Will the GOP take back the Senate and House? - NO they won't.

[JMS]

My understanding is it's nearly a mathmatical impossibility that the GOP will take back the Senate. Today this body stands 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans, and 2 independants... Meaning the GOP would need to pick up net 10 seats to achieve a 51 seat majority. 37 seats are up for re-election Nov 2010. 19 are held by Democrats (seven of whom are retiring or were defeated in the primary) and 18 are held by Republicans (eight of whom are retiring or were defeated in the primary).

So basically the Republicans task is to hold all 18 of their own seats including those 8 where they have no lincombant... In addition the GOP has to steal 10 out of 19 from the democrats.

Color me crazy, but that doesn't seem like a mathmatical imposiibility. It seems like it will be very tough even improbable, but not impossible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for the house... In the house all 435 voting seats are up for re-election. The Democrats currently have a 75 seat majority.... 17 Democrats Retiring, 20 Republicans Retiring... You figure the Dems will pick up a few of the 179 Republican seats. Let's say 5... That means the GOP will need to pick up 40+ net seats in order to retake the House.....

Again that's a huge margin... Not impossible but flirting with impossible. Figure in 2008 with Bush's approval ratings systemically around 30% approval; a very unpopular war in Iraq, and the nation perched on the economic abyse; the Democrats only picked up (257 - 233 seats) 24 seats......

Given this I'm thinking the GOP is going to gain seats, but it will be nearly impossible for them to pick up either congressional body much less both....

My careful analysis was done with a slide rule over cherios this mornings breakfast. I've spoken to a budy of mine who works on the hill as a staffer to a Republican Senator. He agrees with me on the Senate. Doesn't look like they have much of a shot in the senate. He still holds out hope however in the house. If the stars align according to some of their models they think they could have a shot in the house. I don't see it.

.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Real Clear Politics has some good numbers

Currently it projects the GOP at 214 seats, Dems at 178 seats and 43 tossups.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_map.html

It has in the Senate Dems getting 48 seats, the GOP at 44 seats and 8 tossups

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map.html

With no tossups it has the the Dems at 51, the GOP at 49

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html

I think the GOP will easily pick up the house, and if half those toss ups go the way of the GOP it will be a major land slide. Out of those 43 tossups, 41 are currently held by the Democrats and only 2 by the GOP

The Senate will probably end up with 50-52 Dems. I don't see the GOP getting an outright majority

[NavyDave]

I expect to see a lot of Chicago style politics, vote early and often. Then you have the Voting Dead who come out of their graves around Halloween to make a difference from beyond.

[JMS]

I think the GOP will easily pick up the house, and if half those toss ups go the way of the GOP it will be a major land slide.

The Senate will probably end up with 50-52 Dems. I don't see the GOP getting an outright majority

Wasn't 2008 when the Democrats picked up 24 house seats a land slide? If the GOP picks up 40+ seats, I agree with you, it will be not only a major land slide, it will be a re-ordering episode.

[SnyderShrugged]

ItDoesn't matter anyway. It would only be trading one set of big spending establishment jerks for another. Rearranging the deck chairs doesn't save a sinking ship.

[Duckus]

Yes on House.

No on the Senate.

They will pick up several Governorships.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Wasn't 2008 when the Democrats picked up 24 house seats a land slide? If the GOP picks up 40+ seats, I agree with you, it will be not only a major land slide, it will be a re-ordering episode.

Currently RCP is projecting AT LEAST a 36 seat pickup in the House for the GOP, that is with 43 toss ups out there.

As their model shows, 41 of those tossups are currently held by Dems. It is looking more and more that the house will see a 50+ seat gain for the GOP, unless something crazy breaks over the next 2 weeks.

The Senate could have been a net 10 gain for the GOP if O'donell and Angle did not get the nominations. It looks like it will be at least 5 with a high of 8

[greenspandan]

jms you are correct. the republicans will pick up about 50 seats in the house, and will be a couple short of a majority in the senate. predictions outside of that ballpark are not really based in reality.

