2010 Election Thread - Results

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Lowbacca_1977, May 17, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Great night for the Democrats! and Rand Paul. :p I celebrate Rand Paul because it's a blow to the Republican establishment, and he'll be independent and libertarian, a very anti-establishment figure.

    Blanche Lincoln is now ahead only 44 to 42 percent, much closer than previously thought, and seems to definitely be going to the run up.

    Sestak won, which is great. I wish MSNBC and the White House would get off their high horses and realize that "endorsements" mean NOTHING. People don't like being told how to vote; even if they really like Obama, they won't vote for a guy just because Obama says to. It's all about being local.

    The Democrats won Murtha's seat, which Steele was sure the Republicans would win.

    But yeah, great night for the Democrats!
  2. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I'd say your post makes a lot of sense, DS. I also agree with V's last post (the most recent one about the will of the people)as well. However, I'd also say that his 3 posts in this thread also seem to contradict each other. What if we took the original prediction and just changed a couple of words:

    "I've said it many times: Democrats will do much worse than expected. They'll lose about 15-20 seats in the House and about 3-4 seats in the Senate."

    or on the flip side, change the focus to this:

    I've said it many times: Republicans will do much better than expected. They'll gain about 15-20 seats in the House and about 3-4 seats in the Senate."

    The problem is that the concepts of "better" and "worse" aren't defined by anything relating to the political issues, and as a result, all 3 posts (the original + the 2 examples) all really say the same thing. The only difference is the perception of how they're framed. I don't think its that big of a deal, it's just the election version of hoping one's favorite team wins the playoff game.
  3. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    The perception among many in the media is that Democrats will lose the House and about 7-8 seats in the Senate. To do that would mean losing 40+ seats in the House, and I expect Democrats to do much better than that.

    I don't understand why it's necessary to go out of your way to be obtuse. You know perfectly well what I meant.
  4. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    I think Rand Paul was endorsed by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party or something, as well?
  5. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I don't think the democrats are going to loose complete control of the House. That's not realistic. Although, honestly, I haven't heard predictions like this either.

    I'd be pretty happy with a re-balanced, re-proportioned Congress. I think AG said something like this above as well.
  6. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    I'd be suspicious of calling Kentucky for the Republicans at this point. At the very least it's likely to be an interesting campaign. Senator Bunning won by 2% or less both times and Senator McConnell really only had a blow out in 2002, 2008(Presidential election atypicalness warning) had him up by 6%.

    Sestak/Toomey should be another good election, but I wouldn't suggest either has an inherent lead.

    Regardless if Halter or Senator Lincoln wins the run off I'd have to handicap that as a likely Republican gain unless we see an electoral shift.

    Still, this has been a good night for the progressives wing.
  7. Blue_Jedi33 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2003
    star 5
    One thing that will be different in the KY race, all of Ron Paul supporters in the entire country will at least in some way be supporting Rand, that is why the KY race will be different than most state races this year. I wonder if the democrat really knows what he is going up against, this time out.
  8. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Yeah, although the question is how he'll do in the larger contest. Fivethirtyeight had a mention about how there's a lot of people in Kentucky registered Democrat that generally vote Republican, so the question will be what happens with those voters in the larger race.
  9. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    How do my posts contradict each other?

    I made several points:

    1) Dem losses in the fall return us to the historical cycle of the party in the WH losing seats in Congress during the first midterms after a presidential election.

    2) Anti-establishment anger will hit both parties

    3) Politics, like most things in life, is based on psychology, and voter psychology dictates that in our 24/7 news cycle, things change far too rapidly to rely on polls this far out, or even make accurate predictions.

    Peace,

    V-03
  10. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    This, I think is actually the key to this cycle.

    However, I don't think that anti-establishment anger will hurt the Republicans as much as the Democrats. Yes, you will see some Republican targets (such as Bennett), but that is primarily in the primaries. Once you reach the general elections, anti-establishment anger will target the Democrats far more than the Republicans, because the Democrats are the ones actually in charge right now. By virtue of controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, they are the establishment.

    Right now, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi epitomize the establishment. That's why it's instructive that Critz won in PA-12, but did so by running against the Obama/Reid/Pelosi policies like health care. That's why Sestak still has an uphill battle ahead of him (trailing Toomey by about 2.5 points in the RCP average), even though neither one is part of the Senate "establishment".

    That gives a definite edge to the Republicans in pretty much all of their races this year.

    Kimball Kinnison
  11. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    Also because Republicans are generally less consistent about these things (like how when a Democrat increases federal spending and power it's the end of the world and we need to take up arms, but when a Republican does the same thing it's necessary and the stupid hippies need to shut up and respect the Commander in Chief).;)
  12. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    Critz also was helped because the Democrats had a competitive primary for the Senate. The GOP had no comparable primary on their ballot (there was a primary for the general that Burns won), so turnout was a little down.

    Also keep this in mind: When the GOP won 50+ seats in 1994, they did not need PA-12. George W. Bush carried 255 congressional districts in 2004, and PA-12 was not one of them.
  13. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Change is coming

    [image=http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/National-Debt-GDP-L.gif]
  14. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    That gives a definite edge to the Republicans in pretty much all of their races this year.

    I'd disagre on that. It gives the Republicans a definate edge in red or swing states this year.

    If it gives them a definate edge in Massachusetts or California, that I'm not sold on.
  15. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    KK

    Right now, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi epitomize the establishment. That's why it's instructive that Critz won in PA-12, but did so by running against the Obama/Reid/Pelosi policies like health care. That's why Sestak still has an uphill battle ahead of him (trailing Toomey by about 2.5 points in the RCP average), even though neither one is part of the Senate "establishment".

