Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Cook, Rothenberg See Political Environment Shift



Political handicappers Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg. Photo by Nancy Andrews

Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg, the two most influential political handicappers in Washington, have both written in recent days of a shift toward Republicans in the national political environment as both parties gear up for the 2010 midterm elections.

Cook struck first with a bold -- and widely publicized -- observation in late August that "the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats."

Cook added that his current prediction of a six to 12 seat loss for House Democrats next fall was "far too low" and noted that the chances of Democrats losing 20 or more seats was just as good as the party losing less than 20 seats.

Then, today, Rothenberg penned his usual must-read column in Fix alma mater Roll Call arguing that "growing public concern about spending, taxes and the size of government has started to shift the national landscape away from the Democrats to a more neutral position, and quite possibly toward the GOP."

Rothenberg is far less bullish than Cook about potential large-scale seat losses in the House (or Senate) for Democrats, however, pointing out that while Republicans have scored their fair share of recruiting coups (Martha Roby in Alabama's 2nd, Cory Gardner in Colorado's 4th), Democrats, too, have put seats that were non competitive in recent elections -- Pennsylvania's 15th, California's 45th -- in play.

Still, Rothenberg's broad conclusion -- "the tide clearly has turned nationally, with the president's popularity down and Democrats fighting against a growing mood of dissatisfaction," he writes -- is one that has to worry the party in power.

Electoral politics is damn near impossible to predict -- particularly more than a year out from an election. But, the pronouncements of Rothenberg and Cook matter in the daily debate in political Washington; if they believe Republicans are ascendant, the GOP campaign committees are almost certain to see an influx of money and even a bit of momentum as the calendar turns from 2009 to 2010.

For more on the House playing field, make sure to check out the latest Fix Friday House Line.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 8, 2009; 3:00 PM ET
Categories:  House , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Twittering Gibbs
Next: Hildebrand Speaks Out

Comments

"I think you state the obvious without digging deeper and seeing what else is coming. A populist surge is moving across America and in Arkansas it is very strong. That is why Arkansas will relect an independent for US Senator Trevor Drown to replace Blanche Lincoln. Posted by: PolyArkie "

If you think that much of him, get him to join, or start, a political Party, (maybe the American Reform Party)

Until we get a moderate party with lots of candidates for Congress, State legislatures, and Governors, we are stuck with the revanchist rump of the Republicans.

Independents who make it to Congress have the choice of joining either the Dems or the Repubs in organizing Congress if they want any clout at all, and thus they have to accept all the onus of being in a Party without having the benefits of that parties support.

Posted by: ceflynline | September 9, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite,

I hope 'sverigebrag' was a typo

==

Absolutely it was, my apologies. I never play with others' monikers and I certainly have no reason to call you a braggart.

Thanks for being on board with the effort here

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 9, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Yawn. I see we're back to the fix's main theme --

'Good News for Republicans."

Posted by: drindl | September 9, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I think you state the obvious without digging deeper and seeing what else is coming. A populist surge is moving across America and in Arkansas it is very strong. That is why Arkansas will relect an independent for US Senator Trevor Drown to replace Blanche Lincoln.

Posted by: PolyArkie | September 9, 2009 9:04 AM | Report abuse

If you call a financial crisis and an endless, fruitless war surviving then I will have to agree. However you will recreate history in the same fashion as Nazi's do to indicate that Barney Frank was the cause of everything. In anticipation of your childish nonsense I will therefore disagree with you now.

Good nite.

Posted by: Gator-ron | September 9, 2009 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Just like last time if the GOP took over one or the other House of Congress "the sky is falling" (we survived somehow).

Posted by: JakeD | September 9, 2009 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Cook is pretty smart. Rothenberg is overrated.

What we need is a two party system what we have now is one party and one cult. Cook's opinion which is shared by Nate Silver who is as good or better than Cook makes me concerned that democracy is dead. There is no way we will remain a democracy if Republicans gain ascendency in either house of congress. They are tyrants who will not compromise.

Posted by: Gator-ron | September 8, 2009 11:57 PM | Report abuse

America is at another crossroad.

Republicans are cartoons. Ask a Republican about the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan, "Well that is Barak Hussein Obama's problem," says the bleary cold warrior. Ask the Republican about health care, "Ho ho!, we love our system, I hear it is the best! If you want to make it better, we are all for it."

Love it or lose it America. You voted for Reagan at the last crossroad and you deserve what you have now. You Reagan Bush Palin voters, why didn't your Republican candidates save you? Why do the in migrants and the Chinese own your future? Not enough war? Is that it?

