Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Charlie Cook: "Very hard" to see how Democrats keep House

Political handicapper Charlie Cook said that it was "very hard to come up with a scenario where Democrats don't lose the House" in an interview with National Journal late last week.

Cook, who, in the interest of full disclosure, gave the Fix our first job in political Washington, went on to note that while House Republicans have their fair share of problems but "you could triple the Republican Party's problems and I'd still rather have their problems than the problems facing Democrats."

Cook has, of late, been extremely down on Democrats' chances -- an attitude born, he argued in the interview, of "fundamental, total miscalculations from the very, very beginning" by the White House about the direction to take the country. Cook added that the White House's miscalculations in terms of their agenda were "of proportions comparable to President George W. Bush's decision to go into Iraq."

Stu Rothenberg, another noted political handicapper in Washington, has pegged Democratic House losses as between 24 and 28 seats. He writes: "We currently expect Republicans to fall short of the 40 seats they would need."

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 22, 2010; 2:03 PM ET
Categories:  House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Republicans weigh the political implications of the Bush legacy
Next: Obama job approval numbers hover around 50 percent

Comments

If it had been up to the adults... perhaps if the adults didn't send the kids to war the kids would never have demanded the right to vote in the 1960s. Of course, if women couldn't vote McCain would be Prez. Complaining about the age, race, etc. of the voters doesn't seem to be something that any person interested in democracy would do.

Posted by: vfazio | February 23, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

"Anything is better than a community organizer, and a failed one at that!

--------------------------------------------------------------

Hey cschotta1-- Jesus Christ was a community organizer and, as you would describe "a failed one at that".

Pontius Pilate was a Governor.


Posted by: maupin1 | February 23, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Times and events have passed Cook by...No one can predict what will happen next month let alone in November. Sorry Charlie you are too heavy to carry this time.

Posted by: october30 | February 23, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

So, how's that "Rock the Vote" thing working out for you?

==

a lot better than that "president palin" thing is ever gonna work out for you, feeb

Posted by: Noacoler


Anything is better than a community organizer, and a failed one at that!

"DONT' BLAME ME, I VOTED FOR THE AMERICAN!"

Posted by: cschotta1 | February 23, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

So, how's that "Rock the Vote" thing working out for you?

==

a lot better than that "president palin" thing is ever gonna work out for you, feeb

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm thrilled GenY got involved in '08 even though it was against my candidate HC, but I never trusted them to return, and said so out our caucus where I was derided. Don't worry jake genY is tolerant of gay rights something you and your right wing would never understand, so they are not interested in the tired old hatemongers known as the GOP. They may miss out on election cycle or two which will hurt my party's chances this Nov, but voting trends show that how you voted in your first election is a good indicator of how you vote as you get older. Get it, the GOP has zero chance of attracting young people and Hispanics, the fastest growing population, in future elections, something you can weep about.

Posted by: leichtman | February 23, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

So, how's that "Rock the Vote" thing working out for you?

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

I agree with leichtman.

If it had been up to adults, Hillary would be Prez.

I don't know about you, but the atmosphere at my polling place last November was amazing. All these festive, happy, excited, multi-culti young people cheering each other on and taking pictures and calling their friends, "I just voted! I just voted!"

Kinda neat to see, but then they'd act the same way waiting to get into a Lady GaGa show.

Posted by: pmendez | February 23, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

young voters should be given a swift kick. They were the ones who told us Obama rather Hillary and I expected then it would be a one time phenomena b/c of Obama. Hopefully they will come to their senses and understand that voting should not be just an occasional thing to do. Thier POTUS once again needs their support.

Posted by: leichtman | February 23, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Jaxas70 sez, "I think Cook is misreading the electorate. Much of the angst with Obama is actually coming from the left and from centrist independents who are disappointed he did not fight for a public option. Cook is looking at all of this through the traditional lens of conservatism versus liberalism."

===========================

You're missing the point. It's not like the far left is going to suddenly go far R because they didn't get the public option. They'll just stay home. Almost as bad for Dems' chances.

FURTHERMORE, keep in mind that blacks, latinos and young people always have lower turnout in mid-term elections. The 2008 election results were due to Obama's star power bringing a bunch of new voters to the polls. Are those folks going to show up in November to vote for some boring old white guy they've never heard of?

I don't think so!

Posted by: pmendez | February 23, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

"5) The GOP wave could well crest three months too early. Massive losses occur when the electorate is lathered at just the right time (1994, 2006). The landscape could look dramatically different in 6 weeks, let alone 6 months."
_________________________________________

This is true. Public opinion is volatile and timing is everything in politics. In 8 months, Obama & Dems could have been down so long it'll begin to look like up.

Of course, the Number One reason public is in such a cranky mood is the economy. I see absolutely no way, whatsoever, that things won't be as bad or worse 8 months from now. Any "recovery" that will be felt by the middle class is years away.

The longer you are unemployed, the more you drain your savings, the more you see your dreams slipping away, the crankier you get.

Posted by: pmendez | February 23, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"Does it not matter that Bush created a crisis, while Obama inherited one?"

apparently not. No one seems to either care or remember that Bush was POTUS. Did anyone hear any R mention the name George W Bush at the CPAC Convention?

Posted by: leichtman | February 23, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

as a partisan D I can tell you that Charlie Cook is a professional through and through and that Ds should be concerned with Cook's statement. I refuse to slam him just b/c he saying something Ds don't want to hear.
The most concerning number today was the drop in consumer confidence. That is certainly not a good sign for D chances come Nov. Voters are fools if they believe that a R Congress will create anything more than more gridlock if they come to power in Nov. and will offer anything other than more tax cuts to help the economy. It didn't work in 2001 and has left the country with an additional trillion dollar unpaid debt. This is just going to be one long recession, but the alternative, of doing absolutely nothing and letting all of our banks fail, the R answer, would have led to an economic free fall. Problem is, that is not a message that Ds can put on a bumper sticker. Unfortunately, unless unemployment falls below 9%, unlikely at best, between now and Nov, Cook's prediction is likely true.

Posted by: leichtman | February 23, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Charlie Cook as a republican operative HA HA HA HA HA. Really people. You have no idea what you are talking about, that is the few of you on this post who are actually talking about the story you are supposed to be commenting on. Charlie is a political race handicapper, always has been. Lots of times he's right, sometimes (fewer) he's wrong. The idea that he's a secret Republican strategist is HI-larious!

Posted by: isthisajoke | February 23, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Steve Benen: "To hear Cook tell it, Obama should have never tried to fix a dysfunction health care system, just as Bush should have never gone to war against a country that wasn't a threat. But that's crazy -- the health care system really doesn't work, and Americans have long demanded a change. Iraq, meanwhile, really didn't have WMD. Is there not a qualitative difference between bringing coverage/security to Americans and invading a country under false pretenses and then badly screwing up the occupation? Does it not matter that Bush created a crisis, while Obama inherited one?

...Obama saw a crisis and pushed for a reasonable and effective solution. Bush saw a crisis and made one of the worst, costliest, and deadliest decisions any modern president has made. The former is positioned to improve the nation's interests; the latter undermined them.

Cook sees a superficial similarity. I see a terribly flawed analogy."

Posted by: cjo30080 | February 23, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Charlie Cook's new title: OBVIOUSMAN!

Let's us all hope that the loony-left d-crat socialists continue down their path of denial that Americans HATE THEIR POLICIES, HATE THEIR ACTIONS, HATE THEIR PROGRAMS and HATE THEIR SLEAZY, SLIMY INCOMPETENT LEADERS (CRAZY PELOSI, DIRTY HARRY and THEIR TELEPROMPTER-READING FIGUREHEAD.).

