Nice to see the money come in

I mean that. As for the results, I don't seeing it as a "Brutal" year like you been chiming for weeks David, your been talking like there's going to be a takeover and a Republican in the WH come 2012 and I don't see that all unlike you. I see a 30 seat loss in the House and a 5-6 loss in the Senate

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:40:38 AM UTC

30 seats in the House

And half a dozen in the Senate is not brutal? The GOP lost exactly those amounts in 2006... was that not a brutal year for them?

---

by: DavidNYC @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:43:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't see it as brutal

Losing both chambers is brutal. Losing 20-30 seats is expected.  

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:44:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think its expected

Looking at their candidate quality, and polling, and considering that the Republican wave appears to have crested and will continue to fall, I'd be surprised if Democrats lost more than a dozen sets, net. Republicans just don't have enough openings, especially considering how AR-01 and AL-02 seem to be supporting their local Democrats.  

---

by: jwaalk @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:52:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's true

But if they lose 30 seats I won't be suprised but at the same time I wouldn't label it as "Brutal" at the same time. But hey I won't be mad obviously if they lose less than that.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:55:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have a simple view

Generic Partisan Ballot is tied, Obama's approval rating is pretty much a 50/50 wash at this point, and Democrats have a large cash edge and continuing momentum as it seems soon they will put forth strong financial reform and a Supreme Court Justice without large-scale Republican support, and even immigration reform as well.

Second, I look at polling. People talk about huge gains, but just where? Huh? Where? The fact that Tom Pierrello was in a tie in VA-05 where Sen Hurt is being forced to waste his resources turning back a vicious teabagging challenger, and the fact that Bobby Bright was ahead by double digits, don't bode well for Republicans having a big sweep. Everyone seems eager to throw out 20-30 seats for Democrats to lose, but they don't seem to have a strong argument for why Democrats will lose many of these seats.

The fact that Alan Grayson and Suzanne Kosmas both have poorly funded second-tier candidates running against them does not bode well. The fact Republicans have no one to speak of running in AR-01 is not good news. They don't have the candidates to knock off so many incumbents, nor the money, and the national mood is not strong enough to suggest that, and as the enthusiasm gap closes and independents start to split more narrowly, they'll also lack the political atmosphere to make it happen.

Frankly the only likely losses I'm only looking at losing:
MD-01
TN-06
AR-02
ID-01
VA-02
LA-03
NY-29
OH-01

With toss ups in:
MI-01
TN-08
VA-05
NY-24 (hopefully Arcuri will retire, no excuses, he's just a lousy politician)
AL-02
TX-11
NV-03
OH-15
IN-09
KS-03
IL-11

And these highly competitive, lean Democrat races:
MO-04
NH-02
NH-01
FL-24
CO-04
SC-05
IN-08
OH-16
PA-10
PA-11
NY-23
FL-23
VA-11

Meanwhile Democrats are keyed to pick up DE-AL, LA-02, and IL-10, and have plenty of competitive opportunities too. I don't see Republicans taking more than one or two of the highly competitive lean democrat races, and splitting the toss ups really at this point.  

---

by: jwaalk @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:15:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's a very good assessment

Your right regarding the envitonment. Obama's numbers are a wash I could see trouble if he was in Bush territory like how he was when the Dems took over in '06, but he's far from that. That and the fact that since HCR has passed we have gained some more momentum (even more if we can retain HI-1 and PA-12) and most importantly the money has started coming in and we have a big cash advantage since HCR was passed (which means and shows alot) compared to the Republicans and the mood now isn't how it was like back in '94 and yes the Republicans have missed alot of opportunities like in AR-1 like you brought up and even though they got a GOP legislarure to run in MI-1 I don't see him winning because of the tilt of the district, the bench we have and the fact..the guy dosen't live in the UP or even the district since he lives in Traverse City, which is Dave Camp's district. I agree with you assessment on all of that but I still see 30 because of the mid-terms and that some Dems in office that are one term wonders like Kratovil, Minnick etc and so on. But still we won't be truely sure until November when the waiting it over and the election are over.

