Talk Elections

I've read several predictions for the House elections in 2010 and they seem to ignore the fact that the Republicans are making asses of themselves and alienating the woman/black/hispanic/miscellaneous vote.

And let's not forget that they alienated some Hispanics by opposing Sotomayor.

Uh-oh. Get ready for fireworks, newbie.

And welcome to the forum. :)

Do you truly mean to imply that the Republicans did anything other than a mediocre job with any of those groups in 2008?

First, if Sotomayor turns out to be a racist or have radical views on affirmative action and such (not saying she does) this will only hurt Obama's, and by extension, the Democrats' credibility with all voters, including Hispanics. Women will have leaned Democrat for quite some time, and not just because of abortion. Blacks are the same way.

I really think Republicans will make inroads with Hispanics, particularly because they've toned down the anti-immigrant rhetoric significantly.

The only predictions I have seen are the GOP gaining 5 to 10 seats from some of the Highly GOP territory they lost like ID-01, CO-04, MS-01, VA-05, NM seat held by Pearce(Hispanics would be important here.) and maybe 1 or 2 suprises like ME-01. I see the Republicans desparately trying to once again become the limited Gov't, less Spending, fiscally responsible party while at the same time trying to hold down the Social Conservatives and avoid pissing them off. Is it going to happen over night, no. Is the GOP just walking up to Obama and giving him a collective hug going to put the GOP back in control of congress tomorrow, either, no. For our purposes it is necessary to shake off the image of big Gov't that our party has adopted since 1999. While it also necessary to keep the social Cons in the party as well. So there will definately have to be period of easiness right now and its good long term for our party.

I think you'd be much better off dumping the social conservatives and adopting a libertarian-lite platform.  That's would be a true return to the GOP's roots in limited government.  The social conservatives are dead weight.  We've reached the tipping point on gay rights, stem cell technology has nearly reached the point where embryos aren't really necessary, and Democrats have mostly taken a "big tent" approach to guns and abortion.  The "three G" platform has been neutralized.  There are, of course, areas of the country where this strategy will still resonate but it will never work at the national level.

Right on, Arizonan!  You ought to be a political analyst.  I look forward to hearing more of your insights on this forum.  Republicans are screwing themselves with the Sotomayor nomination, which was truly a master stroke by Obama.  I was speaking with one Mexican woman who was so furious about opposition to Sotomayor that she told me she would never vote Republican again.  She told me she had no idea why a wise Latina woman was being opposed and rightfully concluded that the Republican Party was the party of bigotry and oppression.  Don't forget that women too will see opposition to Sotomayor as sexist, and will leave the party in droves.

It is a very dangerous situation when you can appoint almost anybody and scare the opposition into retreat b/c they are a women, minority, or both. Stupid identity politics.

I think Republicans should come together and vote for Sotomayor. She seems to be decent, but putting my Republican hat on...
1. If all vote for her, though her being on Supreme Court would help Obama in 2012, in the long run, it won't kill Republicans. If you vote against her, they'll accuse Republicans of being racist.
2. If Sotomayor turns out to be a pig-headed racist like some thing, it will really hurt Obama in 2012.

I agree. If I were a Republican senator, I would bite the bullet for Sotomayor this time for several reasons:
1. It's a liberal seat, so there is no way to replace that seat with any other ideology.
2. The Dems have their 60 seats, so filibustering can't/won't happen
3. The common perception of the Republicans being a racist party, even though that is not the case.

Some days, I wish I was running the Republican party, but then again, what do I know, I'm a college student.

I remember a few years ago when Republicans were beating the drum and calling Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, and Dick Durbin "anti-Catholic" for opposing some of Bush's judges who were Catholic.

The social conservatives are a huge number of Americans who provide essential manpower for the Republican Party and whose views have to be represented somewhere. They can't and shouldn't be dumped, any more than the Democrats should have "dumped" pro-choicers and gays in 2004 when that was the common diagnosis for their problems. Republicans need to find a way to keep the social conservatives in the tent while somehow appealing to enough others and that is out of their hands. It's up to social conservatives to accept this role and up to the issues and Democrats to create an opening for Republicans where there is none now.

A libertarian platform for Republicans is appealing to people on the Internet more than the general public. No offense. It's like "let's abolish marriage for all couples, leaving it to the churches and giving civil unions to everyone." It's logically appealing but it's a total loser in actual elections.

Is that suppose to make it right somehow.



To dump the Social Conservatives would be poltical suicide. There is no quick fix to this problem. The fix is to slowly integrate social conservativism into a much more popular and palatable platform(and no my libertarian friends, that does not mean going populist, we have already gone that route and failed).

And let's not forget about the population growth of the Hispanics and how the youth of this country tend to be liberal.

Oh.

The Republican party is not going to gain anything in Hispanic votes if we show the white feature and support Amnesty. The Dems can always out do us on racial grievence so we shouldn't go that route. Or best option is to secure the 33% to 40% of Hispanics who are having there wages depressed by illegal immigrants. This same strategy will win us over the 25% of blacks that conservative, and do wonders among poor working class whites. It will also disorganise and decrease the power of unions, which do everything in there power to convince there members that something else is to blame for there low wages. Since when is it racist to actually stand up American workers. Once we enact enforcement only and the numbers of illegals goes down through attrition and wages for farm workers and other manual labor goes up 25% or more we won't have to worry about winning Hispanics cause we will get 45% to 50% of them in every election.

