Was it Inevitable?

[Skill and Chance]

I wonder how much focusing on getting something with the words health care reform through to the detriment of it actually being a good bill, or other important things like the economy was? Obviously some brain-dead strategists were convinced that this would prevent a repeat of 1994. Well, tomorrow could be worse than 1994 for House Democrats.

I wonder if it wouldn't have been better for the Democrats as a party if Obama had lost to McCain in 2008.  Remember, in the Senate this was supposed to be a year for Democratic gains in a neutral environment.  If McCain were president, they would probably be pushing 300 in the House and 70 in the Senate after tomorrow.  If the Tea Party had come about in this scenario, it would be salivating to primary McCain out of office for compromising on something or another.  If a Dem were to beat him in 2012, they would have the majorities to pass stuff like single payer, EFCA, and a carbon tax at will.     

That what I was saying in September 2008.

If the pattern holds, you might see us looking at GOP gains like the ones we'll probably see today, in 2012, with a Republican president.

The scent or re-alignment is in the air, and this might look like 1930-36 for the Republicans.

The Republican party is less popular than the Democratic party, so any Republican victories are from Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

And yet they will probably take the House.

That is actually a sign of a re-alignment.  The old party allegiances break down and a new group comes in.

You saw this in the 1930's with Al Smith.  The Smith-types represented the pre-1930 Democratic Party.

Sbane, the only thing that can be said is that 2008 was not a re-alignment.

I thin the jury is still out on 2008.  Reagan's GOP got smacked in 1982, but that didn't change the fact that 1980 was a realigning election.  2012 will determine whether 2008 was a re-alignment.  The bar is quite high though.  It would basically have to be Obama by 60/40 to confirm a 2008 re-alignment.  But Reagan rebounded from 37% approval, so I can't dismiss the possiblity that 2008 was the realignment yet.

[Sbane]

It's a sign of realignment when a party that is more unpopular than the other party, wins solely due to a vote against incumbency?

[tpfkaw]

It's a sign of realignment when a party that is more unpopular than the other party, wins solely due to a vote against incumbency?

How many incumbent Republicans will lose?

Hint: (somewhere between 0 and 2 - and both of those 2 are freshmen elected in flukes)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's a sign of realignment when a party that is more unpopular than the other party, wins solely due to a vote against incumbency?

How many incumbent Republicans will lose?

Hint: (somewhere between 0 and 2 - and both of those 2 are freshmen elected in flukes)

still, this is an anti-Dem vote, not a pro-GOP vote

[Sbane]

It's a sign of realignment when a party that is more unpopular than the other party, wins solely due to a vote against incumbency?

How many incumbent Republicans will lose?

Hint: (somewhere between 0 and 2 - and both of those 2 are freshmen elected in flukes)

How many incumbent Democrats lost in 2008? Was that a realignment? You guys are starting to sound just as silly as all the Democrats who were declaring that Republicans were dead for a generation.

[Oakvale]

It's a sign of realignment when a party that is more unpopular than the other party, wins solely due to a vote against incumbency?

How many incumbent Republicans will lose?

Hint: (somewhere between 0 and 2 - and both of those 2 are freshmen elected in flukes)

The Democrats are the incumbent party.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Losing seats was inevitable. With mass unemployment a stubborn reality heavy losses were always inevitable, and the House clearly at risk. But this bloodbath that we all wait for with dread or glorious expectation? Don't be absurd. I think the following paragraph captures a great deal of why things have turned out as they appear to have done:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[J. J.]

I wonder how much focusing on getting something with the words health care reform through to the detriment of it actually being a good bill, or other important things like the economy was? Obviously some brain-dead strategists were convinced that this would prevent a repeat of 1994. Well, tomorrow could be worse than 1994 for House Democrats.

I wonder if it wouldn't have been better for the Democrats as a party if Obama had lost to McCain in 2008.  Remember, in the Senate this was supposed to be a year for Democratic gains in a neutral environment.  If McCain were president, they would probably be pushing 300 in the House and 70 in the Senate after tomorrow.  If the Tea Party had come about in this scenario, it would be salivating to primary McCain out of office for compromising on something or another.  If a Dem were to beat him in 2012, they would have the majorities to pass stuff like single payer, EFCA, and a carbon tax at will.     

That what I was saying in September 2008.

If the pattern holds, you might see us looking at GOP gains like the ones we'll probably see today, in 2012, with a Republican president.

The scent or re-alignment is in the air, and this might look like 1930-36 for the Republicans.

The Republican party is less popular than the Democratic party, so any Republican victories are from Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

And yet they will probably take the House.

That is actually a sign of a re-alignment.  The old party allegiances break down and a new group comes in.

You saw this in the 1930's with Al Smith.  The Smith-types represented the pre-1930 Democratic Party.

Sbane, the only thing that can be said is that 2008 was not a re-alignment.

I thin the jury is still out on 2008.  Reagan's GOP got smacked in 1982, but that didn't change the fact that 1980 was a realigning election.  2012 will determine whether 2008 was a re-alignment.  The bar is quite high though.  It would basically have to be Obama by 60/40 to confirm a 2008 re-alignment.  But Reagan rebounded from 37% approval, so I can't dismiss the possiblity that 2008 was the realignment yet.

Actually, the GOP gained in the Senate in 1982.  You had three years of increase in one house and well off the low in the other.

Unless you predicting a Democratic gain in either the House or Senate this year, the "2008 realignment" claim is gone.

[TheGlobalizer]

2008 wasn't a realignment, and 2010 isn't.

In 25 years, we may say that 2012 was one, but that depends on a confluence of events and outcomes.