Posted by: shrink2 | September 8, 2009 10:49 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite,

I hope 'sverigebrag' was a typo. I don't recall writing about my accomplishments, and my friends tell me I'm excessively modest about them. But thanks for the advice. I have actually taken it until today, but I just had a weak moment. Forgive the lapse.

sverigegrabb ('grabb' means lad or fellow in Swedish)

Posted by: sverigegrabb | September 8, 2009 10:45 PM | Report abuse

....♫
♬...♪..♩..♩
.....♫
.........♪
....♬
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | September 8, 2009 10:42 PM | Report abuse

you blithering swimmyheads need to read up on Roosevelt's first mid-term. People indeed were angry at Roosevelt but that did not translate ultimately in a vote for Repuglicans. The Socialist party picked up 9 seats the Democrats 9 but the Democrats picked up 9 Senate seats reducing the repuglicans to a quarter. Most major legislation finally started getting out there after that.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | September 8, 2009 10:34 PM | Report abuse

I will note that "scrivener50" posted (at least) three times on this thread.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Tomorrow at least. I'm golfing ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for your post, svergiegrabb. Just for you, I won't post more than once on any thread.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 10:10 PM | Report abuse

sverigebrag: by responding to him in any fashion, you just made his day.

We regulars have a little pact going here: we don't respond to him, nor do we mention him. It may take months but until Chris C elects to smell this particular rotten rose there is no other way.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 9:28 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

I most certainly DON'T consider that part of an adult discourse.

What I do think, however, is that many of YOUR comments are often far from adult, despite what you've led people to believe is your advanced age.

They are also INCESSANT, like a nagging, whining child. Few of them reflect the intelligence you've occasionally, accidentally, revealed.

Additionally, like the boring guest at a dinner party whose comments grow louder and louder because he feels he's not getting sufficiently rapt attention from the other guests, your comments dominate every thread which you post to multiple times, often with less and less content.

At least Scrivener confines himself to once per thread, per day (or less).

Posted by: sverigegrabb | September 8, 2009 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Of course, you also promised to never post here again if "chrisfox8" was banned, so I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Allow me to quote you:

"I'm looking for another discussion board myself, koolkat. Know any good ones?"

Posted by: drindl | September 8, 2009 11:55 AM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/morning-fix-kennedys-no-go.html

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

I thought that you were looking for a new blog to comment on? Don't waste any time here!!!

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Please, PLEASE, force through as much as you can via straight party-line votes and see if the American people don't impose divided government yet again. Neither party learns this lesson.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Correction to previous: "THE ONES Who Walk Away from Omelas."

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

In "The Left Hand of Darkness" Ursula LeGuin posits a group of theoreticians who invent what amounts to infallible fortune telling, to show that it is worthless to know the correct answer to the wrong question.

==

LeGuin emerged from mediocrity as a writer when she wrote "Those Who Walk Away from Omelas," a story I encourage anyone who cares about write and wrong to devour right effing now.

Those who are still Republicans after that party became the defender of falsehood and torture are those who chose not to walk away.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

But failure to achieve passage of reform on a major issue like health care, an issue which many Congressional Democrats campaigned on and which the President campaigned on, will make the Democrats look ineffective and ineffectual to the nation at-large.

==

They won't just appear ineffectual, they genuinely will be. Look at Harry Reid and the closing of Guantanemo, as ineffectual as anyone could be.

==

"Still though if the economy has improved significantly by this time next year, Democratic House losses will be minimal. The Senate map is favorable to the Democrats with numerous Republican retirements and most Democrats up for reelection in solidly Demcoratic states, so they may actually gain seats there, or at least hold steady."

==

And CC and all the Republicans will crow about even the most perfunctory and predictable gains as more evidence of some great comeback.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Let's see what he has to say. There's a rumor that the White House is now drafting its own healthcare reform bill (with a "trigger" if private insurance doesn't step up to the plate, the public option goes into effect sometime down the line -- is that enough to pacify the looney libs -- somehow, I doubt it). What I'm certain about is that pResident Obama will issue tomorrow night yet another arbitrary deadline for this to be passed, or "a disaster beyond your wildest imaginations will occur"*

* Kudos to Andrew Lloyd Webber

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 7:27 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

There won't be a "credible complaint" even if there's no time given to actually read the bill again before the vote?

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

In "The Left Hand of Darkness" Ursula LeGuin posits a group of theoreticians who invent what amounts to infallible fortune telling, to show that it is worthless to know the correct answer to the wrong question.

These two prognosticators are reading polar polling to try to answer questions that are multivariable vectors.They may be able to count beans, or noses, but they obviously mostly know how to find data to support their prejudices.

When someone comes up with a poll that DOES account for the centrist nature of Obama's administration, their interpretation of that poll MIGHT mean something.

Posted by: ceflynline | September 8, 2009 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Concur, OHIO. Whether by dithering or design, the American people and their congressmen are clamoring for clarity and leadership from President Obama.

