Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Democratic incumbents beware!

A series of national polls released in recent days suggest the American people are mad as hell and they aren't going to take it anymore.

In a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll just 22 percent approve of the job Congress is doing. Just 38 percent said their Member of Congress deserves to be re-elected while 49 percent said it is "time to give a new person a chance".

That "throw the bums out" mentality is particularly dangerous for Senate Democrats who have five incumbents on our new Line.

Friday Line

The power of incumbency still matters -- money, organization, name identification, campaign know-how -- but the tempestuous mood of the electorate serves as a tremendous equalizer, giving challengers a chance at a fair(ish) fight that they might not get otherwise.

For Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Harry Reid (Nev.) the problem is particularly acute as the power that they hold in Washington, which normally would be a strong argument in their favor in the eyes of voters, may wind up actually hurting them if this anti-incumbent sentiment persists into next year.

As always, the number one ranked race on the Line is the most likely to switch parties next November. You can rate the races yourself at the bottom of this post and/or offer your thoughts on our picks in the comments section.

To the Line!

10. Pennsylvania (Democratic-controlled): Democrats insist that while they are headed for a very contentious primary between party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter and Rep. Joe Sestak in the spring, no matter who emerges (and the race seems to be a jump ball at the moment) will have a clear edge over former Rep. Pat Toomey (R). Polling suggests that Toomey is in a dead heat with Specter but when some of his more controversial past statements as president of the Club for Growth get a full airing it will be far tougher for him to keep his veneer of moderation. (Previous ranking: 9)

9. Illinois (D): The two frontrunners in this race -- state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias for Democrats, Rep. Mark Kirk for Republicans -- benefit immensely from the state's very early primary. Both hold comfortable leads in recent polling and once people start paying attention to politics after the holidays there will be roughly a month for their challengers to make up ground. (The Illinois primary is Feb 2.) A Kirk-Giannoulias general election will be both fascinating to watch -- the Republican will have to answer for his votes in Congress, the Democrat for his ties to Broadway Bank -- and extremely close. (Previous ranking: 10)

8. Colorado (D): We won't know whether state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff's primary challenge to appointed Sen. Michael Bennet is serious until early next year when campaign finance reports are due at the Federal Election Commission. Romanoff won't match Bennet in cash collected but he has to show an ability to raise enough to stay within financial shouting distance of the incumbent. Republicans are excited about the candidacy of former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton but the candidacy of wealthy state Sen. Tom Wiens complicates her path to the nomination. Assuming Bennet and Norton emerge from their primary fights (and they should), the outcome of the general election could depend heavily on the political environment in the state and nationally. (Previous ranking: 7)

7. Arkansas (D): The Republican field continues to grow with former Arkansas Farm Bureau president Stanley Reed getting in last week. (UPDATE: Reed withdrew from the race this afternoon.) State Sen. Gilbert Baker is still the favorite of the party establishment but Reed's background (and personal wealth) could make him an attractive candidate. And, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) continues to look somewhat unsure of herself -- particularly in her handling of the health care vote. Lincoln voted for cloture and will almost certainly vote for final passage as well, votes that will be used as campaign fodder by the Republican nominee. Given the state's strong Republican lean -- President Obama took just 39 percent in 2008 -- and the tough political terrain for Democrats at the moment, this race looks likely to move up the Line. (Previous ranking: 8)

6. Ohio (Republican-controlled): The struggling state economy -- unemployment at 10.6 percent -- have badly eroded support for Gov. Ted Strickland and, to a lesser extent, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher -- the party's likely Senate nominee. Former Rep. Rob Portman (R) has major problems of his own -- chief among them his service as U.S. Trade Representative in the Bush Administration -- but he is a quality candidate who has proven himself to be a very good fundraiser. National mood will matter here and if there is an anti-Democratic sentiment in the country, Portman is well-positioned to benefit. (Previous ranking: 5)

