Hello out there! It's me again! Wow--what a fantastic job you all did in your comments and responses about the Bill Clinton video, as well as to one another. I'm very excited to see where our 'blogosphere conversations' can go throughout the rest of the semester; I may jump in now and then myself to clear something up or pose another question based on someone's comment (don't worry: this won't add to the number of posts you each have to make!).
If I can make one request: I love the back-and-forth discussion that went on, and in 99.9% of the comments I didn't sense anything more than honest and respectful disagreement about the issues, but I thought it was important for me to be perfectly clear when I ask that we don't attack one another and don't get too personal in our comments. I love that you all are so willing and eager to express yourselves and that you do so in such a thoughtful and articulate way, but I will hold you responsible for anything you post that is inappropriate or purposely hurtful to one of your classmates.
OK, now that we've got that out of the way, this next post is all about the midterm Congressional elections that are coming up about 12 months and 3 weeks from now! I handed out 2 readings in class, and if you click the above link it will take you to another column, this one written by University of Virginia professor Larry J. Sabato (if that name sounds familiar, it's because he's one of the authors of our AP Government textbook!). Here are another couple of links that you might want to take a look at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/17/AR2009101700890.html
http://www.cookpolitical.com/ (this is the "Cook Political Report" that is mentioned in one of the readings I handed out in class--you'll need to surf around a little bit to get the actual information about specific races from state-to-state for next year)
Based on ALL of this information, here's what I'd like your thoughts on:
Why do you think it's so common--almost expected--that the party in power will lose Congressional seats in the first 'off-year' election of a President's term?
What is your reaction to the various authors' predictions about Republican prospects next November? What about the Democrats' response to these predictions? What seem to be the most credible reasons each side gives for their position?
Even though you may only now be getting familiar with these issues and with how Congressional elections work, if you had to make a prediction yourself right now, what do you think will happen in the 2010 elections? Right now the House is 255-178 for the Dems, and the Senate is 60-40 for the Dems; what do you think those numbers will look like on November 3rd, 2010?
I look forward to your comments (deadline is next Friday, 10/30)--if possible, try and remember to post as a comment to THIS post, rather than starting a new post of your own.
Thanks, Silvy :)
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the reason why it is so common for the party in power to lose congressional seats is because people grow impatient with the lack of activity that might be occurring, or the people don't agree with the direction that the party is moving in. The people want results quickly and want to make sure that the person they elected into office is following through on the promises he/ she made. Most people realize that change is not going to occur overnight, and that it takes more than a year to make any major steps in a new direction. I think the case this year is that Obama has been trying push his ideas through in order to gain more support for this upcoming election. I think he was worried that unless he passed his reforms that the balance would shift in favor of the republicans, and then he would never be able to pass any of the reforms he initially planned. However, his ideas and plans have not been followed through on and nothing substantial has been passed through congress. I think that the 2010 congressional election will definitely shift the balance of the numbers of democrats and republicans in both the house and the senate. I don't think that the democrats will lose the majority on either side, but I do believe that the numbers of Democrats and republicans will be much closer. As stated by white house senior adviser David Axelrod,"the ones who were predisposed to us in the first place, I don't they've drifted away and aren't coming back." I think that a big majority of the people will stay with their initial sides, but a few people will stray to the other side.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hillary when she said that people get impatient with the party in power because they don't agree with the direction they're going, and they are getting impatient with the lack of activity. With every Presidential election we tend to flip-flop between Democrats and Republicans because we're sick of the party in office and we think the other party will do a better job. Part of the reason a Democrat(Obama) won office was because everyone was angry with the Republican party(Bush) in office. In four years it might be the same case. If Obama pisses people off and gets nothing done we will probably see another Republican in office.
ReplyDeleteI think the GOP nominees are going to gain seats in office for this reason. The democrats in the house and senate are in danger of loosing their positiions because people are becoming discontent with the lack of activity. I did like reading that through all the talk of republicans taking many more seats the democrats are remaining optimistic. "While the Republicans have adopted a strategy that buys them momentum in the short term, it makes them really vulnerable in the long term."-Mr. Mendez.
I did not like how these articles went against the incumbancy advantage we have been talking about in class.
I think that the GOP nominees will gain seats in office because the Obama support will wind down due to him not getting one of his many promises done, which is ok because he can’t get EVERYTHING done in such a short time. Since Obama went into office with such high expectations and the Republicans having such a negative stigma attached to them due to the Bush administration, this allowed the Senate and the House to have more Democrats, but as the reality of his presidency comes more people will want fewer Democrats and more Republicans. According to Dan Balz “Three forces threaten Democrats in the 2010 elections: populist anger on the right, disaffection in the middle and potential disillusionment on the left” This will allow the GOP nominees take some seats from the dominate majority of Democrats thus equaling the numbers somewhat.
ReplyDeleteUsually, a president's high point in terms of approval rating is the very beginning of their first term, because they have made many wonderful promises and the people are hopeful for the future. As the first term lengthens, however, not all the promises are kept, and therefore some will become displeased with the president, and the approval rating will drop. When the president’s approval rating drops, most often so does that of the president’s party, which affects those in Congress. I would be very surprised if the GOP did not pick up a considerable number of house and senate seats as more and more people become frustrated with Obama's lack of any sort of progress. (How it is possible to get so little done with a huge majority in BOTH houses of Congress is mystifying). According to the Washington Post article, the democrats are still stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the inevitable loss of seats that is sure to occur. Perhaps when the majority of Americans pull their heads out of the clouds and drift back down to reality they will realize the necessity of a Republican presence in the national government.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Hilary and Andrea regarding the fact that it is human nature to be impatient. Many people do become frustrated when they do not see immediate change. Often times, during the first few months of office, a president is unable to immediately instill change and pass certain bills. After all, the American government is set up in a way that encourages compromise and leads to gridlock. I think in these upcoming 2010 congressional elections that the balance between democrats and republicans will become more evenly matched, although I am not sure which party will ultimately be in the majority. I think the balance of democrats and republicans in the house and senate will be significantly shifted mostly due to the fact that President Obama focused much of his campaign on the phrase, “Obama for change.” Because the focus of Obama’s campaign was on change, many voters obviously had high expectations that they would see progress and reform in the United States upon his election. However, the fact is that many of Obama’s proposed reforms (such as the Health Care Reform) have yet to be implemented or passed through congress. Thus, I feel some people who voted for Obama will try to express their frustration for the lack of change by voting Republican candidates into Senate or the House of Representatives.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, one of the main reasons that the party in power often loses Congressional seats in the first ‘off year’ election of a President’s term is because the President is the most convenient target for criticism. In other words, if the President does not appear to be moving in the “right” direction, or sticking to his or her promises, people tend to get anxious and begin to become very critical. As Dan Balz wrote in the Washington Post, “[t]hree forces threaten Democrats in the 2010 elections: populist anger on the right, disaffection in the middle and potential disillusionment on the left”. All of these forces are valid reasons why, in this case the Democrats will most likely lose Congressional seats in the 2010 election, but also more importantly why the party in power (in the executive branch), Democrats or Republicans, tend to lose seats. Since the President is the person at center stage who, especially in the beginning of their term, is looked at under a microscope, Obama may possibly be at a disadvantage here. Due to some of his more radical propositions in regards to health care and other issues, he is receiving very strong opposition from the ardent right-siders, as well as moderates that may be rethinking the initial side they were on. On the contrary, it is possible that some of his fellow left-leaning comrades who may have originally thought that Obama was going to strive for an even more progressive agenda, may choose to not vote at all since they may see no point in doing so. Naturally these people who choose not to vote are making it a greater possibility that the election will result in a shift of balance to the right. In other words, people of all three regions of the spectrum, right, left, middle, may be either opting to vote for more conservative candidates in the 2010 Congressional election (right-wingers and moderates) so as to counterbalance and keep the executive branch in check, or may be abstaining from voting altogether (left-leaning individuals wanting more radical changes than the ones that Obama has proposed). Although I do believe that the pendulum is going to swing in favor of the Republicans, for reasons discussed above, I do not think it will be significant enough to overtake the Democrats in either house. As of now, the Democrats still hold a substantial majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, a majority that would be difficult to surpass in one fell swoop.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with what the above post says. The country is not improving to the extent or pase as Obama would have liked and it seems like citizens always demand that action be quick and immediate. I think the majority in Congress will change to Republican because citizens do not feel there has been major improvement. This also means if the Republicans gained control again they could fail as well.