Regardless of what eventually gets signed, there is not a credible complaint that interested parties were not consulted. Now it is up to the Democrats to pass a cohesive, meaningful piece of legislation, with or without Republican votes, and for Obama to sign it into law.

That will reverse the trend. The economic recovery will seal the deal.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | September 8, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse

While I won't dispute the analysis of Cook and Rothenberg, each of whom has a proven track record and is deserving of great respect in this area of analysis, it's way too early to focus on losses or gains of 2010.

The problems for Democrats right now are two-fold, and both problems could be remedied by next year. The first issue is all the divisiveness on health care has given the impression that Democrats cannot agree among themselves undermining their ability to govern effectively. There are major problems facing the country and Democrats were elected and given control of the national government to solve those problems----to accomplish some things. While there have been some major accomplishments to-date, primarily in the form of rescuing the nation from a possible economic collapse, if health care is not passed it would reinforce in the public's mind, as it did when Congress failed to pass health care in 1994, that Democrats cannot govern effectively when in charge. Democrats are never as effective at achieving the legislative cohesion achieved by Republicans when they have power precisely because Democrats represent a much wider range of views across the political spectrum than do Republicans thanks to the virtual disappearance of moderate and liberal Republicans.

But failure to achieve passage of reform on a major issue like health care, an issue which many Congressional Democrats campaigned on and which the President campaigned on, will make the Democrats look ineffective and ineffectual to the nation at-large.

Getting major health-care reform passed and signed into law will remove at least some of the doubts about Democrats' ability to govern effectively.

That then will mean the focus will be the economy which is still "the" issue for the 2010 midterms. If the economy improves as is likely to occur, and economic recovery is clearly underway by this time next year, Democrats will be in fine shape for 2010. One downside for Democrats right now is the apparent intensity gap where the far-right and reactionary elements are very energized and will definitely come out to support the Republicans next year. The midterm electorate is often older, whiter, and wealthier than the Presidential year electorate. Democrats need to turn their base out next year, and that means accomplishing the passage of legislation and continuing to improve the economy.

Still though if the economy has improved significantly by this time next year, Democratic House losses will be minimal. The Senate map is favorable to the Democrats with numerous Republican retirements and most Democrats up for reelection in solidly Demcoratic states, so they may actually gain seats there, or at least hold steady.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | September 8, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Well, duh. That's why I want him to switch to the other (non-email) method.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | September 8, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

scrivener50:

You may suggest that -- however, Mr. Cillizza has never written a thread here stating the opposite is true, so it is clearly not "on topic" -- or you may simply leave. It's a free country (and one which does not use "directed energy weapons" on non-terrorists ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 6:44 PM | Report abuse

There is at least the potential there for easily identify a multi-flagged post and/or an offensive poster. I have seen it work on other WaPo blogs.

==

Well it clearly isn't working here

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

TO: JakeD @ 6:07 p.m.

"'Directed energy weapon' posts are never on topic..."

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

With the eighth anniversary of 9/11 on Friday, may I suggest that, given the new information at this scientist's web site, such posts are quite on target:

http://drjudywood.com

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 8, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Bottom line, I agree with Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg, the two most influential political handicappers in Washington, that there has been a decided shift toward Republicans in the national political environment as both parties gear up for the 2010 midterm elections. Whether that holds is anyone's guess. I am not predicting a takeover of Congress just yet ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

G&T: I agree they don't have time to read emails. The other type automatically flags a particular entry by type of abuse and by flagger. There is at least the potential there for easily identify a multi-flagged post and/or an offensive poster. I have seen it work on other WaPo blogs.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | September 8, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

ModerateVoter:

The maximum potential total cost under TARP, etc., is currently $23.7 TRILLION (admittedly, some of this has been re-paid early) although I can't seem to find whether the automotive bailout and $180 billion for AIG is included in that figure. For the sake of argument, let's say it is. How much more will Obamacare cost???? Pretty soon, it will become unsustainable.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

I know you are just back but please look into upgrading your "Report abuse" button. This one opens an email from my default address. Other columns/blogs have a simpler reporting mechanism using my log-in name.

==

Those "Report Abuse" links have as much functionality backing them as those buttons at pedestrian intersections that supposedly activate the "Walk" sign (there is no wire coming from the button).

WaPo is laying off right and left, you can be certain that paid moderators for the blogs were the first to go.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

The difference, of course, is that everyone knows the original birth certificate is missing (unlike anyone other than scrivener50 thinking he is being targeted everytime he takes his tinfoil hat off). "Directed energy weapon" posts are never on-topic, but anytime there's a reference to PRESIDENT Obama, the question of whether he is, legally, President of the United States is directly at issue. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 6:07 PM | Report abuse

imaginary energy weapons --> missing birth certificate

pot, meet kettle

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

I doubt it.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Your average American may see no difference.

