Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Six were after Obama became president. The races in italics were elections that according to the media were supposed to be referendums on his leadership..
Quote:
LA-6: Don Cazayoux (D) replaces Richard Baker (R), May 2008 (though Cazayoux lost the general election in November)
MS-1: Travis Childers (D) replaces Roger Wicker (R), May 2008
MD-4: Donna Edwards (D) replaces Albert Wynn (D), June 2008
OH-11: Marcia Fudge (D) replaces Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D), November 2008 NY-20: Scott Murphy (D) replaces Kirsten Gillibrand (D), March 2009
IL-5: Mike Quigley (D) replaces Rahm Emanuel (D), April 2009
CA-32: Judy Chu (D) replaces Hilda Solis (D), July 2009
CA-10: John Garamendi (D) replaces Ellen Tauscher (D), November 2009 NY-23: Bill Owens (D) replaces John McHugh (R), November 2009 PA-12: Mark Critz (D) replaces John Murtha (D), May 2010
Special elections are placeholders. The real test comes on Election Day. Niether Democrats nor Republicans are out of the woods just because of a special election. Scott Brown still has his work cut out for him. Can he pull it off again? That remains to be seen. But I doubt Democrats will be proclaiming victory in November 2010.
Special elections are placeholders. The real test comes on Election Day. I doubt Democrats will be proclaiming victory in November 2010.
November is the midterms..the party in power almost always loses seats. Victory or defeat will be determined as to whether or not either chamber of Congress changes hands..
Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the Republicans take control of at least the House. Let them have a nice big target on their backs for a change..
Just remember '94...Clinton was then reelected in '96 thanks in part to the public's anger at the new GOP Congress.
I can't speak for most of them, but Mark Critz didn't run a liberal, he ran as pretty conservative. He's pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, anti-tax, and he said he opposed the health care bill. To me, if PA-12 is still the setting for the national spotlight in 2010, that would still indicate an anti-liberal position, even if that person is a Democrat. Of course, I'm sure he'll end up towing the party line as much as the other "conservative" Democrats did with the health care bill.
Six were after Obama became president. The races in italics were elections that according to the media were supposed to be referendums on his leadership..
Yes, and almost 1/2 were in 2008 and 7 out of 10 were democrats replacing democrats in democratic districts. If I am not mistaken, a Republican who was strongly behind the Tea Party just cleaned house in Ky or am I just imagining that?
Hawaii will be the first loss but only because the Dem vote will be split in half and only temporarily until the November election. It's a safe Dem seat.
November is the midterms..the party in power almost always loses seats. Victory or defeat will be determined as to whether or not either chamber of Congress changes hands..
Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the Republicans take control of at least the House. Let them have a nice big target on their backs for a change..
Just remember '94...Clinton was then reelected in '96 thanks in part to the public's anger at the new GOP Congress.
Could history be repeating itself?
Gee are we starting to backdown? Isn't your posting (OP) telling us the Obama is still the "man" and now you are saying well, maybe the Republicans will do well in 2010. Clinton did not win because of the GOP congress, in fact that had almost nothing to do with his victory. He won bcause he was the incumbant which is always a plus and he ran against one of the weakest Republicans that even got the nomination..
Gee are we starting to backdown? Isn't your posting (OP) telling us the Obama is still the "man" and now you are saying well, maybe the Republicans will do well in 2010. Clinton did not win because of the GOP congress, in fact that had almost nothing to do with his victory. He won bcause he was the incumbant which is always a plus and he ran against one of the weakest Republicans that even got the nomination..
Nita
Sure Nita..that incumbent stuff worked real well for Bush #1 in '92 didn't it?
Republicans back in '94, much like today, were crowing that Clinton was going to be a one term president. Polls actually backed them up..
So what happened between '94 and '96? A GOP Congress is what happened. Remember when they tried to shut down the government in '95 because of a budget disagreement with the president?
The American public sided with Bill Clinton...much the same will happen if the Republicans take control of Congress this time. You can then resign yourself to a two term President Obama.
Americans take their anger out on the party that they see in power...and they don't care which side it is...I shouldn't have to remind you of that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
