Why Democrats Could Take Back The House in 2012 (Rasmussen)

[kpete]

Why Democrats Could Take Back The House in 2012
A Commentary By Alan I. Abramowitz

................there are three reasons to believe that Democrats have a decent chance of taking back control of the House in 2012. First, as a result of their big gains in 2010, Republicans will be defending a large number of seats in House districts that voted for Barack Obama in 2008; second, many of those districts are likely to vote for Obama again in 2012 because of the difference between the presidential and midterm electorate in the current era; and third, Republican incumbents in these Obama districts will be at high risk of losing their seats if Obama wins because straight-ticket voting is much more prevalent now than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

...................

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_alan_i_abramowitz/why_democrats_could_take_back_the_house_in_2012

[onehandle]

1. We better, or what we've seen for the last few months will last until the end of his second term.

Obama voters better GET OFF THEIR ASSES.

[Vogon_Glory]

3. So Should The Non-Voters

So should the non-voters. It wasn't just the novelty voters who voted for President Obama who sat on the sidelines last year. It was also the fools year in, year out, don't bother to vote.

[gateley]

8. Amen. nt

[Cal33]

32. If the Dem. Party doesn't pay the strictest attention to election-fraud this time around,

no number of votes would help them at the final count. The Pubs. will
simply change them around.

[elocs]

6. If Obama voters had bothered to vote in last year's governor's race here in WI

Walker would have easily been defeated.

In that election Walker received 90% of the votes that McCain got in 2008, but the Democrat, Barrett, got only 60% of the number that voted for Obama. In fact, his vote total was 600,000 less than Obama received. Granted, that was a presidential election, but had Barrett even received a third of those 600,000 votes we would not have the mess here in Wisconsin that we have now.

[gateley]

9. Agree. It's one of the things that makes me so angry - now instead of actually

achieving our goals, Obama spends so much time and energy fighting with the Republicans. It's a nightmare and I'm unwilling to forgive those who let this happen.

[teachthemwell15]

12. So true. nt

[DCBob]

2. Very very likely. I suspect turnout will be hugh once again.

Which usually means good things for Dems.

[mikekohr]

4. 25 in '12 nt

[quaker bill]

5. 40 while we are at it....

might as well go all the way and a bit more.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onehandle]

11. Yes, but no serious analyst sees a President Obama loss coming.

So an Obama win, is typically the scenario in these projections.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DCBob]

15. In virtually every recent poll Obama wins against the loser GOP opponent..

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/2012_presidential_matchups

Obama 45%
Romney 40%
Mar 6-9, 2011

Obama 48%
Palin 38%
Mar 10-13, 2011

Obama 43%
Huckabee 43%
Mar 14-17, 2011

Obama 49%
Gingrich 37%
Mar 18-19, 2011

Obama 42%
Paul 34%
Mar 20-21, 2011

Obama 45%
Pawlenty 35%
Mar 22-23, 2011

Obama 45%
Daniels 32%
Mar 26-27, 2011

[onehandle]

16. Peggy Noonan said that President Obama might lose on Morning Joe yesterday.

So, Mittens (who will be nominee) has at least one partisan idiot on his side.

[rasputin1952]

23. Noonan is an idiot....

not just an idiot, but a pompous idiot that struggles to keep those two working synapses working in tandem.

[karynnj]

37. Noonan is a partisan - do you think that a Clinton speech writer would not have said that Bush

might lose at this time in 2003 - even though Bush had approval ratings above 60% then?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. The theory is, of course

that most people voting for President Obama will vote Democratic ticket straight down to local elections. The Republicans in 2010 were highly energized b/c of the "Tea Party" to vote- even without a Republican Presidential candidate- and most likely voted straight Republican from the top (Senatorial or Gubernatorial) down, which explains how they won a lot of seats everywhere. We need to make sure our voters are doing the same EVERY SINGLE ELECTION or results like 2010 are going to happen over and over and over.........

As other posters mentioned, there is very little likelihood- absent some very catastrophic circumstances- of President Obama losing next year. If Bushco could scrape by in 2004 by a slim margin, then President Obama should be fine as long as he isn't facing a truly extraordinary Republican nominee (though I can't imagine who that might be at this point). :shrug:

[gateley]

10. By then the horrors the Republicans have wrought will become evident to even

those who supported them.

[Dawson Leery]

17. If the GOP continues on their current path,

the Democrats will retake the house and keep the senate.

[walldude]

18. Gee I thought it was going to say

"because the Republicans have all lost their damn minds" ..

[Unvanguard]

19. There will almost certainly be a net Democratic gain, but the Republicans will keep it.

Incumbency matters, and it matters a whole lot. We are more likely to win around a dozen than the twenty-five we would need.

Further, we will almost certainly lose the Senate. Obama needs to be re-elected. There is very little more important than that.

[DCBob]

21. How do we lose the Senate?

Does incumbency only help Republicans??

[Yurovsky]

24. A lot more Dems retiring in 2012...

Plus the Dems have more seats than GOP to defend. Many of the GOP senators up for re-election are in Jesusland, making it tougher to take those seats.

Do I think the GOP will win the Senate? No, but they'll have a better chance than they had in 2010. That is why we need unemployment to keep coming down, Troops to come home from Iraq & Afghanistan, and for Qadafi's face to end up on a milk carton. If the right-winger nut jobs that vote in the primary are dumb enough to nominate Trump, Palin, or Newt, the Senate, House, and White House will be safely in Democrat hands till at least 2016.

[DCBob]

25. Whose retiring?

I guess the real key is turnout. We outnumber the GOP in almost every major state.

[Yurovsky]

27. Jim Webb, Kent Conrad, Joe Lieberman (I), plus...

I think Jeff Bingaman and Herb Kohl may both retire as well. The only GOP senators that I am aware of are John Ensign (who was toast anyway) and Jon Kyl (I think).