Real Americans will take back our country in Nov 2010 and Nov 2012.

Posted by: TeaPartyPatriot | February 23, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Is Mr Cook trying to influence the outcome of the election by making this proclamation so early? I happen to suspect he is right and believe a Republican victory will harm the economy.

My question is: Is Charlie Cook a Republican operative posing as a nonpartisan analyst? Make the case against this.

Posted by: Gator-ron | February 23, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

gpsbus:

On February 23, 2010 at 11:53 AM, you posted that "Obama's approval ratings are higher than Clinton, Bush, or Reagan at this point in their presidencies."

While I did not double-check either approval ratings for Clinton or Reagan at this point in their presidencies, I hope you can at least concede that this assertion is already invalid simply by including Bush. There are many more similarities today with the 1994 Congressional rout than there are differences. If you wish to discuss your remaining points, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

gpsbus:

President Bush's approval rating on February 23, 2002 was actually around 80%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110980/bush-job-approval-25-lowest-yet.aspx

==

bozo the clown would have been at 80% after 9/11, you damned idiot

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

gpsbus:

President Bush's approval rating on February 23, 2002 was actually around 80%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110980/bush-job-approval-25-lowest-yet.aspx

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

drindle - actually Cook is considered to be among the best, and far more accurate than most other folks. Democrats will cry "foul" and claim he's irrelevant, but that's equivilent of putting their heads in the sand. They have big big problems - both from within and from without. The worse things get, the more Pelosi and Reid rely on closed-door meetings and secret processes. But to quote a great 70's movie: "the more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers." Until Nancy and Harry decide to bring transparency back, they're not going to make real progress. Politicians don't like to be blind-sided, and threats of partisan retaliation against junior members won't work forever.

Posted by: mwcob | February 23, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Interesting, just a couple of months ago Charlie Cook was saying the Republicans chance of taking the house were zero, now he says its a certainty. I wonder if Charlie Cook had told the Republicans how they're going to win the House because they haven't figured it out yet. Here's why Dems win.

1. The GOP needs the 2nd largest gain in history to take the House (1994).

2. In 1994 Dems had held the House majority for 40 years, and had lost 10 seats in 1992 setting up for a massive lost in contrast to only Dems only having the majority 4 years today plus making big gains in 2006 and 2008.

3. The Dems were 5-0 last year in special House elections, picking up NY-23 just last Nov.

4. Republicans have to gain 40 seats plus defend 15 open seats.

5. Dems will gain at least 3-5 seats (NOLA, DE, and IL) putting the GOP in an even bigger hole, unlike 1994 and 2006 where the party gaining control held all their seats.

6. The Dems still have a massive fundraising advantage.

7. Obama's approval ratings are higher than Clinton, Bush, or Reagan at this point in their presidencies.

8. The Dems and Reps continue to poll about evenly in generic Congressional balloting. In years where the minority party gains a majority, that party held a double-digit lead in national polling.

9. Most polls show Americans still prefer Democrats on the issues a blame Republicans for the current problems.

10. The current field of Republican candidates is still tied too closely to the unpopular political establishment, unlike 1994 and 2006 where moderate novices dotted the landscape.

Posted by: gpsbus | February 23, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Charlie is ignoring a couple of fundamental problems that the GOP will have getting over the line.

1) The memory of how badly the GOP Congress of 2001-2007 screwed the pooch is still fresh in people's minds.

2) The GOP has no agenda to peddle. No gets you so far, and they'll pick up 15-20 seats without lifting a finger, seats the Dems picked up in a high tide that they can't hold in a normal political environment.

3) That the angst and anger in the electorate goes both ways.

4) Turnout drives mid term elections. Six Senate races in 2002 were decided by a total of less than 200k votes, likewise in 2006. In one, the GOP swept and in the other the Dems swept. Just 15k voters in three races each of those years switching or not showing up would have resulted in splits. Prognosticating on that narrow of a margin is a fools errand.

5) The GOP wave could well crest three months too early. Massive losses occur when the electorate is lathered at just the right time (1994, 2006). The landscape could look dramatically different in 6 weeks, let alone 6 months.

6) The extreme right seems anxious to enforce purity tests, which could drastically change the trajectory of races in NH, AZ, FL, KY among other places.

Posted by: leuchtman | February 23, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Charlie Cook also said that he didn't see any way that Hillary Clinton wouldn't take the Democratic Nomination for President and subsequently that John McCain would be elected so take Charlie Cook's political tea leaf reading for what it's worth, nothing.

Posted by: Robert_In_WeHo | February 23, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Laugh on Paul65. Maybe you're right. Then again maybe you're wrong. This is a congressional midterm election and normally the President's party loses seats in such elections.

But, while you are yukking it up and slurping down whatever kook aid suits your fancy, remember this: Whoever wins in November, the same problems are going to be there and the public is not going to sit still for long for airy, overgeneralized nostrums that carry no substance in them. Once in charge of things, republicans will be obliged to act. And trust me, tax cuts (unspecified), spending cuts (unspecified), limited government (undefined), freedom (whatever the hell that actually means) and the Constitution (which nobody ever agrees on the meaning of) is not going to satisfy the need for real world solutions.

Still laughing? Remember this as well: Demographic trends in America are undergoing dramatic change that does not bode well for the fortunes of conservatives. Conservatives will have to address issues which fly in the face of just what it is that a more racially diverse, more active youth, and far ore independent of either ideological fringe is likely to stand for. Most professional demographics experts and political prognosticators know this. And they know that it poses huge implications for an ideological GOP that cannot sustain itslef playing only to a narrowing right wing base that is destined to become a very small niche group of voters.

Stopped laughing yet? You will. Just wait.

Posted by: jaxas70 | February 23, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

REALLY?

Have you ever heard of a dick named cheney?

The dems will hold and take more seats,
the NO in NOvember means NO Repubilcans after November.

Anyone posting...Tell me one TRUTHFUL thing
dick-N-bush did in 8 yrs?

Repubs will come out saying "DICK did some great things for America" like bank ruptacy. KILLING PAT TILMAN!

The repubs can only hope dick dies so they can hold the seats they have, because everytime dick talks repubs go backwards.

Posted by: 1-20-09 | February 23, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Ah you libs crack me up. It's always good to come in here for a few minutes and get a good laugh before getting back to work so I can pay more taxes so they can be funneled back to you professional posters. Your mommy and daddies must be glad that they paid for that "education" you got. There is no way this guy below even believes himself. You're going down hard in November, you know, I know it and everyone else knows it. Own it.

*************************************

Americans want leadership that works, and that is why they will return a large Demorcatic majority to Washington.

Count on it.

Posted by: paul65 | February 22, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: restonhoops | February 23, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

One of the major problems I have with political polling is that often it has this aspect of a self fulfilling prophecy attached to it. When the public--most of who never really get polled--see these polls, it affects their own judgment. We have all experienced those classic moments in the classroom when the teacher asks for a show of hands on some question. The vast majority of the class invariably tentative begins to put their hands in the air, then slowly look around to ascertain whether they are in the majority or not, and then either full up raise their hands or meekly withdraw.

This is why I have a profound distrust of pollsters. Note how the polls over the summer of last year slowly and inexorably began to go down for Obama. It had nothing to do with anything he had or had not done. It was this very phenomenon of people being manipulated by the polls themselves.

