Two Guesses

[Person Man]

Yes, but you would have to go back 30 years to see those type of numbers...and this is the second most dems in the senate per Congress since the Vietnam War. The Democratic Party is stronger today than anyother time after the fall of Saigon. We may be short a couple of dozen in the house, but when you subtract the PUMAs and DINOs, we are in a superior position.

Also, look at this map- This is the map of the 20-somethings- People don't change that much politically- it is possible that this map could be here by 2012, if not 2016 or 2020.

Actually, that is not correct; the Democratic numbers in the House are lower today than in 1989-93.  It might be lower than 1993-95, after everything is counted. 

They will likely be 259-176, which was the same margin they had from 1988 to 1990. 

Actually, the highest number that Democrats have had after the 1980 election was 260.  The lowest the GOP number was 167 (1991-93).  The numbers are still off the lows.  I could only get numbers on four races still out.  GOP leads in 3.

...and I wasn't even born yet in 1980....and there were at least one independent, IIRC in 1990 elections. Also, this issue is moot because there were like 50 DINOs in the house before 1994, now there are 50. The democrats are now free of the Conservative Coalition.

[J. J.]

...and I wasn't even born yet in 1980....and there were at least one independent, IIRC in 1990 elections. Also, this issue is moot because there were like 50 DINOs in the house before 1994, now there are 50. The democrats are now free of the Conservative Coalition.

And the Republicans are free of 40 or so RINO's or "Gypsy Moths" as they were then known.  We are still within the post re-alignment range.

[Mr.Phips]

Yes, but you would have to go back 30 years to see those type of numbers...and this is the second most dems in the senate per Congress since the Vietnam War. The Democratic Party is stronger today than anyother time after the fall of Saigon. We may be short a couple of dozen in the house, but when you subtract the PUMAs and DINOs, we are in a superior position.

Also, look at this map- This is the map of the 20-somethings- People don't change that much politically- it is possible that this map could be here by 2012, if not 2016 or 2020.

Actually, that is not correct; the Democratic numbers in the House are lower today than in 1989-93.  It might be lower than 1993-95, after everything is counted. 

They will likely be 259-176, which was the same margin they had from 1988 to 1990. 

Actually, the highest number that Democrats have had after the 1980 election was 260.  The lowest the GOP number was 167 (1991-93).  The numbers are still off the lows.  I could only get numbers on four races still out.  GOP leads in 3.

The lead they have in OH-15 is likely to be overturned.  Its only 146 votes and this is before the heavily Democratic provisional ballots are counted. 

[Mr.Phips]

...and I wasn't even born yet in 1980....and there were at least one independent, IIRC in 1990 elections. Also, this issue is moot because there were like 50 DINOs in the house before 1994, now there are 50. The democrats are now free of the Conservative Coalition.

And the Republicans are free of 40 or so RINO's or "Gypsy Moths" as they were then known.  We are still within the post re-alignment range.

There were never many Republican "Gypsy Moths". 

[J. J.]

...and I wasn't even born yet in 1980....and there were at least one independent, IIRC in 1990 elections. Also, this issue is moot because there were like 50 DINOs in the house before 1994, now there are 50. The democrats are now free of the Conservative Coalition.

And the Republicans are free of 40 or so RINO's or "Gypsy Moths" as they were then known.  We are still within the post re-alignment range.

There were never many Republican "Gypsy Moths". 

They were enough to block many of the budget cuts Reagan proposed.  I would argue that there never were that many Bole Weevils either.

[Mr.Phips]

...and I wasn't even born yet in 1980....and there were at least one independent, IIRC in 1990 elections. Also, this issue is moot because there were like 50 DINOs in the house before 1994, now there are 50. The democrats are now free of the Conservative Coalition.

And the Republicans are free of 40 or so RINO's or "Gypsy Moths" as they were then known.  We are still within the post re-alignment range.

There were never many Republican "Gypsy Moths". 

They were enough to block many of the budget cuts Reagan proposed.  I would argue that there never were that many Bole Weevils either.

There were more Boll Weevils than Gypsy Moths.  I would argue that there still are about a dozen boll weevils in the South. 

[J. J.]

...and I wasn't even born yet in 1980....and there were at least one independent, IIRC in 1990 elections. Also, this issue is moot because there were like 50 DINOs in the house before 1994, now there are 50. The democrats are now free of the Conservative Coalition.

And the Republicans are free of 40 or so RINO's or "Gypsy Moths" as they were then known.  We are still within the post re-alignment range.

There were never many Republican "Gypsy Moths". 

They were enough to block many of the budget cuts Reagan proposed.  I would argue that there never were that many Bole Weevils either.

