Pollster.com

It was probably the worst week for Democrats since Obama came in. So, not surprised Republicans doubled their margin.

Not what I was hoping for coming back from the holiday weekend. It's Rass's world - we're just living in it.

Maybe negative advertising would help, but the approval ratings for both parties are already so low it's unliley to make a difference.

I think it would make a difference. Attacking the Republicans as extremists could very well motivate lackadasical Dem voters to turn out.

Flap, Melvin, Bob, Tjampel, etc.,

Stop whining and don't look a gift horse in the mouth! You all knew the dems were going to lose seats this cycle from the day Obama was sworn in (the historical norms of off year elections dictate this to be true). I ask you to really think this through and see the forest through the trees. Would you rather have the dems lose 30-35 seats, maintain marginal control of the house and still deal with the lunatics on the right yell about how the dems can't get anything done, Obama is a socialist, he is not a citizen, blah, blah, blah? Or would you rather have the dems lose 45-50 seats give Johnny Bonehead and his nutjob henchmen marginal control and watch Obama pound him day after day from the bully pulpit? As you know it's a different story once the american people expect you to actually govern and Johnny Bonehead and his henchmen have zero new ideas. If you recall a guy named Bill Clinton turned the gop house into a laughing stock when Newt Gingrich took over (and they had new ideas!)and Obama is gearing up to go down the same road. I cannot wait to see this play out! We are going to lose the battle (2010), but we will win the war!

By the way Paleo same goes for you. LOL!

I answered you in one of the other threads. Totally disagree.

I disagree also. Control is always better than not having control. But I'm not too worried about reps taking the house since Obama's done most of what he was going to do anyway.

Just look at what republicans have gone through since they lost control - dems passed health care, the bugaboo republicans have been fearing for 60 years.

Although it will be good political theater to see the republicans have their internal struggles for a change rather than the democrats. Then it will be our turn to complain incessantly but have no plan.

@lat

Win the war?

How exactly will this happen?

Think about it. If the economy improves after the GOP takes control of the house, people will praise the GOP.

If the economy doesn't recover, people will still blame it on Obama.

This is a lose / lose situation for democrats for the next few years.

Dems had from 2006-2010 to make the economy better, and all they've done is brought us into a recession, which they now can't seem to find the way out of.

and I know you can blame it on Bush, but really, how is it Bush's fault when Dems controlled both houses? The economy did well when Republicans were in control of congress.

"how is it Bush's fault when Dems controlled both houses?"

The smarter answer is that it's none of their faults, or all of them. The reality is that with respect to jobs, the economy is responding to forces far beyond the control of congress or the president. If you ask me, these forces have been at work for 30-40 years and no party responds to them adequately.

Ie: manufacturing. We've had good manufacturing production reports come out lately, yet manufacturing has lost 2 million jobs over the last 10 years. It's a good time to be robot. Or one of the people who design/service the robots. Unfortunately it's not easy to turn a line worker into a mechanical engineer.

4 million job losses have been in real estate, construction and financial services. Financial sector may come back with time, but real estate is looking like it may never come back the way it was, particularly in the early/mid 2000s. Think about all the ancilliary jobs construction powered.

Unless a new bubble comes along (I'm thinking it will be health care), the economy will stagnate for 10 years or more and each party will blame the other incessantly.

"If the economy improves after the GOP takes control of the house, people will praise the GOP."

Meh... they may also praise Obama. Neither deserves the credit/blame. Obama is not responsible for global macro-economic conditions.

"The reality is that with respect to jobs, the economy is responding to forces far beyond the control of congress or the president."

Probably true to a large extent, but still.. excessive meddling does interfere with business behavior.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090305391_pf.html

That new 1099 requirement alone will drive any small business completely nuts. And for what?!

"Dems had from 2006-2010 to make the economy better, and all they've done is brought us into a recession, which they now can't seem to find the way out of."

Two of those years, a Republican was president. And should the economy recover, the president will get the credit even if congress changes hands. It's always been that way.

