Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Baird Retires in Washington State

Washington Rep. Brian Baird (D) will not seek re-election in 2010, becoming the tenth Democrat -- and the third within the past few weeks -- to announce that he will leave his seat.

"The time has now come to pursue other options, other ways of serving," Baird said in a statement released tonight. "This is not an easy decision to be sure, but I believe it is the right decision at the right time."

Baird joins Tennessee Rep. John Tanner and Kansas Rep. Dennis Moore as tenured Democratic members who have decided to take a pass on another re-election race in 2010.

Baird, first elected to the 3rd district in 1998, had solidified his hold on this southwestern Washington seat over the past decade. He had been re-elected with more than 60 percent of the vote regularly despite the fact that then President George W. Bush carried the seat in 2000 and 2004. President Barack Obama won the district 53 percent to 45 percent last November.

Given the demographics, Republicans are likely to target Baird's seat in 2010. More broadly, Baird's retirement will increase chatter within Democratic circles that potentially vulnerable members are jumping ship rather than running the risk of losing their seats in what is shaping up to be a tough 2010 election.

Top Democratic strategists have insisted that the retirements of Tanner and Moore were entirely isolated cases but they may struggle to make that case with Baird's retirement added to the mix.

In a new column Fix former boss Charlie Cook argues that if Democratic retirements go over 15 -- in competitive districts -- the party faces a real chance of losing their majority in the 2010 election follows historical trends.

The number now stands at 10 6.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 9, 2009; 5:48 PM ET
Categories:  House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: DeMint to endorse Michael Williams in Texas
Next: Morning Fix: An uncertainty about Afghanistan

Comments

I have the advantage of living in Southwest
Washington State. I have known Brian Baird when he still was a professor at Pacific
Lutheran University and wore a full beard.
He lost his first try for Congress which was decided by absentee voters. Baird learned from his mistakes and won the next time around. Over the last year or so Congressman Baird has taken several positions which have alienated his base.
His retirement has less to do with the
reasoning given in the article than his
troubles with the home folks in the grass
roots.

Posted by: alanmcorwin | December 10, 2009 9:42 PM | Report abuse

I have tried the Ignore them approach, and have come to believe that it doesn't work. Since the IT group hasn't found a way to permit us to locally block offending posters, could they at least put check boxes for approval, and for approbation, with votes as recorded flagged by origin, (so that when the truly offending posters begin voting against other posters the nature of the source is obvious). Then when given posters negatives get too high, look at the source of the negatives, (is it the trolls who object, or the bsimons, Mark in Austins, and shrinks who are annoyed, and compare to the positives.

==

The problem with this idea is clear in its definition: you're asking the moderators to be circumspect about negative judgments by the trolls, which means that they already know who the problems are, so why go through all this process when we already know who causes the trouble?

We have a couple of drive-by trolls (armpeg, reason5, leapin), a few posters who overreact to provocation (me, others I won't name because I like their posts), and then we have the two (JakeD/37thand0/etc, zouk/snowbama/etc) who do nothing but fling poo.

When those two are absent, things are much better here, all day, Qualitatively more civil, more thought going into posts. As soon as they show up, it falls apart.

We don't need a rocket-science solution.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

"Consider this a plea for a change in tone. Chris Posted by: Chris_Cillizza "

Probably time to make one statement and then consider the alternatives.

For me to participate intelligently in a discussion on a blog like this I need to read the initial post and the comments stack. Where the initial post is either outside my particular interest, or so badly written as to be unreadable, I pass by. Mostly CC is well written, whether well thought out or not, and mostly in my sphere of interest, but his comments stack too often becomes totally unreadable. When the bicker sisters start their senile yammering, the stack becomes more than I care to deal with.

It makes me feel like a rag picker on the Cairo Dump, and I have begun to feel that there has to be a better place to look for interesting discussion. Now, provided I feel at all like commenting on this, (or any other) blog, I first scan for the names that make the blog unreadable, and should I see more than one or two posts by any combination of them, including multiple posts by any one, I intend to keep looking for some where else.