5. New Hampshire (R): Earlier this week, we had the chance to sit down with businessman Ovide Lamontagne, who is challenging establishment favorite and former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte in next year's Republican primary. Although he is a down-the-line conservative, Lamontagne comes across as neither angry nor unreasonable -- a potential problem for Ayotte. The issue for Lamontagne is whether he can raise enough money to both re-introduce himself to the state's voters (he was the GOP gubernatorial nominee way back in 1996) while also defining Ayotte as out of the conservative mainstream. Meanwhile, Rep. Paul Hodes, who avoided a Democratic primary race, is free to raise money and ready himself for a general election fight. (Previous ranking: 4)

4. Missouri (R): Given Democrats' struggles at the national level over the last six months, it's somewhat remarkable that Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D) continues to remain in a statistical dead heat against Rep. Roy Blunt (R). Democrats are supremely confident about their chances of winning this open seat -- citing Carnahan's skills as a candidate and the treasure trove of attacks available on Blunt from his time in Congress. A continued decline in the national environment for Democrats, however, could be an equalizer in a state that is among the most evenly divided along party lines of any in the country. (Previous ranking: 6)

3. Delaware (D): Republicans continue to hope -- perhaps against hope -- that state Attorney General Beau Biden (D) will take a pass on this open seat race against Rep. Mike Castle (R). Democrats insist that Biden is still almost-certain to run and is simply making sure he has everything in place before formally announcing. Assuming Biden runs, this will be the second great Senate race in the last ten years in Delaware. (The first being Sen. Bill Roth vs Gov. Tom Carper in 2000.) (Previous ranking: 2)

2. Nevada (D): For all of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D) political smarts, it's hard to ignore the fact that he is trailing two unknown Republicans -- former state party chairwoman Sue Lowden and businessman Danny Tarkanian -- in a slew of independent polls conducted over the past few months. And, Reid's ads, which paint him as someone who delivers for the state, haven't moved his numbers in any appreciable way -- a fact that should worry his allies. Democrats argue that the weakness of the Republican field is Reid's best argument for re-election but if voters are truly sick of the Nevada Democrat, they may be willing to try almost anyone else. The test for Lowden, the likely Republican nominee, is whether she can be a credible alternative. (Previous ranking: 3)

1. Connecticut (D): The drumbeat for Sen. Chris Dodd (D) to step down is starting to be heard in political circles in Washington and Connecticut. Dodd allies insist he has no plans to retire and believe there is a path for him to win re-election by scoring a series of legislative accomplishments over the early months of 2010 and, in doing so, proving his relevance in the state. But, polling suggest voters don't trust Dodd any longer, which is a difficult thing for a longtime incumbent -- Dodd has been in the Senate since 1980 -- to overcome. Republicans are headed toward a serious primary fight between former Rep. Rob Simmons and wealthy political newcomer Linda McMahon. (Previous ranking: 1)

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 18, 2009; 1:49 PM ET
Categories:  The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama to make 'robust effort' on climate change in 2010
Next: Health care winners and losers?


TP is a coalition of both sides


Yeah, SURE it is. It's a true "grass roots" movement, PAY NO ATTENTION to the Club for Growth creeps behind the stage pulling the marionette strings.

Sheesh. Go back to sleep.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 21, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Every day Americans lose trust in Obama, and that is a day closer to the Republicans coming back to power in 2010.


Not even Drudge is forecasting that.

There is no way the numbers add up to Republicans coming back into power.

Even if Obama turned up in a drunk tank or was caught with a live boy / dead girl, Republicans are never going to get more than the teabaggers. They simply have nothing to offer the country.


Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 21, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

I know the general public is slow to get it but come on people! The Tea Party is not splitting the Republican Party, TP is a coalition of both sides that simply are not going to vote any incumbent back in office in 2010.The blatent disregard for the voter and outright coruption displayed in the last year has sealed their fate. Flushing the system is needed and it will happen next Nov.!

Posted by: dbhartnett | December 21, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Every day Americans lose trust in Obama, and that is a day closer to the Republicans coming back to power in 2010. With your liberal bias, you are still ranking some Republican races ahead of Democratic incumbent races. Take away that bias, and Republicans retake control of the Senate, if the election were held today. That's an amazing situation. If it keeps going like this, there will be talk of impeaching Obama by this time next year. Has there ever been a party to implode this quickly after such an overwhelming electoral victory in American history?

