|
TheHeretic -> RE: POLITICO Puts More Than 99 Dem Seats In Danger (10/22/2010 9:58:23 PM)
|
So, coming back around to the election, then.
It's fun to play with the best/worst case scenarios, but we should keep in mind what is meat, and what is gravy. The House controls the purse, and I believe it is vital that the Obama administration loses their free access to that. They never even attempted a budget this year, and that sort of legislative dereliction of duty ought to matter a lot more than it seems to.
40 seats is the number of pick-ups the Republicans need to regain control. That is less than 10% of the seats in the room, and our President hasn't been above 50% in the approval polls since January (RCP average). He's been upside down in that same list since July. The unemployment numbers still suck, and housing is still shot to hell. I think control of the House is a done deal, but I'll be sure to vote first thing when I start my day on Nov. 2, all the same.
Where do we go above that? Given the President's rhetoric lately, I'm not sure how many seats it might take for him to re-evaluate his agenda and declare that the era of big government is over, again. 55-65? More? Is our "teachable moment" at 70? Of course, his rhetoric lately isn't hurting a climb towards those numbers. He's come closer to calling the electorate "stupid" than most politicians are willing to dare. 80? That's about as high as the number is talked about, even with more than three beers down (except for a slightly crazy old asshole I've known forever, who swears the Dems are heading for triple digit losses). Would that put his feet on the moderate path, with a better understanding of what he was elected to be, or just cause him to go from a bubble mentality, to a bunker one?
Turning the House has downsides as well. The Republicans are more likely to provide a stringless blank check for Afghanistan. It also gives the President an "enemy" to run against in 2012, and could make him harder to beat. A price we will have to pay, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