@Aaron,

I agree with most of what you said

@Paleo
Presidents sign laws / endorse laws. They don't write them. That's the job of congress. Also, dems were in charge of all the committees at the time. Really, Bush was a lame duck president after 2006. His approval was so low, that he couldn't get anything done........all because of Iraq, Patriot Act, and No Child Left Behind, as well as losing support from the base because of the temporary worker program he supported, which was sponsored by Ted Kennedy and John McCain, and then Bush lost even more base support with the signing of the TARP bill.

Here's the problem. Obama and democrats keep saying they are cleaning up from 8 years of Bush and need time to do so. I don't quite understand that rhetoric, when they've followed the exact plan Bush had in Iraq, and have just added more and more bailouts to try to stimulate the economy. So, what exactly is Obama different to clean up from these 8 years of Bush?

I'm sick of this stupid argument that since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, they had control overthe economy. I've asked this before from the moronic right and of course recived no answer because they don't have one.
Which policies of George Bush did ths Democratic Congress pass in 2007-2008 over the President's veto that changed economic conditions?
Of course, many Republicans would also have had to vote to override a President's veto.

Exactly, Alan.

As for different, the stimulus was a big difference (it was not a bailout). It helped stem the 600,000 to 700,000 per month job losses that were taking place when Obama came in. The problem was that it was not big enough, not directed to enough public works program to make a real dent in the unemployment rate.

Flip the question Alan - which bills passed by the Dem Congress starting in 2007 did George Bush veto? George Bush was a soft conservative on economic issues. Bush vetoed only 11 bills after Democrats took Congress in 2007, and not one of those was really economy related. They were things like stem cell research and SCHIP.

The fact is, meaningful economic initiatives never even made it to the floor once Pelosi took over as House Speaker. TARP, of course, Bush signed. Calls to head off the real estate bubble with serious adjustments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were spurned by the Democrats in charge.

That said, the economy has a chance to recover in 2011 or 2012, and if it does, President Obama will get credit and probably have an easier walk to re-election. The fact is, the mere election of a Republican House (and Senate?) will do wonders for confidence i the business community. Things may get better even if the new Congress is gridlocked. I suspect, however, that the new Congress will figure out a way to avoid massive tax rate increases scheduled to take effect in 2011 - and that will help a lot. But the credit will go to the President because that is how most people think.

Obama will lose in 2012 only if the economy doesn;t improve, or he sticks his foot in it (things get really bad in Afghanistan, or he vetoes Republican initiatives to modify the impact of HCR). I think he is too smart to do that. He will welcome the Congress' modifications to HCR (probably claim them as his own ideas) and herald the new "post partisanship" that he claimed he would be bringingto D.C.

"Flip the question Alan - which bills passed by the Dem Congress starting in 2007 did George Bush veto?"

Perhaps a little thing called the filibuster was a factor?

"George Bush was a soft conservative on economic issues."

But he won. And his "compassionate" conservatism talk was an effective message in 2000. A doctrinaire conservative would have lost that election to Gore.

George H.W. was also not a reliable conservative, according to conservatives.

So by my count the only reliable conservative president republicans have gotten elected since Coolidge was Reagan. And even he was questionable.

Perhaps in a case here or there, but probably not overall.

There were 139 cloture motions in the 110th Congress. A lot of them were on Iraq war stuff (bills to prevent the surge were filibustered) and other social issues. And many filibustered bills were subsequently passed after negotiations between the parties. The minimum wage was increased, for example - (boy that certainly helped the economy). Bush signed Democrat's bill to significantly increase the minimum wage bill in 2007. Republicans had said this would hurt the employment picture, but lost the filibuster after negotiations and the White House agreed it would sign the bill if passed.

Even Reagan was not entirely reliable as a conservative. Liberals sometimes forget thatthe same disappointment they feel when Obama fails to insist on a public option in the HCR bill, conservatives feel when a George Bush implements Medicare Part D.

This also explains why the public has historically low opinions of both parties.

The latest polls are truly astonishing. The only thing that could save DEMS is to rally their base. The likely voter models all have the GOP turning out in force and DEMS staying home whereas the registered voter models are all about even.