ReplyDeleteI feel also this is another political swing as it seems like it always does. The government swings in that a party will get majority and after a while people will get sick and move to the next party and when they are tired with that party they will go back to the original party. I feel this is an important system because it means no party will become too powerful so we will be able to get a balance of beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is so common that the party in power loses Congressional seats in the first "off-year" election of a President's term because the President makes many promises to the country. But not all the promises are kept or they don't happen in a time that the people want to see them happen in. This makes the President's approval rating go down. This doesn't just effect the President but also his party. So when Congressional elections happen there are more toss-up seats. The President's party losses many seats in Congress.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the articles. I believe that the Republicans will gain seats in Congress, while the Democrats will lose seats. I believe that the Democrats might even lose their majority or only have a small majority.
The party that is in power in the Congress gets a lot of criticism and usually low polling in mid-terms usually because not a lot is getting done. All the process to compromise and pass a bill takes time and usually people see that more money being spent and political fighting but no results wears down voters pretty quickly.
ReplyDeleteHowever you have to keep in mind the significance of these upcoming mid-terms is that the Democrats have a monopoly in the Congress and the Presidency. They are racking up huge amount of debt in a time where our country is trying to recover out of a recession and now want a government overhaul of healthcare. People are also tired of the media and the over-marketing of the President's agenda in the mainstream press where you have over 40 % of people out for his destruction.
Right now frankly, the Democrats are going to loose a lot in 2010 though Republicans need to keep there base and moderates fired up. What has really brought down the poll numbers of many democrats and the President is this move for radical change and a huge government hand in the private sector, in buisness and is deteriating the economy.
Though this is good and all for the GOP, they have to set a plan and an agenda once if they are in the majority. Right now Rep. are held together against this massive assault of Dem. power, but once you have it what could you do with it?
The best way to garuntee GOP victory and to revitalize their party is to back to conservatism and away from big-gov't control and spending like the last time the GOP was in charge. Cutting taxes, small town values, go back to being called the party of Reagan.
As most of the other blogs have stated, I believe that the party in power loses the Congressional Elections because people aren't getting what they expected. In society today, when people are promised something they expect it in a timely fashion. Sadly for the Presidents, everytime they promise something it is expected not in the next 4 years but much much sooner. We lose faith in our leaders faster than the election process itself.
ReplyDeleteFor the elections in 2010, I believe that the Republicans will take back control in both the House and the Senate. The people now are wondering if they made the wrong decision and they want to see what will happen if the other party has control now. Although this is no stranger to our political system the flip-flopping we do as a society leaves no room for positive action. A party doesn't have power long enough to make substantial actions because we expect to much to fast.
I agree with Hillary with the fact that people grow impatient with lack of activity that the newly elected president has done is the reason why the party in power will loose congressional seats in the first year. As the SNL skit that Mr. Silverman played showed, Obama hasn't really done anything with the time that he has had in office. I'm not criticizing Obama for this, but it seems logical for someone to grow impatient with this.
ReplyDeleteAs for my reaction to the authors' predictions, I think Newt Gingrich's comment on this topic is very insightful. That people are more frightened and more skeptical of republicans as they were in '93 and '94, and after '06 and '08, there is no rush to Republicans.
Even though the party in power "usually" looses congressional seats in the first year, I believe that this election will be different. With a year of change and hope, I think that some seats might go to Republicans, but not enough to change the majority to the Republicans. Perhaps 55-45 in the senate and 230-203 in the house
As previously stated in pretty much every post, the party in power will lose Congressional seats in the first election of a President's term due to the lack of activity from the party in power. Usually, the electorate has very high expectations for the majority party. However, these high expectations are not fully met. Consistent with this belief, I feel that the Republicans will gain seats in both houses of Congress but will not gain a majority. Although many people may be getting impatient with Obama and the Democratic majorities in both Houses, there is still a lot of time for the Democratic party to get a lot of work done. My prediction would be very similar to Kyle's; I would say that the Republicans would win some seats back in both houses, possibly resulting in about 56-44 in the Senate and 238-195 in the House.
ReplyDeleteI agree with adie80 with her statement that the parties lose their power in the first off year because the president is the most convenient target for criticism. Then when the American people hear all of the negative criticisms coming from the opposing political side they often revise their original vote to the opposing political party.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Troy, "the party in power will lose Congressional seats in the first election of a President's term due to the lack of activity from the party in power", and even more than lack of activity, probably poor judgement and mistakes play a key roll in this first year loss of power. Whenever there is a shortcoming in an administration blame is placed on the party, and power has a tendency to shift. This is why there are party shifts often in government, especially the federal government where "all eyes are on them".
ReplyDeleteI agree with Maggie's statement, along with most of the other blog comments, that the party in power looses most Congressional elections because people are unsatisfied with what Congress doing, or not doing. I think that if the American people were to be patient and give Congress a little more time to pass bills and work out certain problems we would be more content with the progress that they make, despite the fact that it may be slower than expected. The constant changing of Congressional candidates, especially the changing of parties puts such a stress on the political system because the view points and plans of action of Congress is constantly changing along with the party in power.
ReplyDeleteI think adie80 makes a good point when she states “the party in power often loses Congressional seats in the first ‘off year’ election of a President’s term because the President is the most convenient target for criticism.” (Almost) everyone in America can easily recognize President Obama, and they often associate him with the government, the government’s policies, the economic situation, etc. I feel that, in America, the president has come to represent much more than just our country’s political leader. The president is someone who is admired and looked up to (or disliked and criticized) by many of the American people. Most everyone has an opinion about Obama, good or bad. Furthermore, people often look for a scapegoat when times of difficulty beset them or the country. The president often functions as this scapegoat. Thus, because Obama’s party is Democrat, people may, by extension, associate Democrats with inefficiency in government, as many of Obama’s proposed bills have yet to be passed through congress, or the persistence of the current economic crisis. They may then respond to their frustration with Obama (the scapegoat) by voting Republicans into office in this upcoming 2010 election.
