Can we split the difference and turn the D House members out in droves, but keep the D senators with the exception of Harry Reid? Please? I just don’t know if I can go another two years having to see three of the Four Horsemen daily. It would be good to get rid of Pelosi and to see Reid get booted from office. If the D’s need to keep the Senate, so be it. At least it will keep McCain from strutting around doing Mr. Bipartisan.

Makes perfect sense, but it stil makes forl a very ugly scenario either way we go in 2010.

I suppose the best hope, in the case of a Republican victory in either chamber, would be that Obama has so mortally wounded himself by that time that he can no longer command a following or lead an agenda effectively.

Hope spring eternal.

That may be a little blasphemous around these parts. But gridlock provides a fall back for both sides. It depends on which side masters the spin.

One difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clintons were more Machiavellian. Obama is more of true believer.

Clinton and Gore had a base of old line Democrats that they could fall back on when they abandoned the progressives.

Another thought is that the market loves gridlock too. Wall street has never been partisan. What they do like is stability and predictability. One reason the markets soared under Clinton was that the market knew nothing radical or ambitious from either side would be passed. If Republicnas took congress in 2010, which I doubt, the markets will soar.

To many variables though and it is impossible for Republicans to win eleven Senate seats anyway. So its a bit moot.

The Dems will at least retain a narrow Senate majority next year, because of their structural advantage (ie: more GOP seats up than Dems), but they will definately lose the House without a major economic turnaround.

I have been kinda hoping the GOP would gain exactly 9 Senate seats and win 217 House seats next year, so they could effectively block just about anything, and yet still be in the minority so as to avoid any responsibility. This would prove to bode worst for Obama’s re-election chances.

Since WWII, when one party has controlled Presidency and both houses (as in the elections of ’06, ’94,’ ’78, ’66, ’62, ’54, ’50, ’46) the party out of power has gained an average of 30 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate. The low numbers have come when the President has scored a foreign-policy win in the fall (’62 and ’78).

IF the economy is sputtering along AND there is no foreign crisis/success in the fall of ’10, history would suggest Republican takeover of House (more than 40 seats) and +5 or +6 in the Senate.

Having control of the Hosue would block all the stupid stuff, except another radical SUpreme-Court pick or two.

Plus Clinton’s turn-around didn’t merely rely on Republican opposition, it relied more on Clinton tri-angulating (Welfare reform, crime, immigration, marriage) in a way that I don’t think Obama is capable of.

Would love to see R’s gain just enough seats in both chambers to allow the D’s to have only a slight edge. Then Obama could have his policies destroyed by his own Party. This could knock socialism into the dirt for a very long time!!

I agree that Obama’s chances for reelection would go up substantially if Republicans took both the House and Senate (taking a majority in the Senate is not going to happen), but I never am one to believe in winning by losing, and never pulling any punches.

You can make a very good case that the best thing that could have happened to the Republican Party would have been if Kerry had won in 2004. But look at what it would cost. Most likely a humiliating defeat in Iraq (followed by genocide) and two Supreme Court nominations for starters.

The best case scenario for Republicans in 2010 would be to get the lopsided House’s majority down to a handful of seats still under Dem control, and be able to comfortably filibuster the Senate. If the planets aligned and the Republicans were able to eek out a majority, it really wouldn’t do any good anyway because Obama could simply veto everything. He would also most likely sail through his reelection as being a check and balance, and the Republicans would share the blame in an awful economy.

I think the most likely scenario (and the best one) is Republicans will do really well in 2010, but Democrats will still technically have control. The Republicans will be able to hit the brakes on just about everything for the rest of Obama’s term. By the time 2012 rolls around, the economy will still be awful, but with a combination of high interest rates, energy prices, unemployment and inflation, Republicans will slaughter the Dems in 2012 and take back the White House and very likely both chambers of Congress.

Sure it is interesting/fun to come up with different scenarios leading towards 2012, but look; what is important right now and still will be from 2010-2012 is stopping anything that we can’t reverse when we do have power. That means Government controlled Health Care, that means Cap & Trade, that means way out left Court choices. 2012 is far away. I don’t see the point of losing *anything* that gives us more No votes on these disasters.

Excellent perspective.

The past few weeks, with all the amazing backlash at townhalls, I’ve been pondering similar as Erick. What should our approach be to 2010?

I’m beginning to take the opinion, like Erick insinuates, that a Dem Congress in the next term (but severely weakened) might actually help the GOP in the mid to long term… both in Congress and the Presidency.

There is a lot to like with the current political climate, namely that Obama can blame no one but himself for his failing agenda. That is great news for the GOP. If we take the House in 2010, like Erick said, we will be one red ball in a blue pit. Everything will be our “fault” and everything will get demonized against us. Obama is failing particularly because he has no one to blame. That’s all he knows…. when you’re in trouble, cast your stones against someone else. It’s the Chicago way. None of his political tools work under the current governing scheme.

2010 GOP victory would give Obama everything he wants, so to speak. However, on the other hand, a weak Democrat majority would pose even more problems for him than a GOP majority would. If the GOP gains 30 seats in the House and 3 or 4 in the Senate, they effectively have the filibuster back.

The Dems are struggling to get things out of Congress as it is, even without a right wing filibuster in place. Removing their steam-roll advantage in Congress, but keeping them responsible and accountable for all that goes on, might be the best option, while Obama is still in office.

In 2012, it should be a full-frontal assault on the radical and failed Democrat Congress and President.

On Clintons accomplishments – perhaps not noticed at the time but his work to expand the The Worthless One’s™ CRA initiative sure turned out to be a doozy.

Also, on the observation that Obama and Clinton are opposites in polling (people like Obama the person more than his policies) – Bush 41 polled the same way as Obama. Hopefully that will continue to be a factor even if Obama is able to benefit with a potentially republican congress.

All this talk about ‘the next election’ is taking your eye off the ball. Yesterday McCain was shooting off his mouth…..I fear another Gang of something involving McCain and his side kick “Ghram’nesty”. We have control of the arugment, it isn’t time to start counting the chickens before the eggs hatch. All this talk about elections is going to cause people to think socialized health care is dead and gone…..far from it…..don’t think Obama is giving up…and the rent a mobs will be on a bus tour in the coming weeks…….time to stay focused….

The question is whether she shows up in DC on 9/12.