That is why this electorate is so volatile. If we had one poll come out that sowed a dramatic reversal of this present trend, I would bet my hiney that future polls would show this trend continuing.

I honestly wish people would turn off their radios and cable news shows because I think it is they--and their hired pollsters--who are manipulating public opinion. And I don't think it has as much to do with ideology as it does with fealty to a particular narrative that seems to generate ratins, circulation and--profit.

Posted by: jaxas70 | February 23, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Whoa, less slow down a bit here. Charlie Cook, Stu Rothenberg, Gallup, Rasmussen--all of these people have their own agendas. And let's not forget, they are the ones who have been telling us how volatile all of this is.

Just remember this: It is March, 2010. The election is in November. Think back to March, 2008 and see how things changed in that short space of time. Think back to a year ago when Obama and the democrats were riding high and the GOP was demoralized. By November, things went topsy-turvy.

I think Cook is misreading the electorate. Much of the angst with Obama is actually coming from the left and from centrist independents who are disappointed he did not fight for a public option. Cook is looking at all of this through the traditional lens of conservatism versus liberalism. And I believe he is missing a crucial element in his own polling--the number of people who have simply turned off on polls and won't answer them.

Indeed, this is precisely the sort of year where pollsters are in danger of completely misreading the mood of the electorate--particularly if they are looking at the election in traditional terms. Remember this as well. Charlie Cook was just as caught off guard by the Massachusetts outcome as was everyone else. Why? Shouldn't his polling have shown the early signs of what was going on there?

Posted by: jaxas70 | February 23, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Cook equated the missteps by the whitehouse regarding direction for the country with Bush's Iraq war? He lost his 2 cents worth in my humble opinion then and there. Either he has lost his acumen or he is in the GOP's pocket.

Posted by: Bangkokian | February 23, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Can you drop the name calling - and just stick to the substance of the topics ?

Are you capable of that ?

Posted by: 37thand0street
------------------------------------

Sure Buttt Head :-)

Posted by: xconservative | February 23, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse


This news should boost the economy.


Posted by: DagnyT | February 23, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

My own guess is that the public is not as dumb as all the pundits think. Let us postulate that the Democratic Congress is terrible, too many of them bought out by special interests. Unfortunately the Republicans are worse, not only based on their record in recent years, but also because of their "no" strategy. They offer nothing but more tax cuts for the wealthy and restrictions on abortions.

The public may decide that their bet in 2008 did not pay off but with no better choice in 2010 they will stay with the devil that they know.

Posted by: Desertstraw | February 23, 2010 6:08 AM | Report abuse

Jake used to do 30% of the posts in just about every thread, now he barfly posts by 37th does about 30% of the posts.

Jake would post the same drool in every active thread. Now 37th posts the same drool in every active thread.

Jake is obsessed with hatred of Obama. 37th is obsessed with hatred of Obama. Jake flirts with openly racist ugliness. Ditto 37th.

Jake likes to bait other posters while whining about civility. 37th .... Etc.

Jake has no life. 37th has no life.

Jake loves to be a nuisance. 37th is all about being a nuisance.

Both (?) get an inexplicable pass from Cillizza.

Both are of below average intelligence.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 3:06 AM | Report abuse

The person who calls himself "37thand0street" is an example of why the Washington Post hires Chris Cilliza to copy what Charlie Cook says and repeat it.

The Post is a Right Wing Haven. "37..etc" wrote that there would be a "reverse Bradley effect" and then he dominated all the postings here making Cilliza and he co-columnists both spouting right wing views.

But "37" is a racist. He cannot mention President Obama without dragging race into his attack. For "37" and others on the Right, we have a Black President.

To "37", Bradley was a Black Mayor and Obama is a Black President. That fact takes precedence over anything.

At least Cizzila and Cook are not overt racists.

BTW, Fredom of Speech allows racists to reveal themselves, as "37" does when he compares Obama to Bradley with only one purpose: to say that whites should not vote for a Black Candidate.

Posted by: wapoisrightwingrag | February 23, 2010 2:28 AM | Report abuse

37th, you've missed the point as usual.

How do other countties get better medical care than we do for less than half the cost? Longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, universal coverage? They are solid proof that it's possible. If we can't manage to do as well or better for such an essential service then we are lost. Even though the Japanese smoke like chimneys they
live longer than we do. We see a doctor about once a year. They see one TWELVE times a year. For a third our cost.

Spare me the "we're number one," it isn't true, unless you mean diabetes.

How do they do it? Why can't we?

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 1:59 AM | Report abuse

Abortion is a legitimate medical procedure. If you think it's immoral then don't have one. Anyone trying to interfere with others' access to medical care, for whatever reason, should be sent to prison.

Nelson and Stupak can go hang.

Better to abort thirty seconds before birth than bring an unwanted child into an already overpopulated world.

If people were sincere about their moral pretentions around abortion they'd be handing out contraceptives to any woman old enough to menstruate. But they're against contraception too, because those moral pretentions are, lactating women aside, 100% BS.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler

The silliness in your logic is this - just because you have maxed out one credit card, is it a good idea to max out another one?


NO - but that is your logic - "because we went into the Iraqi war, we should be able to buy health insurance policies for 45 million people forever."

uuummmmmmm NO it doesn't work that way.

I could throw a bunch of name-calling in too, but I won't.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 1:31 AM | Report abuse

I can tell you definitely now that OBAMA LIED.


In September, before Congress, Obama committed himself to not change the abortion provisions of existing law.

Now, Obama's plan does change the abortion provisions, significantly. AND Obama does not even respect the Stupak Amendment.


I have no idea how Obama thinks he is going to get this bill through the House - he must be completely tone-deaf.

Obama lied - it is becoming embarrassing for the democrats. How much more shameful behavior on the part of Obama is this country supposed to tolerate ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 1:27 AM | Report abuse

@37th: simplicity itself.

Restore the steeply progressive income tax so that billionaire status is unachievable.

Or, in filthspeak, by penalizing success.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 1:05 AM | Report abuse

And oh, seguintx, in case I wasn't clear through all those typos... by "everyone in America" I mean exactly that; everyone. Including the indigent, the elderly, travellers in transit, and, yes, illegal aliens.

We can afford it. If we can afford to topple harmless dictatorships and give tax breaks to the obscenely wealthy, we can afford to treat everyone inside our borders just like the *civilized* nations do.

It's the only moral path.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


Seems like I'm right

And just how do you propose to pay for all this spending ??

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 12:55 AM | Report abuse

37th, the only connection your posts have with substance us that you seem to have abused a hell of a lot of it.

And a lot more than your share of lead paint growing up.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 12:49 AM | Report abuse

@seguitx: I'm not enough of a believer in proletariat virtues to buy that "common sense of the common man" stuff. Matter if fact I think it's complete BS.

Yes we have vastly overpriced medical care in the USA; your reasoning seems to be that we should therefore notvtey to fix it, ignoring the fact that we pay almost $8000 per person per year and get less medical care than a dog. If the Japanese can pay under $3000 pppy and have 4-12 times as many doctor visits as we do, well wow look over there! A seagull!

When I see someone who looks at Republicans lying their heads off and still believedls they deserve respect, why, I see part of the problem in this country today.

The public opinion if HRC us based on those lies, not on the reality, based on shouts if "death panels" and "TYranny TYranny TYranny," not on what's in the bills.

FTR, I don't want bipartisanship, I don't want Republican input, I want liars to be shown the door and shamed, that's how I was raised.

