How Bad Could 2010 Be for the Democratic Party?


Political numbers whiz Nate Silver gives a long and poll-technical presentation about why it is perfectly likely, given some current polling, that they could lose up to 51 seats.

The heart of his analysis:

the House popular vote (a tabulation of the actual votes all around the country) and the generic ballot (an abstraction in the form of a poll) are not the same thing—and the difference usually tends to work to Democrats' detriment. Although analysts debate the precise magnitude of the difference, on average the generic ballot has overestimated the Democrats' performance in the popular vote by 3.4 points since 1992. If the pattern holds, that means that a 2.3-point deficit in generic ballot polls [which we see now in Real Clear Politics polling] would translate to a 5.7 point deficit in the popular vote—which works out to a loss of 51 seats, according to our regression model.

On Nate Silver's history of political prognostication success.

NEXT: Friday Fun Link: Comic Book Diagrams, Cutaways, and Maps

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The short answer: not nearly as bad as it should be.

    Of course, that scenario involves a lot of heads in baskets and jeering crowds.

    1. Word. 251 would be better than 51. If only the Republicans didn’t have to with them…

    2. Not when you consider that every one of those seats will be filled with a Republican, which when the WH flips in 2012 or 2016 will mean equally painful butt sores.

      1. Instead of how well either of the shitty parties will do in 2010… how about something about the Libertarian party and possibilities for 2010 and beyond?

        What does the LP need to do to find election-time success? It seems like wait for these fucknuts to screw everything up has had no bearing on the LP’s attempts to get people into office.

        1. I think think the LP will make a good showing this time, and maybe get one or two in. In my local area there is an LP candidate with no R in the race. (Edward Gonzalez, CA CD16). With the current tea party attitudes he has a real shot at winning. He’s not a blue skinned nutjob yammering about legalizing child porn either.

        2. This is a good point. What about the LP? I’d love to see the LP get a few candidates in the running or even elected. Good luck to Mr. Gonzalez as Brandybuck notes.

          Everybody on here is too busy with “tony” or maybe they’re all the same person. Let the troll pass.

    3. For a moment there, I thought that line read “they could lose up to 51 states.”

      That I’d like to see.

  2. Even given the apathy and short memory of the average voter, I expect this bloodbath in November. Once again, I must marvel at the stupidity of the Democrats, and how it seems even greater than that of the Republicans.

    1. They only stay competitive because their opponents are the Republicans.

      1. It’s like the starters for the Washington Generals playing against their backups.

        1. I actually think that Meadowlark and Curly are preferable to Barack and Joe.

          Seriously. That would be an awesome triple-fake-out, hide-the-ball foreign policy. Any nation would have to be a fool to go up against us.

        2. A very apt comparision.

      2. Beavis vs. Butthead!

      3. So true.

        So sadly true.

    2. One can sincerely hope. Unfortunately, we’ll be trading one group of dumbfucks for another group of dumbfucks, but at least Tony will be able to cry about his oppression.

  3. If only it weren’t the Republicans winning those seats…

    1. That is the big problem isnt it. Same for people sticking to it Bush by electing Obama.

      1. “What are you laughing at? You’re next!”

    2. My thoughts exactly. I need only look at 2001-06 to give me pause about rooting for the GOP. Maybe divided government is the best we can realistically hope for.


      1. I think I’m just voting against incumbency for the next couple cycles. (Technically I started in the ’08, but will continue). No matter how bad he/she is, I’m voting for the new guy from Dog-catcher to Senator.

        1. This has been my philosophy for the last two elections. It’s depressing, but gridlock is the best we can hope for.

          1. Gridlock: the kind of change we can hope for.

  4. Link to article:…..sible.html

  5. Yeah! Woo! Back to Republican majority! Oh wait…

    1. GOP majority in Congress with Dem president == gridlock. I’ll take that.

      1. Unfortunately, given the fiscal disaster that is government finance, things merely staying as bad as they are is not good enough.

        1. At this point there is no avoiding a fiscal disaster. It’s just a matter of how quickly we want to get there.

          1. If that is the case, then the quicker the better, more spending and borrowing, until the whole economy really crashes, then maybe we would see real reform. The only problem is how bad would the crash be, would it pose an existential threat to the country.

            1. The last time we saw a complete fiscal crash in America it led to the fucking new deal. The only change we can hope for is, eventually, revolution. But by then it may be too late to rein in big government via force.

              1. A government collapse led to the New Deal?

            2. I understand the sentiment, but isn’t that like arson to avoid bankruptcy court? If we have to live in the place, I’d rather not have only ashes left.

            3. A true crash would probably result in hundreds of millions of deaths around the world.

              Looking more and more likely each day.

              My advice: guns & ammo. Can always use them to get other necessities.