I don't envy Chris his job of trying to keep up on political trends for discussion, it has to be particularly time consuming, but in compensation he or his first reader need to be more attuned to the tenor of the blog, and much quicker to pull the trigger on Jake D and his chorus.

While the primary gang that most aggravate me happen to be Republican in cant, there are democrat and liberal posters who can be as obnoxious.

I have tried the Ignore them approach, and have come to believe that it doesn't work. Since the IT group hasn't found a way to permit us to locally block offending posters, could they at least put check boxes for approval, and for approbation, with votes as recorded flagged by origin, (so that when the truly offending posters begin voting against other posters the nature of the source is obvious). Then when given posters negatives get too high, look at the source of the negatives, (is it the trolls who object, or the bsimons, Mark in Austins, and shrinks who are annoyed, and compare to the positives.

As for me, I am willing to decide, on one or two negative ratings, that I should go elsewhere for a while.

I enjoy debating with points of view that don't particularly track mine, which is why I rarely read or post to the Huffington Post. But here too much of the other side is too often particularly hard to even taste, let alone swallow and digest.

Perhaps if we all take to abandoning columns being hogged by trolls to the trolls, the moderators will develop less tolerance of flatly unacceptable behavior, and pull the plug more readily on thread jackers, thread meaconers, (an interesting word, look it up. Try under MIJI for full effect) and outright jammers and intruders. Not just here, but across all the free commentator landscape.

Posted by: ceflynline | December 10, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion, Rep. Baird is not running because he received definitive requests by numerous people interested in the health care reform NOT to run.

Posted by: julieforBarack | December 10, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"Disagree that it's a technical infeasibility"

There's what's technically feasible, and then there's what you can talk your IT department into doing. In many organizations, those are two entirely unrelated things.

==

I understand this well, I'm a senior software engineer and making those kind of decisions is more central to my responsibilities than writing code. I make design changes I regard as compromises for no other reason than to avoid the high cost of coordinating work with other teams.

In the discussion boards on WaPo a banned poster will see his own posts but nobody else will, so the infrastructure for an Ignore Poster is already there. Adding it in the blogs would be easy, extending to to a per-poster opt-out wouldn't be a lot of work.

No matter, it's not going to happen, not when the newspaper is laying off its moderators and even its best writers (I came here for Dan Froomkin, and this blog is barely enough to keep me here now that he's gone).

I wish that instead of doing his daily Palin puff piece or the daily gibber at some nonentity like Pawlenty that Chris Cillizza would spend more time reading these comments. It's pretty clear from the few interceptions he's done that he really doesn't know what's going on in here, and leaves open the perception that he's A-OK with JakeD and zouk.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

"Disagree that it's a technical infeasibility"

There's what's technically feasible, and then there's what you can talk your IT department into doing. In many organizations, those are two entirely unrelated things.

Posted by: nodebris | December 10, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

And as nodebris has pointed out cordially --and as I often do, less cordially, and I am sorry for that -- you do tend to harp on negatives for Democrats and positives for Republicans. it's hard not to feel like you are taking sides, and that detracts from your analysis.

==

I'd say "neutralizes" instead of "detracts," because it isn't a subtle bias, it's a full-on shameless insult to the intelligence. Particularly with respect to the Pawlenty and Palin. Palin's presence in the news is no more politically relevant then Angelina Jolie's, she's finished electorally and exposure is bad for her. Pawlenty is a sleepy nonentity with nothing to recommend him and staggeringly undistinguished.

Yesterday's 10 retiring Democrats with no mention of 12 retiring Republicans was such a shameless and dishonest exhibition of bias that the Drudge-lite thing is inescapable.

Re; comments ... As someone else put it, the drive-by hooters aren't the problem, it's the two trolls who are here day after day only to bother other posters, get rid of them and note how much better the discussions get. You can read backward a few weeks and you'll have all the evidence you could ever need.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

It is entertaining to fantasize about the elections in 2010 and 2012. But the truth is that a Presidential election is way different from the midterms. While the GOP may pick up seats, it will not be much of a predictor of how things will go in 2012.

Think about for a minute. Imagine it is December of 2005 instead of December of 2009. How things so dramatically changed in that period of time. And between now and 2012, they will change as well. We always imagine that things will be like they are right now. But, they rarely are.

