Comments

1. Chris Burgess July 27, 2009 8:14 AM
   Most people seem to be saying historically this election will swing back to the Republicans. But do not take into account the financial disaster. In Australia following any state government disaster, the incumbent government that wins power after a disaster usually wins in a huge landslide 4 years later. This also happened with Ronald Regan's second term 4 years later he successfully blamed Jimmy Carter for the countries ailments. Obama will successfully beat George Bush and his mob around the head for 4 years. Nothing indicates otherwise. So 2010 is the first trial run of George Bush bashing. Unless he completely stuffs up before November 2010 there will be a tsunami.
2. robert cohen July 27, 2009 9:37 AM
   What nonsense above. The president's numbers are already falling and the economy plus healthcare change will cause those numbers to fall even further. After the cambridge misstep another such debacle will not help either. The republicans will gain seats. How many won't be known for 15 months.
3. TaylorB1 July 27, 2009 10:26 AM
   Mr. Cohen's remark above is a classic example of GOP wishful thinking. The so-called "debacle" in Cambridge will have no more effect on the '10 and '12 election than will a hundred other non-issues. Such trivial things are important only to those who are already against the President and his party, including those who actually want President Obama to "fail." But of course the GOPs will crow no matter how many or (more likely) how few seats they pick up in'10...my guess is no more than about eight or ten at the most.
4. Tim Mullen July 27, 2009 3:16 PM
   Mr Cohen is engaging is extreme wishful thinking if he thinks President Obama's poll numbers are going to continue to fall, and the arrest of Professor Gates is going to be an advantage to them (remember Rev. Jeremiah Wright? That was hardly fatal to then-Senator Obama was it?). Economists of every political hue are near-unanimous that the world recession will have shown signs of abating by the end of 2Q 2010, this will allow the Administration to claim (rightly) that their plans worked, and the GOP "Party of No" stood in the way of recovery.
5. New York Politico July 27, 2009 3:17 PM
   CQ is becoming so partisan their delusional. 2006 and 2008 are over. Democrats are facing the worst environment for any political party since their's in 1994. Obama is hardly six months into office and his approval rating is already hovering near 50%. Republicans have more than 59 takeover opportunities next year, just look at how approval ratings for Democrats in blue states are falling below critical thresholds. Placing IL-10 and PA-6 in the "Leans Democratic" category looks more like cheerleading than non-partisan analysis. I wonder what CQ was saying about 94's House races at this time in 1993?
6. kazooskibum July 28, 2009 7:57 AM
   The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise.
7. David Symons July 28, 2009 2:07 PM
   If the Democrats retain a majority in 2010 then Americans have proven, once and for all, that they are the stupidest people on the planet. Democrats: Helping make Canada the world leader in freedom, democracy and free enterprise since 2008.
8. NObama July 28, 2009 4:15 PM
   Actually New York Politico, you can go to good public library and look at back issues of the Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report and find out exactly what CQ's political division was saying in at the time. If memory serves, no one saw what was going to happen until after labor day '94. However, as a right-winger (although I wouldn't say "knee-jerk", ha-ha, that's for you Amberson--try and come up with a new pejorative, eh) and reader of CQ for decades, I must disagree substancially on your claim about partisanship. I would say the best non-partisan election analysis comes from CQ, Rothenberg and Cook, not in that order. In fact, everything else is just cheerleading from one side or the other and on quite a few occasions, just plain uninformed.
9. Emo July 29, 2009 8:51 AM
   Chris Burgess: Youre totally ignorant. You analysis in a joke. Are you Australian? You know nothing of American politics. Ronald Reagan lost 26 House seats in 1982 with 10% unemployment. I expect as much in 2010. I expect the Dems to keep their majority but it will be no more than 230. But 2010 Will not be 1994, due to many reasons: 1. 1994 Had both a House Post Office and Banking scandal 2. Retirements of numerous Dem members 3. Clinton got only 43% of the vote. Obama got 53% The GOP will pick up 20-30 House seats with the Senate undetermined yet. Early indications are the GOP will do ok in the Senate as well. Possibly 1-3 Seat pick up. As an above poster noted no one saw 1994 coming until well after Labor Day 1994. It should also be noted that a strong economy didnt help the Dems in two of their largest congressional routs: 1966 and 1994
10. Emo July 29, 2009 8:54 AM
    Obama's racial gaffe was huge. Obama went from being "the President who happens to be black" to " The Black President" In fact his polls numbers have accelerated heir downward movement since his gaffe.
11. INTJ July 29, 2009 9:24 AM
    Democrats, barring an utter meltdown - not beyond their capacity, mind you - are likely to retain a majority, and Republicans - certainly capable of their own meltdown - are likely to regain some ground, but as Obama continues to turn off moderates and independents in large numbers with his far-left agenda, and his allies keep attacking the Blue Dogs (who are in GOP-competitive districts), the extent of that rally remains up in the air. Clinton learned how to change tack and beat them at their own game; it remains to be seen whether Obama is that astute. Even Bill took 2 years to learn his lesson.