I do want everyone in America to have access to healthcare as a right, I want profit on basic healthcare to lead to serious prison time, I want the marketplace out of the picture, and I want to restore our former respect for truth and sportsmanship restored.

Thanks for your service.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


I have challenged almost every liberal on this blog to stick to substance - avoid name calling - and to stop harassing other posters.

What do we get? more name-calling.

More snide remarks.

I can understand that it is difficult to defend massive spending - wacko program proposals of Obama - and massive debt.


But isn't that what the liberals want?


Why is it so difficult to talk about these important issues ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Hey Chris.

Your tutelage was at the knee of a guy who compares health care reform to invading the wrong country. Not exactly something to be proud of

And when Charlie tries to Cook the books with a false narrative about Democrats in trouble, there you are, eager to help.

Anything for the GOP, right?

Attaboy.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Ask me again after you learn to use a keyboard, moron

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


Can you drop the name calling - and just stick to the substance of the topics ?


Are you capable of that ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

87 posts

30 of them by a moron

guess we know where Jake "went"

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 12:03 AM | Report abuse

How dare you say that when you have been banned three times. What is wrong with you?

==

what's wring with ME? I'm not the guy flooding the blog with hysteical idiocy.

I was banned fir referring to racist swine as racist swine. If you think that's something to shame me with then you really are as stupid as your posts.

Cillizza, that you permit this drool case to drive away discussion says very bad things about you.

.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 12:00 AM | Report abuse

josh13


I think you should really look into the Obama bill - it has virtually nothing to contain the increase in health insurance costs.

Just because one creates a market, or an exchange, in insurance - that does nothing to control the underlying costs which have to be priced into the cost of the policies any way it is done.

AND you should look into the "portability" of insurance - and see what options you have - because you just might have some options under existing law.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 11:55 PM | Report abuse

noacoler wrote: "You're daft. If Obama drops the "bipartisan" garbage and starts getting important things done his reelection. Is assured.

Just ask Scott Brown. Your Cosmo paramour just broke ranks with the filth and voted for the jobs bill.

Turn down your hyperpartisan thermostat for a minute and read with some detachment.
First, I voted for Obama. Contributed $$ to him. And endorsed him. So I'm not a partisan Republican. In fact, I think bipartisanship is a good thing, whenever possible, apparently unlike yourself. And I've never confused name-calling with thoughtful debate.(Daft ?? Come on.) Now, you make a good point, accidentally. Winning any political fight does convey strength. The problem now with health care is the majority of Americans do not support the plan on the table. Not because of Republican non-sense, but because of the common sense of the common man. FYI, I've always gotten my health care in a public plan. It's called the US Air Force. 34 years on active duty and 5 years of Tricare in retirement. I'm not anti-public health care reflexively. My question is this: the biggest unfunded liability in the US now is Medicare and Medicaid--$34 trillion according to some analyses. How do we afford another trillion + ? And how does the current plan restrain current growth ? Simply cutting Medicare reimbursement will only cause more doctors to stop accepting it. Tough, tough problem. Your assumption that I think Sarah Palin qualified to be president would be wrong. And I think Sen Brown's vote for the job's bill was exactly right. Why the 30 Republicans voted against it perplexes me. When I add "daft" and "filth" together, I come up with someone who's part of the problem in this country today. Care to engage in an intelligent, thoughtful, respectful give and take ? Or are name calling and ad hominem attacks just too much fun to resist ?

Posted by: seguintx | February 22, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

josh13


It is quite a leap to go from fixing those items which you mention - which basically call for the regulation of the insurance industry - to the CREATION OF A MASSIVE TRILLION DOLLAR PROGRAM WITH MASSIVE TRILLION DOLLAR TAXES.

That is where the democrats have it wrong.

In fact, the democrats are afraid to start fixing the smaller problems one-by-one, because the justification for a massive program will evaporate.

Well, you condescending attitude does not help either. Cries of "ignorant rants" and all the other labels you put out could have easily been applied to your democrats complaining about Bush.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 11:46 PM | Report abuse

um, no. you didn't. find somethihg else to do with your time. really.

Posted by: drindl | February 22, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

douglaslbarber


So maybe this country is a center-right country and it should be governed that way?

Perhaps any attempts at imposing a far-left agenda will just not sit well with the people.


Clearly, the people do not want Obama's health care plan. It really is not a good idea to impose on the American people something they do not want.

But that is what Obama is insisting on doing.

The democrats are about to run off a cliff.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

While the right wingnuts rant on this form, I do note that they take no notice of the national polls that do support the democratic principles in the HEalth reform bill, such as disallowing pre-existing conditions to preclude insurance (supported by 80% of the public) and disallowing insurance companies to discontinue coverage because one is sick (about 80%). About 60% of the public approves of increasing taxes for those making over 250000 a year.

Granted, rightists can argue the polls, including Gallup, are flawed (or part of some paranoid agenda), but it seems to me they are adhering to a policy of repeating themselves that no one wants these reforms until we begin to believe it.

i believe a majority of America want these changes. The polls seem to support my beliefs.

I mean really - read the angry, ignorant rants above. He who yells louder is not necessarily accurate. It might work to control your kids, but it won't convince me of the majority of Americans recognizing the need for sane health care reform.

And this from a guy who buys his insurance for his family, and had increases in monthly payments that went up 26% last year, and 17 % this year. Our insurance payment is more than our mortgage (over $1000/mo). And we can't move to another plan as my wife has pre-existing conditions. No options unless my wife, kids, and I go without.

The health system is broken, and yelling imbecilic and nearly incoherent delusions about gov't takeovers and lying about what America needs and desires does nothing other than put spittle on your keyboards.

Posted by: josh13 | February 22, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse

drindl


Gave you all sorts of stuff to reply to.

But you prefer the mean and snide remarks.

It is just your personality, I suppose.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse

One last thing before I shift from digesting politics mode to chowing down on pork chops mode - amateur statisticians who are also political junkies like myself can find composition of congress numbers going back to 1855 here:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

The more I study them, the more I'm convinced that we're still in a long-term "more republicanism" phase that began in 1968.

The only part of me pleased by that observation is the empiricist part.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | February 22, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse


'I put out points - I put out more substance than anyone.

Posted by: 37thand0street'


too funny to reply to.

Posted by: drindl | February 22, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Taylorsucram


THAT is exactly the simplistic thinking that is getting this country into trouble.

What is wrong with that statement???

OK - the reasoning is this: Let us come up with a plan that will TAX on group of Americans BILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS - and give that money to another group TO MAKE SURE THEY VOTE FOR US.

So, the democrats are basically attempting to bribe voters - but with someone else's money.

It is a little worse - first the democrats want to pretend there will be no deficit to this health care plan - then slam everyone with massive taxes down the road when the program is near insolvency.

Can't imagine why the Republicans would not find that to be a bipartisan plan, would you????

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

The democrats are going to follow Obama off a cliff - just like a bunch of lemmings on coke.


Seriously folks.

This most current gambit by Obama - clearly against the will of the People - has to be the craziest kami-kaze act in the history of America.


The thing is, Obama is taking his party with him.

The American people do not want the health care plan - a smart pol would have dumped the whole thing after the townhall meetings last summer.


Instead, this thing has been allowed to linger, eroding all confidence in the country that Obama has any ability to govern.


Now - adjectives like "delusional" and "incompetent" are placed on Obama and his administration - not as metaphors - but as expressions of astonishment at the performance of Obama.

There can be no doubt about it: Obama is CLEARLY NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT - he has been off course the entire year - and he lacks the ability to see what the public wants.