There were more Boll Weevils than Gypsy Moths.  I would argue that there still are about a dozen boll weevils in the South. 

A lot of Moths were in the Senate, that made up for the numbers. 

[Mr.Phips]

...and I wasn't even born yet in 1980....and there were at least one independent, IIRC in 1990 elections. Also, this issue is moot because there were like 50 DINOs in the house before 1994, now there are 50. The democrats are now free of the Conservative Coalition.

And the Republicans are free of 40 or so RINO's or "Gypsy Moths" as they were then known.  We are still within the post re-alignment range.

In the Senate maybe.  I am thinking of Bob Stafford of Vermont, Lowell Weiker of Connecticut, and Charles Mathias of Maryland. 

There were never many Republican "Gypsy Moths". 

They were enough to block many of the budget cuts Reagan proposed.  I would argue that there never were that many Bole Weevils either.

There were more Boll Weevils than Gypsy Moths.  I would argue that there still are about a dozen boll weevils in the South. 

A lot of Moths were in the Senate, that made up for the numbers. 

[Person Man]

Still though, the dems now have a commanding lead without the conservative coalition. This is unprecedented.

[J. J.]

Still though, the dems now have a commanding lead without the conservative coalition. This is unprecedented.

They don't in the Senate and the numbers are still up from 1978 (and I think 1991-3).

[Person Man]

Still though, the dems now have a commanding lead without the conservative coalition. This is unprecedented.

They don't in the Senate and the numbers are still up from 1978 (and I think 1991-3).

Definately not the senate. There really are only like 2 boll weavils left on the D side in the senate and only 3 moths on the R side in the senate.

[J. J.]

Still though, the dems now have a commanding lead without the conservative coalition. This is unprecedented.

They don't in the Senate and the numbers are still up from 1978 (and I think 1991-3).

Definately not the senate. There really are only like 2 boll weavils left on the D side in the senate and only 3 moths on the R side in the senate.

Compared to the 1979-85 period, there were a lot.  The absolute Senate numbers were higher for the D's before that.  House numbers are slightly better than the late 1980's-early 1990's.

[Person Man]

Still though, the dems now have a commanding lead without the conservative coalition. This is unprecedented.

They don't in the Senate and the numbers are still up from 1978 (and I think 1991-3).

Definately not the senate. There really are only like 2 boll weavils left on the D side in the senate and only 3 moths on the R side in the senate.

Compared to the 1979-85 period, there were a lot.  The absolute Senate numbers were higher for the D's before that.  House numbers are slightly better than the late 1980's-early 1990's.

In most of that period, there were more conservative dems in the house and the Rs were in control of the senate between 1981 and 1987.

Also, the fact that you have to go back until the time just before my birth should tell you that this time is only comparable to times nearly a quarter century ago and is only truly comparable to the situation nearly 40 years ago.

[J. J.]

It might be time to mention this again, maybe.

[Psychic Octopus]

Good reading, especially the comparisons of Obama and Carter.

[J. J.]

It is too early to tell, but there have been two indication:

1.  Not just Christie's win, but his larger than expected win, in NJ.

2.  What looks like the closeness of the MA race.

Signs and Portents?  Maybe.

[Bo]

Your first prediction was proven wrong.

[Psychic Octopus]

Your first prediction was proven wrong.

He made another one, if you read the entire thread.

[Bo]

Your first prediction was proven wrong.

He made another one, if you read the entire thread.

I didn't. BTW, are you feeling better?

[J. J.]

Your first prediction was proven wrong.

You might end up seeing that was hoping the county would not take a strong swing to the right.  It may, at this point.

[Psychic Octopus]

Your first prediction was proven wrong.

He made another one, if you read the entire thread.

I didn't. BTW, are you feeling better?

A bit. I'll try to get an update tonight.

[Bo]

Your first prediction was proven wrong.

He made another one, if you read the entire thread.

I didn't. BTW, are you feeling better?

A bit. I'll try to get an update tonight.

Good. I'm glad you're starting to recover from your sickness. BTW, I'm looking forward to reading the update.

[J. J.]

Your first prediction was proven wrong.

He made another one, if you read the entire thread.

I didn't. BTW, are you feeling better?

A bit. I'll try to get an update tonight.

I didn't know you were sick.  Sorry to hear it.

[J. J.]

Brown wins in MA taking a seat that has been in Democratic hands since 1/3/1953 (excluding vacancies).  Signs and Portents?  Maybe, but maybe not.

One thing can be said.  It was suggested that maybe the election of Obama would be the realignment; after today, it clearly was not.

[Sam Spade]

You may well be right JJ, as I've said for over a year now.

That being said, this does not mean that an Obama realignment is out of the cards completely; rather, its likelihood has diminished substantially.