Comments on: 2010 Senate Race Update

By: blogstutalk

blogstutalk — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:44:36 +0000

The presidency? Who knows what factors will shape that election? At this point, Iâ€™ll just grant your point and stipulate the most likely scenario – Obama re-elected.

Regards,
stutalk.com

By: mw

mw — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:21:48 +0000

@Terrence
Obviously, a lot can happen along the way and it is impossible for either of us to know what (or if) external events will shape the next few election cycles. All I’m doing here is to trying to understand the playing field for the next two cycles, in order to find the easiest path to the outcome I prefer, the restoration of divided government.

“I donâ€™t see anything breaking towards the Republicans before 2014 at the earliest” – TC

I think you have to look at the legislative and executive branches separately. I’ll agree with your date for the House of Representatives. Despite the entire House being up for re-election every two years, it is the most difficult branch to change the party majority. Representatives have a 95% incumbent re-election rate. As I said in my post, with hurricane force tailwinds, the Dems only picked up 21 of the 435 seats in 2008. With their 80+ seat majority, it is certain that it will take the GOP until 2014 at least and probably longer, even if they chip away every cycle, to win enough to recapture the majority. The House will be Democratic for the foreseeable future.

The presidency? Who knows what factors will shape that election? At this point, I’ll just grant your point and stipulate the most likely scenario – Obama re-elected.

The Senate is a different animal. Electoral structural factors slant the playing field enormously and can be more important than popular sentiment. In 2012 the Dems will be defending 24 seats and the GOP 9. In those circumstances, it is certain that the GOP will pick up Senate seats, with the only question – how many? If they can grab a couple seats in 2010, they’ll only need 4 in 2012 to retake the majority. Very very doable. Taking two seats in 2010 is structurally more difficult than taking 4 in 2012. That makes the Senate the path of least resistance to the kind of government I prefer.

By: TerenceC

TerenceC — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 07:43:31 +0000

Although I agree with the premise of your post I don’t see anything breaking towards the Republicans before 2014 at the earliest – there’s just no there there. The concept of conservative principles and smaller government can easily be filled by conservative incumbent’s (Blue Dog’s). The power wave is still breaking for incumbents, and the Democratic party can ride it with very little interference for another 3-4 years. Things can change fast in American politics – but counterbalance in the party system isn’t one of them.

By: Mike A.

Mike A. — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:21:53 +0000

MW
I hope you are right. I would celebrate the return of traditional conservatives.

By: mw

mw — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:59:24 +0000

MikeA, I have been equally critical of the big spending, big deficit, big government Single Party Republican Rule. That is not what I am advocating. I am advocating the only state that has definitively been shown historically to restrain the growth of federal spending. Divded Government. A Republican Senate is the only path there.

By: Mike A.

Mike A. — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:52:43 +0000

“Net net – The best chance to restore fiscal rationality in 2012 is for Republicans to take the Senate, and that will take two election cycles. ”

Yep. History shows that we’ve had a good dose of republican fiscal rationality in the past.

So which republicans will show up? Fiscal conservatives or social conservatives? To date it appears these two are mutually exclusive.