Is it Mathematically Impossible

[jasonxctf]

for the Republicans to gain control of either House?

 

I post this as I searched Charlie Cook's website of House/Senate Race Ratings.

 

Right now, its 60-40 in the Senate.

Right now, its 257-178 in the House.

 

In a 50-50 senate tie, the VP breaks the Tie and thus Democrats retain control.

 

So in the Senate, the Republicans would need to win 11 seats.

In the house, they need to win 40.

 

Now granted, its 10 months off, but Charlie Cook currently lists 9 of 19 Democratically held Senate seats as Toss Up/Leans Republican (incl Mass). He lists 4 of 18 Republican held Senate seats as Toss Up. So in the Senate, if the Republicans won all of their 4, and capture all 9 of the Dems seats they are still down 51-49. Now this could certainly flip with a Death (Robert Byrd) and a party switch (Joe Lieberman).

 

In the House, it gets even tougher... he currently lists 40 Democratic seats as Lean Dem/TossUp/Lean Rep. He currently lists 10 Republican seats as Lean Rep/TossUp/Lean Dem. So if the Republican party was able to win all 40 of those Democratic seats, while keeping all of their 10 (incl downtown New Orleans, LA) they would have a 218-217 advantage.

[bmags]

what does it matter, you need a 60 seat super majority now. Nothing will ever be passed again.

[jasonxctf]

Well if that's the case, I don't think either side will see 60 seats again, for a long-long time.

[mreye]

They picked up 54 and 8 in '94, and IMO this year is more "toxic" than '94. So, yes, it's very possible.

 

[jasonxctf]

certainly it has happened before (at least on the house side). 11 in the Senate would be unreal.

 

However looking at the actual races, is it realistic?

[bmags]

there's a lot of differences between now and 94. A lot.

[Cknolls]

certainly it has happened before (at least on the house side). 11 in the Senate would be unreal.

 

However looking at the actual races, is it realistic?

 

 

Well certainly NV,ND,CO,MA,DE,PA,AR,and CT are in play. And I would say the first three are surefire pickups for the R's.

[jasonxctf]

well i dont think CT is in play anymore, now that Dodd dropped out.

 

 

Connecticut Senate - McMahon vs. Blumenthal Quinnipiac Blumenthal 64, McMahon 23 Blumenthal +41

Connecticut Senate - Simmons vs. Blumenthal Quinnipiac Blumenthal 62, Simmons 27 Blumenthal +35

Connecticut Senate - McMahon vs. Blumenthal Rasmussen Reports Blumenthal 58, McMahon 34 Blumenthal +24

Connecticut Senate - Simmons vs. Blumenthal Rasmussen Reports Blumenthal 56, Simmons 33 Blumenthal +23

Connecticut Senate - McMahon vs. Blumenthal PPP (D) Blumenthal 60, McMahon 28 Blumenthal +32

Connecticut Senate - Simmons vs. Blumenthal PPP (D) Blumenthal 59, Simmons 28 Blumenthal +31

[Rex Kickass]

Well certainly NV,ND,CO,MA,DE,PA,AR,and CT are in play. And I would say the first three are surefire pickups for the R's.

 

ND is a solid pickup for the GOP.

 

CO is a toss up at the moment depending on who ends up shaking out of the fold for the Dems.

 

NV looks bad for Reid but there is a Dem machine in Nevada that can move a lot of votes so I wouldnt count him out 10 months before election day.

 

CT is not really in play with Dodd on the sidelines, and I don't know that PA is going to be all that competitive either frankly.

 

I think its realistic to look at a 3-5 seat loss on the Democratic side this year, and maybe 20-25 pickups in the House.

 

For 2010 to change the balance of power, it would have to be like 2006, not 1994 - because even in 1994 there were R to D shifts in some places. 2006 was a much bigger wave than 1994 was in that respect.

[jasonxctf]

what does it matter, you need a 60 seat super majority now. Nothing will ever be passed again.

 

read this article yesterday which reminded me of your post.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odo...p_b_426604.html

 

the main points...

 

McConnell accepted an agreement brilliantly designed by Reid that required 60 votes to pass an amendment. McConnell did that without anyone noticing anything odd after a year of saturation coverage of the importance of 60 votes in the Senate. Everyone outside the Senate now thinks it takes 60 votes to do anything. Not amendments. Amendments pass by a simple majority, 51 votes. Amendments are usually debated for a couple of minutes or hours or days, then voted on. Once in a while, a 60-vote cloture motion is needed to end debate on an amendment. What McConnell agreed to was an implicit cloture motion in every vote on every amendment, thereby completely surrendering the minority's real power. In all my years in the Senate, I never saw a leader make such a mistake. If it was a mistake.

