Originally posted by sh76With all due respect, I already called his demise. In addition, I called Dodd's demise and was proved spot on. I demand compensation!! ðŸ˜
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/13/nv-sen-poll-reids-numbers-tank/
I know. I know.
It's early, right?
Thank having been said...
Dirty Harry is toast
Toast, I tell ya, Toast.
If the Dems are smart, they'll convince him to resign (or retire; maybe he can want to spend more time with his family or something) or primary him. or the second time in 6 years.
What a darn tootin' shame!
Whodey and I will miss him.
As far as Dirty Harry goes, however, not even he can feel lucky at this point. :'(
In the immortal words of the real Dirty Harry, "Now I can't remember of there were 5 Congressional seats at stake or only 4, in fact, in all the confusion of Congressional attention being payed to highly unpopular peices of legislation, I kinda lost count. So you have to ask yourself, do ya feel lucky? Well, do ya punk!! ðŸ˜
Originally posted by no1marauderIn 1998, the Dems had 18 seats to defend and the Republicans 16. It was the 6th year of a Presidency, in which his party almost always loses seats.
Breaking even when you have a 55-45 majority is a good result.
For the Republicans to break even (i.e., win 16 and lose 18) is a bad result.
Originally posted by sh76They maintained a 10 seat edge. Yup, terrible. 🙄
In 1998, the Dems had 18 seats to defend and the Republicans 16. It was the 6th year of a Presidency, in which his party almost always loses seats.
For the Republicans to break even (i.e., win 16 and lose 18) is a bad result.
Originally posted by no1marauderNot all 100 seats were up for grabs. 34 were. Of those 34, 18 were won by Dems. The 1998 midterm elections were considered across the board to be a stinging rebuke of the GOP for impeaching Clinton and a startling victory for Clinton and the Democrats. Newt Gingrich, the architect of the 1994 Republican gains, resigned in disgrace following the 1998 mid-terms.
They maintained a 10 seat edge. Yup, terrible. 🙄
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2657990
"[t]his outcome, too, was read as a defeat of the Republican Party. With Democracts defending the most vulnerable seats, Republicans had entertained dreams of winning a filibuster-proof sixty seat majority.
How you could call it a "good Republican year" is beyond me.
Originally posted by sh76Up 10 to begin with; up 10 at the end.
Not all 100 seats were up for grabs. 34 were. Of those 34, 18 were won by Dems. The 1998 midterm elections were considered across the board to be a stinging rebuke of the GOP for impeaching Clinton and a startling victory for Clinton and the Democrats. Newt Gingrich, the architect of the 1994 Republican gains, resigned in disgrace following the 1998 mid-terms. ...[text shortened]... oof sixty seat majority. [/i]
How you could call it a "good Republican year" is beyond me.
If it's really "beyond you" you've been hanging out with whodey too much.
Originally posted by sh76Usually the president's party loses seats in the off-election because the president's coat-tails gain a lot of seats when he's elected. In 1996, Clinton evidently forgot to wear his coat on election day
In 1998, the Dems had 18 seats to defend and the Republicans 16. It was the 6th year of a Presidency, in which his party almost always loses seats.
For the Republicans to break even (i.e., win 16 and lose 18) is a bad result.
In 1996, the Dems actually LOST two seats in the Senate (and gained only 8 seats in the House). Since the general "rule" failed to apply in the 1996 general election, it's no surprise that the "rule" also failed in 1998.