It is just as possible in 2012, that Palin and the Tea Party movement will be a distant memory. They are already starting to feud amonst themsleves-- a pretty strong indicator that really a monolith movement so much as a collection of disparate malcontents each having a particular issue that motivates them and their tiny coterie but having little national support.

It is more likely that the economy will improve over that period. Why? History informs. We are in a dip but are starting to climb. We should enjoy growth until the next dip which probably won't come until around 2016. This means that it is probable that Obama will be re-elected.

The far larger problem is for the republicans. They have not yet decided who they are. But they will. And I highly doubt that it will be Palin-like.

Posted by: jaxas | December 10, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

What jaxas said.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 10, 2009 10:56 AM | Report abuse

From all of this breathless back and forth one would think the midterm election is coming up next week.

Look. We are so far out that making judgements right now are nothing short of futile. And I don't care if you are hearing it from Stu Rothenberg or Charlie Cook or any these red v blue, left v right bloggers.

A year ago who would have thought that Obama would be below 50% in the polls and Sarah Palin would be writing an op-ed for the Washington Post? Look folks. Nobody knows anything. These polls are all over the place. And since when has the media been any great predictor of anything. They have consistently wrong. Listening to the cable chatterers one would have though Obama was toast during his campaign.

The truth is that in America, large shifts in political sentiment are rare. And today it is especially difficult because we have this hypersensitive media that tends to overinterpret every little event as some shattering predictor of future events.

If I had to predict, I would say the GOP will pick up a few seats here and there but not regain control. And, I would predict that by 2012, the economy and jobs market will have improved sufficiently to allow Obama to be re-elected by a pretty good margin and for democrats to regain some seats.

And I would almost be willing to bet that Palin's will lose a bit of the glitter that now attaches to her because she really is, notwithstanding all of the tendency of media elites to gush--pretty ignorant when you scratch just below the surface.

Posted by: jaxas | December 10, 2009 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Chris,
We know you can't police this section. But as someone has suggested, you could get an intern who could warn, and then delete the truly offensive posts. There are lines crossed here too many times -- racist/threatening remarks about Obama/black or brown people in general, pedophile accusations, etc. There are also people who come on for the express purpose of harassing regulars here.

And as nodebris has pointed out cordially --and as I often do, less cordially, and I am sorry for that -- you do tend to harp on negatives for Democrats and positives for Republicans. it's hard not to feel like you are taking sides, and that detracts from your analysis.

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Bondosan, if you find name-calling and stupidity so entertaining, there are plenty of places on the Internet to find it. Let's keep The Fix about civil political discussion.

Posted by: Blarg | December 10, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Good.

Posted by: yourmomscalling | December 10, 2009 5:49 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I don't think it's necessary to monitor the comments constantly. Just take a quick scan. It wouldn't take but a few minutes. I don't think anyone wants this place to be sterilized, but just get rid of the few major troublemakers. There will always be people who pop in, write something stupid, and them pop out. That's not really a problem. It's an issue when zook and jaked completely overwhelm the place. Get rid of the worst offenders and this place should be fine.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 10, 2009 4:20 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

I think you're mistaken about the comments section.

One of the reasons I come to "The Fix" is because the comments can be so darn entertaining. You talk about a community...well, that's exactly what you've got here:

Zouk/Snowbama is the old geezer yelling at the kids to get off his lawn. JakeD is the guy at the end of the bar who'll tell anyone who'll listen what a success he's been in life, yet is really cutting coupons just to get by. Margaret and Mark and DDAWD try to bring some sense to the insanity, Chrisfox/G&T and drindl are always ready to take it outside for the common man, and on and on and on.

Get over it and stop trying to be a nanny, we can take of ourselves.

I mean, really, how much "serious" discussion can there be about some of your posts (and I say that as a fan/loyal reader)?

10 Democrats are retiring. 12 Republicans are retiring (would have been nice if you'd mentioned that for perspective, as noted by nodebris).

What does this mean? It means that if the economy picks up in the new year, the Democrats will be fine. If it doesn't, the Democrats will be hurting.

