Dick Morris: Dems Could Lose 100 Seats in 2010

That would be a breath of fresh air, for sure.

And from Obama's standpoint, not necessarily a bad thing.

Via Breitbart.

Comments

[Cousin Brian]

Dick Morris is full of crap. About the only people held in lower esteem by the American public than Democrats are Republicans. On the RealClear Politics site, Democrats, at least congressional ones, still hold a lead (however slim) over Republicans.

But then, this is the kind of crap that keeps Dick Morris employed, since he failed miserably at being an advisor to a president.

[Dan Cleary]

Take a look at the trend. It's clearly in favor of the Republicans. And once those two polls from July are taken out of the RCP Average, it will probably be an advantage for Republicans. Considering that the GOP brand equity was in the toilet when Obama was elected, that the two parties are neck & neck in the generic poll is a stunning turnaround in less than 8 months in office.

[Cousin Brian]

First, I'm not disputing that the GOP will pick up seats. In almost all mid-term elections, the party not in the White House picks up some seats. But a hundred? Dick Morris must be smoking something.

Second, the midterms are fourteen months away at this point, and if the economy picks up steam, there's positive news from AfPak and Iraq (of any sort), some sort of deal is reached on healthcare, or there's progress on any of the host of smaller issues facing Obama (or any combination of the above), then that all translates into losing issues for the GOP.

Third, no President since FDR has faced the amount of problems facing him simultaneously that Obama has - and you could argue Obama has it worse, since FDR was dealing with largely a single issue (the Depression), while Obama has several full plates in front of him. And, in this instant-gratification, we-want-to-see-results-yesterday society, it is no surprise that Obama's numbers are headed south.

I hate to keep bringing him up (well, maybe I don't), but he is still doing better than GWB, whose lousy numbers were largely of his own making. Nearly all of Bush's problems at the end of his term were results of something he did directly or indirectly, or failed to do directly or indirectly.

Again, not saying he isn't going to lose seats. He probably will. But not enough to make a significant difference in his majority, if he gets good news on any of the problems.

[Dan Cleary]

Well, I didn't see this full clip, and it sounded to me like he might have just blurted out "100" (i.e., I wonder if he pulled back a little after saying that). I will admit 100 is an optimistic number (from my perspective), but the point Morris was making is that momentum is clearly with the GOP right now (another indicator: VA and NJ's gov races). Could that change between now and November 2010? Absolutely. But if the current trend continues, it won't be long before a gain of 100 seats isn't such a crazy notion.

You keep making excuses for Obama. I don't buy your premise that Obama's got more on his plate than any president since FDR. Reagan (for example) inherited an awful economy and the Iran hostage crisis. But OK, even if you think Obama's got a lot on his plate - so what? He RAN FOR PRESIDENT. He knew exactly what he was getting into. And I don't recall him saying "don't expect results right away" during the campaign...

If you look at job approval ratings, Obama IS doing worse than Bush was at this point. That's just one measure, but it is a fact. I don't disagree with you that Bush is responsible for his low approval ratings, but the same standard should be applied to Obama - or is his 20-point drop since he took office Bush's fault too?

[Cousin Brian]

I wouldn't say I'm making excuses for Obama, just (possibly) explaining why his poll numbers have taken a dive. (Which is only relative, by the way. 10-15 points in seven-plus months is hardly a "dive". More like a correction.) I personally think he's doing a good job. Not a great one, but that's what happens when campaign promises meet the reality of governing. The key is how he responds, and I believe that there will be a group of people out there who will be dismayed by the improvement in his numbers.

And besides, you don't hear any excuses coming from the Administration itself, so why should anyone else make excuses for it? All this stuff about polling is so pollsters and pundits can stay employed. No controversy means Dick Morris is out of a job.

As to Reagan, yes he inherited an awful economy and the Iran hostage crisis. Obama inherited an even worse economy, two wars (not including the misnamed "war on terrorism"), healthcare issues, immigration issues, the environment, Iran, North Korea, the trainwreck-in-progress called Social Security....Reagan's first few months were a cakewalk.

And Bush? C'mon, let's stop comparing apples and rutabagas. Bush's first few months were marked by a budget surplus left by his predecessor, and Sept. 11th hadn't even happened yet.

But you're right, if this trend continues, 100 seats won't be such a crazy notion. BUT, if it's reversed, Republicans are facing years in the wilderness.