Republicans can pick up at most 18 more Senate seats in November 2010

[her209]

I was looking at the Senate seats that are up for election this year on Wikipedia and if you assume a Republican victory in every election, the Republicans would only pick up at most 18 more seats, i.e., they would have a 59 (41+18) seat majority in November. They would still be short of the 60 Senators required to pass any legislation through the Senate without bi-partisan support and definitely way short of a veto proof majority.

Of course, the chances of Republicans winning every seat is very slim, but not impossible.

:hmm:

 

[earthman]

It's not going to happen. They'll be lucky to win one.

 

[Genx87]

Not really know what each election has to offer. I would say they would be extremely lucky to pick up 9 seats. Chances are they will at most pick up 2-5 seats.

 

[nonlnear]

Why would the GOP care about breaking 60 anyways? There is no point in having a Senate capable of passing a bill without bipartisan support when you can only pass it through one house...

 

[Vette73]

Not really know what each election has to offer. I would say they would be extremely lucky to pick up 9 seats. Chances are they will at most pick up 2-5 seats.

Yea I am thinking the R's will pick up a couple seats once it all settles. No game changer but still able to claim a win. I am sure Faux will headline it like its a sign and the Rs are great type thing.
But I also think The D's have a chance of getting the New Hampshire seat, maybe even Ohio. That and NC will nto be a easy win, but might stay R.

 

[EagleKeeper]

A few steps at a time is needed by anyone hoping to move forward.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

A few steps at a time is needed by anyone hoping to move forward.

Move forward to where? That's the $64 question. The Republican party has lost a lot of credibility and I'm not sure what it stands for anymore. Fiscal responsiblity? I wish.

 

[Vette73]

Move forward to where? That's the $64 question. The Republican party has lost a lot of credibility and I'm not sure what it stands for anymore. Fiscal responsiblity? I wish.

Yea I have to laugh when people say/think Republicans are fiscal conserative. Ever since Reagan, republicans have been spend spend and more spend. At least the Dems TRY to pay for their spending. Neither party seems to be really worried about cutting the budget. They just want to spend more to look good and get back in power.

 

[nageov3t]

it's probably a safe bet that republicans will increase their majorities, but no one credible is claiming that the R's have a shot at sweeping the board or taking the senate.

 

[PokerGuy]

They don't need 60. 60 doesn't matter unless they also get the house, which is not going to happen. They just need to make sure to have enough to block all the Obama-Pelosi-Reid stupidity.

 

[ProfJohn]

Yea I have to laugh when people say/think Republicans are fiscal conserative. Ever since Reagan, republicans have been spend spend and more spend. At least the Dems TRY to pay for their spending. Neither party seems to be really worried about cutting the budget. They just want to spend more to look good and get back in power.

How exactly is Obama trying to pay for the trillions he has added to the deficit in two years?

Are even paying attention??

At this point George Bush could stand up and claim to be a fiscal conservative next to Obama and he would be right.

 

[ProfJohn]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map.html

Realclearpolitics is predicting a 7 seat gain for them as of today. Not enough to take over the Senate, but very close to 50-50.

In the house they expect to Republicans to pick up 16. However that 16 does not include all the toss ups and there are 29 Democrats seats rated as toss ups and only one Republican. So if the toss ups go 50-50 that would give the Republicans another 15 seats giving them a total of 32 new seats.

Both numbers are going to go up or down depending on the next 6 months and what happens in the job market and what the Democrats try to pass next. If they try cap & trade or immigration reform (amnesty) they expect the Republicans to pick up even more seats.

 

[ProfJohn]

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/04/07/dem-strategists-have-it-wrong/#more-766

Dick Morris is suggesting that the Republicans will pick up BOTH the house and the Senate.

 

[andy9o]

How exactly is Obama trying to pay for the trillions he has added to the deficit in two years?

Are even paying attention??

At this point George Bush could stand up and claim to be a fiscal conservative next to Obama and he would be right.

