The Big Question: Which party will take Congress in 2010?

Some of the nation’s top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals
offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today’s question:

What can Democrats do to avoid huge losses in 2010? What can
Republicans do to win back the House and pick up significant seats in
the Senate?

Dick Morris, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

The unfolding Obama agenda is dooming the Democrats to huge losses in 2010.  The only way for a moderate Democrat from a red district to survive is to switch parties like Griffith did.

Hal Lewis, professor of Physics at UC Santa Barbara, said:

The best thing the Republicans can do is to watch the Obama deconstruction of the United States, and make it clear that, while they are powerless against the form of Chicago politics that takes no prisoners, they recognize it for what it is. Obama’s distaste for the country of which he is president shines through everything he does, and you really can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Michelle D. Bernard, president & CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum, said:

Preventing known  extremists from boarding US destined airplanes with
bombs is an excellent way to stave off huge losses in 2010.  After
that, it’s clear that just how bad Democratic losses are next November
will largely hinge on the economy and unemployment rate.  .  Their
leaders would be wise to focus 100 percent on advancing policies that
will be the most effective in boosting employment and encouraging
growth.  Their pro-growth policy push should start by stopping their
push of anti-growth policies, like their trillion dollar health care
bill.  Democrats aren’t going to do that, of course, they have wed
themselves to fulfilling the far left’s dream of a government take-over
of health care no matter what the political cost.

The public is also frustrated by the appalling level of debt and fiscal
irresponsibility in Washington.  Expect a lot of talk from Democratic
leaders about closing budget deficits, but the public will rightfully
see through this as spin (how could anyone take seriously a claimed
commitment to fiscal responsibility when they are adding to the
government’s obligations by trillions of dollars?).

For the GOP to capitalize fully on the Democrats’ vulnerabilities, they
will have to demonstrate that they are really committed to slowing the
growth of Washington and by admitting that they were part of the
problem during the last decade in allowing runaway spending and
politics as usual.   The GOP should be more than the party of no and
present a positive vision for rolling back government and returning
power to the people.  Yet even if the GOP falls short in this effort,
they are bound to gain just by standing back and watching their rivals
implode.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

The Democrats can avoid huge losses by fixing the economy — which means they cannot avoid losses of some sort, because the economy is not going to be fixed. The only question is: can they minimize their losses? Yes, if they keep the focus on their opponents, rather than the issues — a rhetorical trick that has always worked well for those in power. Luckily for the Democrats, the GOP is not likely to go populist and point out that the ascension of the Democratic party has meant that the country has been handed over to the not-so-tender ministrations of the big banks and the “too big to fail” crowd.

The Republicans? They could allow themselves to be taken over by the “tea party” movement — but that isn’t going to happen. Barring that, the GOP will botch it, and will have to be satisfied with minimal gains.

The two-party scam that allows Americans to think they live in a “democracy” makes it effectively impossible to limit the power and scope of government, since both parties are complicit in the looting of America. By keeping “third” parties off the ballot, the scam goes on forever.

John Feehery, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

There is not much the Democrats can do to avoid huge losses, other than hope that the Republicans completely collapse and that a third party rises up to split the conservative vote.  The fact of the matter is that we are due for a major course correction.  The country has moved right while the President and the Congress have moved dramatically to the left.  The Democrats could kill the health care bill, and that would help on the margins, but then the President would be seen as incompetent.  Is it better for the President to be seen as ineffectual and not have to deal with the political impact of higher taxes and big Medicare cuts or is it better for the President to get an “accomplishment” and have to deal with the fury of senior citizens and younger Americans who don’t want to pay a lot more of their hard-earned money on a dubious health care proposition?  Tough call, but in my view, this health care legislation, should it become law, will be a albatross around the necks of every Democrat who lives in a tough district or swing state. 

Republicans have the easier, but not necessarily easy, mission.  They have to come up with a reform agenda which will unite swing voters with conservative base voters to convince them that they are not the same guys who ran the country during the latter stages of the Bush White House.  And they have to resist mightily against all efforts of the Democrats to pass their big government agenda.  If they can do those two things, I believe that the Republicans will take back the House and come very close to taking back the Senate.

Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said:

Democrats: A great deal of this is out of their hands. They have to hope for a substantial drop in unemployment and convincing ‘green shoots’ on the economy all around the nation. They must depend on President Obama to re-create the optimistic magic his administration symbolized a year ago. But in many ways they have already created a presidential and legislative record to run on, and they should do so without apologies. It’s their record, whether they tout it or hide from it. If you’re not on offense in a campaign, you’re on defense. They also need to do everything possible to re-energize the Obama surge voters. A repeat of 2009’s turnout will be deadly for Democrats. Finally, a big dose of populism can help them. Go after the big boys on Wall Street and at the banks. Penalize them, even if it results in less campaign cash. After the deep recession their greed caused, and the unabated greed they continue to exhibit, they are fat rhetorical targets. Americans love to hate them, and want to know that somebody is articulating their anger—and doing something about it. All of this could minimize Democratic losses—and they’ll have electoral losses, regardless.

Republicans: The GOP has the natural advantage in a midterm year but they must pursue it relentlessly, and not merely count on history, a bad economy, and the ’09 precedents. Leads can be squandered. Fair or not, the congressional leadership of the GOP, and others in the forefront of the party’s image, are disliked to an even greater degree than the Democratic leadership, to judge by the polls. The party needs to feature its fresh faces in Senate, House, and Governorship contests. A grand new party will yield far more dividends than the old one. And while some consultants will argue that it is enough just to stir the base and say no to Obama’s policies, such a strategy will prove costly in the long-term, and maybe even in the short term. What are Republicans for, not just against. The GOP has to make common cause with the Tea Party activists, lest a widespread, divisive split develop. And the Republicans’ counter to Democratic populism is to target another juicy target, Big Government, which is liked about as much as Big Business. The less the Republicans are seen as captives or handmaidens of corporate America, the better they will do in 2010.

Alan Abramowitz, professor of Political Science at Emory University, said:

To a large extent the results of the 2010 midterm elections will be determined by forces that are beyond the control of party leaders and strategists such as the trajectory of the economy between now and November and President Obama’s popularity among the public. 

On the Democratic side, keys to limiting losses (and some losses are inevitable) would be recruiting strong challengers and candidates for open seats and providing them with financial support as well as passing the health care bill and then closing ranks behind the President. Reminding voters as frequently as possible about the mess that Democrats inherited from the previous administriation would also be useful.  Democrats ran against Herbert Hoover for decades–George Bush should be good for at least one or two elections.  The key will be getting the Democratic base, especially minority voters, energized. 

On the Republican side, as well, recruiting strong challengers and open seat candidates and providing them with financial support will be critical.  Also, avoiding internecine warfare between moderates and conservatives.  Several GOP opportunities could be squandered if primary voters choose nominees who are too conservative for their states or districts.  Republican candidates need to focus on bread and butter issues, especially the state of the economy, and avoid getting distracted by tangential issues such as abortion and gay marriage.  Along with attacking the record of the Democratic President and Congress, offering some specifics about how they would address economic stagnation and improve access to health care would be helpful.

Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

As William Daley suggested in a Washington Post essay a week back, it is too late for Democrats in 2010. The Democrats today need to get rid of the nostalgicos who look back to the Sixties and to Roosevelt. They are like the South in 1940s, still stuck in the Confederacy. They had the opportunity to build a new moderate and business-friendly 21st century party with Mark Warner, Jim Webb and Wes Clark back in 2004 and 2006 but they turned to “rock stars” and celebrities instead. And Elvis and the missus need to leave the building. The Dems should recognize that a new conservative movement is afoot in the NY 23 race and in the recent Virginia governors race. It is building rapidly to a new consensus to which that chicken soup of leisure class liberalism (the “Culture of Contentment” Galbraith called it), light irony, will not defend.

John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

The
big issues in 2010 will be the economy and the two wars.  Those who
deal with these matters realistically will attract voters; those who do
not will be properly accused of wrongheaded business as usual and
suffer rejection at the polling places.  About the economy (and the
shrinking value of the dollar), the proper response includes large cuts
in spending, balancing the budget, starting to rebuild our severely
depleted manufacturing base by getting out of the way of producers of
goods, exposing and closing down the stranglehold possessed by the
Federal Reserve, and launching meaningful steps toward placing
something tangible behind the dollar.  About the two wars, the response
should include recognition that continuation – even expansion in
Afghanistan! – is the direct opposite of what should be done. The
longer we stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, the more we invite hatred for
and retaliation against our troops and our country.  It’s time to begin
bringing the troops home.

No
copyright exists on these thoughts.  Anyone running for office at any
level is perfectly free to adopt these recommendations without credit
to me or to The John Birch Society!