I haven't seen people being called anti-Latino for opposing Sotomayor other than people like Tancredo and Buchanan who seem to genuinely have a problem with her being Latina. The fact is, Republicans can object to her because they don't agree with her views, but otherwise she is unquestionably qualified for the job. When people try to claim she's unqualified because she is Latina and therefore an affirmative action pick, they're essentially saying any minority nominated by a Democrat is going to be unqualified. She's not a Latina Harriet Miers. Republicans disagree with her, but their views lost the election, and so Souter is replaced by a liberal who is a minority on the Court in more ways than one.

I guess I'm saying there's a limit to what Republicans should expect to accomplish with their opposition, just as there was a limit to what Democrats could expect to accomplish from opposing John Roberts. It's not as if her being a woman or a Latina is constraining fair criticism. It's that Republicans, or any legislative minority, does not have a right to win every political battle they wade into.

Yes but Republicans who oppose Sotomeyer should not all be labeled as racist for doing. I actually am undecided on whether she should be confirmed, I just find it insane that the opposition should fear opposing a nominee cause of the potential to be called racist or sexist. Neither party should have a blank check in terms of power.

The growth of Hispanics could certainly be an issue for the GOP if they piss them off, but how is youth tending to be liberal an issue?  The youth have always tended to be more liberal.  As people get older and get a job and start a family and actually live in the real world most of them become less idealistic and more practical. All of those taxes you're paying suddenly aren't so inviting when you've got bills to pay and kids to feed.

The election predictions also ignore the fact that the GOP is splintering.

Many Republicans are still opposing Sotomayor even though George H.W. Bush and Laura Bush gave the thumbs up for Sotomayor.

MS-01, NM-02 are actually both more than a little unlikely unless we get something of a wave rebound (in which case both are goners). CO-4 and VA-5 depend on how their new Reps settle in and who challenges them, but are definitely not to be ruled out at any point unless we're past the primary and the opposition is 3rd tier. There are some more seats of similar calibre (AL-02 anyone?)
Walt Minnick is on borrowed time and his best bet would probably be a rematch against Sali... which is certainly not off the cards.

I'd look closer at recently lost suburban seats, frankly. Rural seats have a way of sticking with Representatives they like.

Indeed, Arizonan, the GOP is starting to splinter around the Sotomayor nomination.  Never has there been such an explosive issue for the Republican Party.  This could lead not only to an extended stay in the electoral wilderness, but possibly the collapse of the Republican Party.  Sotomayor's nomination is to the Republican Party what slavery was for the Whigs.

I couldn't remember which Alabama seat we lost so I put MS-01 up there instead. Its still highly red territory and and we have yet to try someone different. We need to stop running the same guy in the general if he loses in the special, that killed us there. I was just trying to geive some examples of the types of seats we likely regain and how few they are. It seems that the originator of this thread is finding predictions of us regaining the House or something, which is quite impossible till at least 2014 and thats only if we win back at least 25 seats in 2010 and lose only a hanfull in 2012, and those are the best case scenario estimates of course.   

I dont know about MS-01.  Its not like Childers barely eked out a win there.  He won the seat by a clean 10 point margin even as Obama was only getting 38% of the vote.  Its not like AL-02 and VA-05 where the Dems only squeezed by with around 50%. 

Well what I do know is that the guy who ran in the general and lost also lost the special earlier in the year. Its a regional thing Southaven(Davis) vs Tupelo(Childers). Southaven is growing faster then the rest of the district meaning after redistring it the district will have eithe less of Southaven in it or Southaven will comprise more of the the district's total votes. If Davis had run in 2012 he would have had an easier time winning. So in 2010 our candidate should definately come from the right region of the district, Tupelo.

The "miscellaneous" vote? No, that's not offensive or anything.

The Republicans would win a House majority before they knocked off Chellie Pingree next year.  She won an open seat in 2008 by 9.80% (54.90% to 45.10%) against an opponent, 2004 nominee, 1994 primary candidate and 1990-1994 State Senator Charlie Summers, who was definitely not a wingnut (the person he defeated in the primary could have been spun as one, although I don't think he was although he was an unappologetic conservative).  It doesn't matter (in terms of gauging Pingree's vulnerability going forward) that Summers was probably grossly underfunded.  She won by 10% (the "mainstream media" coverage will almost certainly round the percentages in her last election to the nearest percent) and will be running as an incumbent in a district Obama got 61% in (really only 60.52% but again the mainstream media will likely round up).  Yeah she's a liberal who will probably vote for almost every if not every Democratic bill that the party whips its members on that would not be popular even in this district (I live in ME-01, a couple towns away from the nearest town in ME-02), but most voters won't have that in their mind (if they've ever been aware of it) when they go to vote on November 2, 2010 or earlier by absentee ballot.  Whoever challenges her (I haven't heard of any challengers to her so far, while Mike Michaud actually does have a challenger (http://www.levesqueformaine.com/), although he seems like an "I'm a superior person" ass (http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/jason-levesque-challenge-michaud-2nd-district) (see second post) without the je ne sais quoi of Michaud's 2008 opponent (http://www.fraryforcongress.com/) that made that worthwhile for a spectator of the race) will likely have even less money than Summers did last year while Pingree will be loaded with cash (she was dating a hedge fund manager who has been a major contributer to her and to the Maine Democratic Party in 2008 - a reporter for a local alternative weekly followed her on the state primary election night to help break the story - and I haven't heard anything about them splitting up).  I'm not saying she could never be unseated (Maine's first district tossed out a four-term Democratic incumbent in 1974), but there's too much of a new car smell for that to happen next year.