Posted by: kenpasadena | December 21, 2009 2:41 AM | Report abuse

You decide.


We did. Last December. You lost.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 11:54 PM | Report abuse

There is one wild-card - are these teapartiers going to split the Republican vote ?

The Republican party is split against its moderates - that is what happened in New York 23.

The democrats want to go after their blue dogs -

The far wings want to go to war against the center.

You decide.


Posted by: 37thand0street | December 20, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Chris, as always, you have a keen political acumen, but you appear to have overlooked/disregarded some rather obvious factors in the races you're profiling. 1st, why is Colorado so low on the list? It's true that the state has gone from red to purple to blue like no other this decade (except N.H.), but Norton's numbers are sky-high; multiple polls have her leading both Bennet & Romanoff. Also, while Wiens' wealth is a threat in the GOP primary, neither he nor Ken Buck represent the kind of challenge Bennet is facing from Romanoff. Colorado should @ LEAST be No. 5.
PA is also ranked too low. The out-dated notion that Toomey is simply too far right to be palatable to the statewide electorate is undermined - if not thoroughly discredited - by his strong poll nos. and his ability to win election thrice in a Democrat-dominated district.
Other than that I think your rankings are solid, although your logic is a tad confused, but I won't nit-pick. Happy Christmas, everyone!

Posted by: right-wing_genius | December 20, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Looking at armpeg @154, I see that now that the Republicans are out of power they have become fiscally responsible. Looks to me like Bush was buying an awful lot of senior's votes with that COLA money. But then that administration spent like a bunch of drunken sailors, went through the Clinton surplus in record time and left a huge deficit for the Democrats... and are now whining about every dime Obama spends -- and every dime he doesn't spend.

:-) lol, to quote jacked.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 20, 2009 12:59 AM | Report abuse

"It is more than worthless to know the answer to a deliberately wrong question."

Exactly, ceflynline. The same as it is worthless to poll people who are not paying attention to politics about politics -- especially 10 months away from an off-year election they probably won't vote in. But hey, the pollster got paid, the campaign got a poll number to wave around, and the reporter didn't have to do any work.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 20, 2009 12:52 AM | Report abuse

"The struggling state economy -- unemployment at 10.6 percent -- have badly eroded support for Gov. Ted Strickland and, to a lesser extent, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher -- the party's likely Senate nominee."

Yeah, but the Republican Majority in the Senate just decided that the only way they could vote for a necessary delay in a Republican tax cut was to demand that the democrats give them a major change in contracting regulations that the Dems detest, accept only a partial roll back of the tax cut, and vote enbloc so that the Republicans only needed to come up with 5 Republican votes for a Republican bill.

Right now there MAY be a republican Compromise, they will delay the entire tax cut, (the partial tax cut would have caused real problems for the State revenue agency) provided the Dems give them the contract changes, AND the Republicans inly have to come up with five votes.

That or Schools big and small take a beating in the budget cuts.

Whoever runs for Governor, and Portman or whoever beats him in the primary, have to run with that farce still fresh in the electorates memory.

The Repubs can probably do it, PROVIDED they campaign entirely in a non english language spoken by fewer than one Ohioan in ten million.

Serbian (Voinovitches's likely choice) Arabic, Lebanese, Syrian, Amharic,
Geez, are all out of the question, too many Buckeyes speak one or the other of them. So are (probably) Dari, Pashto, Waziri, Uzbec, Tadjik, or Farsi, because enough GI's have enough of a smattering of those languages to know when Republicans are dissembling in one or the other of them. Of course, regardless of language, if a Republican is speaking it he is probably dissembling, so the rest of us know we aren't getting much more than a vague semblance of the truth.

Buckeyes may be mad at incumbents, but they are REALLY mad at Republicans, and Republican incumbents? Should I even THINK the feelings about them the propriety checker at WAPO would reject my post.

Posted by: ceflynline | December 19, 2009 10:45 PM | Report abuse

And now lets analyze the poll itself.

"1008 individuals polled. error porm 3%."