Obama should resign.

It was a mistake to nominate him - it was a mistake to elect him even if there was an economic crisis which almost guaranteed a switch in party.

Obama is a complete disaster - let us just hope that the damage to the country is not that great.

There already is extensive damage in the country due to the fact that Obama chose to ignore the economy practically all last year - he is doing the same thing AGAIN.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Just a thought, if the Democrats push through this bill via reconciliation and 30 million people who didn't have health care before suddenly find that they can afford to go to the doctor and that their children will be covered, well, that's 30 million voters that will be very thankful. I believe the Democrats can live with that, I know President Obama can.

Posted by: Taylorsucram | February 22, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure I'd say it's likely the GOP will regain control of the House, but it's entirely possible. A number of first- and second-term Democrats should be considered vulnerable this time, along with veterans such as Rep. Rick Boucher in Virginia's 9th District. In addition, a number of open seats being vacated by Democrats would have to be considered competitive.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's unpopularity certainly won't help the Democrats. While she's likely to keep her San Francisco-area House seat, she could drag down a number of other Democrats. If Democrats do keep control of the House, look for a change in their leadership next year.

Posted by: austinrl | February 22, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


How dare you say that when you have been banned three times. What is wrong with you?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Whats the point of moderation if this nonsense gets through?

This troll would have been banned months ago on any forum worth reading. Instead he's allowed to drive worthy contributors away.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 22, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

I don't see any democrats defending Obama and this conference this week on health care.


It's because the democrats can see it for the FRAUD it is.


This is what the democrats are all about - they are irresponsible - and they will jump at the chance to lie.

The democrats KNOW Obama has been a FRAUD to his pledge to be bipartisan, but they don't care.


The democrats DO NOT care about any commitments made to the American People - that is why the American electorate CAN NOT WAIT for the chance to VOTE THE DEMOCRATS OUT.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Let's get back to TOPIC

The people I talk to CAN'T WAIT to vote out the democrats - and Obama's actions over the past few weeks only confirms those feelings.


People are sick of Obama -


Obama is not going to turn this around by trying to jam the health care through. The American People are going to DEMAND that anything that gets through without their approval be REPEALED.


Obama really believes he is going to jam something through, which everyone is going to be STUCK WITH forever.


That is not the case - and it is astonishing that we have such a RUN-AWAY-GOVERNMENT AT THIS POINT.


Obama fundamentally misunderstands his job.

Obama's job is to do what the American people want.


It is not to LECTURE AND TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A BUNCH OF LIES TO JAM THROUGH A FAR LEFT WING AGENDA.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Let's get back to TOPIC

Obama promised the American People one set of things during the campaign.


He gets into office and goes in a completely different direction.


The American People feel DEFRAUDED. Yes, sometimes it feels like I was the only one to see this completely -

However - there is no way that Obama is going to hold one conference for a day - and be able to say that "he tried" on all his campaign pledges and then he is releaseed somehow.


Many democrats, including on this blog, talk like Obama is able to get some sort of "release" from his commitments to the American People - Obama is released when he leaves office - if he doesn't want to do what he said during the campaign, RESIGN.


Obama made his commitments and that is it.


The American People have little tolerance for Obama - part of it is his youth -


The attitude of the American People is: we gave you a chance, and you blew it, NOW GET OUT. You had your chance.


No one wants to tolerate Obama's arrogance - or his little "bait and switch" routine.


Obama has completely misjudged his situation.


AND I honestly believe that Obama is in MUCH WORSE shape than the polls indicate - because people want to be nicer to Obama when questions compared to how they really feel.


It is sort of like a "Reverse Bradley" effect.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


There are no lies - I was talking about drinl - not me.


I am interested in discussion.


I put out points - I put out more substance than anyone.

AND when something is repeated - that is a signal to get back to the TOPIC - and forget the silly arguing which you love to do.


Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Pulling out all the stops for 37. Apologies.
_______

"The way you walked was thorny, through no fault of your own. But as the rain enters the soil, the river enters the sea, so tears run to a predestined end. Your suffering is over. Now you will find peace for eternity."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 22, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

broadwayFRAUD


So, is your position, that the posting from last year is me, or someone else?

Because you say it is someone else ...

So it shouldn't matter - so what is your position?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

37th, you lie.
 
If you were here for serious discussion you would do things differently.  One, you would put some thought into your posts instead of endless shouting hysteria.  Two, you would put thought into every post, instead of taking a post that was brainless in the first place and posting it over and over and over and over like some idiot child who thinks he can win an argument by yelling and screaming.  You’re not here for discussion, you’re here to suppress discussion, and to top it all off you write like you’re in the fourth grade.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 22, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

37, you gave us no choice.

From 2009, malis's total annhilation of the original 37, whom the current fake 37 copies:

"Update: A Study on Motivation and Societal Impact of the Extremist-Obsessive Blog Poster
Subject: “37th” (shortname for subject using approximately 20 different variations of a userID containing the root phrase “37thandO”)

Subject’s postings (through Jan 2, 4:56pET) to the string “Best House Campaigns of 2008” were previously collected and classified in four defined categories. This entry appends subject’s additional posting.

As of Jan 3 10:17aET, 37th owned 14 (+3) of 64 (+6) total entries, raising the subject’s percentage of total postings to this string from 19% to 22%.

Number and percentage of on-topic postings: 0 and 0%

1) Simplistic insult of individuals and groups: 22 (+2)
2) Paranoiac accusations: 6 (+1)
3) Rote repetition of fantasy scenarios 19 (+4)
4) Projection (accusing others of behavior exhibited by the subject) 9 (+2)

Subject has initiated posting to two additional strings. Data currently being collected and analyzed. When sufficient data has been collected results will be posted to those strings.

Posted by: malis | January 3, 2009 2:30 PM"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 22, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

If he goes the reconciliation route with a health care bill, I think the Dems will lose the House, Senate, and the White House in 2012. And he won't get a health care bill if he doesn't. He's treed himself, to use a hunting metaphor.

==

this is BS worthy of JakeD's wet dream of a President Sarah.

Voters are going to be furious with Obama for standing up to the insurance companies? For standing up to the Party of Liars?

You're daft. If Obama drops the "bipartisan" garbage and starts getting important things done his reelection. Is assured.

Just ask Scott Brown. Your Cosmo paramour just broke ranks with the filth and voted for the jobs bill.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 22, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

seguintx wrote, "If he goes the reconciliation route with a health care bill, I think the Dems will lose the House, Senate, and the White House in 2012."

Why so?

My read is that a lot of the oomph that's gone out of Obama's support is that he can't get this thing done without legislative vivisection that revolts ordinary people, due to the 60 vote Senate thing.

Yes, if he tries to force through Nelson-care and differential taxation for people who do and do not belong to unions, he's got nowhere to go but down.

Full disclosure:

I thought 2008 was a long term realigning election signalling a new pro-Dem consensus. I thought that Dubya had proven the Reagan consensus wrong and that events had shown people that this was so.

I clearly misread the voters.

Here's a realigning election:

1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt elected to first term.

1934 mid term elections, long before foreign policy associated with WWII becomes an anomalous factor, his party *gains* 10 senate and 9 house seats.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | February 22, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

drindl


OK drindl I gave you a chance to respond to the substance of points - but you refuse - you obviously have no interest in having any reasonable discussions.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

37 -- people might respond to you if you actually had something to say.

Posted by: drindl | February 22, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


94% of the posters on this blog believe you should apologize for all your posts.

78% think you should be committed.