This seems to be based on the assumption that she is safe because she won't face a strong candidate, though if she did she would be vulnerable. I tend to be wary of this, not least because term-limits ensures she will face a half-decent foe a number of times. Secondly, there are decent people looking at the race, ones who could easily outraise Summers(who was rightly not a joke, but was a has-been).

Do you think Charlie Cook was right to rate LA-04 (where Republican John C. Flemming, Jr., defeated Democrat Paul J. Carmouche by 350 votes (0.38%)) as a tossup for 2010 in the immediate aftermath of that delayed general election?  I know you're not saying ME-01 is a tossup but ME-01 wasn't as close in the last election and I think the same dynamic is at play.  You can't turn back time.

Also, Tom Allen's greatest percentage margin of victory (29.52%, the second greatest being 27.61% in 2002 against a challenger with no major (if any) political experience) and his second greatest percentage of the vote (60.84%, compared to 63.81% in 2002) was in 2006 against a moderate third-term State Representative (who had been a lead supporter of the well publicised "Tina's Law" cracking down on those driving with a suspended license) with the only other candidate in the race being an anti-war Independent running to Allen's left.

I'll take back my statement that the Republicans would win a House majority before they defeated Chellie Pingree next year, but I think they would have a better chance of picking up or holding enough other seats (worded that way so as not to include LA-02 :) ) that if they won all of them they would have a majority.

'

I think Charlie Cook made the right decision in rating LA-4 because it is a traditionally Republican seat with an incumbent who has done nothing wrong. Had alternatively Frank Harris won MD-1 instead of lost it by 1000 votes, and had McCain won the election and now had his approval ratings heading south fast, I would probably agree with a decision to keep that see vulnerable not because of the nature of the district but because Frank Harris would keep that seat competitive. Ditto for the decision to keep a focus on Sali in 2008.

That said this is not an argument for Pingree being imminently vulnerable. It is an argument that she is just the sort of incumbent in just the sort of seat that is likely to be in trouble in a 1994 type situation. There are obviously a dozen and probably two dozen Democrats in more vulnerable seats, but she is far more vulnerable than a Heath Shuler, or I would argue a Brad Ellsworth despite them being in much worse districts.

Right now I would have the seat labeled as likely democrat. If Steve Abbott or maybe even Peter Cianchette got in that would change fast.

Pingree isnt going anywhere, even in a 1994 style environment.  This is a seat that even John freakin Kerry won by 55%-43%.  If a Republican did manage to win it, they would likely lose it again in 2012 due to the drag of the Presidental ticket(like they did in 1996).

Well, a Republican did win the open 1st district in 1994 but got trounced by Tom Allen (then the mayor of Portland) in 1996.

Regardless, I agree with your assessment. Open seats are almost always more competitive than elections with incumbents, so Pingree will probably settle into the 60% area that Allen got in all of his re-election bids. It's like the open seat in Hawaii -- if Charles Djou picks it up, it means the Democrats are getting run out on a rail anyway.

It depends on the GOP candidate, there fundrasing strength, and the national environment. However I think with the right mix of the first two and provided Pinegree leaves a sour taste in enough peoples mouth, I think you could see here face a tough reelection bid. She did trail the top of the ticket so people are definately not thrilled with her. Her performance then will have a big impact. I only suggested it as a possible surprise on election night, no where near definatively set to happen like some of you appearently missinterepreted me as saying.

You're right that Steve Abbot has been spoken of as a possible candidate and he would be a credible one.  Cianchette, on the other hand, didn't do himself any favors with his in-and-out routine in the 2006 Governor's race in 2005, which made his last-minute decision in 2000 not to run for the State Senate after muscling aside other credible prospective Republican candidates who, according to political satirist Al Diamon, had moved onto other pursuits by the time Cianchette dropped out, leaving the Republicans scrambling to find a candidate and winding up with sub-par one who lost in a district that had been Republican for decades (although it's a fairly safe Democratic seat now) in an election that resulted in a Senate became split 17-17 with one Independent (a Republican Senator from a Democratic-leaning district died in early 2002 and the Democrats won the special election and a sore GOP primary loser later switched parties making the Senate 19-15-1), ... it made that seem among Republican activists like part of a pattern.