To get a feel for how the electorate feels about THEIR particular Rep and Senator, they really would have had to question at least 1500 people IN EACH OF 435 districts, asking them "If there were an election next Tuesday, would you vote for X (the incumbent) Y (his opponent in the last election) or Z (some other name, assuming he would actually run).

Now if that produced an across the board shift in incumbency, it might mean something, but 1008 people at random on the proposed opinion, "How is Congress doing" is meaningless. The poll could go 90% against the weekl before an election and still not predict almost no change in the make up of Congress.

It is more than worthless to know the answer to a deliberately w2rong question.

Especially worthless when asked just before a major change in the political arena. (Health Care passage is certainly such a change in the whether (sic))

Now if the question asked of those 600.000 persons across the country had been, "How do you see your representative,

A. He is a lying, obstructionist weasel I will never again consider voting for.

B He is doing what he can in the face of lots of lying weasels, but HE is a good guy.

C He wasn't someone I voted for, but I believe he IS doing a good job and will probably vote for him in the future

(C is there to see just how many people didn't pay any attention to the question)

When As significantly outnumber B's, the incumbent is in trouble, otherwise not.

But just 1008 people polled?

Really, statistics says that sample, spread over a continent, isn't significant. After all it means just 2.5 persons per congressional district, more or less.

The poll might just as well have been 1008 WSJ subscribers.

Posted by: ceflynline | December 19, 2009 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Still waiting to read the "final" bill.

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

The measure of anti incumbency would have some meaning IFF there is a major attempt by a third party to run candidates in the Congressional elections next year.

Should the American reform party, for instance, pop up and run moderate Republicans and ostracized RINO's, there would be significant effects, but only on Republicans and some democrats in otherwise red districts. Cris needs to watch for any signs of such a surge in non Repub/Dem sentiment.

Otherwise it will be lots of 'My Rep and My Senator are all right but those other guys gotta go, and that by itself always changes nothing.

Since one of the major iritants, getting health care passed, is now apparently passed, and only those people who vote republican anyway would believe that sending Republicans to Congress to make needed changes are a good idea, the anti incumbent numbers don't mean all that much just now.

OPf course, SHOULD Ross Perot and the ARP make a come back, it will be the republicans in swing districts who lose large numbers of votes to the third party who take the worst drubbings. Sometimes it will be the ARP candidate that wins, but mostly it will be Dems who have the significant plurality.

IF we get a lot of ARP activity, it won't likely be until about 2014 that they begin winning significant numbers of seats in Congress and the state legislatures, but it will be all down hill for the Republicans as the center goes where they are welcome.

Posted by: ceflynline | December 19, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Only in liberal land could the new transparency lead to locked and closed doors on the signature legislation of the year. I looked on cspan. Nope

only in liberal land could the new bipartisanship result in zero cross aisle votes. Zero.

Only in liberal land could change mean under the table buy offs and double dealing in a new massive scale.

Only in liberal land could it be considered that starting out with a 60-40 advantage, and working your way back to a 60-40 advantage be considered a brilliant victory.

Only I'm liberalland could the first "success" be jammed through over massive public objection in a middle of the night vote a few days before Christmas under a giant snow storm. How desperate for a single first non failure are these pitiful simps?

Posted by: snowbama | December 19, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"Not complainin', just sayin'."

Well I am complaining. It is a lot more fun arguing with people who are actually writing in their own words (not cutting and pasting from other blogs we all read anyway or relentlessly repeating themselves) and who are also capable of drilling into the political details of this crucial period in American history.

This health care bill is more than massive. Gail Collins makes a good point today in re missed political opportunities that are lost forever. Now the question is whether the gross policy errors it writes into law (these are not just "flaws" that can be "tweaked" at some later date) can ever be undone.

This is so much bigger than the child services bill Collins uses as an illustration of a good idea that vanished into the Republican contract on America.

Many fear this bill will blow up the health care industry into something so big no future government will be able to control it. This bill may be final, it may mark the end of the debate of single payer, or a public option apart from M&M. This bill may represent the loss of the opportunity to install cost controls.

