« | »

AP: House Dems Face Trouble In 2010

From an apoplectic (at the foolish electorate) Associated Press:

Election trouble brewing for House Dems in 2010

By Beth Fouhy, Associated Press Writer Sun Sep 13

NEW YORK – Despite sweeping Democratic successes in the past two national elections, continuing job losses and President Barack Obama’s slipping support could lead to double-digit losses for the party in next year’s congressional races and may even threaten their House control…

From New Hampshire to Nevada, House Democrats also will be forced to defend votes on Obama’s $787 billion economic recovery package and on energy legislation viewed by many as a job killer in an already weak economy.

Add to that the absence of Obama from the top of the ticket, which could reduce turnout among blacks, liberals and young people, and the likelihood of a highly motivated GOP base confused by the president’s proposed health care plan and angry at what they consider reckless spending and high debt.

Taken together, it could be the most toxic environment for Democrats since 1994, when the party lost 34 House incumbents and 54 seats altogether. Democrats currently have a 256-178 edge in the House, with one vacancy. Republicans would have to pick up 40 seats to regain control…

With history as a guide, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who heads the party’s House campaign committee, said he has warned colleagues to be prepared for an exceptionally challenging environment going into 2010.

But Van Hollen said voters will make their choices on the strength of the national economy and will reward Democrats for working aggressively to improve it.

"We passed an economic recovery bill with zero help from Republican colleagues," he said. "I think voters will see that and will ask themselves, ‘Who was there to get the economy moving again, and who was standing in the way?’"

Democrats have gotten off to a much faster start than Republicans in fundraising for 2010. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had $10.2 million in the bank at the end of July, with debts of $5.3 million. The National Republican Congressional Committee had just $4 million in cash and owed $2.75 million.

The economy poses the biggest problem for Democrats, with job losses of 2.4 million nationwide since Obama took office. Despite recent signs the country is pulling out of the recession, the unemployment rate in 15 states still was in double digits in July, led by Michigan at 15 percent.

Democrats must defend as many as 60 marginal seats next year, as opposed to about 40 for Republicans. Among those, about 27 Democratic and just 13 Republican seats are seen as especially ripe for a party switch…

How can this be?

The Associated Press and the rest of our one party media have been relentless in assuring us how popular Mr. Obama’s programs are.

Are they worried that the Democrats might believe their own press?

By the way, note how the AP omits any direct mention of Mr. Obama’s healthcare reform as a fact in this.

Nor do they say peep one about any of the plethora of Democrat scandals?

Why is that?

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, September 13th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

28 Responses to “AP: House Dems Face Trouble In 2010”

  1. Laree says:

    Rep Thaddeus McCotter “undergirding’ McCotter explains the health insurance reform legislation unpopularity in 5:52 minutes I understood everything he said vs Obama 48 minutes.

    Thaddeus McCotter we need to reset the health insurance reform legislation.


    • ptat says:

      How great is that clip? Why can’t we see more men and women like Mr. McCotter in leadership? Thank God for this man and his civility, brilliance and simplicity! thanks to you , too, Laree.

  2. Colonel1961 says:

    The Dems got the economy moving again? Did someone forget to tell all those unemployed folks?

    • Liberals Demise says:

      I will admit that I missed that one!!

    • Colonel1961 says:

      And you might have also been confused! In our local paper today, the front section heralded ‘predictions of a recovery’ while the business section discussed how bad the ‘economy and unemployment’ were. Hmmm…

      Tough to keep their story straight sometimes… ;-)

  3. proreason says:

    “a highly motivated GOP base confused by the president’s proposed health care plan”

    Who’s confused?

    “Deathly afraid and angry as hell” wold be a better way to say it.

  4. MinnesotaRush says:

    Geezuz .. it was hard to get past the picture. It made me wanna puke!

  5. TwilightZoned says:

    “…and the likelihood of a highly motivated GOP base confused by the president’s proposed health care plan and angry at what they consider reckless spending and high debt.”

    GOP base confused about health care plan? I think NOT! The arrogance is shameful!!!

    “…voters…will reward Democrats for working aggressively to improve it.”

    Really? What part of 2.19 million lost jobs is aggressive improvement with 1.5 million lost since the trillion dollar stimulus? (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

    “”We passed an economic recovery bill with zero help from Republican colleagues,” he said. “I think voters will see that and will ask themselves, ‘Who was there to get the economy moving again, and who was standing in the way?’”