How about a post about the political impact of the healthcare compromise taking shape in the Senate?

It's late, and to bed I must go, looking forward to the Morning Fix.

Posted by: Bondosan | December 10, 2009 3:06 AM | Report abuse

8% support! More support than Rush gets in Newark. That number mean permanent minority Dixiecrat/teabagger status for the GOP unless they disavow the Palinites, which they won't.

==

And there's the real pickle.

To walk away from the Palinites means losing about half their potential vote. Because now that the resentful underclass has its champion they're not going to go back to voting for the Wall Street gang again.

There have to be voices even now in the GOP that are wondering how long before they start thinking about how to win elections instead of trying to out-crazy one another. Doug Hoffman candidates aren't going to win. Rubio and Toomey aren't going to win. Palin-approved nominees aren't going to win.

Mike Huckabee is in the news admonishing Republicans to keep the tent small.

I just don't see the GOP coming back to being serious anytime soon. They're still in the throes of the denial phase. Now it's allegiance accords and purity tests, pretty soon it'll be secret handshakes.

A party split, or more capitulation to the rural right, I don't know. But I can't see a leftward moving Republican Party in my lifetime.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 2:42 AM | Report abuse

the illegal Hispanic vote

==

little sketchy on the whole "how the world works" thing, I see

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 2:20 AM | Report abuse

No, the Republican Party foisted a Rino progressive democrat on the ticket and the party base rebelled. Dede then told all of her few friends to vote for the Democrat.

The story there is for both the Democrats and Republicans. There is much anger that is going to send many Incumbents out of office in 2010 and 2012.

==

Dede Scozzafava put the good of her district before loyalty to her party and recommended her voters to make the same responsible choice. Doug Hoffman wasn't even a resident and he was a front man for people with no interest in the 23rd district, only in getting one of their own in.

As for the NY23 GOP "foisting a RINO," wrong again. Scozzafava was one of the most conservative Republicans in local politics, in an area that's "old school" GOP, you know, small government? and not the nutty Palinite / free market crowd. Scozzafava is a conservative, but she wasn't crazy enough for you, I guess.

As for that rage you're talking about, try listening to someone else besides Rush and Glenn and your like-minded buds in the break room.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 1:58 AM | Report abuse

Surprised to see remarks from CC in this thread, not even notably heated compared to most. Just some brusque exchanges.

Reminds me of the the weaving around cars at 95 on the freeway, where are the cops then? Too busy looking for expired tabs.

Really, CC, you should peek in more often. You'd see other posters being called pedophiles, their recently deceased parents being slandered, you'd see daily mangled-moniker namecalling, you'd see every kind of bigotry there is all in one paragraph .. why don't you ever say anything then?

Compared to the content when snowbama/-zouk is around, this thread doesn't even raise an eyebrow.

As for the solution I'd get that ignore poster thing going. Really. Disagree that it's a technical infeasibility, they already have it working in the discussion boards like the Precinct. Give me access and I'll do it for you.

It's hard to take these entreaties seriously when we see one poster calling another a child molester, day after day after day. Just sayin'.

@ĐĐ: point. Harumph.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

I think that the best you can hope for is parallel conversations. You do have regulars here who are interested in a discussion. There are also regulars who prefer to have a shouting match. The challenge is for those who want to talk to ignore those who want shout. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Heck, consider the stick I took for suggesting that sliowa1 be treated with civility.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 10, 2009 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Good chance many more will choose to quit. These guys know we have finally hit the financial wall with respect to deficit spending. They want to get out of D.C. with this scalps still attached. When the Chinese finally cut the U.S. off, it will get very ugly very fast. You may well see a million people march on Washington with the intention of lynching congressmen.

Posted by: penniless_taxpayer | December 10, 2009 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

Agree there's no way you can do your job and monitor the comments all the time, too. And much of it is just painful to read, as well, granted. But the impression you create here is that you are hosting a conversation, between your Fixistas, and the incivility reflects badly on the blog and the Post. A quandary.

I've always thought the "Ignore Poster" technical fix would be the best low-impact solution, but I know requesting a new technical feature from IT is an adventure. It would allow Fixistas to self-regulate to an extent, though.