Perhaps the threshold from which government no longer has a handle on the industry was already crossed and that is why this Senate bill has become what it is. Perhaps this is in fact a bipartisan agreement, appearances to the contrary. Both parties agree, cost containment is a non-starter. Cue the strains of Kumbaya.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 19, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

It'll be interesting if the retired Senior Citizens, the disabled, and the needy now drawing Social Security checks, will support the Democrap Socialist's in the 2010 elections, as they did in the 2008 elections, after not only getting a $500 billion cut in Medicare, but for the first time since 1975, not getting a cost of living adjustment (COLA) in their 2010 Social Security checks.
Here's the COLA adjustments since 1975 (Fact Sheet Social Security Online):
1/2002-2.6% Pres. GW Bush
1/2003-1.4% Pres. GW Bush
1/2004-2.1% Pres. GW Bush
1/2005-2.7% Pres. GW Bush
1/2006-4.1% Pres. GW Bush
1/2007-3.3% Pres. GW Bush
1/2008-2.3% Pres. GW Bush
1/2009-5.8% Pres. GW Bush
1/2010-0.0% Comrade B. Obama

Hey, somebody has to pay for Comrade Obama's and the Democrap Socialist's redistribution of all wealth policies and their Socialist/Communist agenda to control all the American people. You're elected Senior Citizens, disabled persons, and Americans with special needs now drawing and living on Social Security.

By the way. The Democrap Socialist's have already announced that there probably won't be a COLA adjustment in 2011 either. The piper has to be paid.

Posted by: armpeg | December 19, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Fix people, this is an example of how a Comments section should work. There is passionate, cross talking, real time debate.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 19, 2009 11:33 AM

Correction: this was renamed "Jake's Place," an Internet platform for anti-BHO screeds, cherry picked polls, and articles, for re-typed RNC press releases and GOP comeback shoutouts, and, most importantly, for endless demands for BHO's [non-existent] long form certificate and searches for the whitey tape.

Not complainin', just sayin'.


Re: No. 1 (Dodd)--As we understand it, Conn. Atty. Genl. Richard Blumenthal is ready to replace Dodd on a momemnt's notice(and win). So if Dodd stays in the race and loses, that reflects his ego and not any weakness in the BHO progressive agenda.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 19, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Fix people, this is an example of how a Comments section should work. There is passionate, cross talking, real time debate.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 19, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Chris you should mention NY, Gilibrand is not popular, or not known well. Many, like myself, are pissed off at how she was picked by Paterson. Bill Thompson, who lost the race for Mayor, is talking about running in the primary.

While Gulliani is out, thank God, Pataki is talking about a run in the primary against Lazio, who lost to Hillary.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | December 19, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse

With these results-driven, Bizarro/BroderWorld, Rasmussen-type polls all the rage now, we need to ignore them (didn't the mothership Drudge's preelection "poll" show Mac beating BHO by double-digits?). The pollsters know the more ridiculous their results are, the more publicity they'll get (as with the poll claiming the Kla-, er, "Teabaggers" were more popular than either party). Get real.

Relax and wait for the only poll that matters: the Election Day vote totals. As far as the Congress goes, we are aware of no legitimate analysis predicting either the Senate or the House will switch to GOP control.

35, 36, __, 38, 39...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 19, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

What happened? Did the developing countries actually believe that they would have a free ride, as the scientists had told them ?

Those pesky scientists, they will tell you anything to get a consensus.


Posted by: 37thand0street | December 19, 2009 12:31 AM | Report abuse

If I've learned one thing from life it is this. The secret of happiness is to always make sure you get the upper hand, no matter how slight, get the better deal. Never let anyone get over on you. If, in the end, you get more than you give, you will die happy, guaranteed. At your funeral they'll say, "What a guy, he was always able to get more from other people than he lost to them, I wish I could die like that."

Posted by: shrink2 | December 18, 2009 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Skoulz a waist. Sure wish I quitid it soonerer.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 18, 2009 11:28 PM | Report abuse

I'll play

I wish I had spent more time at the office.