ReplyDeleteI basically think everyone has a grasp on why the party in power may loose their power, and agree with everyone's comments. I think that Lance was right in that people become so overcome by the promises that are made during elections, and get caught up in them. The promises that are made in elections aren't always going to followed through on. It would be almost impossible to do so. Thus the people feel annoyed for putting their trust in the candidate and getting their hopes up when the promises do not become realities.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Maggie that the Republican party will take back the majority in the House and Senate in the 2010 election. The people will want to see if Republicans have the majority, if more things will get done and in a timely matter. I believe that the only way for the Democrats to keep the majority in the House and Senate is for the President go get some of his promises done before the election.
ReplyDeleteI’m actually surprised to see that the comments are unanimously agreeing that the GOP will gain the majority of seats in congress in the upcoming election. (Even though I am guilty of saying that too) If there was no optimism then there would be no point in even campaigning. So, I want to hear someone’s opinions that potentially disagree with the articles and think the Democrats could make a comeback…
ReplyDeleteI believe that the party in power will lose congressional seats so easily because people are looking for change to come with a new president, therefore giving new candidates a chance. Not to mention they have a great amount of success because while the person in power is worried about the new candidates from the other party challenging him/her, they are not focused on their up coming part candidate. Giving all advantage to the party not in power. Now having said this, I agree with the claim that Republicans recruiting success with will deliver them double-digit seat gains in 2010. I believe it is something that comes and goes in waves. And they are usually drastic with the change brought upon.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes down to November 3rd, I think the numbers of 255-178 and 60-40 (both in favor of Dem) will change to more equal closer numbers. And the party ahead, will have only won by a small majority. Which would make the next election a very influential one because if the party in power does a good job and gains support, they can continue on that pattern. But if they lose support, it will be easy for the Republicans to move ahead and gain that majority because of the close numbers, making every loss of support crucial. And this puts pressure on the Democrats, that can really challenge them. Thats why I believe the 2010 election will be very influential of the things to come in the election following that one.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Adie said about the presidential party losing congressional seats because almost anything that goes wrong in the country gets blamed on the president. It is not only the president that gets the blame but his Party and therefore it is true that it can be hard for the president's party to maintain a majority in congress when they are up for re-election. I don't think though that is fair to say that is impossible for the democrats to maintain their majority because Obama still has time to do a lot of what he has promised which would lead to higher approval ratings for him. I disagree with Lance and I think that while the democrats have a majority in congress currently they will be able to accomplish a lot of what Obama has planned. I also don't think it is necessary that the democrats admit to the fact that they are going to loose a large amount of their representation. Right now the democrats have the majority in congress and there is no need for them to get ahead of themselves and "admit" to something that may or may not happen. To say that the democrats are "stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the inevitable loss of seats that is sure to occur" is ridiculous because it isn't as if they are refusing to speak about something that has happened already, this is something that may happen in the future and they have every right not to acknowledge as it has no affect on the current state of congress
ReplyDeleteI agree that voters will tend to get frustrated with the activities or inactivities of the party in power, causing approval rates to go down. Although opinions of the president have been very high in the past, currently his approval ratings are low and dropping fast. This trend is not uncommon; in fact it is almost the norm.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think it is necessary to realize what a unique position Barack Obama is really in. Remember: Obama did not win just because people were sick of Bush, he won because his campaign was a Nobel Prize-inspiring message of hope and change. Love him or hate him, it is important to recognize that a man who can raise $150 million in a single month and motivate millions of first time voters to go to the polls might not fit in with the political trends of the past. If Obama and his Congress do not deliver results, I think it is difficult to say whether Democratic voters will be disillusioned and disheartened or if they will weather the storm in Obama’s amply-sized raft of “hope”.
I do not think that the Republicans will win a House majority in next year’s mid-term elections. Although they will undoubtedly pick up a lot of seats, I think that it is unlikely for them to win 40 out of the 48 House seats that Mr. Rothenberg say are “in play.” On the wake of such an election, the numbers still favor the Democrats, at least this time.
I agree with the article about how the popularity of President Obama affects the outcome of congressional elections. However,it is GOP's opnion that really matters. They are urged to campaign harder even against those Democratic imcubents because they need to go back to conservatism, to "rescue" the country, and to stop Obama. There is no way for them to lose as long as they all focus on attacking Obama administation. They are more united than ever.
ReplyDeleteEven if Obama starts to take actions, it is not going to stop GOP. People see Republican's effort, and no one wants a single party to rule everything. That's why we chose to have a two-parry system in the first place. Whenever a party makes a mistake, oppostion party are going to take full advantage of it and then take over. People can only choose one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteDon't like the health care reform? Fine. Vote for Republicans!
It's been there like this a long time. So Republicans are going to win the majority as long as we have a Democratic President. It's only a question of time.
I think the big test fo whether Democrats will sink or swim in 2010 is the economy. The stimulus bill got ZERO Republican votes in the House, so they took a risk to stand together. But if the economy starts to recover - which it already has, and jobs start to come back - which hasn't happened yet, the Democrats will gain from the recovery because they could claim all of the credit. If people are still hurting, then the Democrats will pay because Republicans can argue that the stimulus was not effective.
ReplyDeleteI think the article from the Washington post made it very clear in which favor the Congressional seating will go. The Republican point of view in this article was that- "In the last two election cycles, our candidates have been campaigning into the wind. Assessing the political environment right now, it sure looks like we're going to have a nice little breeze at our back." Showing that while a Republican President was in the white house it was difficult to have more Republicans take place in the congressional seating, but now that a Democrat is in office the Republican candidates feel like it will be easier to acquire positions.I do find it somewhat humorous that while the citizens feel strongly enough to elect some one of a certain party to office, they do not want someone of that same party in the congressional seating. I feel like that is some what contradictory.
ReplyDeleteIn 2008, it seemed like many Democrats road the coat tails of Obama (and the hatred of the Bush administration) into Congressional seats. Now that "Obama-mania" has died down a bit, I think the country will start to return to it's normal way of thinking and roots. I am not saying that Republicans will regain control of Congress, but I do foresee a great comeback that cuts into the Democratic majority and if things continue the way they are, a Republican majority by 2012.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Phil posted earlier. We all know that the Republicans will gain seats and make a comeback, but the real issue is what the Republicans will do with their new found increased power. For the country to stay in a friendly mood toward Republicans, once they have enough people in Congress to do something, they must buckle down and get to business. If they do nothing once elected, then the country will switch back to Democrats, and the whole process could start over again.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Ryan. There has been a huge feeling of "Obama-mania" for the past year. Now that is dying down, the Republicans will win a few seats over in both houses, thus establishing a closer equilibrium. However, the Bush administration is still probably in the back of many people's minds, and that could easily impact the results of the upcoming elections.
ReplyDeleteI just read Dan Balz's article from the Washington Post, and he makes a good point about a potential for 3rd party candidates to emerge for 2010 and 2012. Populist anger is not just at Democrats - people are mad at both parties. As he writes, a 3rd party candidate could "dampen the potential benefits" to the Republicans. People are more angry now then when Ross Perot ran in 1992, and he got 19% of the vote. So Clinton ended up winning, but less than half the people voted for him. This time there could be a potential for a Libertarian party, or something else, claiming that government needs to go away. [Of course, they won't once they're elected]. You can almost see the writing on the wall in NY where the Conservative Party candidate is taking the votes and the sotlight away from the Republican candidate. People had such high expectations from Obama, and he inherited such an economic and foreign policy mess, that it was inevitable that people would become frustrated with Washington. Who knows - it may be time for another serious 3rd party to emerge.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above comments which stated that the party in power will most likely lose congressional seats because the voters are disatisfied with the activity or lack of activity they are seeing. Their desire for immediate actions and/or change may cause them to vote against the party in power.