In the context of what has happened over the past year, I am not surprised that Americans are nervous about more government "intervention" in health care.

==

I think the average American knows he has more to fear from unscrupulous profit-maximizing corporations than from government.

But what pray tell has happened in the last year that should make Americans more nervous about government intervention?

Are you talking about money thrown at banks or are you talking about something like government involvement in private industry? Because the latter doesn't cost me any sleep. Nationalize away, if anyone wants my opinion.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

scrivener50:

Imaginary "directed energy weapons" posts are not germane to ANY thread topic that Mr. Cillizza has ever written. You already know that he doesn't think this blog is being targeted. Why don't you just go away?

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse


Hey, Vic,

I usually just ignore you because you always post the same thing. I don't particularly want CC to ban anyone, but you would do yourself a favor if you could actually express an opinion that was on-topic.

That does not mean figuring out a way to seque into one of YOUR topics. And it means not pasting the same links over and over again.

And it wouldn't hurt if you could restrain yourself from suggesting everyone who responds to you is a paid troll or involved in "lame psy-ops." Can you do that, please?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | September 8, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

ModerateVoter:

What do you think that the average voter thinks about this?

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/57493-senate-must-raise-debt-ceiling-above-12t

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

TO 'FIX' MANAGEMENT:

The only name-calling I've done here lately is to call extreme right GOP'ers "Morlocks" and naive liberal-progressives "Eloi."

In a Jonanthan Swiftian sense, I believe that's appropriate political commentary.

I have thrown the "lame psy ops" label around, but not directed at anyone specific, I don't believe.

And I always try to keep my posts germane to the topic at hand.

Could it be that some very powerful entity is applying direct or indirect pressure, due to the topics I raise here in connection with topical issues such as health care and Van Jones?

Chris, here's a link to a site that I found just the other night. If you give this research by a serious scientist some respectful consideration, I believe you will better understand the political dimensions of some my posts to your blog:

http://drjudywood.com

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 8, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

"The two are not symmetrical as you try to paint them."

I am sure you can find examples of government screwing over the little guy. BTW, I have personal experience in this area.

My point is in how it relates to making your side heard. Who or What is more evil? Big Government or Big Insurance Companies? It may depend upon your political leaning...

Your average American may see no difference.

In the context of what has happened over the past year, I am not surprised that Americans are nervous about more government "intervention" in health care.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | September 8, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I think it is very telling that Obama is already seeking to raise the debt ceiling from what it was just set at in February of 2009 (The debt limit was most recently raised to $12.104 trillion via the Stimulus Bill, P.L. 111-5).

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

It is simply a FACT of economics that we cannot keep going with projected federal deficit in excess of $9 TRILLION.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/business/economy/26deficit.html

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

CC:

I know you are just back but please look into upgrading your "Report abuse" button. This one opens an email from my default address. Other columns/blogs have a simpler reporting mechanism using my log-in name.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | September 8, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, ModerateVoter, the Dems are also going overboard with the takeover of financial, insurance, automotive, housing, and healthcare sectors. It will backlash on them. The question is simply when.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"I've always agreed that both sides do it -- I'm a registered member of the American Independent Party -- I say a pox on both (major party) houses."

Yes you can find examples of both parties doing it. It just seems to me that the republicans have gone too far. It started in the general election. The republicans seem to have created a monster and now it is running around the country creating havoc.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | September 8, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"the other side does it too" doesn't strike me as terribly sagacious.

I agree

==

Good. Some agreement. Let's amplify on it (unless you would rather discuss insignificant fringe parties who run clinically insane yahoos for important offices).

Stoking fears of "big government" is to invoke shadows and bogeymen. "Big government" stirs up resentment whose basis has much more to do with impatience at standing in line in government offices like the DMV than it has to do with any real threat to the national well-being. "Government IS the problem" was the slogan of a president who was personally popular in the most shallow time in our nation's recent history, and his own shallow approach to government -- applause lines -- reflected that.

Stoking fears of "evil corporations" has a much more solid foundation. Just to name one most egregious contemporary example, desperately ill people facing long expensive medical procedures to save their lives being told their insurance coverage in canceled, not only cast adrift in the most vulnerable time of their lives, but having to deal with unfounded accusation of fraud at the same time. If that isn't "evil" I don't think we need to hang around waiting for the real thing.

The two are not symmetrical as you try to paint them.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"the other side does it too" doesn't strike me as terribly sagacious.