Posted by: snowbama | December 18, 2009 10:30 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote, "Call me crazy, but I like to collect these deathbed pronouncement jokes. Here is another one. 'Best idea I ever had, I cheated on the mother/father of my children.'"

If you were any more ironic you'd have to pay dues to the United Steelworkers. I like it.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | December 18, 2009 9:36 PM | Report abuse



Call me crazy, but I like to collect these deathbed pronouncement jokes.

Here is another one.

"Best idea I ever had, I cheated on the mother/father of my children."

Posted by: shrink2 | December 18, 2009 9:27 PM | Report abuse

scrivener50 wrote, "Arlen Specter has keen insights into what can and has happened when insidious forces infect the body politic. Now, in the twilight of an amazing and eventful career, his moral soul may compel him to use whatever knowledge he has gained to right some very serious and threatening wrongs."

His hair's grown back (by what means I shall not enquire), obviating the need for a tinfoil hat.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | December 18, 2009 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Most Democrats in Congress share the excess hubris with those in the white house seeking to enact their agenda, hoping voters will forget everything by the next elections. Undoubtedly given the low attention span and how easily millions are duped, some will forget there was a recession this year. Meanwhile Obama and Democrats are spending money as never before in this nation's history, having no sense of financial responsibility, giving tens of billions to powerful unions to save relatively few jobs, while there will probably be little job growth in the private sector next year.

Unfortunately, Republicans have a more reactionary agenda and are, in more ways than one, the new Know-Nothing party.

A viable third party, representing ordinary people, not the special interest groups that control the two major parties, is needed.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | December 18, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Paragraphs you will never read, #1:

"As I lie on my deathbed and look back over my life, my biggest regret is that I spent too little time conversing with people who had axes to grind."

Posted by: douglaslbarber | December 18, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

So bush was ridiculed for voluntary energy reductions

let the ridicule go on

barrys international clout is at the same level as his bowling skills.

Posted by: snowbama | December 18, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Lots of voters - independents in particular - are mad as hell that President Obama hasn't turned the egg Bush laid into nirvana in 11 months.

They will reap a fool's reward.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | December 18, 2009 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Left unsaid in the above analysis is that if Dodd steps aside in favor of Attorney General Blumenthal, the Connecticut race will fall off the line.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | December 18, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

The nine year old is getting a laptop. I will teach her how to post ears on Barry and proclaim him the worst present ident ever

And she will be your intellectual superior.

Not that high of a bar really. Suitable for nine.

Posted by: snowbama | December 18, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Why do you think you moonbats are so jealous.



You must live on the set of Dr. Caligari

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Moonbat. My reality puts your liberal dreamery to shame. Anyone could match succesful capitalism and education against socialistic preening, whining and envy.

Why do you think you moonbats are so jealous.

Dinghy Harry is trying to change the entire us medical system next week. Currently it is still s big secret.

Posted by: snowbama | December 18, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Every fratboy nerd on the Internets wants to live in San Diego?!

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Shouldn't you be having dinner with the Countess and the aryan brats at the villa?

If you are going to have a fantasy, you should try to avoid having the exact same one as every fratboy nerd on the internet for the last 10 years. try to work a little originality in it, give it a twist of your own. but that would require having an original thought, never mind.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Shouldn't you be sweeping up peanuts by now?

Posted by: snowbama | December 18, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

All peds who don't want anyone to know, protest heavily.


Do I mean pedestrians? Pedants? Guilt has a way of wrangling confessions.

Posted by: snowbama | December 18, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

"Incidentally, though, even if polls might be overstating the trouble the Democrats are in, I don't see how it's somehow biased for the headline of this post to read "Democratic incumbents beware."

GJonah -- enjoy your posts. It wouldn't be biased, if he were to admit that republican incumbents are in just as much trouble, if not more, as the *organized* and well-funded wrath of the teabaggers are apparently as angry, or more so, with their own incumbents -- something the Fix refuses to acknowledge.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Tea party outpolls Democratic, Republican parties -- will anger fuel 2010 elections?


Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Polls done in the weeks before an election may signify, but polls taken 11 months out are merely fee generators for pollsters, flags for campaign committees to wave, easy Friday write-ups for "reporters," and another chance for partisans to blog.