    Good article on that race:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37473.html

    And I wouldn't really consider Sestak having an 'uphill' battle if he's only behind by 2.5 points.

    I do agree that it will hurt the Democrats more since they are in power, but clearly it has rattled the Republicans as well. Since you always demand data, I will give it to you...

    Bennett's loss and Paul's win. :p

    Seriously though, it appears that people are over even their own congressman/Senator.

    That gives a definite edge to the Republicans in pretty much all of their races this year.

    I'd say it gives a slight edge, because of the reasons you stated, but it remains to be seen how it will play out.

    Specter, who is more moderate than Sestak, trailed Toomey by an average of 7.3. This will be a very interesting race. Sestak, who reportedly is a bit of a ****, will be a tough candidate. While I think Toomey would've easily beat Specter, against Sestak it will be a toss-up.
  16. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Kimball, I respectfully disagree with you here.

    All politics are local. The PA House race for Murtha's spot showed that Obama was smart enough to stay out of it. The GOP could easily have picked up this seat, and should have. It's a socially conservative area, and they spent tens of millions.

    I agree with earlier posters that districts that went dem in '08 which are traditionally republican will return to conservative hands, but I disagree with a tidal wave. I predict 15-20 pickups, about the same as KW.

    As far as Toomey goes, he won't win Philadelphia or any of the surrouding suburbs. The campaign will get real ugly, real fast (unfortunately), and the dems (if they're smart) will likely draw comparisons between him and Rick Santorum, whose rabid social conservatism was wildly unpopular in the tri-state area (I happen to have lived here my entire life; believe me, the GOP is NOT popular here at all, and this area used to be a republican stronghold, but Rockefeller republican). Toomey was a derivatives trader, has a long history of wall street ties, and is anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, pro-intelligent design-as-science-in-the-classroom, etc. I know I keep banging the same drum, but these things do matter.

    Looking at it another way, I would say that:

    1) GOP efforts to tie local elections to the national party are failing, harking back to poll numbers showing that individual congresspeople poll better than Congress as a whole

    2) Toomey should be trouncing Sestak, but his lead is statistically insignificant. Specter was ahead of Sestak by 15 points three weeks ago, and look what happened. He got whupped. You can't predict how november will go any more than I can. Joe Sestak is a better fit for cities/suburbs, Toomey for the rural areas....but the majority of the state population is in and around the cities. Also, Sestak hasn't gotten much statewide exposure yet. Now that he is the establishment candidate, look for that to change. Toomey will paint him as too liberal, but given his military background, I don't think that will stick. Also, he's far more telegenic than Toomey, who looks stolid and too serious (IMHO). These things do count, as silly as that is.

    Toomey is just a little too far to the right for Pennsylvania, which has been trending blue in recent years. It's going to be an interesting election season, that's for sure....damn, that means hours more of attack ads and the like.

    Chute.

    Peace,

    V-03
  17. shanerjedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2010
    star 4
    Yeah, I think Sestak/Toomey is a toss up right now. Specter was the weaker rival to Toomey.

    It looks like an anti-incumbent year. Of course that favours republicans because there are more dems in Congress, but it's not going to be as bad for dems as it will just be bad for the establishment.

    So I think the GOP will take a big chunk out of the dems majority in the House and 6-8 seats in the Senate.

    Congrats to Rand Paul for bringing some libertarianism back into the GOP and sticking it to the weasel McConnell.

    Vaderize03, you are right about PA-12. The GOP tried to nationalize the race and failed. But the dem victor doesn't sound that bad to me. He sounds like a Reagan democrat. Remember those?

  18. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    Just to piggy-back on V03's post, it's unlikely that Toomey will carry Pittsburgh and environs, either. The population centers in PA are very different ideologically from Pennsyltucky (a T-shaped region making up the middle of the state), and tend to vote blue. You can't win PA without Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
  19. shanerjedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2010
    star 4
    Reagan won PA in the 80's by bridging those areas you mentioned Quix. He brought in enough blue collar workers in those areas to win the state.

    Today's GOP leadership are too strident to do so now.
  20. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    There's a reason for that - Reagan was also going against Carter and Mondale, ;).
  21. shanerjedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2010
    star 4
    Well yes but my point was that Reagan was able to bring together conservatives, Rockefeller republicans, conservative democrats, and libertarians.

    There is not one republican out there now who can do that. In fact, there is not a democrat who can unite as large a majority either.
  22. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    I suspect this is true, especially in light of recent trends towards hyperpolarization.
  23. shanerjedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2010
    star 4
    Looks like Blanche-Lincoln of Arkansas is forced into a runoff against her dem opponent.

  24. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100525/ap_on_el_ge/us_democrats_the_west
    Interesting article arguing that the west that brought in Democrats isn't too keen to stick with them. Most intruiging thing, though, is that apparently the Tea Party Express has endorsed a Democrat in Idaho.
    "Democratic Rep. Walt Minnick has won an endorsement from the right-leaning Tea Party Express, the lone Democrat getting the group's backing."
  25. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Figure I'd bring it up here as it's caught my attention as an election tactic, but I got a phone call today that was initially structured as though it was a poll, asking me first about Barbara Boxer, then asking if I'd support a pro-life candidate versus a pro-abortion candidate, before asking if I disagreed with Obama care, at which point, it turned into a pitch for one of the candidates for Senate in the Republican primary next week. It's a sort of political twist I'd not encountered before. This a newish trick in the book, or had I just been missing it up til now?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.