Looking ahead to November midterms, any March predictions or polling you hear regarding this year's election cycle (not to be confused with menstrual) are nothing more than low-grade cigar smoke. President Obama, it should be admitted, can at least take his eyes off the teleprompter for a half hour to grasp that point. After all, he did win the Presidency. I was compelled with Bush Jr's haters repeatedly pointing out that fact regarding their personal "Satan." So, knowing reality, namely that November elections are not decided in March, what Obama is focused on right now is these numbers: 28 and 4. According to our reliable friends at Wikipedia org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election), since the New Deal the President's party has lost on average 28 House seats and 4 Senate seats. So, the Dems are likely to lose seats this year even without the President's record, which has taken a hit in many quarters.
The relevant question, then becomes what are the expected midterm losses that would measure the difference between Obama’ losing respectably vs. getting his Presidential Rolex cleaned? What is a fair number? How is MGM Grand's over/under betting line reading? Maybe we should start with the two consequential post-New Deal Presidents - LBJ and Reagan. LBJ's lone midterm is instructive, as his "Great Society" was on trial during the '66 midterm, not unlike the behemoth social bills Obama and friends are currently plugging. LBJ's Democrats lost 48 House seats and 6 Senate seats that year. And Reagan? While Obama is several light years from getting his own airport and highway named after him (and getting his mug put on currency for that matter), Reagan's surprisingly respectable showing in 1982, when his party only lost 26 House and broke even in the Senate, paved the way for his '84 bloodbath reelection over poor Walt Mondale. Clearly, Obama's audacious actions have a comfortable 2012 reelection in mind. He can hope, right?
This is the only pertinent issue worth discussing now because D-Day is November 3 for all political junkies. For that is the day we all align to reconfigure the 2012 viability of the Palin-"Tea-Party" cabal, the Romney-Ryan-"Establishment"-Republican Party, and yes, President Obama himself.
So with that, let's go straight scientific and open the over/under betting at 37 House seats will shift and 3 Senate seats, smack dab in the middle between the two partisan heroes of the last half century. Call it the median to use based on the average losses under LBJ & Ronald Reagan. As a betting man, I would say the under for the House and over on the Senate are looking tasty at this point. Place your bets.
The relevant question, then becomes what are the expected midterm losses that would measure the difference between Obama’ losing respectably vs. getting his Presidential Rolex cleaned? What is a fair number? How is MGM Grand's over/under betting line reading? Maybe we should start with the two consequential post-New Deal Presidents - LBJ and Reagan. LBJ's lone midterm is instructive, as his "Great Society" was on trial during the '66 midterm, not unlike the behemoth social bills Obama and friends are currently plugging. LBJ's Democrats lost 48 House seats and 6 Senate seats that year. And Reagan? While Obama is several light years from getting his own airport and highway named after him (and getting his mug put on currency for that matter), Reagan's surprisingly respectable showing in 1982, when his party only lost 26 House and broke even in the Senate, paved the way for his '84 bloodbath reelection over poor Walt Mondale. Clearly, Obama's audacious actions have a comfortable 2012 reelection in mind. He can hope, right?
This is the only pertinent issue worth discussing now because D-Day is November 3 for all political junkies. For that is the day we all align to reconfigure the 2012 viability of the Palin-"Tea-Party" cabal, the Romney-Ryan-"Establishment"-Republican Party, and yes, President Obama himself.
So with that, let's go straight scientific and open the over/under betting at 37 House seats will shift and 3 Senate seats, smack dab in the middle between the two partisan heroes of the last half century. Call it the median to use based on the average losses under LBJ & Ronald Reagan. As a betting man, I would say the under for the House and over on the Senate are looking tasty at this point. Place your bets.
.
- contributed by RDS
11 comments:
After the Obamacare vote, I think we can guess well over 3 Senate seats will be gained by the GOP, and a majority in the House is a near certainty, barring an asteroid hitting the U.S. before the votes are counted.
these predictions are whack. 3 senate seats?
GOP will pick up at least 8:
AR
DE
ND
CO
PA
IL
IN
NV
Don't forget CA is in play.
Wild Cards:
WI
WA
NY
first we need Rossi and Thompson to run, and a halfway decent candidate in NY. Come on Pataki
Still waiting for top-tier GOP candidates in the last 3 states to get off their candy-asses & get in the races. Can you hear me Tommy Thompson, Dino Rossi, & G Pataki?
even in the "safe" dem seats, i think we have a chance. let's try to recruit lingle (HI) or douglas (VT)
Condi Rice just endorsed Carly Fiorina today.
Vermont is a fools errand. Those people up there have drunk too much maple syrup to vote GOP anymore.
"Condi Rice just endorsed Carly Fiorina today."
When was this? Did it play big in the Cali media today?
vermont's a small enough state where i believe its about the campaign. if douglas, a popular 4 term Republican governor, runs for senate, he will win.
Can't really get into all this politics talk. Always the same b.s. with the exception of Palin, whom might I say, is looking mighty plantable these days. Here's a prediction outta left field: Palin will announce her running for president in her exclusive issue in Playboy...which will probably be released before the end of 2011. USA!!!
So by quick perusal, I see Anonymous likes the over in the Senate over/under, and Freedom Fighter likes Sarah Palin.
Whack over/under, huh? You assume quite a bit, like all Republican incumbents to hold on to their seats. Alrighty.
And Freedom Fighter, please keep the discourse respectful to Palin, who you very well might be calling President in less than two years. Yes she's unbelievably and incredibly attractive - physically, spiritually, intellectually and emotionally. We get it.
Lastly, no more 'Anonymous,' please. It's not necessary. We're all adults here....I think.
Peace out.
Post a Comment