Looks like a circle jerk.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 18, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Perfect obimbo metaphor:

Barry had to leave the summit without signing the non-binding agreement on global warming to avoid the snowstorm

snowjob indeed.

Posted by: snowbama | December 18, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Hurry. Hurry. Pass the pork before
the world ends. Al gore predicts the end is near. Cue spooky music. If anyone gets a chance to read this garbage it stands no chance. Poor dingy Harry. Still can't count past 56.

But partisans on both sides are in revolt.

Transparency seems to have ghosted.

Where oh where is that first success. Liberals are now on that glide toward extinction. All it took was to let them do their thing.

American response: Y uuiuiu ccckllk

Maybe another summit. Or the TelePrompTer.

Posted by: snowbama | December 18, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Well 37th if you're so adamant about your contempt for environmental concerns why don't you show the courage of your convictions? Relocate downstream from an oil refinery and draw your children's drinking water from the river. That'll surely enrage the liberals.

Or maybe you could order some depleted uranium dust from Gulf War I and add a teaspoon to your wine cooler. That'll get the "libs" hopping mad.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama said that the agreement in Copenhagen is "meaningful and unprecedented"

DANISH TRANSLATION: An unprecedented use of the word meaningful.


Posted by: 37thand0street | December 18, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Yes it is, Jake, because you post racism every day. The line between saying and calling the one posting racism a racist is a phony one.

On the other hand, calling someone who has nothing to do with pedophilia a pedophile is not only "name-calling," boo hoo hoo, it's a lie.

I don't expect you of all people to understand the distinction between truth and lying, it's pretty clear that the distinction is way over your head.

If you don't like being called a racist then stop possting racist swill. But you won't, of course, because that's who you are.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"Nobody expects a cringing racist to find the equanimity to handle having a black president but you don't need to hijack every thread with the same stupid dodge. Quit it.

And oh, grow the hell up."

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 3:31 PM

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

No worse than you calling me a "racist".

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

The ped having arrived, we now convert to recipes, love advice, snarky insults and general idiocy.

another weekend watching, waiting.

poor lonely soul, desperate for attention of any kind.


He, Chris Cillizza, what about this stuff?

You cool with this troll calling me a "ped?"

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

As some posters have noted, it will take more than just fury directed at Democrats and-or incumbents to sink the re-election chances of a great majority of Democrats and-or incumbents. Folks ticked off at a political party in general might still vote for a local representative or Senator belonging to that political party because they just happen to like that candidate the best. And even if that distaste for the party extends to the candidate, he might still get the vote if his opponent is noticeable worse. Anyway, the Democrat-controlled Congress's general approval rating was insanely low prior to the 2008 elections, and Democrats still picked up seats, didn't they?

My U.S. House district was Republican-controlled going into the 2008 elections, but the incumbent wasn't running for re-election. The Democrat on the ballot had lost to the incumbent in 2006 and had a reputation as a decidedly unpleasant person, but she still ended up winning and beating a popular Republican challenger in 2008, partly due to his having difficulty convincing voters he would be any better and partly due to two more conservative candidates hopping into the race -- both very real possibilities for Republicans in 2010.

Republicans are half of the way there at this point -- voters are, generally speaking, growing more and more unhappy with Democrats by the minute. But the other half of the road is convincing voters that they're a viable alternative. "Vote for us, we aren't Republicans" worked for the Democrats in 2006, but that was after six years of President Bush and beyond the point where he really cared about his or anyone else's electability. Republicans might yet be able to win on the "Vote for us, we aren't Democrats" platform, but not in 2010 or, probably, even 2012. They'll have to work harder than that.

Incidentally, though, even if polls might be overstating the trouble the Democrats are in, I don't see how it's somehow biased for the headline of this post to read "Democratic incumbents beware." Overstated or not, I reckon all Democratic incumbents ought to be concerned about consistently slipping poll numbers, eh?