55% say you should still be allowed to post, but you should not be allowed out on the street alone.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

The average post-WWII House loss for the party in power is 24-25 seats as I recall.
Logical to expect that and a bit more in the current economic climate. My guess is Republicans pick up about 35. They're putting up some very good candidates who are running smart campaigns--e.g., Brown.
The president's biggest problems aren't with Republicans. They're with the Democratic left wing and political independents. Rahm has as about as much trouble with some of his friends as his enemies. And the center didn't vote for major government power grabs of the health care or auto industry. The GM takeover may be good policy. But it's almost unexplainable to both left and right. Ditto with the financial sector. There's much about Obama I admire. But he's not proving to be a skilled Washington player.
If he goes the reconciliation route with a health care bill, I think the Dems will lose the House, Senate, and the White House in 2012. And he won't get a health care bill if he doesn't. He's treed himself, to use a hunting metaphor.

Posted by: seguintx | February 22, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

drindl WHY DON'T YOU RESPOND TO THESE POINTS INSTEAD OF JUST BEING MEAN ?

If you look at the facts, you will find out that the CLINTON people were in charge at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the whole time.


It was Hillary and Schumer and Dodd and Barney Frank taking money from Wall Street.


AND for some reason, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Wall Street were giving more money to OBAMA than anyone else.


Look at the facts -


AND if you want to talk about the economy, the CLINTON TRADE DEALS HAVE DONE US MORE HARM THAN ANYTHING.


AND if you want to talk 9/11 - it was CLINTON who was cutting our intelligence forces in the Middle East for years.


So right back at you - you know whose fault these messes are.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

"... why don't you go over to the Daily Kos, get a poll, and try to pan it off here as unbiased ???
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 8:56 PM"
__________

Per your request, we note that a clear plurality (46%) of those polled on the site said Cook should apologize for his so-called "analysis."

See:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/20/838875/-Charlie-Cook-compares-Health-care-refom-to-the-Iraq-War!

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 22, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

President Obama didn’t create the health care crisis."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 22, 2010 8:57 PM



Good argument. Bush didn't create the Katrina crisis and obama didn't create the health care crisis. Extrapolate.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | February 22, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama right now is driving his party off a cliff.


The democrats are basically acting like lemmings, only they are faster in their blindness for Obama.

Go ahead, run off the cliff.

It is absolutely unbelievable.

The democrats have PROVEN that they are completely irresponsible and unable to govern.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse


I'm thinking with 37 and Suzy it's kind of like Norman Bates and his mother...

Posted by: drindl | February 22, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

It's sure looking to me like 'Suzy' is 37's female side, shall we say.

Posted by: drindl | February 22, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Actually, BHO is at 56 approval, 3 points higher than his 2008 vote percentage.
__________________

Winners last week
Tiger
BHO
Michelle LaVaughan
Dr. Rachel Maddow (MTP enjoyed a huge Maddow bump)
Gregory Charles Royal
Charlie Rymer on Golf Channel

Losers
Tiger's ho stesses
Ron Paul (winning CPAC's straw vote just gave us a reason to revisit his "newsletters")
37 (the first step toward recovery is the hardest-all the best)
Curling
"Mrs." Mary Carillo (record: most sports broadcasts ruined, season; most sports broadcasts ruined, career)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 22, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse


broadwayFRAUD

What is your opinion - everyone who is not behind Obama - those people are all biased?


Well if one IS on one side or the other that is what makes them biased.

This logic is probably beyond your comprehension.

Suzy, let him have it.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic response at dailykos to Cook's recent bogus health-reform-is-like-Iraq analysis:

"Obviously, I think it’s inappropriate to compare Iraq to health care reform," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse. "Think about it. Iraq got President Bush down to a 27 percent approval rating. This week Gallup had President Obama at a 53 percent approval rating. Guess what? That was exactly the same percentage he won with in 2008. ... President Bush chose to go to war in Iraq; President Obama didn’t create the health care crisis."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/20/838875/-Charlie-Cook-compares-Health-care-refom-to-the-Iraq-War!

Case closed.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 22, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

BroadwayFRAUD


Cosign why don't you go over to the Daily Kos, get a poll, and try to pan it off here as unbiased ???


Let's be serious.

What do you think, Obama is going to save you? Nothing can save you.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Cosign. He has a clear agenda, IMO. Unbiased as...Rasmussen.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 22, 2010 8:38 PM

But extremely accurate. Check.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | February 22, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Charlie Cook is a republican partisan who works with Ed Gillepsie. Let's stop pretending he is some disinterested Voice of Authority.

Posted by: drindl | February 22, 2010 8:18 PM
___________

Cosign. He has a clear agenda, IMO. Unbiased as...Rasmussen.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 22, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

DailyKos blasts Cook "analysis":

This article from dailykos suggests Cook's analysis is tied to his opposition to BHO's commitment to health care reform.

Incredibly, Cook compares BHO's support of health care reform to Bush's decision to invade Iraq--hardly a sober, impartial analysis.
__________

"Charlie Cook compares Health care refom to the Iraq War!
by jovie131
Charlie Cook compares Health care refom to the Iraq War! Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 09:07:10 PM PST
In an interview, this f00l conservative(who portrays to be another independent) said that the decison to spend time on Health care was a waste of Obama's first year in office. Moreover, he says it is comparable to GW decison to invade IRAQ. HOLY SH_T BATMAN! Did he just compare the stupidist decision of all time(the IRAQ WAR) to HCR? YUP! this guy is in trouble. Mark my words, he needs to apologize, and fast..."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/20/838875/-Charlie-Cook-compares-Health-care-refom-to-the-Iraq-War!

The article is followed by a poll asking whether Cook should apologize.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 22, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Really, Suzy, the country needs to go in a different direction - like to h*ll in a handbasket, the way it was going under bushie?

Posted by: drindl | February 22, 2010 8:22 PM


Drindl, at least Bush could find his birth certificate.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | February 22, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse


drindl


If you look at the facts, you will find out that the CLINTON people were in charge at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the whole time.

It was Hillary and Schumer and Dodd and Barney Frank taking money from Wall Street.


AND for some reason, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Wall Street were giving more money to OBAMA than anyone else.

Look at the facts -


AND if you want to talk about the economy, the CLINTON TRADE DEALS HAVE DONE US MORE HARM THAN ANYTHING.

AND if you want to talk 9/11 - it was CLINTON who was cutting our intelligence forces in the Middle East for years.

So right back at you - you know whose fault these messes are.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Just think, Mr. Fix, we could save a bundle on those pesky ol' elections by just having Charlie Boy Cook declare the results 8½ months before the fact. Wouldn't that be handy-dandy? 'Course, it'd also be un-American and un-Constitutional, but whut-the-heck...

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | February 22, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

If Obama resigns, the democrats can keep the House.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Americans want leadership that works, and that is why they will return a large Demorcatic majority to Washington.

Count on it.

Posted by: paul65 | February 22, 2010 5:37 PM


paul65, according to a new CNN poll, 86% of Americans believe the government is broken. You must either be Janet (the system is working) Napolitano or a Noacoler lite.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | February 22, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Really, Suzy, the country needs to go in a different direction - like to h*ll in a handbasket, the way it was going under bushie?

who drove us off this financial cliff, baby, and who presided over a terrorist attack on our own soil because he was too busy taking a month long vacation whacking off at his 'ranch'?

Posted by: drindl | February 22, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

I can imagine a few scenarios in which the Dems keep the house. Charlie Cook isn't trying.