 

There are no real filibusters in the Senate anymore. The way you "filibuster" a bill that you want to kill is offer an endless stream of reasonable sounding amendments that have to be debated and voted on. It's easy to come up with one amendment per page of legislation. That's why the Republicans offered hundreds of amendments during the Senate committees' debates on the bill. When the majority leader brings up a two thousand page bill, the minority would normally come up with at least five hundred amendments that could drag out the debate for several months. That's what the Republicans did in 1994 when they killed the Clinton health care reform bill on the Senate floor. No filibuster, no forcing the Democrats to clear 60-vote procedural hurdles, no forcing a reading to the bill, just an endless stream of reasonable sounding amendments -- so reasonable that some of them passed with votes of 100 to 0. And the Democrats, seeing this could go on forever, surrendered. Fifty-seven Democrats were defeated by forty-three determined Republicans.

 

This time, Republicans tried to look obstructionist. To the media, the Tea Partiers, and Sarah Palin, it sure looked like Republicans were pulling out all the stops -- forcing a reading of the bill, forcing a frail elderly senator to vote in the middle of the night. But the Republicans only offered four substantive amendments along with five hopeless motions to send the bill back to the Finance Committee. One Republican amendment actually got 51 votes, but didn't pass because McConnell's 60-vote agreement with Reid sabotaged it. A Democratic amendment on re-importation of prescription drugs got more than 50 votes but did not pass. It would have shot a hole through Harry Reid's bill, as would other Democratic amendments that got more than 50 votes and failed. McConnell's unanimous consent agreement with Reid made Reid's bill impenetrable on the floor.

[Balta1701]

I think Republicans will make huge gains in the

I agree they.

[Chet Lemon]

I think the Republicans will make huge gains in the...House and two to three more gains in the Senate, but not enough to control either. In 2010, Republicans will have three tough House seats to defend (ex/ Kirk's, ex/ Castle's and Cao's) and they control a handful of the competitive seats in the Senate (MO, NH, OH, NC). I think that was the gist of what else I had written out.

[Balta1701]

I think the Republicans will make huge gains in the...House and two to three more gains in the Senate, but not enough to control either. In 2010, Republicans will have three tough House seats to defend (ex/ Kirk's, ex/ Castle's and Cao's) and they control a handful of the competitive seats in the Senate (MO, NH, OH, NC). I think that was the gist of what else I had written out.

If the Dems can lose in Massachusetts, they can lose ANYWHERE. At some point, they might want to think about giving people a reason to vote for them. We might be better off letting the Republicans shut down the government and driving unemployment to 15% than we would putting up with this charade.

[Cknolls]

If the Dems can lose in Massachusetts, they can lose ANYWHERE. At some point, they might want to think about giving people a reason to vote for them. We might be better off letting the Republicans shut down the government and driving unemployment to 15% than we would putting up with this charade.

 

 

 

More Gov't jobs...More Gov't jobs...More Gov't jobs...That unemployment rate will be at 5% in no time....If we just pass this health care bill we will save 35 million jobs... Blah blah blah...

[bmags]

I don't know how many jobs it will save but I think I can put a number on lives.

[kapkomet]

I don't know how many jobs it will save but I think I can put a number on lives.

 

 

On how many it will kill? Yea. Me too.

[bmags]

well, go ahead and ask sen.-elect brown how many it killed in massachussetts since he was so supportive of it.

[Cknolls]

Well it looks like the R's will pick up there 2nd seat for sure. This time DE, as Beau Biden says he will wait until 2014 to run.

[Rex Kickass]

Well it looks like the R's will pick up there 2nd seat for sure. This time DE, as Beau Biden says he will wait until 2014 to run.

 

There's still time in DE. The Dems do have a deep bench and Biden's win was no means assured. It's a small state and there's a big Dem party in DE.

[Cknolls]

Pence will not run against Bayh for IN Senate. Bayh trailed by 3-4%. But former Rep. Hostetler is running and currently trails Bayh by 3-4%.

[kapkomet]

Evan Bayh is a little b****.

[southsider2k5]

Evan Bayh is a little b****.

 

Word. And yes, it is personal.

[Cknolls]

Why is Paul Kirk still voting in the Senate when his term expired after the special election a week and a half ago?

[jasonxctf]

has the new senator been sworn in yet?

 

i'm guessing its like the Nov elections. Just because someone wins on Nov 4th, doesn't mean that they get to participate on Nov 5th. Normally you have to wait until Jan.

[Balta1701]

has the new senator been sworn in yet?

 

i'm guessing its like the Nov elections. Just because someone wins on Nov 4th, doesn't mean that they get to participate on Nov 5th. Normally you have to wait until Jan.

The full election results have to be 100% certified and signed by everyone in the state. That's the Al Franken standard, if you'll recall. It takes time to count up absentee ballots, to get all of the signatures, etc.