Redstate

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

it started 4Q 2007
will last into 3q 2009 at worst.
1981 recession lasted until 1983
1991 recession lasted until 1992 4q
2001 recession lasted until 2003 q4
by election season 2010 economy in recovery will help republicans take back at least the house.

not so for the senate, at least until 2012.

.....you're treating the election as a giant national event. Congressional races, however, are localized. Right now, most of the Senate seats we are most likely to lose are in states where Obama, win or lose the overall vote, may very well win (or at least do well) - NH, NM, CO, MN, ME, OR. Only Virginia is really a state that looks like it will go McCain by a significant margin while giving an equally large margin to the Democrat for Senate (that may be avoidable if the Virginia GOP abandons this idea that Jim Gilmore is a viable candidate, but I doubt they will, so....).

We are not fighting the fight in red states where we will get a natural bounce from a successful candidate. We can hope that pretty popular incumbents in ME and OR hold on and that we run close enough to keep MN. A close presidential race in CO, NM and NH probably means new Democrat Senators. Second, we'd need to hope for massive coattails that would provide an upset victory in SD. MT would require a miracle (or maybe Max Baucus dropping dead), as would IA, though a sizeable win by McCain could do odd things. So, really, even with a 52-47 win by McCain nationally, you're probably still looking at, at least, a +2 for Democrats (such a margin would certainly flip LA to us, and I'd guess we'd still lose NH, VA, NM), and probably a +4 (add in losses in NM and CO).

The House is much the same story. We are not really at risk in solid Republican territory. The seats that are most vulnerable are in places like OH (where we could, theoretically lose 3-4 seats), IL and NY. OH of course has its own odd political climate thanks to Bob Taft, but IL and NY will be losses for McCain even in a good performance for him. We are defending too many open seats and not in "slam-dunk" territory. What's more, even a small additional gain for the Democrats in the House this cycle could put that body out of reach for a while - if we do not flip back the marginal districts we lost in 2006 (like TX-22, FL-16, OH-18, PA-10, NH-1, KS-2) the Democrats in those seats will effectively become unbeatable in any year that doesn't generate a large Republican wave. The time to turn the tide is now, when they're facing their first reelection battle - otherwise, they gain more and more advantages, especially in campaign cash and the perks, pork and benefits that come with office. Plus, the folks back home get used to voting for the guy, and you have to break that bond.

The skill with which districts have been gerrymandered have turned most seats into safe seats one way or the other. To the extent there are competitive districts, a "big" McCain win only works to our benefit if McCain is also over-performing at the state and district level. A 5-point win nationally won't work to help us hold OH-15 or OH-16 if McCain's only squeaking by in Ohio. It means nothing to holding NY-26 if he's losing the state by 7. If we're going to avoid sizeable losses, we need real targets in "red states" where we can expect McCain to do exceedingly well and generate coattails regardless of the national outcome (for ex. AL-5, which is a toss-up and where a big Republican win could help, or those marginal Georgia districts).

I don't expect "big" gains by Democrats in the House - another 30 seats performance is unlikely. But it doesn't take 30 seats to put us in a bad hole. Even another 10 seats would put us well under 200 seats and would make it harder to hold together the 146 votes needed to sustain a McCain veto and would mean we'd be back to where we were before 1994 (we had 176 seats going into the '94 elections). That's not a position from which you recover in one cycle.

Are actually all over the map. Just since 1988, there are many elections where the winning presidential party actually lost House seats (1988 R -8, 1992 D -9), some where the change was small (1976 D+1, 1996 D +2, 2004 R +3).

Significant House gains usually require something better than "comfortable win" status - they require blowouts. Reagan picked up 34 Republicans in 1980, and 16 in 1984 (note 1984 was a bigger blowout than 1980). Nixon added just 12 in 1972. Johnson picked up 36 Democrats in 1964.

One of the biggest changes in a presidential year actually saw Democrats lose 20 seats in 1960.