Posted by: karenfink | February 22, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Charlie Cook is a republican partisan who works with Ed Gillepsie. Let's stop pretending he is some disinterested Voice of Authority.

Posted by: drindl | February 22, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse


"HOW MUCH MORE ISOLATED AND OUT-OF-TOUCH CAN OBAMA BE ????"


how much more isolated and out of touch can you be 37? i see once the blog opened up again, it's still all about YOU.

Posted by: drindl | February 22, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Sadly, three checks:

Free Cook Political Report ad/mention. (Note from Post business department: "Please see me.") Check.

Dems-in-trouble false narrative. Check.

No positive mention of the 44th President of the United States. Check.
__________

Cook knows, as Rasmussen has learned, by putting out some outlandish outlier, bogus prediction, you will get reams of free undeserved pub (see Fix).

2010 is an off year so, sure, the Dems as the party in power will probably lose seats. Few, however, are predicting they will lose their majority. That's bogus.

We'll bet you anything Cook won't bet on his "prediction." Make sure you save Cook's prediction today.
_________________________

Let's allow Speaker Pelosi to return us to reality:

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is literally laughing off the suggestion House Democrats could lose their majority in the midterm elections.

In an interview with Roll Call Tuesday, the top House Democrat said her party would “definitely” retain control of the chamber and emerge from the November balloting with “much more than a simple majority.”"

http://www.rollcall.com/news/43160-1.html

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 22, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Just my opinion -- but I think 37thandO is svreader. The syntax is similar and the bit about "harassment of other posters" sounds just like svreader.

If the Post is serious about banning posters for violating the rules, they ought to check the IP address.

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 22, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Mr Cillizza for stopping the hold on posts.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | February 22, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Mr Cillizza writes - Political handicapper Charlie Cook said that it was "very hard to come up with a scenario where Democrats don't lose the House."

The only scenario I see for the democrats to hold the House is if obama resigns. This country needs to go in a different direction.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | February 22, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

douglaslbarber


Part of the situation in the Senate is the rotation of the seats which are up for election in 2010 - the democrats could be in for a real disaster in 2012 because of that rotation.

The democrats are in trouble because of the substance of what they are trying to do - not the PR.


In addition, the economy makes it difficult to make a case for another massive government program.


With Social Security and Medicare headed for deficits - why in the world does it makes sense to create another massive program with a deficit ????

It is clear that the liberals want to lead this country into a great deal more taxes to pay for all of this. Everyone says "NO"


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

If anyone's curious, I rounded up some numbers on mid term elections during presidents' first terms. These numbers have a plus or minus one accuracy for reasons I won't go into.

Turns out that of the 5 most recent presidents, if Obama's party loses 40 house seats it would be the next-to-worst showing, after Bill Clinton's 1994 mid term exam.

In 1982 elections Reagan's party lost 1 senate and 17 house seats.

In 1990 GHW Bush's party lost 1 senate and 8 house seats.

In 1994 Bill Clinton's party lost 9 senate and 54 house seats (!)

In 2002 Dubya's party gained 1 senate and 8 house seats

Posted by: douglaslbarber | February 22, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you, 37th. So stop harrassing Paul65. I liked his thoughtful post.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 22, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

aaack, when I wrote "I'd love to see some stats on how first-term president's parties have fared in off year elections during this decade" I meant *during recent decades*

Posted by: douglaslbarber | February 22, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


I have no idea - we need one set of rules that everyone can abide by.


We need to ban the harassment of other posters.

I do not know what is going on here.


Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Cook holds that the Dems are likely to lose the House and unlikely to lose the Senate.

His credentials as a prognosticator are hard to quarrel with.

It's really an astonishing turn of events. Who would have predicted this one year ago - particularly that the Dems have a stronger grip on the Senate than on the House?

I'd love to see some stats on how first-term president's parties have fared in off year elections during this decade. I know they ordinarily give up quite a few seats, but I've got to believe that if Cook is right, this would be a debacle of major proportions.

Unlike Cook, I would attribute it not to bone-headed policy decisions but to the inability of Democrats to come up with simple, compelling alternatives to the no-holds-barred propaganda that Republicans have been propagating since Obama's election. (Who, me, partisan? heheheh)

Posted by: douglaslbarber | February 22, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers


no you don't

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Um, Chris, what the hell is the point of holding the posts? It's still just the one person posting over and over again. Hell, even the banned posters are still posting on here.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 22, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

37th and O is delusional and posting from his momma's basement.

And I mean that in a


NICE WAY

.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 22, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

wapoisrightwingrag


Your rage is really not against the Conservatives -

Your rage is against the FIRST AMENDMENT.


I take issue with your rage against the Constitution - I find that to be unAmerican.

America is great because of the First Amendment and our Freedoms.

Not because of some government program that you want to create which will drag down our economy.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

wapoisrightwingrag


Every American should object to your false charges of racism.

You have got to be kidding.

There is a "reverse Bradley" effect - and that is a comment on the polling data - not much else.

The People can comment as they wish - you can comment as you wish.

However, false name-calling is out of bounds - why don't you try to defend this attempt to create a massive government program which will require massive taxes - because you can't.

The democrats and Obama are going to get voted out - and it will be worse than 1994.

Your tactics are UnAmerican.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Look at the comments here. The Washington Post is the Official Voice of Right Wing America, just as Fox News and Hate Radio.

Candidate Obama ran on Health Care for all. President Obama is delivering. The racists here who talk of The Bradley Effect in reverse are typical of Mr. Cillizza's readers.

This paper when it was liberal was a great newspaper. Now it is a stenography sheet for the Right Wing.

Posted by: wapoisrightwingrag | February 22, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

paul65


Have you heard about Obama's "catch and release" program? In Afghanstan, when our troops capture the Taliban, they either have to have enough evidence to charge them OR RELEASE THEM WITHIN 96 HOURS.

Obama has got to be kidding.

OK, let's be clear: our young men and women are signing up to defend this country, they are risking their lives and many are dying doing this - AND OBAMA WANTS TO RELEASE THE PEOPLE THEY CAPTURE.

No POWs who are held to the end of the war, no nothing.

Obama is making the war a disaster.

The focus-group deceptions can only take Obama so far.

Sorry but the American People are not going to listen to anything Obama has to say if he continues with this health care mania of his.

The American People are giving Obama a line in the sand - drop the health care - Obama is just too stupid to realize it.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

paul65 is delusional and he is posting from some alternate universe.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

The people I talk to CAN'T WAIT to vote out the democrats - and Obama's actions over the past few weeks only confirms those feelings.

People are sick of Obama -

Obama is not going to turn this around by trying to jam the health care through. The American People are going to DEMAND that anything that gets through without their approval be REPEALED.

Obama really believes he is going to jam something through, which everyone is going to be STUCK WITH forever.

That is not the case - and it is astonishing that we have such a RUN-AWAY-GOVERNMENT AT THIS POINT.

Obama fundamentally misunderstands his job.


Obama's job is to do what the American people want.

It is not to LECTURE AND TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A BUNCH OF LIES TO JAM THROUGH A FAR LEFT WING AGENDA.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

In a mere 12 months, Obama already has:

o walked America back from the brink of a second Great Depression; and

o captured or killed most of the Taliban's top commanders and taken back the last Tabliban controlled region in Afghanistan.

In the next few months, he also will:

o pass legislation to eliminate OVER $1 TRILLION IN GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE SPENDING (i.e., his health bill), and

o finish cleaning up Wall Street.

Republicans WISH that Americans would miss all that, but the country is improving and they won't.

