Republicans are screwed

[King]

I'm calling it.

Rand Paul's is going to be like his father: the only member of his lil' Tea Party caucus in the Senate.  Judging by that victory speech, Marco Rubio was only assumed to be a Teabagger.   He's not full blown like Chairman Paul.  He's not really going to be on board with that in the Senate.  Hoeven is establishment.  Kirk will be a Moderate Hero.  Ron Johnson won't be a factor either, etc., etc.  He'll pray for Joe Miller to join him in the foolishness, but they won't actually have any influence.

They may have something in the House, but only enough to undermine Boehner's leadership not actually get anything done.  Boehner is obviously not up to to the challenge with his weepfested ways.  Seeing your opponent cry just rallies the opposition.  He'll over-compromise and actually reminds me of the Republican Harry Reid as a leader.

Gridlock will storm Congress and continue their unpopularity.  Like Charles Krauthammer said on FOX (though not in a positive spin), Obama will govern via regulation and maintain some popularity..

Sarah Palin will get nominated for President and crushed in the general.

All 2010 pickups in the House will be gone by 2012-14. 

But ONE shining grace: because the unelectables didn't win in 2010, they won't have huge losses in 2016 in the Senate.  People like Buck, Angle, Fiorina and O'Donnell would have been doomsday 2016 for the GOP with their idiocy being propagandized to bring down decent candidates in other states (The Russ Feingold Effect from now on).  Rubio, Kirk, and Johnson aren't threatening people.  Joe Miller or Lisa Murkowski will get primaried in 2016 for somebody better again.

[King]

Excuse me, they will lose Colorado in 2016 now.

[Mechaman]

Yeah and the Democrats really screwed themselves over in 1930, didn't they?

[King]

Yeah and the Democrats really screwed themselves over in 1930, didn't they?

Completely different situation.  Democrats aren't getting blamed for the recession here, they're getting blamed for inaction.  Republicans are going to be just as inactive.

This is a very temporary flip.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     After this, every flip will be a temporary flip. We're entering a phase of America's history where the most either party holds either chamber is 4-6 years at a time, if even that.

[tmthforu94]

I'd like for Rossi and Buck to be able to pull through (unlikely), but I'm actually really pleased with the Senate results. Murkowski, Kirk, and Toomey won, which is good, though Toomey's only going to be there for one term. Harry Reid will stay on as Majority Leader, which isn't too great for Democrats with someone so unpopular staying. And we gained over 60 seats in the House, with several suprising upsets.

[opebo]

     After this, every flip will be a temporary flip. We're entering a phase of America's history where the most either party holds either chamber is 4-6 years at a time, if even that.

Not necessarily. 

First, and most importantly, if the economy inproves immigration will restart and this does heavily favor Democrats.  We can thank our hispanic friends for the very positive Democratic results even in this bad year out West (CO, NV, CA, WA).

Secondly, this shift is solely based on economic angst, which will eventually evaporate as either the economy improves (or more likely, people just get used to being poor).  The younger generations relatively less interest in the GOPs cultural/religious/racial themes, so in 'normal' - non-economic freefall - times, they'll be back to voting Dem.

All the results here look positive, correcting for the ephemeral angst-wave - better than expected results in the West and Southwest, and somewhat better in suburbia nationwide.  Really the Democrats lost most heavily in the hopeless declining areas - Midwest, rust belt (IL, WI, MO, PA, OH), the one exception being WV. 

[Keystone Phil]

though Toomey's only going to be there for one term.

You're really going to predict races six years in advance? We've seen perfect examples over the past few cycles why you shouldn't make predictions two years before an election, let alone six years.

[Mjh]

I dont think so. The GOP swept the House, just as predicted. The Democrats were slaughtered in the rustbelt, and all across the south. Erasing all your gains in red territory from 2006 and 2008.

However, the most underreported story of the night are the huge Republican gains at the state level, a whole swathe of state legislative houses have flipped to the Republican Party. That will come in handy later on when the districts are redrawn. Pennsylvania is a case in point.

This may of course just be a blipp on the road to “Progressive America”, but I for one wouldn’t call 2012 for the Democrats just yet.