Obama has to campaign like he did yesterday at the Labor Day rally....that seems to really have rallied DEMS there in person and online. He really has to stop worrying about appeasing the GOP and slam them for leaving him a mess and for obstructing his cleaning it up. And his focus has to be exclusively on jobs and the economy...that is what voters are focused on.

If he and the DEM party can pull this off they can save the Senate and not lose the House by too much...there will still be Speaker Boehner unfortunately.

I don't think there is much President Obama can do at this point to changethe results this November. What we are seeing was ordained as far back as summer 2009, with the angry townhall meetings. Due to the economy, people have made up their minds far in advance of this election. It is not a turn to the Republicans as much as a desire to see divided government. The Democrats' victories in 2006 and 2008 were the public spanking the Republicans for not doing what they said they would wrt the economy (and also for the wars). Now, there is a hope that the Republicans have learned their lesson, and will govern more responsibly. Frankly, this bodes well for Obama's reelection in 2012.

I think BO's fiery rhetoric like yesterday, may in fact help energize the base to some extent. But at the cost of his own favorability. As some pundits point out, taking cheap shots at Boehner and the rest of the party out of power makes him look super divisive and non-presidential overall. Of course BO's own numbers are not the priority right now, but we'll see how much he is willing to sacrifice for the good of the greater cause. And besides, losing one or both chambers helps his reelection chances.

As far as Dem base not being enthused, I think and hope there is more than mere lethargy in play. I would hope a good segment of the base, at least on the margins, simply has doubts that their way is the right way. Polling shows that to be the case on issues like debt and healthcare. Maybe not enough doubt to switch their vote, but enough to be cautious about inflicting further damage.

Nate Silver's article in today's NYT details how the republicans have a more honed agenda going into the midterms than the democrats do.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/democrats-arent-running-from-health-care-but-what-are-they-running-on/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Many excellent comments all around.

A point: the number of jobs saved and increments to GDP are both computed based on a fixed equation that assumes a high "multiplier." Romer's pre-Obama studies showed that the multiplier for gov spending is not that high and is much lower than tax cuts.

I agree that the president generally gets way too much credit or censure for the economy. Reagan (like Thatcher) is an exception because he described his plan clearly, fought to pass it, and saw it become immensely successful.

Clinton simply took credit for what Reagan and the rep congress had done (he had vetoed the welfare reform at least twice before signing the same bill and claiming it as his great victory).

In most cases, an activist president can all too easily make things worse by ham-handed meddling. For examples, I list Nixon, Ford, and now Obama.

Finally, I think we may see a reverse on the Clinton vetoes of the rep budgets. If I were the reps, I would effectively defund major parts of the HC bill and other initiatives in the name of cost-cutting. Who needs 200 new commissions for HC? Why greatly ramp up funding for the IRS (it is critical to Obamacare), I say cut the requests and direct the money to helping taxpayers! Why are there such a huge number of WH aides and czars now? Cut them down to Clinton levels! Etc., etc.

I might even make them stand alone bills. When Obama vetoes them, call him a big-spender who is turning the IRS into a monster and rewarding his radical friends by appointing them to these boards. Unabashedly call the Effectiveness Review Board the "old folks abandonment board," which is what it will be.

I would then put the same provisions as amendments to what should be popular bills (e.g., tax cuts) and dare Obama to veto them.

Instead of the rep congress getting burned, it will be an obstructionist president who is burned. If the economy is bad, blame it on the lack of tax cuts. The public rightfully believes that tax cuts are much more effective than gov spending in stimulating the economy.

My point is, a clever rep leader could slice Obama coming and going. Newt's problem was that he was full of himself, more more imaginative than clever and much less politically adroit than Clinton+MSM. Frankly, Obama seems to be shaping up to be the most politically inept president since Carter.

"Republicans for not doing what they said they would wrt the economy (and also for the wars)."

As far as I can tell, they don't have a significantly different message on either of those issues compared to when Hastert was speaker.

John McCain was ahead in the polls this week two years ago.

Dems came back from August one year ago this week with their lowest numbers for healthcare and still got it done.

The election starts now. Republicans are fools if they believe that the polls, especially Rassie, are gonna be this far in their favor come Election Day.