Maybe nobody else sees it this way, but, I've always seen it as, we went into the Bush years with a budget surplus...and left with a large budget deficit. Towards the end some of that spending can be blamed on trying to fix the economy, but that wasn't the case for 8 years. There was never any real effort to pay for Iraq.

So far, Obama's administration has spent a ton of money, but, its all been in the name of economic recovery. Whether or not you agree with what they're trying to do, you can at least agree (maybe) that's the end they're working towards.

It seems like both administrations burn a lot of cash, but, the cuts/spending during Bush seem less responsible. Certainly no case exists to argue Republicans are more fiscally conservative.

 

[Vette73]

How exactly is Obama trying to pay for the trillions he has added to the deficit in two years?

Are even paying attention??

At this point George Bush could stand up and claim to be a fiscal conservative next to Obama and he would be right.

Ad the first troll takes the bait...

Chart of the Day: Who is to blame for FY 2009 deficits?

Oh and I guess you have not been keeping up on history have you?

Or a left over for the "fiscal conservative" in the R Party.

 

[ProfJohn]

Maybe nobody else sees it this way, but, I've always seen it as, we went into the Bush years with a budget surplus...and left with a large budget deficit. Towards the end some of that spending can be blamed on trying to fix the economy, but that wasn't the case for 8 years. There was never any real effort to pay for Iraq (or, even, justification, but that's another issue).

So far, Obama's administration has spent a ton of money, but, its all been in the name of economic recovery. Whether or not you agree with what they're trying to do, you can at least agree (maybe) that's the end they're working towards.

So, just saying, it seems like both administrations blew a lot of cash, but, the cuts/spending during Bush seem less responsible. Certainly no case exists to argue Republicans are more fiscally conservative.

Are you that clueless??

Bush's WORST deficit, pre economic downturn, was $458 billion.

Obama's BEST deficit, post economic downturn, is estimated to be $705 billion!!!!
That is in 2014!!!

Why are we still spending that kind of money 4 years from now?

If all of Obama's spending was in the name of recovery then why is he still spending tons of money down the road when by his own estimations the recession will be over???

Look at Obama's own budget. His spending goes up every year but one between now and 2015.

Get a clue.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist.pdf

 

[woolfe9999]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map.html

Realclearpolitics is predicting a 7 seat gain for them as of today. Not enough to take over the Senate, but very close to 50-50.

In the house they expect to Republicans to pick up 16. However that 16 does not include all the toss ups and there are 29 Democrats seats rated as toss ups and only one Republican. So if the toss ups go 50-50 that would give the Republicans another 15 seats giving them a total of 32 new seats.

Both numbers are going to go up or down depending on the next 6 months and what happens in the job market and what the Democrats try to pass next. If they try cap & trade or immigration reform (amnesty) they expect the Republicans to pick up even more seats.

Those predictions are conservative. Absent a stronger than expected uptick in the economy, I predict a 40 seat gain for the repubs in the House, and a 7-8 seat gain in the Senate.

- wolf

 

[ProfJohn]

Ad the first troll takes the bate...

Chart of the Day: Who is to blame for FY 2009 deficits?

CHart 1.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/02/01/behind-obamas-phony-deficit-numbers/

In 2008, Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on October 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

Then…he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama’s 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.

Chart 2.
Add in Obama's years to that chart and get back to me, thanks.

 

[Descartes]

Are you that clueless??

Bush's WORST deficit, pre economic downturn, was $458 billion.

Obama's BEST deficit, post economic downturn, is estimated to be $705 billion!!!!
That is in 2014!!!

Why are we still spending that kind of money 4 years from now?

If all of Obama's spending was in the name of recovery then why is he still spending tons of money down the road when by his own estimations the recession will be over???

Look at Obama's own budget. His spending goes up every year but one between now and 2015.