Regarding the Senate.
The results in the US Senate were of course somewhat dissapointing, but hopefully the GOP (and maybe even the Tea Party) have learned a lesson that may come in handy in 2012. If they want to primary Republican incumbents and establishments candidates they better put up stronger candidates than washed-up losers like Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle.

[afleitch]

The Tea Party bandwagon could only keep riding if they got their men/women into the Senate. This hasn't happened. They may be in the House, but they won't be able to be heard as strongly.

[Brittain33]

However, the most underreported story of the night are the huge Republican gains at the state level, a whole swathe of state legislative houses have flipped to the Republican Party. That will come in handy later on when the districts are redrawn. Pennsylvania is a case in point.

Yes and no. It's true, and it does help the Republicans. But they were in such good shape in 2002 that, at best, it can only preserve the advantage they held in drawing maps then instead of creating a new one. That will come in handy in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, not to mention southern states, but ultimately they have a very favorable national map to begin with so they need to continue to win elections on their own merit.

A lot of Republican seats they won yesterday are simply going to take the place of Democratic seats that would have been drawn away in redistricting. Ohio Rs are going to have to sacrifice one R for sure and will have a difficult time making that second set lost a D, although they can try. Tennessee and Indiana just banked the gains they would have made next time anyway. Pennsylvania is a good point, they can still draw PA-12 out of existence and cause a Democratic loss, and while they have a high-water mark in the east, they will be able to do what they can to try to preserve their holdings.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Well I wouldn't say they are screwed just yet, but I think it all depends on what happens to the Tea Party. Look at the Tea Party candidates in the Senate:

Paul - Won
O'Donnell - Lost
Angle - Lost
Raese -  Lost
Miller - Will have lost when everything is counted
Buck - Same as Miller

Four of those seats Republicans should have had no problem winning in this enviorment. So the Republicans should be worried about the Tea Party in the future. If the Tea Party survives and continues to primary out sane Republicans with loonys that could create a real problem for them.

[??????????]

Well I wouldn't say they are screwed just yet, but I think it all depends on what happens to the Tea Party. Look at the Tea Party candidates in the Senate:

Paul - Won
O'Donnell - Lost
Angle - Lost
Raese -  Lost
Miller - Will have lost when everything is counted
Buck - Same as Miller

Four of those seats Republicans should have had no problem winning in this enviorment. So the Republicans should be worried about the Tea Party in the future. If the Tea Party survives and continues to primary out sane Republicans with loonys that could create a real problem for them.

Rubio is a tea party candidate.

[King]

Well I wouldn't say they are screwed just yet, but I think it all depends on what happens to the Tea Party. Look at the Tea Party candidates in the Senate:

Paul - Won
O'Donnell - Lost
Angle - Lost
Raese -  Lost
Miller - Will have lost when everything is counted
Buck - Same as Miller

Four of those seats Republicans should have had no problem winning in this enviorment. So the Republicans should be worried about the Tea Party in the future. If the Tea Party survives and continues to primary out sane Republicans with loonys that could create a real problem for them.

Rubio is a tea party candidate.

No.  The Tea Party has made them their candidate, but he's never made any mention of them or claim that he is a teabagger like the rest of people on that list.  Rubio being a Tea Partier is the biggest lie being told this media cycle.

He's a conservative, but he ain't tea.

[Brittain33]

Rubio edged aside Crist with the same sort of support that Angle used to win the nomination, right?

[Vepres]

Well, King, that is one scenario. The other, which I see as equally likely (and more preferable) is this: the Tea Party candidates come in with their own ideas of how things should go in Congress. However, as they learn about the country's situation, and realize that nothing will get done without Democratic support, they moderate in voting if not in rhetoric. Paul votes to raise the debt ceiling for practical purposes, Bachmann ensures that Tea Party House members don't mess with Speaker Boehner so that the party won't get screwed in 2010. It is in both party's interests to compromise at this point. It will make Boehner look good, Obama look good, and Reid look good. These Tea Party candidates recognize this, they're not stupid people (well, the ones that one at any rate).