I agree

Posted by: ModerateVoter | September 8, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

ModerateVoter:

I've always agreed that both sides do it -- I'm a registered member of the American Independent Party -- I say a pox on both (major party) houses.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"lgeiter, I wanted to make a followup post, but a quick search of The Fix and Rothenberg's archives didn't get me anywhere. There was a Fix post from early 2008 (I think) in which CC discussed the Democrats' chances of getting 60 seats, using Rothenberg as a source. CC concluded it would be very unlikely. Nothing in the analysis seemed flat-out wrong, though some of the predictions didn't work out.

Pundits in general assumed that 2008 would be a national security election between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. That's why I don't trust anyone's long-term predictions. There are just too many variables."

I guess we will have to wait until after the election to make our predictions.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | September 8, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I keep hoping the saner minds will prevail. I just cannot find any sane people right now.

==

We have two parties: one far right, one extreme right, and you see standing in between them as somehow sane.

"the other side does it too" doesn't strike me as terribly sagacious.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"I guess this sort of "both sides do it" is what passes for sagacity in our advanced state of intellectual decline."

I keep hoping the saner minds will prevail. I just cannot find any sane people right now.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | September 8, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

lgeiter, I wanted to make a followup post, but a quick search of The Fix and Rothenberg's archives didn't get me anywhere. There was a Fix post from early 2008 (I think) in which CC discussed the Democrats' chances of getting 60 seats, using Rothenberg as a source. CC concluded it would be very unlikely. Nothing in the analysis seemed flat-out wrong, though some of the predictions didn't work out.

Pundits in general assumed that 2008 would be a national security election between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. That's why I don't trust anyone's long-term predictions. There are just too many variables.

Posted by: Blarg | September 8, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

lgeiter:

"GoldandTanzanite" (fka chrisfox8) was banned already but still came back. What's your third wish though?

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

>>It's quite maddening, actually. A few dollars a year more in taxes to improve the roads would have saved me hundreds of dollars on car repairs. You can't imagine how terrible the roads are.

Actually I can. I work for state Transportation. I know very well what kind of crunch we're in for money with just the kind of unbalanced budget and power games that the governor has been playing here. Things have slowed to a crawl and nothing is coming in to be done.

It would be 10 times worse if we only had state funds which are such a small portion of our budget and currently cut up. Federal funds are about the only way any work gets done. It's ridiculous. But people refuse to realize with smaller government we're going to have to pay more to keep the same standards. They just seem to think that smaller=pay less and then everything's good. That's kind of the maddening thing to me.

Posted by: mtcooley | September 8, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Look the GOP got the "old Mo" by exploiting Americans deep distrust of all things Big. In this case, big government.

The Dems will exploit Americans fear of big companies.

There are plenty of horror stories in both areas.

==

I guess this sort of "both sides do it" is what passes for sagacity in our advanced state of intellectual decline.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Look the GOP got the "old Mo" by exploiting Americans deep distrust of all things Big. In this case, big government.

The Dems will exploit Americans fear of big companies.

There are plenty of horror stories in both areas.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | September 8, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

How accurate were Cook and Rothenberg's 2008 predictions in August 2007? Or their 2006 predictions in August 2005?

Posted by: Blarg | September 8, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

This is a good question and it would be helpful and you could provide that kind of context. Was Obama on their radar screens in August 2007 or either of them project a 60 seat Dem majority in the Senate?

Also, I wish that the final warning to "JakeD", "Scrivener 50",
"GoldandTanzanite" and "snowbama" was really true. I rarely read the comments because they are all so much invective and drivel.

Also, I wish that

Posted by: lgeiter | September 8, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Over-generalizations AND name-calling:

They've already alienated everyone with an education. What started as part of the southern strategy, stirring up resentment against fictitious condescending eastern "elitists," went, predictably, too far and ended up alienating anyone with a high school diploma.

Which is why the GOP is now a fringe party for racist swine.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 4, 2009 4:29 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/ma-senate-special-whos-in-whos.html?wprss=thefix

We know he's hateful, racist swine. Let's just ignore. No need to belabor the point.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 27, 2009 3:21 PM

Palin's out of office, she's sinking like a stone among her former supporters, she's turned into a national troll as someone who'll say anything for attention. We already know from her "Sambo" remark that she's a racist swine, so who cares. Let her continue her decline.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 6:36 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/082109-morning-fix.html

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Generalizations about Republicans or Democrats contribute nothing.

==

Neither does reflexive hand-wringing about generalizations. Generalization remains the greatest and most useful tool the human race ever came up with for making sense of the world.

Republicans since 2000 have grown increasingly comfortable with telling lies. In the past they were wild exaggerations but since Obama's election the the horror of having a black family in the White House, the GOP has pulled all the stops and the wild exaggerations have given way to outright lies with zero factual basis.

If you're squeamish about identifying things as what they actually are, that's a problem.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"The state only makes up a very small piece of the pie and to come up with the rest is going to be squeezing on you or they're going to let roads and services lapse. It's already happening now with how shoddy so many state budgets are kept."