    Nice spin since this is THE most partisan congress (read democrats) I can remember. How many republicans were asked to contribute again? Oh, that’s right, they weren’t even enticed to go along with passing the stimulus by being included in the after midnight meetings that added billions in pork. Mr. Van Hollen has a case of Pinocchio Syndrome.

  6. untrainable says:

    If, and hopefully when, the Republicans do actually take control of the house we can only hope they will remember to use the current democrat’s BIPARTISAN mantra. WE WON, Shut up and get over it.

  7. Liberals Demise says:

    2010 will make 1994 look like a run on the 1930s banks!

    The dems are morally bankrupt and criminally responsible for the blind eye turned away from the looting of the Treasury ala Stimulus and Bailouts!!
    Plus unelected and unvetted bureaucrats disguised as some sort of think tank gurus!

  8. wardmama4 says:

    it could be the most toxic environment for Democrats since 1994, when the party lost 34 House incumbents and 54 seats altogether

    Come on We The People – you tell five people and I’ll tell five people and we’ll ask each of them to tell five people and We The People can do better than 34 House incumbents and 54 seats – we can take the 111th most CORRUPT Congress to 326 Rs and/or Is vs 109 Ds and the Senate to 75 Rs and/or Is vs 25 Ds. [Personally I’d like a 100% Ls, Cs & Is in both Houses – but they run some really weird people – so I tried to be reasonable]

    We must teach these dangerous and petty corrupt wheelers and dealers – exactly what the penalty is for taking America into financial and moral ruin.

    Now is the time – teach them that the ‘majority’ of America wants them to
    Get Out of Our House – NOW

  9. Tater Salad says:

    If the Democrats think they all can get elected by supporting a Marxist President then “go for it”! Jobs are hard to find these days and they will be looking for them (jobs) soon after the next elections. This President is quite evident just plain “in over his head” and being a pure socialist by his own words just makes it worse. We have already seen “enough”. Good bye!

  10. Tater Salad says:

    Get your laughs in now Charlie Rangle. Your time is limited from going to prison. Crook!

  11. DW says:

    OK folks, here’s kind of an uncomfortable question:

    Assuming that Dems keep this up and have the whole country primed to (rightfully) toss them out in 2010, what’s the alternative?

    Has everybody forgotten how furious, disgusted and disillusioned everyone was with the GOP in the lead-up to the last election? Does “Get drunk and vote for McCain” ring a bell?

    And it wasn’t just McCain and the lack of viable options. Read through this site’s archives. It’s illuminating. People were annoyed as hell with President Bush. Fed up with the Republicans in general.Their “spending like drunken sailors”. Their policies. Their lack of policies. Their lack of balls.

    For sure Joe Wilson is a hero for calling POTUS a liar in public and of course Sarah Palin is …well…Sarah Palin, but there’s 50 states (or is it 57?) a senate and two houses of congress. That’s one hell of a large front for two people to cover.

    I’m not meaning to rain on anyone’s parade and I’m certainly not trying to start a pissing contest, but the question remains – who do the Repubs have waiting in the wings? Did they learn anything from ’08? Or is the GOP still the “country club” that was so loudly decried here and elsewhere?

    Given some of the heavy-hitters that follow this site, isn’t this an issue that people should be addressing now -hell…long before now?


    • proreason says:


      When you have a knife at your ribs and a gun to your head, take a slap in the face anytime.

      Your question implies that the Criminal Cabal in the White House is just a couple of shades of red worse than the Republicans.

      It’s a false premise.

      The Obama-insky’s are a radical group of political criminals bent on destroying the country and ruling it as commissars.

      To compare them to the bumbling Republicans is ludicrous. There IS no comparison.

      I don’t care what kind of Keystone Kop McLame is, I’ll jump on his bandwagon, Newt’s bandwagon, Huckaby’s bandwagon, Sarah’s bandwagon, or Howdie Doodie’s bandwagon if one can get rolling.

      We’ve all looked into the eye of the devil now, and there is no doubt what the fire looks like.

      It would be dumb to quibble about details with people who are often stupid, and many are crooked……but there isn’t a Republican in Congress who I think want’s to replace the country with a Banana Republic Dictatorship.

    • DW says:

      Fair point Pro.

      But wouldn’t it make sense to be at least looking for some half-decent people to take the reins back in ’10 (or even ’12)?
      From where I sit, no one seems to be even thinking about that. Taking the country back is important, no doubt. But isn’t keeping it equally important?

    • proreason says:

      DW, I’m of the school of thought (for the moment) that wants to devote 100% to hanging the Radical Criminals with their own rope.

