Rachael Ray's Magnificent Ass
Seed Newsvine
Could the Republican Party Take Back the House?
Thursday, July 29, 2010 
If Congress is in play, then all bets are off. But Congress really isn't in play. Sure, there's a lot of anger out there. There might even be a great deal of motivation for people to go out and vote. Noise does not equal actual votes, however, and I think people will find themselves turned off by the last few years of economic and political upheaval. In other words, I think apathy will overwhelm the chances of a Republican takeover of the House.
Here's Nate Silver on what might be "in play" this silly season:
In fact, there are 101 Democrat-held seats that are rated as something other than safe by at least one of the "Big 4" forecasters (Cook, CQ, Rothenberg, Sabato). And if you include Real Clear Politics' forecasts in the mix, the total rises to 108.
That's a fairly liberal definition of "in play", but at least it's one with some concrete standard attached. By a slightly more conservative definition -- a seat is "in play" if at least three of the five forcasters noted above think it is -- the figure is 89 seats, still higher than the range that the DCCC memo suggests.
But I don't know that we should be erring on the side of conservativism in defining the number of seats that are "in play". Occasionally, in a wave election, a few seats that nobody was polling and nobody was paying attention to might wind up switching sides: one instance I recall is the IA-2 district in 2006, which was won by then-obscure political science professor Dave Loebsack, who edged out 15-term (!) Republican incumbent Jim Leach. (I was following the race intently because Leach, although a moderate Republican overall, was a leading proponent of the legislation to prohibit online poker, from which I was making a portion of my living at the time.)
I sense that the apathy is stronger than the noise. Sure, there is a fair amount of "throw the bums" out being generated. But what if a few economic indicators begin to tick upwards this fall? What if there's good news on the job front after the summer is over?
Obstructionism does not inspire people to vote. I know that this was the strategy adopted by the beaten and cowed Republicans when President Obama took office, but that strategy comes with its own pitfalls. It's one thing to make a lot of noise and say that your opponent is not doing the right thing. It's another thing when all you've been doing is blocking the wrong things and the right things and everything else.
Obstructionism is a temporary strategy, one that has to be followed by substantive proposals, statesmanship, and a bit of inspiration. If you can get people talking about what you stopped, what you want to do, and how that might benefit the country, you have the chance to roll a national election into a takeover of Congress.
When the Republicans took back the House in 1994 and when the Democrats took it in 2006, there were clearly defined examples presented in many races as to what the party would do and what it stood for. You could argue that those were elections where ideas counted and where the national sentiment was such that anyone with a decent idea and a good head of hair stood a pretty good chance of getting their ticket punched for at least one term in Congress.
Okay, but how does this translate into what's necessary to take back the House this year? What are people voting for? More obstructionism?
Where are the ideas, in other words? I'm not hearing any.
Norman Rogers | tagged Congress, Current Affairs, Current Events, Elections, News, Opinion, Politics | in American Politics, Correcting The Public Record, Democrat Party Nuttiness, Democrat Politicians, My Brilliant Observation, Norman Rogers, Public Policy, Republican Party, Republican Politicians, Way to Step In It Email Article 