[SkinsHokieFan]

ItDoesn't matter anyway. It would only be trading one set of big spending establishment jerks for another. Rearranging the deck chairs doesn't save a sinking ship.

Agree 100 percent. We will have business as usual.

At this point I am just observing for the political game. Its entertaining I suppose

[TheLongshot]

ItDoesn't matter anyway. It would only be trading one set of big spending establishment jerks for another. Rearranging the deck chairs doesn't save a sinking ship.

Well, at least the Dems try to govern. That is more than you can say for the GOP.

There isn't any real solution for "big spending" since any politition knows that it is political suicide to cut spending. That's why you don't hear much real substance from Tea Party candidates. They talk about less government, but they don't talk about what they would cut.

[thebluefood]

ItDoesn't matter anyway. It would only be trading one set of big spending establishment jerks for another. Rearranging the deck chairs doesn't save a sinking ship.

Pretty much.

This is an exercise in futility.

[NavyDave]

Well, at least the Dems try to govern.

If by trying to govern you mean throwing other peoples money at a problem or a "crisis" they created, then yeah they try and still fail.

[War Paint]

ItDoesn't matter anyway. It would only be trading one set of big spending establishment jerks for another. Rearranging the deck chairs doesn't save a sinking ship.

Well said. Both parties are bought and paid for by Wall Street. The Dems and Reps are two sides of the same coin.

[SnyderShrugged]

Well, at least the Dems try to govern. That is more than you can say for the GOP.

There isn't any real solution for "big spending" since any politition knows that it is political suicide to cut spending. That's why you don't hear much real substance from Tea Party candidates. They talk about less government, but they don't talk about what they would cut.

Yep, the tea o cons are just as detrimental as all other big spenders. There is no fundamental difference when facing the results

[JMS]

jms you are correct. the republicans will pick up about 50 seats in the house, and will be a couple short of a majority in the senate. predictions outside of that ballpark are not really based in reality.

I know less about the politics in each race than the folks you cite. So they are probable a better source. but speaking from a historical vantage

+10 seat swing in the senate is a huge number, near the highest turnover ever (13 seats)... Senators were elected by state legislatures until 1913, when the Constitution was amended to provide that all senators would be elected directly by the people. Since direct popular election began in 1914, the largest shift of Senate seats from one party to another took place as a result of the election of 1958 when the Democrats picked up 12 seats previously held by Republicans plus 2 from the newly admitted State of Alaska. Later in 1959, the Democrats gained two more seats with the admission of Hawaii.

The election of 1946 after WWII shifted 13 seats to the Republicans.

The most recent large turnover occurred in 1980 when the Republicans gained 12 seats. This gave them control of the Senate until the election of 1986, when they lost 8 seats.

+10 seats is a very tall order. It's a near historic number.

40+ seats for the house is historically more supportable. There has been a 100 seat swing 3 times.. The most recent just after WWII.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

Guess I can't put a table in here... Here is an interesting Historic Article about elections and midterm elections and turnover in the house.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/elections/a/midterm_myth.htm

The Myth of the Midterm Turnover..

It's time to put to bed the idea that mid-term elections where voters toss out the party in power is a common and expected event. It's not. All you have to do is check out this chart that shows the party in power since 1945.

Having the Congress and Presidency in the hands of the same party is not the norm. Only 12 times (24 years) in the past 60 years have Congress and the Presidency been controlled by the same party.

Having Congress split between two parties is not the norm. Only 10 years (five times) in the past 60 years have the House and Senate been controlled by different parties.

And mid-term elections have not usually led to a turnover, at least not in the past 60 years. There have been 30 elections in this period ... 15 of those would be "mid-term" and only six of them have seen a turnover.

What else isn't "normal"? Having both Houses of Congress turn over in one election. It's happened four times in the past 60 years -- in 1994 and 2006 ... and 60 years ago, in 1946 and 1948. Moreover, we went 26 years without a change in the party in power in Congress (1954-80). The House had no change from 1948-1994.

So to me this doesn't say that a turnover in both houses won't occur. What it says is historically speaking it's occured 4 times in 30 election cycles.