ReplyDeleteIn above comments, it was stated that "it is human to be impatient," and i completely agree, but I also think people need to take a step back and consider that our congress is not rushing any decisions because they want to make sure they are doing what is best for the nation. As Briana said, if we give congress more time, we would find that we would be more satisfied with the decisions they make, even if it takes longer than we would like.
I agree with Stefanie's idea of the president often serving as a scapegoat. Also, because people at times perceive the president as a scapegoat, it goes back to the idea of the president being the most convenient target for criticism. Take for example, Obama's attempt to revamp the present health care system. Although most would agree that some type of reform is definitely needed, the health care issue is indeed "[such a]... complex ... undertaking" that, as the article by Rhodes Cook stated, "foes are finding it much easier" to essentially criticize it and put it down "than supporters are able to defend it". Ultimately since Obama is the one who is president, many people can easily blame him for even attempting to address the issue when really it is a very important topic of discussion at this point in time. Whether people agree or disagree with Obama's proposals to change the system, it is much easier for them to eagerly await for a bill to ultimately pass without them thinking about how difficult it is in the first place to try and come up with proposals for reform, when he knows that he is being closely scrutinized by people outside of his party as well as people within.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is rather simple to understand that usually the President's, and his party's, reputation and approval decrease since the day he takes office. Following the inauguration, his administration loses mmentum due to the simple fact that he is now forerunner of the Administration, and no longer a campaign.
ReplyDeleteDuring the campaign, there is a large political battlefield allowing hopeful candidates to gain and lose momentum. Through this harsh arena some will endure more than others, due to their abilities of politically weaken their opponents. Since the election is such a heated contest that competes ideologies against ideologies and hopes against hopes, the stronger candidates will gain much monentum. A candidate may soon lose such momentum, but such a loss late in the presidential election would not tarnish or ruin their reputation. The loss would merely display their admirability as a politician and the virtues they may have displayed during their campaign. Such as Senator McCain, he gained much reputation and momentum leading up to the 2008 presidential election to allow him to wim the Republican Nomination, but even after his loss to Obama he is still a well-respected and important Senator. Therefore, a front-running candidate in a vigorous election would not lose their rputation.
During the election, all candidates, specifically the ones who are runing against the party in control of the administrtaion at the time of the election, can use the weapon of attacking that current administration. A candidate gaining momentum through their campaign would not lose their reputation if they are attacked by opponents, which obviously occurs, but it may indirectly result in their elction loss. That is the worse that can happen to a candidate. Meanwhile though, the current administration would face criticism folowing "truthful" accusations on their actions, or their policies. The current President and administration can't "lose", but if they dont appeal to the concerns of the voters they will tarnish the reputation of their platform and their party. Candidates can not take blame for current administrative actions or lack of actions, but the current administrative party would be targeted.
Therefore, this was the case with Obama's 2008 campaign. Him and the Democratic party endulged themselves in the opportunity of criticizing the Bush Administration, and to provoke further criticism. But now, after being in office for 9 months the opposite is in effect. It is easy to attack the actions, or lack there of, of the Obama Adminisration. It is evident in the hyped statements of Obama having achieved nothing so far, and this opinion has been further angered by the questionable Noble Prize Award for Obama.
This span of time since the inauguration has allowed the Republican Party to refurnish their platform and their appeal since their losses, and to now utilize the opportunity of attacking the flaws of the Democratic administration, therefore increasing the pribability that they will regain a healthy portion of seats.
I agree with what Ryan said, i also think that the democrats won so many seat, because so many people were unhappy with what the republicans were doing in office with regards to the war and the economy. However i think that since all of he Obama hipe has died down quite a bit, i can see the republicans gaining a bunch of positions back, from the democrats. As to what JK said i don't think there will ever be a 3rd party in our system. This could be a replacement for the reoublicans, although thats highly unlikely.
ReplyDeleteI believe that people are getting very impatient with Obama and the fact that we, as a country, haven't progressed that much since he has been elected. People need to wind down and realize that it takes a while to show change. This is the main reason why GOP will gain seats. The democrats haven't shown much change, so people think that voting the republicans into power will make a difference. The article does say "the party that wins the Whilte House loses House seats in the new president's first midterm elections," which Obama's presidency is a perfect example. Personally I feel people should give our new president a chance as well as our Democrats in the House and let them prove that they can do what has been promised. If they do not, than it is time for a change in the House.
ReplyDeleteLike many of the comments above, especially Hilary's, I also think that citizens get impatient and demand things to be done quickly. The government is very complicated and certain things take a long time to be accomplished or at least for effects to be seen. They might not be happy with the progress the democratic party is holding, so they might switch back to republican candidates. It is almost like a second chance. If they are not happy with the party elected and the job that party is doing, they will try and vote for a party that will do a better job. I am not saying that the democrats are doing a bad job and should be balanced out by new republican members in he congress, just that people get frustrated when they do not see immediate progress, which might lead them to vote the other way. Some of these decisions could be considered slightly irrational as people are not taking into account how long it takes for the big changes they want and begin to assume that the other party is going to do a better job.
ReplyDeleteThe continual shift in political offices from democrat to republican and back democrat and so on is something that occurs and has been occuring in the system for a long time. For example, we currently have a democrat as president, before this Bush, a republican, was in office for 8 years, before that Clinton, a democrat, was in office for 8 years, and before Cliton was Bush Sr., a republican. This trend can be traced back pretty far. The flow of a democratic or republican majority in congress parallels this constant change of parties in the execturive branch. For this reason, I believe that the majority party will switch in the upcomming congressional election. Other comments have talked about some of the reasons of why this is, such as a disapproval with the current president after a year, the past dissaproval of the Bush administration now finally dying down, or the current economy.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a big reason that the republicans are likely to get more seats is the approval rating of the president. In the article from the Washington Times, the author states that President Obama's approval rating has fallen to 51 percent in the Gallup tracking survey, a number significantly lower than when Obama was first elected. I agree that, as troy stated, since the "Obama-mania" has worn down a bit, people are now considering other options for their poll vote in 2010.
I agree with Danielle. I believe the country is starting to get a little frustrated with Obama and his policies. But as Danielle said, it takes awhile to show improvement. Its not something that just takes a week to fix and everyone is happy...it takes a lot of time and hard work. I think over time, people will start to see his policies come into affect but until then we are just going to have to be patient.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the main reason the party in power loses the Congressional seats in the first year is because of the time factor. I agree with what Maggie said about losing faith and re-thinking whether or not the right party is in the White House. It's likey people think that by putting the majority of the opposite party in Congress, it will even out the power. The fact that the number of ticket-splitting districts is on the climb again is a good example of people re-thinking the choice of presidential party.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Republicans will win the majority of the seats in Congress in the 2010 election. I feel like the Democrats are hoping that the nation's problems turn around by the time of the election and the Republican's are hoping that their rise continues. A repeat of the 1994 election seems probable but as of right now it's remains just a possibility.