In fact the three biggest seat shifts in the last 50 years were all in off-year elections (Democrats picked up 49 in 1958, Republicans went up 47 in 1966, and up 54 in 1994).

So while you're right that it is unlikely that a party winning at the presidential level will lose significantly in the House, it has happened (1960), and even in winning years there have been some losses. A 10 seat loss wouldn't be unheard of for the recent past (see 1988 and 1992).

I don't mean a Reagan over Mondale landslide, but McCain will beat Obama and we won't be up too late to find that out. But, that will not cure the voters anger over the GOP over Iraq, gas prices, the economy, etc.. Therefore, I think many voters, so-called "Reagan Democrats" will vote for McCain, but take their frustration out on the GOP in Senate and House races. We can forget picking up any Democratic seats other than MAYBE Landrieu's in the senate and Cramer's in the House, but we will lose some purple districts and open Senate seats that we really shouldn't, but will.

And, quite frankly, where we need to turn our focus.
Regardless of the dem primary outcome, this election is not lost for us, nor is it an easy slam dunk. All three settings, the HOR, Senate, and WH should be of equal emphasis and importance.

Our economy is facing some serious struggles right now. And it is in large part due to the actions/inactions of our congressional representation. Pelosi, Reid and company have screwed this up royally in many facets, not the least of which is psychology. It is time for the GOP to stand up and be heard. Conservative fiscal principles are what we need and the president can not do it alone. He must have a willing congress. It is up to us to help get the message out and support those representatives that are ready to roll up their sleeves and get to work on growing and strengthening our economy again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

The biggest problem facing the GOP in November is the number of retirements. There are just so many in the House. Throw in the fact that there are much more Republican Senate seats up for re-election, and it's starting at a major disadvantage.

I think there will still be some aftershocks from 2006. My estimate is losing 15-20 seats in the House and 4-5 in the Senate. But it's a long election season and a lot can change quickly.

(*Note: This post should be tied to Roundtable #7 for full range of comments, http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/redstate_roundtable_7_wha... )

Thus, here's my own question embedded (*Someone please explain to get the "quote" function to work on RS -- Thanks!)

I'd like to know what everyone's opinion is as to the probability of McCain's coattails against Clinton or Obama. Consider the repeated polls of the 20% or so Clinton/Obama supporters who claim they will either not vote or vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't win the Dem nomination. What effect will this have down the ticket?

Further consider how many conservatives, like we RedStateRs who are committed to seeing greater down-ticket wins. I'm one who will wince more at voting for McCain, but most likely will -as- I vote for MI's Tim Walberg and others.

To the Roundtable's question: "What should be the most important races of those, the ones in which money and attention from bloggers and activists will have the greatest potential to have impact?"

RedState's endorsements go a good way (Sen./AK-Parnell, Rep./GA-Broun, Rep./LA-Jenkins, Rep./PA-Hackett, etcetera etcetera).
- Alaska. As for Sen. Stevens, without a primary challenger, support should go his way to fend of Begich to keep this seat in the Rs hands.

- Louisiana. Senate challenger to Landrieu John Kennedy www.johnkennedy.com . Yes he's a "reformed" Democrat and once state treasurer, however a gain here is an offset elsewhere.

- Georgia. There are TWO good gains for the Republican & conservative cause here. Doctor Deborah Honeycutt (www.honeycuttmeansbusiness.com/) challenging for GA's 13th and the winner of GA's primary in the 12th between former Augusta Mayor John Stone (www.johnstoneforcongress.com) and Ray McKinney (ray08.com). On the 13th, it would be a coup to have another black republican in congress, especially since there are none at present. On the 12th, it's better than a safe bet Stone pulls this one out and would be safe bet to take down Congressman John Barrow, who is nothing but an in-state carpetbagger, hailing from Athens (outside of his district).

- Any and all of the right-side Iraq Veterans for Congress, http://www.iraqvetsforcongress.com

Let's get 'er done!

(more later*)

~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15."
--Ronald Reagan

~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15."
--Ronald Reagan