Plus you got guys like Greyson and Kosmas drawing 2nd tier challengers which helps us and the fact that Perriello is tied with Hurt despite that fact that everyone said he was DOA after he was sworn in really says something. So yeah you make a good case.

As the races you think are already in the GOP's hands, no argument here except in AR-2 where we got a good challenger in State House Speaker Robbie Willis and State Senator Joyce Eliott and i'm divided on OH-1 since the reason why Driehous got pushed in because of the heavy black turnout. The rest no question espically TN-6, ID-01 and LA-3.

As for the tossups, fair assessment although I take MI-1 out of it until the races develops more, KS-3 is a GOP takeover as far as i'm concerned. I have no idea why you have TX-11 as a tossup as it's represented by a GOPer in a R+28 district. Are you mistaking that with Chet Edwards district which is TX-17? I wouldn't put IN-9 as tossup yet as Baron Hill in the past has put away Sodrel, I put that in the leans Dem category. But the rest of the tossups are spot on.

As for the Lean Dem seats, got no problem, that's a pretty far assessment.

With the bottom, yes, were poised to pick-up DE-AL, IL-10 and LA-2 and if we play our cards right, PA-15 but all in all that's a pretty good assessment you have on this and got to agree with you on alot of the points you made. Well done sir.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:54:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's sorta like the derivatives market

The money is following the projected results.

I suspect the reason why we still have such an advantage in CoH is big money doners believe that Ds will still have control of both houses come Jan 3, 2011.

But that may change if Rs win both the HI-01 and PA-12 special elections. If the MSM responds as I suspect, the narrative would then become "echos of 1994" all the time, at least until unemployment falls below 9%.

---

by: tietack @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 13:56:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your right

Before HCR was passed money wise the Dems weren't getting much, probally a sign from people and donors that a takeover was inetale. Now with it passing, the Dems going after wall street etc. you see the donors and people opening up their wallets to the committees and incumbent because like you said they believe they can now retain both chsmbers now that this has passe. Very true.

That could change if the Republicans win the two special elections, but i'm not too worried about that and when we keeps those seats the momentum can stay with us.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 19:19:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some of the losses should be contributed to a "dead cat" bounce

Beginning with the 2006 election cycle and ending today, the Republicans have lost (net) 54 seats in the house and 14 seats in the Senate (or, in percentage terms, the GOP lost 23% of the house seats and 25% of their Senate seats).  That is very significant over a short period of time.  Dead cat bounces have occurred over time, most notably the 1966 and 1982 election cycle.

I think the term "brutal" should be looked in the proper context.  In April of last year, after Specter switch party affiliations, I honestly thought that the Dems had a realistic chance at picking up OH, MO, NH, FL, KY, and NC.  I didn't at all anticipate that DE, ND, NV, IN, IL, and AR would be even close.  I also thought that we would probably lose no more than 5-10 seats in the house.  Now, I believe we are staring at losing (net) 4-5 seats in the Senate, and around 25-30 seats in the House.  In a course of a year, changing my mindset this dramatically is "brutal".  However, I should have known that reality would set in (i.e. the Republicans would energize their base using the opposition method since the Dems controlled Congress and the White House).      

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 14:57:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think changing your mindseat this early is brutsl

Because i've known for about half a year we lose 25-30 seats in the House and 4-5 in the Senate. Nothingwrong with that. It's kinds of expected with the crazy ass tea party, unemployment the tradition of the mid terms etc, were coming off two wave elctions, we control everything now and the Dems won a few seats they has no business of winning etc. No I don't think your logic needs to be listed as "Brutal"

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 19:23:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very true

You made great points, and I do appreciate it.

Looking at the context of reality and history, if we lost 25-30 seats in the House and 4-5 seats in the Senate, I wouldn't define that as brutal.  From a historical point of view, we should be destined to lose at least 15 House seats, so another 10-15 seats lost isn't "brutal" from a historical point of view.