I think that we will see a slight lean towards more balance in congress in the upcoming congressional elections. Although it's hard to say, I still believe that the Democrats will maintain a majority. It is still too early for the power to shift again. Hopefully a Democratic majority in the house still after the upcoming elections will help president Obama to get more done in the future. If it turns out ot be a Republican majority, I think Obama will have an even harder time getting things done than he is now.
ReplyDeleteI read what mjmurphy3 said, and i have to say that i don't really think Obama will get more done with the majority democrats.Obama hasn't really done anything that he said he would of already done,and its been almost a year. He's had the majority democrats the entire time he was in office, and yet he still hasn't taken our troops out of iraq, or done any of the energy reforms he said he would, or even get his health care bill passed yet. I think that if the majority were republican he would actually get more done.
ReplyDeleteI think it is common for the party in power to lose Congressional seats in the first off-year election of a Presidents term because the people are not seeing what they want happen. During presidential campaigns the candidates often promise to do many things IF they are elected. The truth is that half of those things will not occur during the first year of their term, if ever. Like Hilary stated, people become frustrated and the party will lose support among their voters.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what ‘JK’ said. People are frustrated with the lack of activity in the government and the poor economy and they want to see change. If the democrats are able to pass the health care reform bill or the economy takes a turn for the better many people will be more inclined to vote Democratic because change occurred while they were in power, whether they caused it or not.
I couldn't agree more with what Hilary said in her first post. Stagnation in America is a bad thing. This is why public opinion polls of presidential approval tend to drop over time if nothing eye-catching happens.
ReplyDeleteMr. Tanaka said last year that America has a tendency to shift dramatically back and forth between the two political parties. This example of congressional elections is just more evidence to his assertion.
I would also like to express that I see this as a positive thing. I think that as long as we are allowed to have this "pendulum effect" occur, the balance of power between the two parties should remain relatively constant. While the president may be a representative of one party, the other party might control congress.
-Michael Silberblatt
In regards to mjmurphy3's comment, while I do agree with the prediction that there still will be a Democratic majority in congress (a small one at that), I disagree with the fact that Obama would accomplish more if there, indeed, exists a Democratic majority.
ReplyDeleteAs Anthony pointed out, there already is a Democratic majority in congress and Obama has really not accomplished much of anything on a large scale (the health care reform, if it passes, would be the only noteworthy change). Most of his efforts have been towards getting support of Republican congressmen to achieve a bi-partisan effort.
Who knows? Maybe Obama has foreseen a shift in congressional power and his efforts at bi-partisanship will not be in vain, but rather become a necessity.
I agree a lot with the students saying that the reason why the party who is in power will commonly lose congressional seats is due to problems with patients. Americans are beginning to adapt to a more and more extremely fast paced society, and when people don’t see immediate changes or effects government, and the way things are being done, they often get frustrated, which leads to this almost expected change in congressional seats.
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans make a good point that just based on history; the party in the house loses house seats in the first midterm election. They also say that loses in gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia could weaken the morale of the Democrats, which is a definite possibility. The Democrats on the other hand, hope to maintain their majority status, and pick up house seats due to retirements of Republicans.
I believe that on November 3rd these numbers will be more even because the strong start of the Democrats will begin to fade and Republicans will shorten the gap.
In general, the country tends to punish the incumbents in the midterm elections, especially when there is a recession or an economic hardship. So when I reviewed the first article posted, I was not surprised when it stated that losing Democratic control in congress is "a real prospect". Ever since Bush's last term, many jobs were lost and the economy started to spiral downward. Now that Obama is president and the economy hasnt significantly improved, I would expect people will vote for Republicans in the congressional midterm elections.
ReplyDeleteAs most people have already stated, the incumbent rate in the first year off election is less because so much anticipation is gained by the citizens throughout a campaign, that when a president actually takes office, they want immediate change. Often times the presidential candidate promises a number of reforms to the current presidents weaknesses, but only has the ability to act on them one at a time. Whenever someone is unhappy with something in the country, they blame it on the incumbent which in turns lessens their chances of being re-elected. There is always a majority blaming the government for situations that have occurred, and the only people to place this blame on is the party in power.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Maggie on her saying that people do not want a party to dominate congress that cannot fulfill their promises. Because if the party that is in the electorate does not do exactly as they say they would in their first year people are going to think that they will never get it done. People are impatient and want things done right away. I believe that congress will most likely become majority republican if Obama fails with the health care bill and does not pick up the economy like he says he will because people once again wont get immediate satisfaction. But i do believe if people are more optimistic and believe obama can get the job done congress will remain mostly democratic. I believe that the numbers will remain roughly the same by next November because i think people will say that they have not seen what all the Democratic Party really has to offer.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eric and Maggie. The party in office will definitely lose seats during the next election just because many of the the promises made by the President are not being delivered. I do think that if more of his promises are done, the Democrats will keep or gain more seats in the next election.
ReplyDeleteAs is the consensus in this thread, I think the reason why the tides turn against the party in power during off-year elections is due to voters' high expectations of the new president. The majority of the population starts the term off with strong feelings of optimism, and as the reality of things starts to set in and people realize that not all promises can be kept, they become frustrated and disillusioned. This trend is even more pronounced in President Obama's case, as his whole campaign focused on hope and change, which made the future seem bright to many.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Hillary’s first comment, I’d like to say that I couldn’t agree more with her reasoning on why congressional seats are so unstable. It’s very difficult for people to remain loyal to a cause/party/faction when nothing seems to be going in the desired direction. It is usually at this time that people seek a new perspective and switch. If the other opponent is just as undesirable, the voter will probably remain loyal to his or her party. Like Frierich Nietzsche eloquently stated, “ At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.”
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats control the executive branch and both the House and Senate and yet they cannot come together to deal with this economic crisis. I think that they are focused too much on this health care bill and not enough on fixing the economy, which in my opinion should be at the top of their list. If the Democrats in congress continue not to take action and the economy does not improve between now and the congressional midterm election they will lose seats and possibly the majority in the House.
ReplyDeleteI agree with wilhelm when he says that the President can only make one change at a time and that no change can occur immediately. I think people get impatient and they think that once a President takes office that all the problems in our country will somehow be instantly solved. Many great things that have happened in our government have taken time to perfect and make great, greatness does not just happen over night no matter who is in charge.
ReplyDeleteI also agree when wilhelm says that blaming the incumbent for problems lessen the probability of being re-elected. Citizens don't want people to have power that they feel are not using it.
After reading Ryan's post I can see how the Republicans could actually gain the majority. As Ryan said the "Obama-mania" has had it's run throughout the first year of office, but it will be dying down. I think the dying down of said "Obama-mania" will be a leading factor of the change in the majority.
ReplyDeleteI believe many of the Democratic congressional seats will be transferred to Republican hands after next year's election due to the party's decreasing support. Though the reasons why the party's support is diminishing vary, it's quite obvious that Democratic buttress is not what it used to be. According to the readings, this is a very common trend in congressional election, so the outcome should not surprise us. However, Democrats do have a large majority, and I don't think an election would alter the seats so drastically that they'll lose it. If anything, I believe congress will "even out."