Failing that, perhaps you can avail yourself of that fine old DC institution: unpaid interns. Give them some clear rules and set them up as hall monitors. They could do research for you in their spare time. Take advantage of that bad economy.

Best wishes,
nodebris

Posted by: nodebris | December 10, 2009 12:07 AM | Report abuse

No, the Republican Party foisted a Rino progressive democrat on the ticket and the party base rebelled. Dede then told all of her few friends to vote for the Democrat.

The story there is for both the Democrats and Republicans. There is much anger that is going to send many Incumbents out of office in 2010 and 2012.

If the Republicans do not stop trotting out tarted up Democrats they are not going to win. Hopefully they will allow the voters to make the decision in the primaries and stop supporting the likes of Crist, Fiorina, Kirk and others.

Send fiscally responsible candidates to office like Rubio, Hughes and DeVore.
____________________________________
Looking at the hot races box, I learn much to my surprise that the current party of NY 23 is Republican. Didn't the Demos take that one after the Republican withdrew and the Conservative couldnt' quite pull it off?

Posted by: ggreenbaum |

Posted by: Bubbette1 | December 10, 2009 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton won in '92 and lost both Houses in '94. That should give everyone pause inasmuch as Clinton was (and still is, to my amazement) as popular as is Obama. Being from Chicago, I can see, as those of you who are not from IL, the chicanary practiced by "twinkle toes" Emanuel, Axelrod and all the other "Chicago Way" politicos surrounding their "puppet" sitting in the Oval Office.

Posted by: marine2211 | December 9, 2009 11:17 PM | Report abuse

"Suggestions?"

Ban Them! Ban Them!

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 9, 2009 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Nodebris,

Fair points -- on noting the number of Republican retirements and on the comments.

My problem: I am busy writing the blog and can't spend as much time as I would like monitoring the comments section which nine times out of ten devolves into a shouting match among a small but vocal group.

Suggestions?

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | December 9, 2009 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Looking at the hot races box, I learn much to my surprise that the current party of NY 23 is Republican. Didn't the Demos take that one after the Republican withdrew and the Conservative couldnt' quite pull it off?

Posted by: ggreenbaum | December 9, 2009 10:46 PM | Report abuse

"Obviously in politics we are never going to agree on everything but we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Consider this a plea for a change in tone.

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza "

This has been relatively civil, actually.

Also, the answer is no. You gotta ban people.

And G+T, you REALLY don't need to go full guns blazing on every single idiotic Republican talking machine. We recognize it as part of the landscape. I don't know if this is real rage or internet rage. If it's real rage, calm down or you'll get a heart attack. If it's internet rage then, I don't know what to say to that.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 9, 2009 10:29 PM | Report abuse

While the Dem.’s are slobbering all over the illegal Hispanic vote and wanting to put them on the healthcare dole, the general American citizen voting public who has to pay the bills can see who’s side the Dem’s are really on. While wanting to take over by nationalizing 1/6 of the US economy to fix a problem that’s 1/30 in size. And by next year after spending 2 Tillion and the unemployment still at over 10% it’s going to pretty easy asking the voters to show them the door with their new talking points. By 2010 it’s going to be a stretch to blame GWB who’s going to have been gone for two years. By then the Democrats will have owned the entire mess that they’ve made of the non-recovery. Holding Healthcare and Cap and Trade costs over the heads of business and asking them to hire is going to be tough sell. Environmentalists and big gov. boosters will be the administrations biggest fans. Good Luck on getting all of them out in an off year election when their hero isn’t on the ballot and Acorn is still in Court.

Posted by: bcooper530 | December 9, 2009 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Ambinder at least notes that there are 12 GOP seats retiring compared to 10 dems so far, and Dems are going after three of those. And the GOP has a smaller number of seats to start. That's at least worth mentioning, isn't it? It's the net gain or loss after all, right? Sounds to me like the GOP is at 6-3=3 of the 15 seats they would need to meet Cook's prediction (for what that's worth). Assuming they can win the seats they are targeting and Dems can win the ones they are targeting, in this anti-incumbent atmosphere you posit.