[nonniey]

If the Republicans hadn't blundered in Deleware they would have had a reasonable shot at getting the Senate as well as the house. I won't say the the house is a foregone conclusion, but the house is a foregone conclusion ;-) .

[Destino]

If by trying to govern you mean throwing other peoples money at a problem or a "crisis" they created, then yeah they try and still fail.

The failed ideology, suicide by self regulation, created the crisis... and what an amazing crisis it has been. A series of them actually. First the idiots that trusted for profit companies with a fiduciary responsibility to their stock holders and to their own wallets allowed companies and people to gamble with energy prices. Even let a company get away with faking shortages to raise prices and then gas prices went insane and lets face it NEVER CAME BACK. Then they did it with collateralized debt obligations and almost sunk the western world.

And here you guys are again, ready to spin the cylinder and take another turn on the business end of your bad idea. Oh joy.

[JMS]

If by trying to govern you mean throwing other peoples money at a problem or a "crisis" they created, then yeah they try and still fail.

Two problems with that statement... (1) The financial crisis was well established prior to the election in 2008. IT actually played a role in the election when McCain was slow to understand the gravity of the crisis; is when he began to spiral down in the poles... Clearly this wasn't a crisis Obama created... The furthest you could go down that road is it's a crisis which the Democrats didn't see coming, a crisis which root cause passed with bi-partisan support. (banking deregulation).

As for the "other peoples money crack"...Here is what I don't understand... We've accumulated about 12.9 Trillion of our 13.6 Trillion dollar national debt since 1976. Of that $12.9 Trillion $9.3 Trillion comes from our last 3 Republican Presidents.... Why would anybody who claims to be a fiscal conservative blame Democrats for out of control spending?

Democrats over 14 years are responsible for 28% of the debt compared with Republicans 72% over 20 years. Clearly the big spending tag is on the GOP, not the Dems. This is with Obama's 2010 numbers kind of throwing a monkey wrench into the works. Obama inherited a 1.5 Trillion dollar deficite from Bush along with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. If you took out Obama's numbers Democrat contribution to the national debt goes down by more than 100%.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

President---------(*)buget Yrs--- Debt accumulated-------------(**)% increase of Debt

Jimmy Carter------78- 81--------$ 0.3 Trillion-------------------------- +50% over 4 years

Reagan---------------82-89---------$ 1.6 Trillion-------------------------- +260% over 8 years

Bush Sr--------------90-93---------$ 1.5 Trillion-------------------------- +50% over 4 years

Clinton----------------94-01---------$ 0.9 Trillion------------------------- +20% over 8 years

Bush------------------02-09---------$ 6.2 Trillion------------------------- +106% over 8 years

Obama---------------10-? ----------$ 1.7 Trillion------------------------- + 14% over 1 year

(*) Presidents take office late Jan. Which is about 5 month into the fiscal year. Thus they inherit their first budget from their predisessor as well as pass the first budget for their sucessor.

(**) Note the national debt is always going up... so new spending as a % of accumulated debt gives a relative spending number based on historic trends of each President, Not proportional. In other words, it takes more and more spending to move the needle as the years go on..

[JMS]

The failed ideology, suicide by self deregulation, .

fixed that for ya..

[btfoom]

ItDoesn't matter anyway. It would only be trading one set of big spending establishment jerks for another. Rearranging the deck chairs doesn't save a sinking ship.

I don't completely agree with this. The US government works best when it works the way the founding fathers envisioned it - rule by both parties/all. The worst times in govt come when the President, Senate, and House are all run by one party, especially when that party has a sizeable majority. This goes for BOTH parties. I think the best possible outcome of the upcoming elections would be for the GOP to pick up enough seats to get a 10 or so seat majority and the Dems to hold onto the Senate by a 2 or 3 seat majority. This means that both parties need to work together to get something done OR very little gets done. In cases like these (Reagan in the early 80s and Clinton in the mid 90s), the country was running much better than during the early Bush (W) years or the first 2 Obama years.