Bottom line is that the Dems have more seats to defend (due the big wins of 2006) and are faced with more retirements. Having Obama on the ticket should help (provided nothing bizarre happens to spook the electorate into voting for the God'n Guns candidate the GOP is sure to nominate), but I suspect the Dems will maintain control of the Senate. If Obama can do something to re-connect with his base (card check, single-payer, immigration reform, all would be great but I don't see him moving on any of these), he can bring out the same voters that swept him and the Dems to power in 2008 and retake Congress, enabling him to reverse the rightward lurch of the past 16 months.

[DCBob]

29. It wont be 2008 but I think there will still be huge turnout which favors Democrats..

People are freaked out by the teapottiers extreme politics and its effect on congress.

Thanks for the info on the retirements. I think we still hold the Senate.. but just barely.

[mikekohr]

39. Turnout, Turnout, Turnout.

The three secrets to Democratic success in 2012 and any other election.

25 in '12

[Cobalt-60]

36. Then we put more Dems in

I wouldn't conceed a public rest room stall to the Republicans.
We need all of the seats.

[davidpdx]

41. I think there is good chance that we will lose the Senate or end up with a tie

Given that so many Democrats are retiring and more Democrats are defending seats then Republicans.

By my count on Wikipedia there are 8 retiring with 1 still in the maybe column (Kohl-WI). Let's assume Kohl runs for re-election:

The three Republicans are from:

Arizona
Nevada
Texas

The five Democrats are from:

Hawaii
New Mexico
North Dakota
Virgina

One Independent:

Connecticut

__________________________
Republican Seats (3):

Nevada-Of the three seats Republicans hold, Nevada would be the easiest to swipe because of voter registration and a large Hispanic voter block. With a good candidate and good turnout it is very possible.

Arizona-I think this one depends solely if one candidate, Giffords, is ready and willing to run. If so, I think she can win. If not, scratch this one.

Texas-While voter registration has been turning the tide, I doubt this time around it is possible.

Score card 1-1-1

Democratic Seats (4):

Hawaii-A good candidate and good voter turn out would hold this one. Case is a good bet.

New Mexico-This is the one I think might flip. The Republicans have a some good candidates. That makes me nervous.

North Dakota-The state is way too red and there is no chance we will hold it. I'd bet money against it.

Virgina-With Kaine running I think there's a good chance of saving this one.

2-2-0

Independent Seat (1):

(note: even though Lieberman caucuses with the D's, I will put this as an I)

Connecticut-A good candidate and good voter turn out would switch this back to a D seat.

1-0-0

Count on Retiring seats: 4-3-1 (most likely Dems will go 5-3 with a pick up of one or 4-4 with an even split)

Toss-ups(6):

Florida(D)
Maine(R)
Massachusetts(R)
Missouri(D)
Montana(D)
Nebraska(D)
Ohio(D)
Pennsylvania(D)

It's these 14 seats that will tell the tale. Of the toss-ups I think two or three could flip (notice only two R's are on the list). If we lost 3 total it would be a 50/50 split in the Senate.

[Unvanguard]

26. We control the Senate by four votes--three if we don't count Biden.

And because the senators up for election in 2012 are the ones elected in 2006, we are overextended in the relevant Senate seats. Further, incumbency matters somewhat less in the Senate than it does in the House.

"Almost certainly" is too strong, thinking about it, but it will be a fight to hold 2006 gains like Missouri, Montana, and Virginia, and also to re-elect unpopular incumbents like Ben Nelson (who might switch parties even if re-elected if the Republicans are within striking distance of control.)

[DCBob]

30. Yeah, it will be close but I think we hold it by one or two votes.

fingers crossed!

[quiller4]

31. I think we will gain seats in the Senate and make major gains in the

House, too. I think there is a chance of regaining the house but I think the odds are still against it now. That could change if there is long debate about the Ryan budget proposal. In that case, a larger percentge of elderly independents will swing Democrat and that could create the necessary pick-ups in states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. I even think there is a good chance of two Democratic pick-ups in my state of Washington.

[Ter]

34. Maybe the House, but no way we gain in the Senate

The vast majority of defending seats are already in Democratic hands. Some are almost certain to go GOP.

[opihimoimoi]

20. Yup, We need Pelosi back in there...her replacement fumbles too much...a no gainer.

REJECT THE GOPers

VOTE BLUE

[rasputin1952]

22. Actually, fro what iIve seen...

Boehner is an ineffectual leader; Cantor is a clown; Ryan's "plan" is being eviscerated; there has been nothing done about job production. Teabaggers and wild-eyed R's are paper tigers and while some will remain, most will be tossed into the street.

WI will have a "ripple effect"; and generally speaking, people are pissed.

All things considsered...the GOP is in for a serious crash...and that doesn't even include what turnip falls from the truck that will be the presidential candidate for the GOP...:D

[Keith Bee]

28. K&R

But I wouldn't bet my life savings on it. :(

[Avant Guardian]

33. If they play their cards right...

...and GET OFF THE WIMP TRAIN...

They can win handily.

[Dawson Leery]

35. +1

[craigmatic]

38. If they say that then we must be a sure thing to win because they always underrate our chances.

[totodeinhere]

40. It's funny. Usually Rasmussen is flamed around here for being a tool of the right wing.

But then when he says something we like to hear then apparently his is alright after all. I wish we could have a bit more consistency.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

42. Senate outlook is a little better these days, too

Brown and Casey are firming up support in Ohio and Pa. and look good.
Kaine's in now for Va., giving us a strong candidate against Macaca's comeback attempt.

With a few seats off the table, Dems can put more resources into the tough races.