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Ryan said about the republicans potentially gaining the majority back. The entire campaign was based on how obama would come back and turn everything that bush had done around. Since Bush was viewed so negatively by our country, the only clear alternative people saw was electing a new party president. Since Obama promised all these great things and has not delivered, the alternative people now see is changing the majority in the house. If this happens and republicans do make positive changes right away, then Obama's chance of re-election will lessen.
ReplyDeleteAs everybody else has said, it seems fairly obvious that the party in power will lose seats because voters either become frustrated with the party in power because they disagree with that party's policies, or voters are disillusioned when everything a party or president has promised would happen has not.
ReplyDeleteI would think that Republicans would probably win some more seats this next election. I agree with what Brita said about this being caused by the approval rating of Obama falling, which could be attributed to people anxious about his not really do anything in office (as parodied on SNL), causing them to want to cast their vote elsewhere.
I think in the Senate the Republicans could win back several tens of seats, and possibly have a fairly even balance with the Democrats, and that the House could be similar.
I agree with Michael mentioning how Tanaka explained American politics as dramatically shifting from party to party - this seems to happen every couple of elections, and when it comes to elections such as Nixon's in 1972 and Johnson's in 1964, this can be frightening! This phenomenon would also explain an ability for the Republicans to gain some more power in the coming elections.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this Political swing is an inevitable occurrence that would have happened sooner or later during Obama's presidency. Of course there would be discontent among voters who wanted Obama to fulfill his promise of CHANGE fast. This fast change is evident since the economy is slowly getting better but he doesn't get that much credit for that since his plan is a long term one and the economy isn't improving at the pace set by the people. In the people's point of view, Obama is now in a stand still. He hasn't produced any results (except winning the Noble Peace Prize). His other promises are not going anywhere and his focus on health care is causing a lot of discontent among the people because other important issues such as education, Iraq/Afghanistan, and homeland security are getting overlooked. Thus people would look to the other party, hoping that maybe they have a faster solutions for such desperate times. Since Obama can't keep up, the people would run with others who can.
ReplyDeleteThe Congress political swing can go both ways. If the Democrats lose too much, then Obama would be facing more problems in passing anything through Congress (as if the opposition now wasn't enough). The good news about this is that if Obama does get something done, it would improve his credibility that he could provide the CHANGE he promised. Moreover, this would help promote a good competition among politicians encouraging them to do a better job fixing the ineffective system we have now.
There is an inevitable loss no doubt about that. Now the key is for Obama to pass something, preferably the Health Care Plan. This would show that Obama is actually being affective in the government. Even though some people don’t support it, it would show that Obama could produce the change he promised. This would give Obama back the support of the people. If he could pass his health care plan, people would see that he overcame such diversity and this would give people hope that Obama could improve other aspects of their lives. If he can do this, the loss of Democratic seats in Congress would be negated and would actually gain more support for the Democrats. However, there is still a time line and he must accomplish at least one thing before the bleeding might be too much to contain.
ReplyDeleteThough Kyle and Ryan have a valid point when they say that the atmosphere that surrounded Obama is dying down, I don't necessarily think that this will lead to a swing in the majority in Congress. I think Congress' handling of the health care bill will influence the way the public votes much more than the waning of this "Obama-mania". The House and Senate's decisions on this pivotal issue will either solidify the support of Democrats, or disillusion them, leading to a possible swing (as mentioned in the Washington Post article).
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Republicans will gain more congressional seats in the next election because people feel that Obama hasn't delivered a lot of the promises he made. However, I am not sure teh Republicans will hold a majority in congress.
ReplyDeleteI think that despite any waning in the overwhelming popularity of Obama, little will happen that much in the way of changing seats. Democrats are still incredibly popular right now, and even though the original luster of Obama is fading, this shouldn't do a great deal to influence the seat race in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Abel that if the Health care bill passes people will feel confident that he can live up to his promises and something like that can influence the race to the point of almost no changing of seats. I don't think the Congress majority will change, but if Obama can fulfill one of his campaign promises, it can ensure Democrats hold a great majority.
ReplyDeleteYeah I agree with all of the comments about Republicans gaining the majority of the seats in Congress. I believe thats unlikely. Like Jack said, the Democrats are very popular right now and I still do not think the majority of the country is going to shift to the Republican party as soon as the next election.
ReplyDeleteMany people have touched on this already, but I feel that to have a successful campaign, a person has to take a stance on a wide variety of issues and formulate a proposed plan of action regarding these issues. With Obama especially, his campaign was - of course - all about "Change". I think that some of the American people are becoming impatient waiting for something specific a specific plan of action (and keep in mind that there are many different things people want to see change: health care, gay rights, etc), and it's impossible to do all these things in a few months.
ReplyDeleteWhat a president can do in few months is persuade Congress to pass certain laws, with the focus obviously on health care at the moment. And as we have seen, passing a major bill like health care reform takes time. and the public is also getting tired of waiting for it. Basically, the party of the winning presidential candidate has a lot of work to do, in terms of accomplishing what the candidate promised. Clearly, Americans embrace the ideas of change and progress, and the party ends up losing seats in the mid-term election when they can't provide it fast enough.
I have to disagree with Abel and Jack that the health care bill is really a determining factor in the upcoming elections. Even if the bill does pass, it will probably take many years and billions of dollars before people will feel the effects of it. Until the plan starts working everywhere, all people will see is increased spending without immediate results--much like with the stimulus bill. Of course, some results (where Obama follows through on his plans) would help the Democrats' campaigns next year. I think the economy and unemployment rate are better issues for Obama to focus on, as they effect the people directly and often require less legislation.
ReplyDeleteLike many have stated, I believe the reason that the party currently leading the executive branch commonly loses Congressional seats is because people tend to be extremely critical of the president within his first year of power. While some may believe that this is not fair, those who vote the opposing house into Congress can easily justify their decision. In the first year, and even before taking office, the up and coming president makes many promises and statements regarding his plans for his term. He gets elected based on these promises, and when the people of the United States feel like he isn't living up to his word, they panick. Some second guess their decision to vote for that winning candidate adn compensate by voting for the other political party in the election for Congressional seats.
ReplyDeleteI truly believe that there is no way to get around having an "off-year." No matter how much a president accomplishes within his first year in office, there will always be people criticizing his actions and waiting for him to make mistakes. I as well believe that in this next year Republicans will win many of the Congressional seats, and quite possibly regain a majority in Congress.
I do think disillusionment is a big factor that will enable GOP to gain seats in the 2010 election. I think it is very possible for the Republicans to gain more than 20 seats, but polls are known for leading people to think that one thing will happen and the opposite actually happens. So, I can say what I think will happen. I find it hard to believe that there is disaffection for the middle voters. I would have guessed that people either had strong views against Obama which leads them against the Democratic party or just the opposite.
ReplyDeleteCoCo O
I also agree with what many above me have said about many Americans becoming frustrated with Obama and his administration. Every time I hear someone complain about Obama doing something wrong in office, or something they believe is going to hurt our country, I always feel a little frustrated with them. While most of their complaints are justifiable, people have to realize how many issues are in this world. The president has four-eight years to tackle what they believe is most important. Not very much time at all. I think the best way to put the presidents job into perspective, is to put yourself in his shoes for a day. There is so little time and so much to do. It hasn't even been a full year since Obama took office. Although it is hard, I the most effective thing to do right now is let things settle down and see how the projects Obama is attempting to finish play out.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julius that the bill doesn't play that big of role in whether people end up swaying more towards one side. I think people will be more influenced by the changes that bring immediate results.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the disillusionment that occurs almost after every election within the first few months is a bad reflection on voters. If we know that presidents might have a hard time putting all theirs promises in action, then why do the approval ratings always drop. It's fine to vote for that candidate, but don't expect the candidate to change the country in just a few months.