My issues comes with the Senate.  This time last year, I thought we would probably increase our strength in the Senate by 2-3 seats.  I knew that PA, IL, and CO would be tough fights, but I thought we would win them all.  Now, I'm not too sure.  I also didn't have NV, AR, DE, IN, and ND even on my radar.  We will definitely lose ND, probably lose AR and DE, and we are struggling big time in NV.  IN may look bad on paper, but I think a better candidate (Ellsworth) will beat a weaker GOP candidate even if the GOP has the momentum.

Back to my original argument, the term "brutal" has many different conotations.  Historically, losing 4-5 Senate seats and 25-30 house seats isn't brutal, but it can be conceived as "brutal" if you go from believing you will gain 2-3 Senate seats and a year later are viewing the prospects of losing 4-5 Senate seats.  

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 13:19:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you and you also made good points here as well.

Your rigght from a histrorial point of view losing 25-30 House is not brutal but expected.;

As for the Senate seats your talking about, I somewhat knew we had a tough fights on our hands. I had a feeling Reid was going to lose for the obvious reasons but AR were losing becaise Lincoln brought on self-inflicted wounds, IL is having somewhat of a problem with Alexi having a primary and facing problems with his familiys bank, ND is solely because we have literally no one there and Hoeven is uber-popular and DE is because we couldn't find a good candidate to face Castle because Beau Biden fucked around WAY WAY TOO LONG for us to find someone, luck we got Coons to take the plunge. I'm not worried about IN since we got Ellsworth and he's facing a guy that raised 30k in one quarter and carried a loaded gun on a plane and so on. As for PA, problem here is the primary between Specter and Sestak and Toomey is going into the center despite the fact that he's real real real far from that.

But in the end here's how I look at it, NV and ND are dead. AR is tossup is Halter can beat Lincoln if not, it's there's. DE is tossup is Coons can make it a race, we need to see more. But I see us retaining PA, CO, IL and IN.

You made this comment in the end

Back to my original argument, the term "brutal" has many different conotations.  Historically, losing 4-5 Senate seats and 25-30 house seats isn't brutal, but it can be conceived as "brutal" if you go from believing you will gain 2-3 Senate seats and a year later are viewing the prospects of losing 4-5 Senate seats

True, to the morons who control the MSM is looks brutal that you go from net winning two election cycles to losing 25-30 House seats the next. But Tarheeman you got to remember this is a mid term election where the party in power historically loses seats which is us we got that againist us, you got some Democrats that are destined to be one term wonders like Walt Minnick and the tea partiers and the GOP got some good candidates but not enough for a takeover, far from it. So besides all of that like you said and what i've been saying losing 25-30 seats in the House and 4-6 in the Senate is not brutal, historically it's expected.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 20:47:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Me and you are on the same page

I agree with your assessment that the mainstream media is making this year's election cycle look like its a disaster for the Democrats.  I couldn't agree with you any more.

I also contribute this to the superstar image that was given to Obama before he was even sworn in as President.  The expectations for Obama and the Democrats were not at all realistic.  As you and I know, change takes time, and change is usually painful for many of us to adapt with.  Obama's honeymoon with the White House was probably over about 10-11 months ago.  Before the honeymoon was over, many of us on SSP believed that the Democrats could buck the historical trend of losing seats in the mid-term election.  We really believed that the Republican brand would be toxic for many, many years.  I thought that the Dems would prosper much like they did with the first term of the FDR administration.  Instead, we have more of a Jimmy Carter era on our hands, where the Dems were tagged with a slumping economy, lots of uncertainty, etc.  

Is it brutal?  Historically, hell no.  What was "brutal" was that many of us had to change our 2010 assessment significantly.  