      It’s hard to disagree that we need some responsible leadership on our side as well, but frankly, I’m a bit worried that we will have the typical internicene warfare and that the blood-sucking press will use that against us.

      I’m hoping against hope that our side will be smart and not cut each other to shreds in 2012. I doubt it will happen in 2010, because it will all be local elections. But 2012 could be ugly with Obamy’s blood in the water.

      I’m also hoping that someone will rise up and take charge. I don’t see that person yet, but there is lots of time for it to happen. Every contender in the Repub field, unfortunately, is seriously flawed for one reaon or another. I’m embarrassed to say now that I was hoping that Mark Sanford would be the one. Go figger.

      I also wish the top 10 people would go off together for a week to study each other’s pros and cons, and come together behind the two they think would have the best shot. That would require them to be Patriots instead of Politicians, so it’s probably a pipe-dream.

      Since I don’t really expect a Reagen to stride into the field, so all I can say for sure is that ANYBODY who opposes Obamy in 2012, will have 1000% of my support, and all the effort and money I can scratch up.

      To your point about leadership with staying power, I also can’t disagree with that. I just don’t want anybody to hold out hoping for a saint when one isn’t likely to emerge.

      I’d vote for Ron Paul over the Moron. That’s how serious I am about it.

      (ps….I’m half expecting someone from Talk Radio to take a shot in 2012. But I don’t see a winner on the national stage there either, and I worry it could hurt more than help. All of them are geniuses, but they have all also said many things that would be used against them. Someone has already asked Hannity about it, you know, and he didn’t reject it out of hand. The one who would probably have the best shot is a second tier guy….Hugh Hewitt, for the reason that his incendiary level is lower than the tier 1 guys and gal.)

    • DW says:

      OK Pro. Thanks for the responses.

      I hope I at least brought up a point to ponder for those who peruse this site and wish for better for the US.
      Anyways, I gotta run for now.
      You have yourself a good night, Sir.

    • Colonel1961 says:

      DW and Pro: it’s getting tougher and tougher to find good people to run for office. Why would you want to spend hundreds, perhaps thousands of your own hours, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of your own dollars, endure a mental colo-rectal examination of your own life since 2nd grade, and then go make $120k and have to live in DC with that salary. Just a few thoughts…

      And, yes, I understand that there are far more altruistic reasons to run than just money, but it’s the personal humiliation that is vulgar. And only getting worse – especially for those not on the left.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Condoleezza Rice?

    • proreason says:

      “it’s getting tougher and tougher to find good people to run for office”

      Exactly. Who wants to subject themselves to that abuse? It’s a huge problem.

      Maybe conservatives need to do what the Left did with Obamy. Grow our very own puppet. Get him or her young. Select for physical characteristcs, insulate, protect, train, scrub/enhance the back story, purge the records, buyoff or purge acquaintances, build a mythology, spend years developing strategies to mask the flaws, practice practice practice obsuscation, create an army of propagandists, control the media channels, flood the market with more lies that can ever be tracked down. We could call him Raeagenstein.

    • Colonel1961 says:

      Condi would be great! It doesn’t appear that she wants the spotlight, though. She is a wonderful lady.

      PR: A homegrown candidate would be super. I’ll try that angle with my wife tonight ‘But honey, it’s for the country!’ ;-)

    • proreason says:

      The more I hear from Jim Demint, the moe I like what he says.

      He was elected to the House in 98 and the Senate in 04. He is ranked as the most conservative member (which might be a negative in a national election….but heh, the Moron was ranked as the most liberal member).

      He seems kind of boring, but maybe the country is ready for an adult instead of an mtv denizon.

      He’s still married to the one he brought to the dance, but you never know, Sanford seemed like a straigh arrow 6 months ago as well.

      Does anybody know anything about him?

  12. canary says:

    AP’s Beth Fouhy is either confused, has not read the health bill, or believes that Obama had majic beans that sprouted & grew money.

  13. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    If we do take back both houses in 2010 then we’d better have our act together because our fellow Americans will want to see what’s the alternative to the bums we just voted out. I say the word ‘if’ because you never know what ACORN will do to thwart the election process.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      With a potential loss of funding, they may stand to lose a lot of ground. Let’s hope Pelosi and Fwank use what little brains they have to remove all fed money from the pockets of the HATECORN operation.

  14. Tater Salad says:


    Lets see who in Congress are the real hypocrits with this legislation…H.R. 615

« Front Page | To Top
« | »