[Lief 🗽]

You're much more optimistic that I am. Last night was just the beginning.

[Brittain33]

You're much more optimistic that I am. Last night was just the beginning.

I am optimistic, and I will be until I see polls coming out in mid-2011 showing Claire McCaskill and Mark Warner in the low 40s in reelection matches. I can't overlook the fact that what people clearly wanted was to stop Obama and the Dems from making more laws--they've certainly won that--but also that the Republicans are even less popular than the Dems, that Obama has political skills, and the electorate can't help but be more favorable next time. If this was 1994, I'm looking forward to 1996.

[Vepres]

You're much more optimistic that I am. Last night was just the beginning.

I am optimistic, and I will be until I see polls coming out in mid-2011 showing Claire McCaskill and Mark Warner in the low 40s in reelection matches. I can't overlook the fact that what people clearly wanted was to stop Obama and the Dems from making more laws--they've certainly won that--but also that the Republicans are even less popular than the Dems, that Obama has political skills, and the electorate can't help but be more favorable next time. If this was 1994, I'm looking forward to 1996.

Indeed, this was no endorsement of Republicans.

[Mjh]

Four of those seats Republicans should have had no problem winning in this enviorment. So the Republicans should be worried about the Tea Party in the future. If the Tea Party survives and continues to primary out sane Republicans with loonys that could create a real problem for them.

My sentiments exactly.

This is what really scares me.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/03/potential-tea-party-targets-for-2012/

2012 have the potential to be a great year for the Republicans in the Senate. However, the likes of Erik Erickson, Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint puts that on the line if they primary Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe.

[Mjh]

However, the most underreported story of the night are the huge Republican gains at the state level, a whole swathe of state legislative houses have flipped to the Republican Party. That will come in handy later on when the districts are redrawn. Pennsylvania is a case in point.

Yes and no. It's true, and it does help the Republicans. But they were in such good shape in 2002 that, at best, it can only preserve the advantage they held in drawing maps then instead of creating a new one. That will come in handy in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, not to mention southern states, but ultimately they have a very favorable national map to begin with so they need to continue to win elections on their own merit.

A lot of Republican seats they won yesterday are simply going to take the place of Democratic seats that would have been drawn away in redistricting. Ohio Rs are going to have to sacrifice one R for sure and will have a difficult time making that second set lost a D, although they can try. Tennessee and Indiana just banked the gains they would have made next time anyway. Pennsylvania is a good point, they can still draw PA-12 out of existence and cause a Democratic loss, and while they have a high-water mark in the east, they will be able to do what they can to try to preserve their holdings.

I think you mostly are right. But did the GOP do as well at the state level in 2000 as they did yesterday
I wonder because I seem to remember that the Congressional Republicans didn't do nearly as well as expected.

[The Mikado]

Paul will have some kindred spirits already in the Senate, though.  (Tom Coburn comes to mind)

[DrScholl]

The gains certainly consisted mostly of marginals, with just a few Republican trending areas. There are some over the top folks in the marginals now, so the sustainability is in question.

On redistricting, it may help a little, but I'm not sure how much. Ohio loses two seats and I don't see how the GOP can avoid cutting at least 1 of their own seats and possibly tilting more toward marginal. Same with PA, they'll have to decide who to protect and who to let go, because it's impossible to protect all their incumbents. If fair redistricting holds in Florida, that will be another problem, a gerrymander free Florida won't be as Republican solid as it is under the current map.

[Frink]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If the economy is still bad in 2012 than we'll be seeing some sort of replay of 1932.

[King]

This isn't a post that has anything to do with optimism.

Personally, I would like to see the government get smaller and consolidated into a manner that is more efficient.  The reality is that such a thing is impossible and its not what this election was about.  The Republicans just caught a hot potato. 

The average American is a complete New Deal liberal who has been brainwashed into thinking he's conservative.  He's going to protest for smaller government because the campaign has him thinking we're spending $3 trillion on bridges to nowhere, but the second we actually start cutting spending he'll begin to see the money is actually going to the projects he knows and maybe even uses.

Nostalgia will kick in at some point and the teabaggers will turn.