Posted by: GJonahJameson | December 18, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

"The ped having arrived"
Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 3:18 PM | "

Flagged for Abuse

Posted by: JRM2 | December 18, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

The ped having arrived, we now convert to recipes, love advice, snarky insults and general idiocy.

another weekend watching, waiting.

poor lonely soul, desperate for attention of any kind.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

"I think the GOP have a great shot at taking back the House! They will have to wait until 2012 for the Senate though ; )

Posted by: JakeD |"
I disagree, if anything, the house has tried to do more to help the average citizen than the Senate and they (Repubs) have a much steeper hill to climb.

Posted by: JRM2 | December 18, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Wow CC, did you think up that headline all by yourself? You can barely write let alone put up a story that doesn't favor Republicans.

Posted by: JRM2 | December 18, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Here we go again.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

So Chris, I guess you don't think the just announced candidacy of Chris Dudley [the huge but oh so dorky ex Trail Blazer, a guy so bad at free throws one wonders whether he taught Shaquille O'Neil his mechanics] has a chance to convert Oregon's Governor's office back to Republican?

We havn't had one since Vic Atiyeh left in 1987. He was very popular and effective too. Tom McCall and Mark Hatfield also did a lot of good work for the state, legacy careers.

But nowadays, especially with Gordon Smith gone, the Republican players have become just talk radio infused nasty people.

I hope they don't come after Dudley as a RINO, but I'll bet he won't take the purity oath.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 18, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

My mistake. The third set of poll numbers I gave was from September 2006. 2 months before the 2006 election, not a year. That shows more clearly how useless the poll is for predicting Congressional elections.

Posted by: Blarg | December 18, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

There are many reasons to not like the current Congress. For instance, I'm upset at Democratic weakness in the face of Republican obstruction. That doesn't mean I'm going to vote Republican! Congressional approval ratings don't map to votes.

The re-election number would be useful if it were given any context. 38/49 sounds bad. But in November of 2007, it was 39/51. A year later, the party in power gained 28 seats in the House. In November 2006, the number was 41/43. A year later, the party in power lost 31 seats. This number seems to be completely useless for predicting Congressional elections. But it's good enough for CC to hang another "Democrats beware!" column on, so that's all that matters.

Posted by: Blarg | December 18, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse


PREDICTION: Horrors committed against the American people by secretive executive branch Bush-Cheney- spawned "multi-agency coordinated action" programs are being exposed. The seeds of these constitutionally and morally bankrupt programs were sown many years ago, as far back as the postwar era, epitomized by the tumult and serial assassinations of the Sixties. In today's high-tech, scalar electromagnetic "directed energy weapon" world, such harsh tactics of extreme prejudice have been discarded in favor of silent, invisible, undetectable modalities.

Arlen Specter has keen insights into what can and has happened when insidious forces infect the body politic. Now, in the twilight of an amazing and eventful career, his moral soul may compel him to use whatever knowledge he has gained to right some very serious and threatening wrongs.

His new mission, if he chooses to undertake it, would eclipse in significance any run for re-election. Facing a popular, able, and much younger challenger for his new party's nomination, Senator Specter may very well step aside to devote his energies to more important work -- a new final mission that could make him one of the greatest of American crusaders for justice and democracy. OR

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 18, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

So, if every seat on the line switches, there's a +4 net for Republicans, making it 55-44 and Joe Lieberman?

If only top five flip, then it's 58-41 and Joe.

If all seven Democrats flip and no Republicans it's 52-47 and Joe.

Only the last scenario sounds like a national trend, the others sound normal in midterms.

Posted by: Section506 | December 18, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse


I think the GOP have a great shot at taking back the House! They will have to wait until 2012 for the Senate though ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The 2010 elections will hinge on demographics - will the seniors who sat out in 2008 return ???

Will the young people continue to vote in the same numbers???

The Republicans still have a ways to go, however the democrats have wasted the whole year on a massive program that no one wants, and have virtually ignored what Americans think is most important - the economy and jobs.

This is an agenda thing. Obama really does not understand economics - Obama really has no idea what to do.

This is what happens when a person is elected President who has no economic or business experience except for buying cocaine.


Posted by: 37thand0street | December 18, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

So we get four or more seats in the Senate. sounds like a start.

How many in the house?

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company