12. David S. Levine July 29, 2009 9:29 AM
    If the mid-term election were held today Republicans would gain enough seats to effectively control the House. It really wouldn't matter whether they would elect a Speaker because there would be enough frightened Democ-rats remaining who would want to show their conservative credentials to their constituents in the 2012 election for the Republicans to be in effective control as they were in 1981 and 1982. In fact this would be BETTER for them going into the 2012 presidential election when they would win the whole casino.
13. Conservative not GOP July 29, 2009 9:33 AM
    I originally thought that the GOP would have more losses in 2010 (just a few seats in the House and 1 in the Senate). However, I don't see a robust recovery in 2010. While 1994 is out of the question, I do see perhaps a gain of 12-15 for the GOP in the House, and 1-2 seats in the Senate. It will take a long while for the conservative brand to become popular since Bush was not a conservative President in many ways.
14. Don Colibri July 29, 2009 8:22 PM
    "Democrats Look Secure" is one of the most idiotic and partisan viewpoints I have seen in a long time and worse it ignores all the facts available. The generic congressional vote polls all have the Dems in total freefall: a 16 point advantage 6 months ago has evaporated and while one or two polls still show a Dem. advantage of 2 or 3 %, the majority actually show a GOP advantage, something which would have been considered impossible 6 months ago. (as someone else pointed out according to all of the polling data available if the election were held today, it would be a dogfight for control of the House and a drop of 4 to 7 seats in the Senate.) To even speculate that the Dems are in any way "secure" for 2010 one must postulate an end to the freefalling collapse of voter support, a complete turn around and even a return to the high numbers they enjoyed last January. Where, when and how is this about to happen? Obama continues to shoot his mouth off with no connection to his brain (as does his VP), the new administration's foreign policy continues to be a complete confused disaster, energizing America's enemies and insulting and injuring her friends. There is actually talk of a "second stimulus" while a vast majority of the nation is concluding that the first one was a complete and utter failure. The "Blue Dogs" are in open revolt against the party leadership. Nancy Polosi and Harry Reed are practically the two most hated politicians in the history of the country and Reed himself most likely will be one of the first victims of the GOP resurgence. So tell us, please, where, when and how is this Dem "security" going to happen? (and don't give us any more crap about the GOP having a "similar meltdown" - The GOP is "out", the Dems are "in", they (GOP) already had their's and besides, it is politically impossible for the "outs" to ever have meltdowns as serious as the "ins", just the nature of politics and about the only advantage there is to being an "out"!)
15. Chicago July 29, 2009 11:09 PM
    Are you kidding me ??? The "Dear Leader" is falling on his face. He is phony to the core and totally unqualified to be President. His Marxist/Fascist policies are failing miserably. His approval ratings will be in the 30's by Christmas as the economy continues to tank. I believe America will respond to this left wing flower child government with a resounding: no thanks!! Remember, you read it here!!!
16. New Jersey July 30, 2009 10:46 AM
    Any Republicans who think this is going to be 1994 are badly mistaken. 1994 (and other wave elections) require a critical mass that extends beyond the usual partisans. 1994 had 40 years of Democratic control of the House, the House banking and post office scandals, liberal apathy over NAFTA and the failure of health care reform, and the shift of the South from conservative Democratic to conservative Republican (accelerated by lots of Democratic retirements in conservative districts). 2006 had anger with Bush's war in Iraq, an enormous amount of Republican scandals, and a shift of moderate midwestern and northeastern districts from moderate Republicans to moderate and liberal Democrats. 2010 will have no such trends. Yes, Obama's agenda is making the far right very angry, but they're always very angry. It won't help Democrats if health care isn't passed, but it won't be enough to create a critical mass. As for scandals, it seems like the Republicans are still totally unable to keep their pants on and the Democrats have kept relatively clean . And regionally, the shifts have already taken place. The Republicans don't have much ground they can gain in the south (where they once picked up a ton of seats) and the northeast seems highly unlikely to return to its moderate GOP roots. If the GOP picks up seats, it will be maybe 6-8 seats.
17. Independent voter August 31, 2009 2:36 AM
    I agree 2010 will be more like 1982, where the opposite party gains seats in the house. I am thinking more 15-20 but no more than that, I do believe the GOP will get the majority of Governorships and will win BOTH New Jersey and Virginia this year. They also wil win the majority of state legislatures. However I am going to go on a limb and say the Democrats win 1-2 seats in the Senate in 2010. Missouri, Ohio and New Hampshire going Democrat while CT. (sorry Dodd is history) and Obami's old Senate seat goes GOP. I beleive Reid, Boxer for the Dems and Bur for the GOP will win thier respective races though not by much, the GOP holds Kentucky. 2012 though will be a nightmare for the Dems though like 1980 was for the Senate races. This year though Virginia goes GOP because the DEM candidate is running a horrible race and the genreal consensus is the DEMS got full of themselves after the 2008 election and will be brought down a notch or 2 for 2009, as for New JErsey, Corzine is done, nothing he says or does will get him re-elected aqnd should he get re-elected, it looks like the Dems are going to get hard in the state legislative races. So he loses either way.