By the way, JM, the GOP will win back the house. I know your 'math skillz' may be silly, but the polling numbers show a much different story.

[JMS]

I don't completely agree with this. The US government works best when it works the way the founding fathers envisioned it - rule by both parties/all. The worst times in govt come when the President, Senate, and House are all run by one party, especially when that party has a sizeable majority. This goes for BOTH parties. I think the best possible outcome of the upcoming elections would be for the GOP to pick up enough seats to get a 10 or so seat majority and the Dems to hold onto the Senate by a 2 or 3 seat majority. This means that both parties need to work together to get something done OR very little gets done. In cases like these (Reagan in the early 80s and Clinton in the mid 90s), the country was running much better than during the early Bush (W) years or the first 2 Obama years.

While I agree with your premise, History doesn't agree that that is the norm..

Since1945 the house and senate have been controlled by different parties for only 10 out of 65 years... Typically one party controls both chambers... . It's the Presidency which is not normally controled by the same party which controls the legislature only occuring for twenty years since 1945.

. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

I

By the way, JM, the GOP will win back the house. I know your 'math skillz' may be silly, but the polling numbers show a much different story.

You may be right. I don't see it. If it's happens it won't be my math "skillz" which will be at fault. It will be my analysis. It will mean that looking at the individual pole numbers for the races is a more precise indicator than historical data on election results. I think in precident setting elections the latter is true, I don't see this as a precident setting election I guess, no matter how hard the GOP wants to sell it as such.

Looking very broadly at the pole numbers it shows the Republicans with a significant advantage in likely voters.. and a slight disadvantage in registered voters. I think the challenge for the dems is to motivate their registered voters to the poles in the next two weeks. I think that will significantly change the pole numbers and make my historical analysis closer to reality than the numbers the political pundants are professing.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I like www.fivethirtyeight.com for these predictions. great statistical analysis.

[88Comrade2000]

Nothing is impossible.

That said I think the anger at the government will be express in giving the Republican a small majority in the house of say around 5 seats. I think that means they have to win 44 seats and I really believe there's enough energy out there to give them those 44 seats.

I think in the Senate though, almost all of those tea party candidates will fall flat. I think the Republicans only gain 3-4 Senate seats and the Dems still have a majority though smaller.

[brandymac27]

The US government works best when it works the way the founding fathers envisioned it - rule by both parties/all. The worst times in govt come when the President, Senate, and House are all run by one party, especially when that party has a sizeable majority. This goes for BOTH parties. I think the best possible outcome of the upcoming elections would be for the GOP to pick up enough seats to get a 10 or so seat majority and the Dems to hold onto the Senate by a 2 or 3 seat majority. This means that both parties need to work together to get something done OR very little gets done. In cases like these (Reagan in the early 80s and Clinton in the mid 90s), the country was running much better than during the early Bush (W) years or the first 2 Obama years.

I actually agree with you on this. I don't think it would be such a bad thing if the GOP takes the House and the Dem's hold onto the Senate. Really though, I don't see much changing no matter what happens. We're still screwed, and as someone mentioned earlier, we'll still pretty much be governed by wall street.

[88Comrade2000]

I actually agree with you on this. I don't think it would be such a bad thing if the GOP takes the House and the Dem's hold onto the Senate. Really though, I don't see much changing no matter what happens. We're still screwed, and as someone mentioned earlier, we'll still pretty much be governed by wall street.

That should be the scenario but I don't see either Obama or the Repubs agreeing on anything. The Tea Partiers control the Republican party this year and if they don't listen to their agenda they will go third party. So, all I expect the Republican House to do is pass stuff to please the tea partiers and Obama will veto it. They hope to use that to win the presidency back in 2012.

I see Obama and the Crats probably winning in 2012 in a three race with the Tea Partiers and what's left of the Republican party. Should the Tea Parties actually win in 2012; my gut says they take us to the right as far as Obama has taken us to the left.

I don't expect any of the countries problems to be solved as the result of the 2010 and maybe even 2012 election cycle. All 2010 will be is to stop Obama and set up the race or 2012.