As an aside, your periodic complaints about rudeness and hijacking seem to have little to do with the actual level of rudeness and hijacking. This thread is hardly an exceptional example of those vices. Your reminders are so random and inconsistent they are like a lightening strike, just freakish chance, and thus shrugged off. You're a parent now: consistency is everything. Clear Rules Consistently Enforced. A motto to live by.

Posted by: nodebris | December 9, 2009 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Folks,

Again, a few loud -- and off topic -- voices from both extremes of the two parties have hijacked a discussion on the Fix.

I can't express how disappointing this is since I think of the Fix as a community and wish we could treat one another with some respect.

Obviously in politics we are never going to agree on everything but we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Consider this a plea for a change in tone.

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | December 9, 2009 9:50 PM | Report abuse

In 2008, Baird won 64%, without breaking a sweat. If he was vulnerable, it wasn't because of the Republicans. It was because folks like me (who met Baird when he announced his first campaign in 1995, and supported him since) were starting to think we can do better than a Democrat who votes for escalating the war in Iraq, against real health care reform, and against the estate tax.

Posted by: matthewfromoly | December 9, 2009 9:42 PM | Report abuse

I love all of this back and forth between loyalists of both parties. In case you haven't noticed, the political pendulum swings back and forth regularly. It means nothing more than the voting public is fickle and restless and hates any party that holds office for too long.

Posted by: dlpetersdc | December 9, 2009 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Oh dear I used "your" for "you're."

I am unclean! Alien embryo about to bust out!

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 9, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite: Actually your post is less intelligent than most libtards. Bedwetters the best you can come up with? What, high school let out early?

==

YOU'LL have to get up a lot earlier than that.

I call you guys "bedwetters" because you never stop whining about the world being unfair to you. You're constantly beating your scrawny chests about how independent and self-reliant you are and then in the next sentence your knuckling away tears about the press making conservatives "look bad," or no longer fawning over the illiterate luminaries of your party, or screaming that uncomfortable truths like Bush's paralysis on 9/11 or his ignored PDB weren't swept under the rug.

If you'd prefer "crybabies" I'll take it under advisement but I make no promises.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 9, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite: Actually your post is less intelligent than most libtards. Bedwetters the best you can come up with? What, high school let out early?

Posted by: Bubbette1 | December 9, 2009 8:54 PM | Report abuse

A bit on the hyperbolic side, don't you think, Mr Fix? Charlie Cook's analysis amounts to:

"So the ballpark percentages for losses for House incumbents of a party under siege who are seeking re-election seem to be between 2006's 10 percent and 1994's 15 percent.

Do the math: Assume Republicans really need to pick off about 45 Democratic seats to net 41 seats. After all, even 1994's Democrats picked up four open GOP seats."


So, if the majority party is 'under siege,' the math says 15 retirements represent risk for the Dems to lose their majority.

What Cook doesn't analyze is whether the 'siege' can last from now until November. Given the internecine feud undermining the offense, lets flag this one "too soon to tell."

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 9, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

I suspect that the 2010 election is going to be a blood bath for both parties. I expect to see a bunch more from both sides of the aisle
bail out before the slaughter on election day.

Posted by: bassmaan | December 9, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

This is a good start. We need to run everyone of these rats out of office that rubber stamped the porkulous and other bills. 2010 Democrats are in for a well deserved beating.

==

"porkulus"

What is it with you bedwetters and the stupid name mangling? You don't see liberals posting here writing things like "democrap socialist party" or "neocom statist party." That infantilism is solidly in the GOP camp here.

I wonder what the chicken and egg relationship is between immaturity and right-wing affiliation?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 9, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Brian never made so many Washingtonians this happy in all the votes he cast in his career. Tanks for the good news Bri.

Posted by: jhnjdy | December 9, 2009 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Brian never made so many Washingtonians this happy in all the votes he cast in his career. Tanks for the good news Bri.