Get a clue.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist.pdf

Let's just ignore for a moment that Obama is increasing the deficit; after all, the "tax and spend liberal" moniker is applied to him and most democrats, so it's not much of a surprise. Throw in the fact that we're coming off the Great Recession and it's a new recipe with expensive ingredients.

But, I would appreciate a real explanation as to how Republicans can accept the fact that Bush did indeed create such a massive deficit. Let's also forget Clinton for a moment and just concentrate on Bush. Philosophically speaking, how can a fiscal conservative wrap their mind around this basic fact?

 

[woolfe9999]

CHart 1.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/02/01/behind-obamas-phony-deficit-numbers/

Chart 2.
Add in Obama's years to that chart and get back to me, thanks.

The "other spending and failing revenues" referred to by Morris were both caused by the recession, most of the spending having been non-discretionary. The truth is, Obama's real contribution to the debt was the stimulus and not much else.

- wolf

 

[Genx87]

Move forward to where? That's the $64 question. The Republican party has lost a lot of credibility and I'm not sure what it stands for anymore. Fiscal responsiblity? I wish.

1 party govt? Republicans become fiscally conservative when their opposition holds power.

 

[Genx87]

Ad the first troll takes the bait...

Chart of the Day: Who is to blame for FY 2009 deficits?

Oh and I guess you have not been keeping up on history have you?

Or a left over for the "fiscal conservative" in the R Party.

That bush spending pie chart is simply dishonest. Obama passed his first budget, the budget is Obama's, not Bush. If you are going to credit previous administrations for the current budget. You need a lot more on that pie chart than Bush. Bush wasnt the first to pass a federal budget and he wont be the last.

 

[dullard]

CHart 1.
Chart 2.
Add in Obama's years to that chart and get back to me, thanks.

Here is the deficit spending for the last ~5 years:

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/dullard/DeficitSpendingSmoothed.JPG

I smoothed the oscillations by averaging each data point with the three data points before and after (if available). That way, we can truely see the trends. Without the smoothing, this is just a random jumbled mess of a graph since monthly and seasonally things change so much.

I marked where Obama started to make an impact on the deficit spending. As you can see, Obama is spending with a massive deficit. But, that deficit was the same deficit that Bush had at the end of Bush's term.

I'll give Obama a pass for keeping the deficit high temporarilly during the recession. But, if he doesn't reign in deficits, then Obama is a failure as a president. If Obama does reign in deficits (which at this point is only realistic if he reigns in social security), then he'll likely be remembered as a fantastic president.

 

[ProfJohn]

Let's just ignore for a moment that Obama is increasing the deficit; after all, the "tax and spend liberal" moniker is applied to him and most democrats, so it's not much of a surprise. Throw in the fact that we're coming off the Great Recession and it's a new recipe with expensive ingredients.

But, I would appreciate a real explanation as to how Republicans can accept the fact that Bush did indeed create such a massive deficit. Let's also forget Clinton for a moment and just concentrate on Bush. Philosophically speaking, how can a fiscal conservative wrap their mind around this basic fact?

Easy.

Bush was NOT a fiscal conservative.

He never even ran on that moniker. Remember, he was a 'compassionate conservative.'

Remember that at the time of his election we had a surplus and everyone was looking at ways of spending all that extra money so Bush ran on the idea that he would take that money and be 'compassionate' with it, hence Medicare part D.

Obama on the other hand never had to answer any questions regarding the deficit because people didn't care in 2008. But by 2012 it will be on the top questions, unless the economy still sucks in which case anything Obama says won't mater anyway.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That bush spending pie chart is simply dishonest. Obama passed his first budget, the budget is Obama's, not Bush. If you are going to credit previous administrations for the current budget. You need a lot more on that pie chart than Bush. Bush wasnt the first to pass a federal budget and he wont be the last.

I was going to say the same thing but he obviously doesn't know horse shit when he sees it and I doubt he gives a damn either...this is what he wants to believe...the truth of the matter is sadly irrelevant to him.