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 16:08:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

April of last year numbers

I think we'll come pretty close to that. I won't be surprised if we get 62 Senators.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

---

by: duffman @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 19:38:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Really, who think we'll net gain instead of net losing in the Senate

Why's that. We all know NV and AR and DE are out the window. Please eleborate. Not that I hope your wrong or anything I just liike you to elaborate more on that.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 19:46:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ND is the only one

that's "out the window."  

Reid has a shot in NV, particularly with the chicken gaffe.  I suspect he will face Tarkanian or Angle now, which gives him a much better chance.

Either Halter or Lincoln could win in AR, and especially Halter.  Longshot but not out the window.  There should be some Beebe coattails there.

DE is unlikely, but Coons could win it if things turn around.  Another longshot but certainly possible.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

---

by: spiderdem @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 19:54:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shit, compelely forgot about ND

Yeahs that's toast, just to be nice Melendez should send a couple grand to the Dem nominee just to say "They Helped" and completely move on.

Blanche is toast in AR and she has no one but herself for that, but if Halter can beat her it certainly can be a race.

DE-Sen can be a wild card, we need to evaluate that race down the road on how strong of a candidate Chris Coons truely can be and if Mike Castle can campaign his old ass throughtout DE and convince the voters he's still a moderate despite voting againist things that would make him a moderate like HCR and the stimulus.  

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 06:15:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ND is gone so we're starting from 58

In DE Castle will have to answer for his votes against the stimulus and health care. Coons will just need to get 50% in a state where Obama got 62%. Castle regularly gets reelected with 60% but this time he will have to answer for his being a lockstep Republican and it won't be pretty.
In AR if Halter can start the general campaign by getting good press for defeating a corrupt Senator in his own party then he should have a chance.
In NV voters will choose an inept majority leader over someone who wants to barter healthcare for chickens.
Meanwhile we should have a good chance at picking up NH, OH, MO, FL. I doubt we'll win KY, even against Rand Paul, but I would love to be pleasantly surprised. That makes 62. Then we can finally strip Lieberman of his committee assignments.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

---

by: duffman @ Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 02:04:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's the things with DE-Sen

Is Castle, since getting elected in 1992, Castle has made his mark as being a moderate in the House shit if you remember he was the Republican that sponsored that bill with Colorado Democrat Diana DeGette to have the government fund stem cell research, it was vetoed by Bush and it's now being funded thanks to Obama but Castle was the man, that was moderate. But in this Congress he's changed pace voting againist all the things that made him a moderate like the stimulus, cap and trade and HCR. If Coons can convince the good people of DE that Michael Castle isn't the moderate you've been electing for the past 18 years he could have a chance.

As for AR-Sen, read my above post andi'm not hopeful on NV-Sen as for the pickups, yes they are in range and I things we can pick them up. Agree with you on that.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 06:20:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely right that Congress did the right thing on health care......

I, for one, thought in the final days before Coakley's defeat that:  (1) the House without the Senate being able to pass a 60-vote bill should just vote for the Senate bill; and (2) the House would never do that.

Democrats went against all the fear that was so deeply internalized in 1994 in getting HCR done, and I applaud them forever, no matter what happens this November.  This is why I'm a Democrat, to get shit done, not to win elections solely as sport even if I do get wrapped up in the game as a sport sometimes.

And no matter what happens this November, it is guaranteed that we'll lose fewer House seats by having enacted HCR than had we walked away from it after Scott Brown won.  And I'm pretty confident the same goes for the Senate.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:58:01 AM UTC

I definetly can't disagree with that statement Cyclone

Well said.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 03:00:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think people forget

About doing the right thing sometimes. First Read today talked about the president going all in on banking reform, SCOTUS, even immigration. Mainly because there won't be as many Dems next year even in a best case scenario. At the end of the day even if the GOP won congress, they won't have the margins to turn any of these things back. And if and when the economy gets going it means Obama can get re-elected in 2012 and then we go again.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 03:08:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah I saw all that about what the President is doing

Mostly with Wall Street reform as i've been getting e-mails from Sherrod Brown and Jon Tester about it. I knew about Congress going after the Court on the Citizens United decsion as it was mention by David on here but knew nothing about immigration. I like it.

