AHC/WI: Dems hold onto the house in 2010?

Hey guys, long time lurker, first time poster.

Pretty much as it says on the tin; What PODs (preferably after January 20, 2009) can result in the Democrats holding onto slim House and Senate majorities in 2010, and what gets butterflies away as a result? Cheers in advance :)
 
A good bet might be the killing of Osama Bin Laden happening before the election, enough to generate a 'rally round the flag' effect that sees a boost to Democratic candidates.
 
Last edited:

d32123

Banned
And incidentally--hi!--I'm a fairly new poster as well, hoping that someone might read my attempt at a timeline (links in my signature)

Going out of your way to advertise your TL in other people's threads is considered bad form around here.


Also, the only way to get this is to have some sort of 9/11 type disaster occur sometime between Obama's election and the midterms or to have a Republican win in 2008.
 
Also, the only way to get this is to have some sort of 9/11 type disaster occur sometime between Obama's election and the midterms or to have a Republican win in 2008.

I think that's a bit extreme -- the OP isn't asking for Democratic gains, just less severe losses.

There's probably no way to significantly derail the Tea Party, but if we can avoid the serious collapse of Democratic turnout for the midterms, that might be just enough to hold the House.

Maybe if Healthcare Reform is seen as more of a victory for the left? There was a brief point where it seemed like everyone had agreed to replace the Public Option w/an option to buy into Medicare -- this was broadly liked by both Blue Dogs and Progressives until Lieberman inexplicably killed it, despite being the one to suggest it months before. WI after reaching the deal, Harry Reid publicly praises Lieberman for saving Healthcare Reform, both to butter him up and keep him from pulling any last-minute shenanigans?

Preventing the rather demoralizing Scott Brown special election victory could help as well -- probably the easiest way to do this is for EMK to resign from the Senate immediately after he's diagnosed with cancer, leading to a quiet victory for Coakley (probably) in the spring. With the Dems having a functioning 60-seat majority for longer*, Republican obstruction will be less effective for most of the two years.

*Even before Brown, Kennedy's illness meant that the Dems rarely actually had 60 votes at hand, because Ted was absent so often.
 

d32123

Banned
I think that's a bit extreme -- the OP isn't asking for Democratic gains, just less severe losses.

Those severe losses are going to happen unless the economy magically improves or tragedy strikes after Obama is elected. It's the nature of midterm elections. Even during good economic years moderate losses usually happen to the incumbent party unless an outside factor effects it.
 
Those severe losses are going to happen unless the economy magically improves or tragedy strikes after Obama is elected. It's the nature of midterm elections. Even during good economic years moderate losses usually happen to the incumbent party unless an outside factor effects it.

Still, the Republicans were thought to maybe take the House to it being a certainty come October. And even then, they were thought to gain 40ish seats instead of 63.
 

d32123

Banned
Still, the Republicans were thought to maybe take the House to it being a certainty come October. And even then, they were thought to gain 40ish seats instead of 63.

Analysts who use statistics like Larry J. Sabato accurately predicted the GOP wave ahead of time. It was no fluke. In fact, they probably could/should have done better had they not thrown away Delaware and Nevada with bad candidates.
 
Those severe losses are going to happen unless the economy magically improves or tragedy strikes after Obama is elected. It's the nature of midterm elections. Even during good economic years moderate losses usually happen to the incumbent party unless an outside factor effects it.

Sure, moderate losses are pretty much inevitable, but a don't think a red wave is.
 
Analysts who use statistics like Larry J. Sabato accurately predicted the GOP wave ahead of time. It was no fluke. In fact, they probably could/should have done better had they not thrown away Delaware and Nevada with bad candidates.

Of course. How is even The wave was coming, but the Democrats could've held onto the House by the skin of their teeth. If the GOP did as well as the Democrats did in 2006, they would end up eight seats short.

I believe that this is difficult to pull off once Scott Brown has been elected though. The best PODs would really be McConnnell and Chambliss losing in '08, which gives the Democrats a 61-seat majority before Specter switches. Republicans won't pour as much energy into Brown's campaign either, because that can't singlehandedly cripple Democratic legislation.
 
Of course. How is even The wave was coming, but the Democrats could've held onto the House by the skin of their teeth. If the GOP did as well as the Democrats did in 2006, they would end up eight seats short.

I believe that this is difficult to pull off once Scott Brown has been elected though. The best PODs would really be McConnnell and Chambliss losing in '08, which gives the Democrats a 61-seat majority before Specter switches. Republicans won't pour as much energy into Brown's campaign either, because that can't singlehandedly cripple Democratic legislation.

McConnell losing would help, but the OP preferred a POD after the inauguration. Like I said, I think Coakley would've easily won an earlier election, though.
 
Going out of your way to advertise your TL in other people's threads is considered bad form around here.


Also, the only way to get this is to have some sort of 9/11 type disaster occur sometime between Obama's election and the midterms or to have a Republican win in 2008.

Apologies.

Really? Does it have to be so so extreme? Surely you just need some way to hold down anti-ObamaCare anger and maintain the Democratic support from 2008.
 
Last edited:

Pangur

Donor
Two ideas cross my mind. a scandal involving the GOP at the high level breaks our or perhaps if the Tea Party are more radical and have far more of an influence on candidates who just can not get the required votes to be elected
 
Hey guys, long time lurker, first time poster.

Pretty much as it says on the tin; What PODs (preferably after January 20, 2009) can result in the Democrats holding onto slim House and Senate majorities in 2010, and what gets butterflies away as a result? Cheers in advance :)

Obama prosecutes the bankers and passes healthcare reform with a public option or a Medicare buy-in. Do those two things and even with the bad economy he'll be going into the mid-terms strong; taking the bankers to the woodshed is something the public would have LOVED to see happen after the elections and an Obamacare with a public option or Medicare buy-in would have prevented the demoralization of the progressives and left Democrats giving the Dems more of a boost on election day.
 
Of course. How is even The wave was coming, but the Democrats could've held onto the House by the skin of their teeth. If the GOP did as well as the Democrats did in 2006, they would end up eight seats short.

I believe that this is difficult to pull off once Scott Brown has been elected though. The best PODs would really be McConnnell and Chambliss losing in '08, which gives the Democrats a 61-seat majority before Specter switches. Republicans won't pour as much energy into Brown's campaign either, because that can't singlehandedly cripple Democratic legislation.

This is essentially just a "+1" post; Plumber has it exactly right.

If you go back through the fivethirtyeight.com archives during the run-up to the 2010 midterms, you'll see that there's a lot of sensitivity regarding the size of the "wave." Increase Democratic turnout by 1-2 points, and you can stem the tide of losses from "historic" to merely "awful", leaving the Democrats (barely) in control of the House.

The best way to do that, IMO, is to increase base turnout -- that's what really drives mid-term elections, anyway -- and having the left fully behind Obamacare is probably the easiest way to do that. Plumber's POD (where the Dems have a 62-vote supermajority by the time of the Coakley-Brown race) is totally plausible; in that scenario, the White House doesn't bail on the so-called "public option," consolidating support among the universal-health-care Left.

I doubt it's possible for the right to hate Obamacare any more than they already do ITTL, so I don't see that an expanded health care bill would alter the trajectory of the 2012 presidential race beyond the usual butterflies. (To be fair, it is a valid point of distinction between Obamacare and Romneycare, but since the GOP was already wedded to false attacks like 'death panels' and the like, it's hard to see a more nuanced attack gaining more traction in the Republican primary.)
 
Top