Similar to what Jack said (that Democrats still seem to be more popular than Republicans), I have to say that until I read these articles, I did not realize that the Democratic seats were in such "jeopardy". It is inevitable that a handful of Democrats will lose their seats to Republicans, but I don't think this will majorly affect the political direction or atmosphere of our country.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jack and Abel in what they were saying about Obama's health care plan. Once he gets it passed in congress I think the majority of americans who have lost faith in the democratic party during Obama's term will come to realize that he is capable of getting a lot of what he has promised done.
ReplyDeleteI found a few points in the first article from Mr. Silverman's post very interesting. Tad Devine noted therein that an economic upswing within the next year would do much to lessen the distaste for Democrats that seems to be building right now -- and that's probably very true, considering presidents whose terms coincided with economic upswings have historically been held in high regards (think Reagan), whether their policies affected the economy or not. Similarly, presidents with the misfortune of overseeing the US during hard times (like Carter) are mostly looked down on.
ReplyDeleteBut even a cursory evaluation of a capitalist economy shows that there are natural highs and lows. A president's policies certainly have the potential to affect it, but the probability of these effects being so strong that they begin to surface within the first year of a president's term is unlikely. Often, a president's economic policies don't cause tangible results until after they have left office, during the next president's term. And of course, there is always the chance that a president's policies and approaches will not have a tangible effect on the economy at all. The people are left relying on the natural ups and downs of the capitalist economy -- and when things go poorly, the people will be unhappy. When things go well, people will want to congratulate someone.
Part of a president's success depends on things beyond their reach. Public opinion comes from the public, after all -- and most members of the public are ill-equipped to consider the far reaching effects of economic policy. Many people are simply concerned with the here & now, but here & now we have inflation and recession, no clue about the success or failure of President Obama's efforts. His plan could work; his plan could fail. The point is that we don't know because we have not given it sufficient time to take hold.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of voters who won't realize this. They'll pin all their economic woes on the party in power, and it's certain that Democrats will lose some power in Congress because of this. How much exactly? It's difficult to say. Another point made in the article was that much of the electorate's anger is "aimed at both parties and at Washington, rather than just at Obama" -- so who knows? Maybe we'll just see a smaller-than-expected shift away from Democratic candidates and a generally low voter turnout.
(Hum. So, sidenote. I'm not trying to say that presidents' economic success or failure is entirely out of their hands & they deserve no credit for their brilliant moves or their horrible mistakes. But it is true that the economy is a very tricky subject & has a life of its own, with ebbs and flows and all. Most of its movement is about as controllable as a boulder rolling down a steep hill.)
I along with others, believe one of the main reasons the party loses power is becuase of the high expectations placed on the new president. When things that are promised dont get done or are not done on time, people tend to become frustrated and lose faith. With this, many, mostly independent voters, change their party views or support and begin to support a candidate in a new party. As seats in Congress begin to change parties, it may begin to decrease presidential support. I believe the numbers of republicans in congress will change in favor of them as Obama's support begins to decrease.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what Abel said about how Democrtaice seats can remain high in Congress if Obama is able to find support. If he is able to make the promises and 'changes' he said he would, more would believe that he could to things for the better in the future. By people having faith in him, more will continue to vote Democratic for Congress. If Obama is not able to uphold his promises, I believe, as I stated above, the Congressional seats will change in future Congressional elections.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the articles. I think the Democrats will lose some of their existing seats to Republicans if drastic change is not seen in the country much sooner. The elections are not right away and the Democratic Party still has enough time to quickly pull together some change. If the country's voters are not satisfied at that point, I would not be surprised if the Democratic Party loses a big part of their majority in Congress. However, it is hard to make that claim, because the statistics of who voted for President Obama off of what he said he was going to accomplish and change or who voted for President Obama for his platform and policies. It is hard to tell. Times are rapidly changing and the votes could go wither way. Perhaps, the Republican voters like some of President Obama's actions and switch parties for this next election and try to keep Democrats in Congress. I know this is very unlikely, but anything is possible when you are dealing with real people and how they think. Nothing is completely predictable.
ReplyDeleteThis is somewhat incidental, but the US public has quite the collective goldfish brain when it comes to politics! Dissatisfaction with everything Bush-related, including his political party, was so high just a year ago that since then, Democrats have seen a large increase in popularity. But that dissatisfaction with Bush had been building for eight years over a slew of incidents and his decisions that turned out poor -- now, dissatisfaction with Obama has been building for less than a single year & he's getting criticized for things he hasn't even been given enough time to fix. And the people now seem more upset with their pocketbooks than, say, foreign policy or education. So, what does that mean for some people? Go to the party that defends the individual's pocketbook a bit more aggressively, even though those same individuals may have reviled that party just a short time ago.
ReplyDeleteI dunno. Kinda funny, kinda sad.
I think as just a normal example of the pendulum, back and forth nature of our political system, the Republicans will gain in my estimation probably around 3-5 seats in the Senate, and maybe a couple dozen in the house. However there is a lot of time between now and then, and so much can happen that could drastically alter the political landscape. I think generally as Obama's approval goes, so goes the seats in Congress, with of course a few exceptions in some more Candidate-based elections. If Obama can have success in what he is trying to accomplish, and nothing extremely negative happens during his presidency, I think the Democrats will be just fine. On the issue of whether or not the Health Care bill will have a significant impact- we will likely not feel much of its effects by then so in that respect it will not play that large of a factor. However, I think the way congress goes about passing it could be important to voters. If people remember a specific candidate or party doing something they found distasteful, it could pose trouble when election time.
ReplyDeletei personally believe as it appears that many others do to that the number of seats that are gained or lost by any party in a congressional election after the presidential election is directly porportionate to the presidents approval ratings. For example if the president has high aprroval ratings that it its probable and even likely that his party will at least not lose and probably even gain some seats. However if the presidents approval ratings are bad like Bush that i believe that it is almost a definite that his party is going to lose some seat in both the house and the senate. I also agree with Coco in the fact that i believe that people need to allow the current administration some time before they begin to critize them. Although it does seem that Obama has been quite inactive in the White House i believe that his andministration just needs more time before it can begin to seriously fill out some of the goals that he expects to achieve. As for the upcomiing election i think that the outcome is undeterminable at this point. We will jsut have to see how the current administration does until then.
ReplyDeleteI think the it is common for the party in power to lose congressional seats is because the people don't agree with the direction that the party is moving in. The party in office gets old and we think the other party will do a better job. But I don’t really think that the 2010 congressional election will shift the numbers of democrats and republicans in either the house or the senate. It might get a little closer in the numbers but with Obama’s high approval ratings (so far) and him winning the Nobel Peace Prize you can see that people like the direction he taking America (so far). I agree completely with Lance about “a president’s high point in terms of approval rating is the very beginning of their first term, because they have made many wonderful promises and the people are hopeful for the future”. Obama’s approval could easily change before his term or before they change seats.