But do get back on elections you said this:

At the end of the day even if the GOP won congress, they won't have the margins to turn any of these things back. And if and when the economy gets going it means Obama can get re-elected in 2012 and then we go again.

Translate, do you mean in a worst case senario if the Chambers were taken back do you mean that the GOP wouldn't have the power to make things happen because of who's in the WH and the razor thin margin and if the economy improves by '12 and Obama can get re-elected that could lead to us taking back the Congress in '12? I think that's what your getting but, it's a honest question.  

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 03:16:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pretty much

They could do some damage but not so much as to get anywhere near overriding a presidential veto. If we can survive eight years of George W. Bush then two years of Boehner and McConnell would be a doddle.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 03:19:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I thought that's what you were getting at

Thanks for clearing that up Conspiracy. But yeah they could find some ways to pass things but nothing that much because most likely they will have a razor thin mrgin and would have nowhere near the votes to override vetos or pass things like to repeal HCR for example. But yeah good point in a worse case senario, if we can survive eight years of Dubya, two years of McConnell and the tan man would be a cakewalk.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 03:23:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't get me wrong though

Far from given up! :)

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 03:24:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What do you mean?

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 03:25:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Far from giving up

On holding both chambers in November.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 03:26:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh same here Conspiracy, same here...

I'm not giving up at all, actually after HCR has passed i'm quite pumped and ready to hit the pavement. I don't see us losing the chambers one bit.

Sorry if I have to make up clear things up for me. Sometimes I need alittle explaining to get what someone is talking about.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 03:30:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree, and I think we'll be in better shape than pundits realize......

We won't lose the Senate in 2010, period.  That we're breathing sighs of relief for Feingold and Gillibrand ensures that.

The only way we lose the House this fall is if the cake is already baked, in that a majority of voters have negative perceptions of the Democratic Congress too deeply imbedded to let go of them no matter what happens the rest of the way.  Sadly, I don't consider that to be impossible, even though unlikely.

But absent that kind of intransigence, I think we're going to see softening of voter attitudes toward Democrats the rest of the year.  Financial reform legislation will help, and other things might help although I haven't thought it through.  I have no doubt DADT repeal would help in that the Republicans would be divided while our side would be united, and that would help embed a more strongly negative view of Republicans for swing voters.  And getting a liberal Supreme Court Justice confirmed further helps keep the Democratic base interested in the midterms.

The real wildcard that I didn't expect is this notion that immigration reform might actually move forward.  I'm still very skeptical there will be serious action there, but I suppose it's possible the White House and leadership are reassessing that as perhaps a bigger political priority than they previously planned.  It would be a risky play, as it's a heavy lift that could alienate swing voters, or rally Hispanics and non-Hispanic liberals, or a little of both.  It really would depend on how Republicans choose to play it, which is a real quandary for them because they are tied to the hip to a business community that has very different immigration priorities than the conservative base, and also a few Senate Republicans genuinely want to be able to repair the party's image with Hispanics who they recognize they have to fare better with going forward, or else the California experience proves a microcosm of what they face nationally in the next couple decades.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:22:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed Complely

Right on the money with your statement Cyclone

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:29:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Long term, immigration reform is the right way to seal the Hispanic vote

If Ds are going to fulfill the Ruy Texiara vision of an Emerging Democratic Majority in the new demographics of the 2020s and on, Ds have to be seen as pushing for Hispanics when it is hard (but possible) -

Just as liberal Ds were seen as pushing for Civil Rights for African Americans when it was hard in the '60s.

Otherwise, the Rubios, the Diaz-Balerts, the natural cultural conservatism of many Hispanics, etc may prove to be an effective counter, negating D advantages.

