present Democratic pickup opportunities. Republicans have, at best, Nevada, Colorado and Arkansas up for grabs.

It's WAYYY too early for discussion about 2010 Senate races