ReplyDeleteI really like what Charlotte says about the “US public has quite the collective goldfish brain when it comes to politics” because that’s true everyone is saying that Obama’s approval ratings are dropping but that’s only because America wants the quick fix to everything but our government is designed to check and balance and avoid quick fixes. Obama’s been in office for only like a year now he needs time to fix everything. But I also agree with Hilary and Andrea that it is human nature to be impatient.
ReplyDeleteI think that the party in power loses seats because people are naturally impatient. Obama has been in office for LESS than a year an dpeople are calling him ineffective. I think people forget how long we have set up the process for passing any law in this country. This may also be because, though in the Bush presidencey there was not major reforms within the country, people felt that his REaction the 9/11 aka the war was action on his part. So now when we look at congress or other things that are moving slower, we need to remember, it has ALWAYS been this way. Laws don't pass overnight, and I, unfortunately, disagree with hilary in thinking that they do. I think the parties constantly change because they look at congress and think nothing is being accomplished, so they switch back and forth, with the same thinking every time.
ReplyDeleteI feel that we all need to learn that a different party isn't necessarily going to solve the speed of action, but only change what action is trying to be accomplished.
Also, along the lines of party power. It would be very interesting to see what would happen if the republicans were the party in power, because of what we have been discussing in class. The republican party appears to be redefining itself and trying to find their identity. Would being in power help them find it?
ReplyDeletewould we see something completely new?
or would we get the backseat while they figure out their issues?
these are all interesting aspects to consider. I am quite anxious to see what their redefining moment or candidate in the future will be.
I can agree with a couple people who point out the impatience in the american public. It seems a large percentage of the country seems to think that the new president can walk in to the oval office, wave a hidden magic wand, and all the mistakes of the last president will simply vanish. This is a nice idea, but obviously ridiculous. However, when this doesnt happen, (because it cant) people get upset with the president and claim he isnt doing his job. Hence, there goes his approval rating!
ReplyDeleteOnce again I agree with Lance and a couple of other people. Obama just can't fix all the problems over night and as Lance says "wave a magic wand." And people are getting upset and frustrated with him and I think that his approval rating will go down monetarily but when he starts putting his polices into action, I think his approval rating will go up.
ReplyDeleteI want to point out that the Republican Party's response to losing the presidential election has made them regain some momentum. The protests (tea parties) and adherence to their party platforms has made the Republican Party a strong opponent in 2010 and this year. I also agree with what Lance said above; that the American public's impatience with Barack Obama has also contributed to the situation. The approval rating has dropped to around 50%, and has resulted in (in the public's eyes) increased support of the Republicans. Finally, I believe that the losses in the house and senate will not be as bad as the articles predict, because the president will be able to swing the momentum in the Democrats favor. The elections are next year, but the New Jersey and Virginia elections will give me a hint to what might happen.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the GOP will regain quite a few seats in 2010 because of the stagnance of Democratic reform attempts. The Health Care Bill hasn't yet made it through Congress and that reflects negatively on Obama and his party. The SNL skit that made fun of Obama pointed out all of the things that he has been unable to accomplish despite having a healthy majority in Congress. Dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party's inability to accomplish anything will certainly boost the Republicans in the Midterm Elections.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what Lauren said about it being common for the party in power to lose seats in the Midterm Elections. The party in power always has to deal with low approval ratings which boosts the other party, whom the people think can do the job better. Because the Democratic Party is in power during a difficult economic time, they face low approval ratings that have revitalized the Republican Party. On top of that it's even more difficult to maintain a positive image in the midst of a new president's first term, especially when he is learning the ropes of the presidency and trying to push through a large amount of reforms, most (so far) unsuccessfully.
I am in agreement with Jake Schwartz and others who say that the Republican party may be able to regain some sort of momentum with the loss in the presidency. As we all know Obama's apporval ratings have been dropping, and in 2010 it is very likely that the Republicans will have the upper hand in the majority. As for the article, it states that losses will be greater for the Democrats, and I can agree with this. I think that momentum does change every election, and it is turn for the Democratic party to sort of lose it's majority.
ReplyDeleteI think expectations can really cause people to lose hope quickly. In this case, the President's ratings have gone down, but I really think people have overestimated his power and patience has not been the doominating feeling of America's public. Obama appears to be a man of his word, and is well known for his diligent work wthics. I think with time he may come around and I think he is guiding the country in a positive direction. Time is what he needs and patience from the public.
ReplyDeleteAs many of my classmates have touched upon, the American people as a whole seem to be very impatient when it comes to our president. During Obama's campaign, he repeatedly stated that he was all about changing how our country would be run, but these changes would take time. However, public opinion polls continually prove that the American people are unhappy that Obama hasn't cured the U.S. of all it's problems as of yet. As Lance has said, there is no magic wand to be waved.
ReplyDeleteI believe this "collective goldfish brain" of the American people will come into play as the elections roll around. Although the Democrats were wildly popular, I believe that because the American people's expectations of our president, however misguided they may be, remain unachieved. Because of this, I believe voters will be unsatisfied with the Democrats and return to a Republican majority in Congress.
ReplyDeleteIn his Washington Post article, Dan Balz argues that the threat to the Democrats in 2010 comes from three directions. Of these three, however, I think the most important one to consider is the "possible disaffection among independent voters". Party extremists on either end of the political spectrum are not going to have shifting loyalties, no matter what current events are. Independents, however, are going to vote based on the here-and-now, that is, who is making progress that they see as positive. Independents have become the true force for change in American politics, especially because they've grown so much in numbers in recent years. Strong Democrats and strong Obama supporters are not going to stop being strong in those views, but some of the independent support that the left counts on could be lost because of "Economic insecurity, fears about the growth of government spending and the size of the deficit, confusion about health care and a concern that Obama has tried to do too much too quickly". There are two important things to consider here. First, Obama has only been President for a year. Like we discussed on the previous blog topic, it's not reasonable to expect drastic, phenomenal changes in the first year of a presidency. We have to give Obama time to enact his proposed policies and legislation. Second, just as the independent vote may shift away from Obama and the Democrats now, it could just as easily shift back later in the administration, when drastic, phenomenal change has happened.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of a prediction for 2010, I would be surprised if the GOP doesn't unseat at least a few Democrats. I agree with what Troy said earlier: "Obama-mania" is dying down, and because it's Obama's first term, he hasn't accomplished much. Those with a changeable views are going to vote with this flux in public opinion. And currently, Obama's public opinion rating is in decline. Also, conditions are right for a Conservative resurgence (even if it is just a small one), and Republican party strategists recognize this. The Republicans are running many of their candidates in the 2010 race, against newer House members and Senators and against "Democratic warhorses". I think they're likely to be quite successful.
ReplyDeleteI, like most others, think that the republican party is going to gain a significant number of seats back from the Democrates. Being that they are the majority in both houses it is easy to point to them and blame them for issues and grievences people are currently having. This is in the same way as people did with the republicans. Like Troy said the Obama worshiping is starting to die down and I think the GOP would be smart to capitalize on this and regain the support of the public. Being that they are not currently "in charge" it is easy to point out the flaws of the democratic party and their approach in the economy and health care ideas. I am not sure if they have enough momentum to unseat the democratic majority, but I do feel they will gain at least a few more seat
ReplyDelete