Americans want leadership that works, and that is why they will return a large Demorcatic majority to Washington.

Count on it.

Posted by: paul65 | February 22, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

The implosion of the Obama administration is newsworthy, but not as astonishing as this petulant liberal reappraisal of both popular political participation and the structure of American government.

Given that the people apparently don't want bigger deficits, more stimulus, statist healthcare, cap-and-trade, or "comprehensive" immigration reform, and given that the most influential members of the Obama administration think the people either do or should want those things, we are apparently left with blaming George Bush, or self-righteously blaming the people for their stupidity, selfishness, brainwashing, or racism. Yet all of those assumptions only exacerbate the problem, and if continually voiced will turn a mid-term correction into an abject disaster for Democrats.

Posted by: leapin | February 22, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

LET ME BE CLEAR - Let's set this right - Obama is NOW basically NEGOTIATING WITH HIMSELF.

Obama's commitment to the American people was to be bipartisan - to negotiate in good faith with the other party.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED? Obama can't even get the democrats to negotiate and agree amongst themselves. Obama is not negotiating with the Republicans to come up with the plan that everyone can agree with.

INSTEAD OBAMA HAS DECIDED TO NEGOTIATE WITH HIMSELF.

HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN THE SITUATION BE ???


HOW MUCH MORE ISOLATED AND OUT-OF-TOUCH CAN OBAMA BE ????

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

WOO HOO!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 22, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama promised the American People one set of things during the campaign.

He gets into office and goes in a completely different direction.

The American People feel DEFRAUDED. Yes, sometimes it feels like I was the only one to see this completely -


However - there is no way that Obama is going to hold one conference for a day - and be able to say that "he tried" on all his campaign pledges and then he is releaseed somehow.

Many democrats, including on this blog, talk like Obama is able to get some sort of "release" from his commitments to the American People - Obama is released when he leaves office - if he doesn't want to do what he said during the campaign, RESIGN.

Obama made his commitments and that is it.

The American People have little tolerance for Obama - part of it is his youth -

The attitude of the American People is: we gave you a chance, and you blew it, NOW GET OUT. You had your chance.

No one wants to tolerate Obama's arrogance - or his little "bait and switch" routine.

Obama has completely misjudged his situation.

AND I honestly believe that Obama is in MUCH WORSE shape than the polls indicate - because people want to be nicer to Obama when questions compared to how they really feel.


It is sort of like a "Reverse Bradley" effect.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

A good ten months out from the election is not the time to start making predictions, Charlie Cook. Unfortunately, bloggers like Chris have little to report on other than the horserace -- unless they maybe start actually picking horses?

You have no idea of what the political landscape will look like in 2 months, let alone 10. Charlie Cook was among those who had all but annointed and crowned Hillary Clinton in 2007 through Super Tuesday in 2008. Long after she had been defeated and the math was clearly against her, folks like Cook were holding up the hopes of her supporters that "the race was 'equal' and Hillary could still win if, if, if and if only..." She didn't. Cook was wrong after having been so deadset sure just a few months earlier.

If it was so easy to handicap -- be it horses or polticians -- those that do would be far more accurate.

It's time to leave the incessant pollwatching, matchmaking and handicapping behind. Let's spend time covering the real issues in depth and accurately. That means no Palin, no Beck, no Limbaugh. That means when Republicans say they've been "left out of the healthcare debate," people need to be reminded that every committee that put forth a bill on healthcare had its full complement of Republicans. That means they get called out for their stimulus hypocrisy -- as the Wall Street Journal among other news media has outlined.

Posted by: jade_7243 | February 22, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Considering the help the lib party has been getting from the state run media, I would be very concerned. ;0)

Posted by: Kansasgirl | February 22, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Usually, Stu and Charlie aren't that far apart on such situations. Which of them might be wrong? Charlie, for going so far out on a limb, or Stu for being too conservative in his estimate of R. wins?

My feeling is if the D.s lose the house, it's b/c the party has not produced enough change and is being punished not for being too radical, but for being too timid.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | February 22, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Charlie Cook is 100% right - Obama has made fundamental miscaluculations about which direction to take the country since the very beginning.


Obama has proven to be incompetent in getting anything through Congress.


For someone whose resume is a legislator - and pretty much not much else - Obama has shown a complete lack of knowledge and experience in what it takes to get a bill through Congress.

If Obama had not gone a book tour, maybe he would have learned SOMETHING while he was in the Senate - as it was he was not only a non-entity - he was MIA.

This hurts Obama - The economy has been the most important issue for the past 18 months and Obama has virtually ignored the economy -


Obama has even made public statements that he went to Washington to do things that he thinks are more important than tending to the economy.

The American people could not disagree more.

In addition - the electorate that came out for Obama in 2008 was different from other elections - the young came out and the seniors stayed home RELATIVELY - this is not going to hold.


The Seniors are going to come out - they didn't want to vote against Obama last time - but now they really really want to.


Getting the energy to get the youth out again after the past 18 months is just not going to happen.

Most importantly - Obama has exposed the agenda of the democrats - he showed that beyond the creation of a massive government program with massive taxes, the democrats have NOTHING.

That is the problem.


I do not understand how the Washington crew got so out-of-touch with everyone else in the country.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 22, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

In the actual interests of full disclosure, would somebody please list Charlie Cooks qualifications to make such guesses. When it turns out he and Ed Gillespie work for the same company we might be able to properly qualify his opinion.

Note below that Repubs still don't know what to do with Georgie, whereas Democrats will lovingly hang him around any Republican's neck who doesn't recognize the carrion smell of over ripe albatross.

Add to that the charge of the party of NO! and some potential to look like a recovery, and it might be a bit more complicated for R's than Pollyanna Politics.

Especially Pollyanna Politics with a strong Republican History.

Posted by: ceflynline | February 22, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Charlie Cook also, just last week, compared Obama's decision to try to reform health care to Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Actually Mr. Cook, trying to save hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars (by effecting healthcare reform is the EXACT OPPOSITE to costing hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars (in the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq based on political expediency and faulty intel).

Charlie has been drinking the D.C. koolaid for too long and is unfortunately no longer to be taken seriously on his predictions.

Posted by: AjaxtheGreater | February 22, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

This is all pretty cynical. It seems not to matter to Cook whether health care reform will (a) be good for the country or (b) help real people live longer. If its bad politics, its a miscalculation - plain and simple.

In other words, all that seems to matter is self preservation.

Posted by: mikehoffman82 | February 22, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

I think Charlie Cook's predictions in general weigh too much on who is screaming at the tops of their lungs (ie liberals in 2007 and Tea-partists now) and doesn't take into account that most voters aren't paying attention right now to their specific races. House elections are in general very local and they often come down to the actual candidates that are running. Now in some places I agree that the democrats will lose some seats, but if the GOP nominates some whack job then it won't matter what the mood of the country.
Also as I have said a ton of times if the congress passes a bipartisan jobs bill, a bank reform bill, and a environmental reform bill I think the losses may be somewhat subdued. And that doesnt' even address the fact that Van Hollen and DCCC have about 3 times as much money as their GOP counterparts.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 22, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

hahahahaha

liberals bumbling toward irrelevancy, as usual.

Just let them be themselves and they will self extinct.

Posted by: drivl | February 22, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Unemployment will remain high this whole year. No way the democrats can keep the House.

Posted by: doof | February 22, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Nobody just bother listening to Charlie Cook. He's wrong very more often than right.

Posted by: drindl | February 22, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company