---

by: tietack @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 14:07:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you assume the financial reform will be meaningful

I think it will mostly give the appearance of addressing a problem, as opposed to solving the problem. But maybe that won't matter politically if Democrats can convince voters that they did pass good financial reform.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 14:45:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Civil Rights reform took a long time too

Civil Rights reform took a long time to develop.  The first Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 weren't the strongest pieces of legislation, but the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 pushed some major reform.  

Just like Health Care and many other reform acts, it takes time for these acts to pick up political steam before you get meaningful legislation.  Immigration reform will most likely take "baby steps" with several acts until we get something meaningful.  By taking the initial baby steps, we will lay some seeds within the Latino community that will help the Dems in future elections.  At least, that's what I'm thinking.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 15:03:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I suggest that we've already taken steps w/r/t immigration reform

starting in '65, if I remember right, followed up by Simpson-Mazzoli in '82?

But yes, any immigration reform in '10 would be an essentially D-only effort.

---

by: tietack @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 15:11:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The act was passed in 1986

Immigration reform has occurred in some form or another since the US Constitution was passed.  The immigration issues today have changed dramatically in the last 25 years.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 15:19:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Desmoinesdem...

I think the fact that that they are finally ready to tackle Wall Street hard now can give the impression to voters that there going to pass meaningful reform. For months we've heard them say it but nothing was going on. Now reform is actually going to take place and that can really matter when convincing voters there passing good financial reform. This and them passing HCR can help alot since voters want financial reform.  

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 19:27:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More than that, a GOP Senate won't have 60 votes to turn back...

...anything Democrats did.  After all, we've had a united caucus on virtually every major piece of legislation, no matter how controversial, and Republicans are going to be stuck with Democrats in the high 40s no matter what happens in 2010 and 2012.  There are already at least 50 bona fide liberals in the Senate, and there will always be more than 40...and that means no cloture on repealing anything.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:12:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed Complely

Even with a GOP Senate, they won't have the votes to repeal the stuff we passed like HCR for example and evn with just 45 Dems that won't be enough to break clouture as long as you got the Russ Feingold's and Barbara Boxer's in the upper chamber like you softly put it.

I can't agree we got 50 bona fide liberals in the Senate, maybe 40-45 but we got enough. Good statement Cyclone, again.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:32:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

don't forget the netroots element

Nearing $50,000 raised for twenty pro-HCR, pro-choice, low-PVI incumbents.

---

by: Adam B. @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 14:19:35 PM UTC

That's important as well

The netroots are important espically in fundraising. When you do something they like, there wallets open like that as you mention thry have raised 50k for pro-HCR incumbents. You think they would do that if it wasn't passed? doubt it.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 19:31:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For comparison's sake, here's what the no-voters (who are running for re-election) raised in 1Q:

Bobby Bright (AL-02) - $176k
Mike Ross (AR-04) - $233k
Jim Marshall (GA-08) - $407k
John Barrow (GA-12) - $203k
Walt Minnick (ID-01) - $232k
Ben Chandler (KY-06) - $153k
Frank Kratovil (MD-01) - $247k
Collin Peterson (MN-07) - $118k
Ike Skelton (MO-04) - his report is still broken.
Travis Childers (MS-01) - $220k
Gene Taylor (MS-04) - $40k
Mike McIntyre (NC-07) - $84k
Larry Kissell (NC-08) - $72k
Heath Shuler (NC-11) - $119k
John Adler (NJ-03) - $362k
Harry Teague (NM-02) - $130k
Mike McMahon (NY-13) - $288k
Dan Boren (OK-02) - $491k
Jason Altmire (PA-04) - $280k
Tim Holden (PA-17) - $283k
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL) - $183k
Lincoln Davis (TN-04) - $195k
Jim Matheson (UT-02) - $261k
Glenn Nye (VA-02) - $363k
Rick Boucher (VA-09) - $317k

The four yes-to-no switchers:

Dan Lipinski (IL-03) - $73k
Stephen Lynch (MA-09) - $21k
Mike Arcuri (NY-24) - $208k
Zack Space (OH-18) - $301k

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 00:27:36 AM UTC