It's quite maddening, actually. A few dollars a year more in taxes to improve the roads would have saved me hundreds of dollars on car repairs. You can't imagine how terrible the roads are.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 8, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite...

Generalizations about Republicans or Democrats contribute nothing.

"Easy to do when you have no scruples about telling the truth. Democrats seem hindered by the presumption that truth will win out, or that the intrinsic benefit of a good plan will prevail.

If Republicans felt constrained to tell the truth, well, they wouldn't be Republicans, now, would they."

Posted by: ModerateVoter | September 8, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

ModerateVoter writes
"First the GOP will be in the wilderness for years and now they will be back next year. How do I get a job writing this crap.

I think the GOP have some momentum right now. Lets see where things stand in 1 year. Until then it is all crap on paper."


Agreed. Voters are frustrated with how washington is working & with the Dems, as the Dems are in control. The thing is, voters still side with the Dems on the issues. Pollsters predicting the number of seats to switch next year based on today's numbers are chasing a fool's errand. Of course, that's what they get paid to do. They're like weather forecasters; right or wrong, they still get paid.

Posted by: bsimon1 | September 8, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand the U.S.'s obession with small government. We're a large country and to deal with a country our size on a federal level it's going to be huge.

==

I really don't think there is major widespread concern over "the size of government." That was a Reagan-era hot-button bumpersticker-sized talking point and if it had not ceased to be an issue long before, it certainly ceased to be one when government fell flat on its face in the response to the drowning of New Orleans.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

For the record, calling someone a "troll" or "racist swine" is indeed NAME-CALLING.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Take this as a final warning. If you can't comment on topic or -- AT THE VERY LEAST -- avoid hijacking every thread with name-calling, you will be banned.

==

This warning is pretty much disconnected from the reality of the blog. First of all, you once again list name-calling as the principal offense going on here, and two of the four you single out -- scrivener50 and myself -- don't engage in name-calling at all.

Second of all, you have nothing whatever to say about thread-hijacking, save as an effect of name-calling, when the reality is that we have two people, and to a lesser extent scrivener, who do nothing but hijack threads. The one whom I won't name even her issues the same half-dozen posts all day, every day, in every thread. Nothing to say about that? Do you think the real potential contributors are all "OK" with reading this crap about Obama's "long form birth certificate" three dozen times per day?

The problem with this blog has nothing to do with "name-calling," and everything to do with two very repetititive trolls.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand the U.S.'s obession with small government. We're a large country and to deal with a country our size on a federal level it's going to be huge.

I can understand less invasive or restrictive because that's something we can control policy wise, but sheer size? I don't think we'd get that unless we had the state governments being overwhelming majority. Which would mean either less services or increased taxes. Which is something a lot of people don't think about in terms of transportation dollars or Medicare dollars. The state only makes up a very small piece of the pie and to come up with the rest is going to be squeezing on you or they're going to let roads and services lapse. It's already happening now with how shoddy so many state budgets are kept.

Posted by: mtcooley | September 8, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

I plan on coming back as chrisfox9 this time.

funny no mention of drindl. what has she got on you CC? I don't think there is a greater offender. Is it the hourly love letters to your email box?

Much as you Liberals would love to control the press, for example, not printing stories of Van Jones, you have lost your monopoly power. Fox news and the WSJ has stomped the life out of the axis of evil - NYTimes, WaPo, NBCABCCBS.

Like Obama, did you ever consider it was the message and not the messenger?

Posted by: snowbama | September 8, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Yet again the comments section is descending into nothing more than name-calling that 1) has nothing to do with the post in which the comments are being made and 2) inhibits an on-topic discussion by those who would like to have one.

"JakeD", "Scrivener 50", "GoldandTanzanite" and "snowbama" this means you.

==

I haven't called anyone any names. Matter of fact I don't even respond to the troll however much he tries to bait me.

If you were actually paying attention to who does the disruption around here you would have banned him a long time ago and we wouldn't have to keep revisiting this issue.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

General mud slinging adds so much to the discussion. No wonder nothing gets done. With the Dems in power, the Repubs throw mud to bring them down. If the Repubs are in power the Dems return the favor.

I guess it will take a Katrina like disaster with health care before anything will get done.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | September 8, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

OK. It's just too rich to pass on.