Posted by: jhnjdy | December 9, 2009 8:03 PM | Report abuse

No question that the GOP will take the House and Senate in 2010. EVERYONE at Mr. Blow-der's table at the Palm Restaurant said so. Riddle me this: if Blow-der was bought OUT by the Post, why he still IN? :)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 9, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

"In a new column Fix former boss Charlie Cook argues that if Democratic retirements go over 15 the party faces a real chance of losing their majority in the 2010 election follows historical trends."
_________

If pigs could fly...

This "GOP comeback" false narrative is comically relentless. I know of no legitimate analyst who believes the Dems will lose the House or Senate in 2010.

How about a fact-based analysis of the political future of the GOP?

This from Andres Ramirez:

"I recently posted about the Census data that shows huge opportunities for millions of new Hispanics to register to vote before the next presidential. You can read the post here. It has been very clear that over the past couple of election cycles the GOP brand has been severely tarnished among Hispanic voters. ***

The most recent poll by Research 2000 shows that the Republican Party is viewed favorably by just 8% of Hispanic voters. Yes that is correct 8%, and to further complicate the situation for Republicans another Hispanic elected official has quit the party. Ivan Marte who is the Chairman of the Rhode Island Republican Assembly quit the party as a result of US Representative Joe Wilson's infamous outburst duirng President Obama's address on healthcare reform to a joint session of Congress. We know that Representative Wilson's outburst was as much as an attack on Hispanics as it was on President Obama.

According to Research 2000, the Republican Party began the year with 20% favorability among Hispanic voters. During the past year, Republican leaders have sought to demonize Hispanic immigrants in the Economic Stimulus debate and the Healthcare debate, and they attacked Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for being too Hispanic. Which brings us to the current 8%."

http://ndn.org/blog/2009/09/gop-brand-continues-suffer-among-hispanics

8% support! More support than Rush gets in Newark. That number means permanent minority Dixiecrat/teabagger status for the GOP unless they disavow the Palinites, which they won't. But that's not what you'll hear here or on the mothership (Drudge).

Stay thirsty, my friends...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 9, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Yeah guys, just keep ignoring that oncoming train that folks like Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg see coming . . . . by the Spring I expect the pundits will be agreeing that the House is in play. Of course that will require a whole new set of progressive talking points. So get busy on them now.

Posted by: prosecutor1 | December 9, 2009 7:46 PM | Report abuse

This is a good start. We need to run everyone of these rats out of office that rubber stamped the porkulous and other bills. 2010 Democrats are in for a well deserved beating. It will be many years before these "progressives" will be able to create this much mischief.

We need to send fiscally responsible representatives to DC and drain the swamps of these rats in 2010.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | December 9, 2009 7:45 PM | Report abuse

@ceflynline: Here in WA state the GOP has been whacky for a long time, much longer than the rest of the GOP went teabagger.

In the 1988 presidential primary they nominated not incumbent VP George Bush the Greater, but televangelist Pat Robertson. In 1996 they tried to run Ellen "Crazy" Craswell for governor. Craswell supporters were running around the state interrupting strangers' conversations to proselytize, wild-eyed, about Craswell.

Most of the state is reasonably progressive, though not as much as Oregon, but the less densely populous eastern part of the state, home to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and for some time to unrepentant advocates of nuclear war, now, with whomever they could find to shoot at.

As for the state GOP nominating unelectable green-teeth candidates, you can put that in the bank.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 9, 2009 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Think of this:

If Obama gets health care, and the economy does begin to turn around, a well chosen replacement for these tired and jaded Congress persons gets to run against a still maimed republican, who quite possibly is another Hoffman, imposed on the district by the Conservative Crazies. Two good terms by a democrat well in touch with his district and he becomes nearly unbeatable, and the Republicans response to each loss will be to find an even more conservative candidate to run against him.

The Dems DO need to find centrists in those otherwise red districts, to give the moderates a viable choice, but given the predilection of the Republican Leadership to want only the farthest right candidates in the country, they can recruit from the moderate wing of the Republican Party and boost their majorities next year.

It is SO nice of the Limbaugh Instrumentality to go out of their way to make retaining iffy seats easy for the Democrats.

Posted by: ceflynline | December 9, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

"Shaping up to be a tough 2010 election."

Only in BroderWorld.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 9, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company