Here's Keith Olbermann over the weekend, blogging his fury over Glenn Beck's well-within the bounds revelations of Van Jones public record, much of which was delivered to Beck courtesy of Jones' quite public statements and actions.
Here is Keith, the spittle practically visible on the computer screen:

Find everything you can about Glenn Beck, Stu Burguiere, and Roger Ailes. Tuesday we will expand this to the television audience and have a dedicated email address to accept leads, tips, contacts, on Beck, his radio producer Burguiere, and the chief of his TV enablers, Ailes…

Does this sound a tad familiar if you are a movie fan? Let's rack up this little riff from The Untouchables, Here is Olbermann on Beck…uh, sorry, I meant Capone on Ness…

"I want you to get this f… where he breathes! I want you to find this nancy-boy Eliot Ness, I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I wanna go there in the middle of the night and I wanna PISS ON HIS ASHES!"

What this sentiment betrays, as happens when a hard-core leftist lets the public mask slips, is that their authoritarian nature relentlessly propels them towards the personal destruction of their ideological opponents. Van Jones took himself down with a series of wildly nutty on-the- record remarks and actions. Beck never touched the guy's personal life -- was he a drunk? A cheat? A drug addict? In short: don't know and don't care. Mr. Jones private life is his own. His public record is not, and Beck concentrated his fire there. He continues to do his incredible research into the public record of others in the Obama administration, asking the American people in this 21st century communications web for help in this regard.

Olbermann, on the other hand, responds as above. Also, there is one notable difference between Jones and Beck. Jones was a government official, Glenn Beck is private citizen. Which means Olbermann has decided to threaten a private citizen for his actions in looking into the public record of a public official.

In a word?

Typical.

Get em peeps!!

Posted by: snowbama | September 8, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Folks,

Yet again the comments section is descending into nothing more than name-calling that 1) has nothing to do with the post in which the comments are being made and 2) inhibits an on-topic discussion by those who would like to have one.

"JakeD", "Scrivener 50", "GoldandTanzanite" and "snowbama" this means you.

Take this as a final warning. If you can't comment on topic or -- AT THE VERY LEAST -- avoid hijacking every thread with name-calling, you will be banned.

Thanks,
Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | September 8, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

The speech is in some ways an exercise of ego—the great orator (or so we’ve been told) who has lost the public on the issue needs to get back his mojo and wants to turn off the media chatter about a floundering presidency. So he goes back to the “grand speech” formula. But his problem is not purely a rhetorical one. It is one of substance and of legislative dealmaking. He needs to find his inner LBJ if he is to succeed, not return to campaign mode, which frankly hasn’t done him any good while in office.

If the president hasn’t figured out what deal he wants—and what deal he can get—it might have been a good idea to forgo the speech and call for a summit of congressional leaders to hammer out a deal. That would have shown a devotion to serious governance. But that’s not Obama’s style. We’ll see if the public—and more important, Congress—has the patience for yet another grand address and whether this magically unlocks a health-care deal. Ironically, the public might be more curious and take more seriously what Obama has to say if he had not seriously overexposed himself and tried everyone’s patience. At this late date, many suspect they’ve already heard it all.

Wrong wrong. me me me.. very important.

Posted by: snowbama | September 8, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Since it is clear I stand no chance of getting elected ever again, and that I will lose the majority I proclaimed would instill Liberal policies throughout the land (how little I knew), I am therefore forced to try and slam through everything I got in the next 2-3 months, before the truth about my policies and their outcomes is revealed.

I should have closed down fox news instead of Gitmo.

If this takes a boat full of lies and obfuscation, so be it. It's not like that is any change from my lifetime of achievement.

Posted by: snowbama | September 8, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

This is a Nation of Confusion and Mis-placed Priorites
its Divided we Stand For A Divided States OF America:
We can thank the republicans for that ever since JFK days,and thats when corporaite America took over the nation to infected this nation with Boot-licking-Lackeys offspring – like right-wing republicans : They control Insurance industry ;food ; health care; manufacturing , the media even the national-agenda,such as war and the type of cars we should drive: Do you think those clowns who shout at the meetings are inteligent enough to spear a nation-wide campane and just by chance a national Tv crew show up ??
There is a deep division in America or a pralysis of individual-thinking ,reguardless if the Republicans or the news media aggree or not….its a fact …fightig against our own best interest is stupid :
we need a Public HEALTH CARE Plan now not latter: don’t let this nation become like the republicans- backwards ,dull and divisive before the Global community and to all Americans : the Republican party has breeched its trust and has failed the nation again and again , how many more good and honest people must die before the hands of ruthless corporate owned politicians and there connection with right-wing-Republican-Psychosis /Psychotic /Pyromania/Schizophrenia….who have nott comme to gripps with the facts of this election and who the people want to govern this nation do you get a little feeling of Separation Anxiety???

Posted by: denniswaite1 | September 8, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

sverigegrabb:

Do you consider the claim that "every Republican tells nothing but lies" to be ADULT discourse?

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

How accurate were Cook and Rothenberg's 2008 predictions in August 2007? Or their 2006 predictions in August 2005?

Posted by: Blarg | September 8, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Well, like it or not, these guys control the debate

==

Easy to do when you have no scruples about telling the truth. Democrats seem hindered by the presumption that truth will win out, or that the intrinsic benefit of a good plan will prevail.

If Republicans felt constrained to tell the truth, well, they wouldn't be Republicans, now, would they.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I ignored this blog for however many weeks you were on holiday. I now return, full of hope that we will have a civil, ADULT discourse on the comments page, yet I find the same infantile backbiting as before. Clearly I'm too idealistic.

Apropos being adult, do no adults monitor this blog to identify those who 'do not play well with others'?

Posted by: sverigegrabb | September 8, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

First the GOP will be in the wilderness for years and now they will be back next year. How do I get a job writing this crap.

I think the GOP have some momentum right now. Lets see where things stand in 1 year. Until then it is all crap on paper.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | September 8, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama = Carter = one-term wonder

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

"GOP is just another word for "mud" and will be for another generation.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite"

Well, like it or not, these guys control the debate. Most Americans are concerned about taxes?? Pretty much the whole country is paying less taxes.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 8, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

That's what the Democrats thought after tossing Gerald Ford out of office.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Then, today, Rothenberg penned his usual must-read column in Fix alma mater Roll Call arguing that "growing public concern about spending, taxes and the size of government has started to shift the national landscape away from the Democrats to a more neutral position, and quite possibly toward the GOP."

==

Hardly the basis of a "resurgence."

GOP is just another word for "mud" and will be for another generation.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Since Palin is going to be the next President of the United States, you'd better get used to hearing it now.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

First day back and right on schedule a "GOP resurgence" column.

I suppose "Palin!! Palin!! Palin!!!" can't be far behind.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 8, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

GOP / SECURITY-MILITARY-INTEL-CORPORATE COMPLEX:

The Morlocks.

DEM LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES:

The Eloi.

***

The Dems must retain their Eloi values while adopting the take-no-prisoners ethos of the Morlocks.

The mainstream media continues to keep its collective head buried in the sand... enabling the dark side, which continues to pursue a peculiar and dangerous ideology...

...an American politicide hiding in plain sight -- with progressives, liberals and the compliant, unquestioning mainstream media complicit by their cowardice.

Team Obama, please read this, because your agenda, and your personnel, appear to be in the cross-hairs of a covert "multi-agency coordinated action" program that disgraces the Constitution and makes a mockery of the rule of law.

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

***

ATTENTION KEITH OLBERMANN, RACHEL MADDOW, BILL WOLFF:

See this and relevant links, re: your 9/11 coverage:

http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=14148

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 8, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

The GOP have "Mo" -- WOO HOO!!!

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

The landscape - last updated September 8, 2009

http://www.livableworld.org/elections/early_look_2010_senate_elections/

The Results of the 2010 elections will be . . .

Only fools and those paid to provide sage political analysis can pretend to predict confidently the outcome of the November 2010 elections.

This caution has not stopped wild predictions that Republicans will gain so many seats in the Senate, or that Democrats are in jeopardy of losing control of the House.

If the elections were held in November 2009, the predictions might prove prescient. After months of seeing the President’s top priority of health care reform battered in Congress and across the country, as well as the uncertain economy, Republicans would be in a position for significant gains. But 14 months before the next elections is a political lifetime.

If the status quo continues for 14 months, woe is to the President’s party. But if the economy continues to improve and if a significant health care bill passes Congress and is signed by the President – two admittedly big “ifs” – the results are likely to be significantly different.

Just take a look at the last two months of Senate political developments that have produced many twists and turns and ups and down for both parties.

During that time, one Senator unexpectedly resigned early (Martinez of Florida), one signaled that she would resign in the middle of her term (Hutchison of Texas), one gave in to GOP pressure and said he would not run again (Bunning), and one passed away (Kennedy of Massachusetts).

Candidates have dropped into contests or signaled their approaching announcements in recent months: Sestak (D) of Pennsylvania, Kirk (R) of Illinois, Melancon (D) in Louisiana, Ayotte (R) of New Hampshire, Fiorina (R) in California, Norton (R) in Colorado, and Romanoff (D) in Colorado.

Recent polls have shown at least two additional incumbents in serious political jeopardy: Reid (D) in Nevada and Lincoln (D) in Arkansas.

Prominent politicians have declined to run for the Senate: Madigan (D) in Illinois, Maloney (D) in New York and Joseph Kennedy (D) in Massachusetts.

In other states, potential candidates who have not yet declared their intentions to run will make or break elections in their states: Castle (R) in Delaware, Etheridge (D) in North Carolina and Hoeven (R) in North Dakota.

What does all this mean for the final outcome in November next year? Ask me after the election.

Posted by: jdi123 | September 8, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company