      2. That seems to be the magic combination, if recent history is any guide. Republicans only seem to discover their fiscal restraint when they can restrain a Democrat.

        1. It’s a matter of aligning political incentives. On domestic spending, Republicans have both the temptation to bribe their constituents and the temptation to satisfy the “Tea Party” base by holding the line on spending. If you can align the power blocs in government so they won’t get credit for the former, they’ll only do the latter.

          On the level of national domestic spending, the lion’s share of bribery-credit always goes to the President who signs them. If the President is a Democrat, then a Republican has every incentive in the world to vote no, to both deny the Democrat that advantage and to satisfy the anti-spenders in his base. If the President is a Republican, the Republican Congressman has an incentive to vote for Medicare Part D or No Child Left Behind to support said President, and you’ll get more of that sort of thing.

          Note that you do not get the same incentives from mere “divided government”. A Democratic Congress is a Congress that wants to spend, on both the bribery and ideological grounds. They will accordingly easily find common ground with a Republican President’s spending initiatives, with only minor jostling. If the President is a Republican, you get largely indistinguishable results no matter who controls congress.

          On the other hand, if the President is a Democrat, and Congress is Democrat-controlled, well.

          So, here’s the short spending-control political guidebook:

          Always vote Republican for Congress.

          Vote for a Republican President when Democrats control Congress, and a Democratic President when Republicans control Congress.

          (And no, there are no mitigating reasons to favor Democrats controlling Congress. Consider just how effective Democratic control of Congress was in stopping Reagan from engaging in military spending, in avoiding the Gulf War in 1990, or in bringing the troops home from Iraq in 2007. Democratic control of Congress is an unmitigated disaster.)

          1. Yep, that’s it in a nutshell.

            1. Pretty fucking big nutshell.

          2. Vote for… a Democratic President when Republicans control Congress.

            So you really think you’d be supporting libertarian goals on balance by voting for Clinton in ’96, Gore in ’00, and Kerry in ’04?

            1. Don’t forget that Kerry was an admitted war criminal.

              1. I think that was Bob Kerry, not John, he was just a douche.

  6. …it is perfectly likely, given some current polling, that they could lose up to 51 seats.

    Woo-hoo. That would be teh awesome!

    The heart of his analysis:
    the House popular vote

    Oh. I was hoping this was the Senate we were talking about.

  7. they could lose up to 51 seats

    Aaaaaand, then Alan Funt Ashton Kutchner jumps out from behind the partition he was hiding behind.


  8. HCR is done and will never go away. The best we can hope for is divided government to prevent card check, cap’n trade, and other travesties that Obama will force through the lapdogs running the democratic party aparatus.

    1. “The good news is that we only have to take one of your legs.”

      1. May we have your liver?

      2. “Why do you have to cut off me leg”?

        I’m sorry son, but when you were pulled from the water both of your legs were……soaking wet!

    2. Oh, it will go away. The only question is what sort of fucked up monstrosity will come next.

    3. I think there is an escape hatch in this mess – the benefits weren’t going to kick in until 2014 or so, thus there isn’t a dependant class for that entitlement yet (even if some maroons line up for the free stuff now).

      Of course, this depends on the R party not trying to peel D votes from the dependant class – which does not happen anyway. Unfortunately this does mean that the R party must evolve vertebrae, which is not likely to happen without some kind of selective pressure on the gene pool.

      Here’s hoping November is an asteroid strike!

  9. A divided government can’t be any worse than this. At least it would stop Obama from doing further damage.

    More importantly, a real blood bath in November would hopefully bring the Democratic Party back towards some sense of rationality. For years the Left has claimed that if only the Democrats has courage and really went all the way left, they would be rewarded with a perminant majority. If only they would pass healthcare reform, raise taxes to a fair level, make friends with our enemies and so forth, the would rule forever. Now they have done it. They have health reform and a whole lot of other liberal goodies. If they suffer an historic ass kicking in November, it might allow saner people to take over the Democratic Party.

    The two party system is what we are stuck with. And it is no good to have the radical left in charge of one of the parties. We need to have a return of centrist Democrats that provide an actual check on Republican power rather than a lunatic fringe alternative.

    1. Are you serial?

      I can’t see this November being anything more than the latest installment of Kabuki Political Theater. Nothing will change except the names of the players.

      This shit has been going on for most of the 20th century and all of the 21st. It means *nothing*.

      1. That is horseshit. Things under Reagan were a hell of a lot different than they were under Carter. And thing under Bush were a hell of a lot different than under Obama or Clinton. Elections do make a difference. Just because neither side passes your purity test doesn’t mean they are all the same.

        And there was a time when there were Democrats who could be trusted with power. The Joe Boyles and the Daily KOS crowd didn’t always run the Democratic party. We would be a hell of a lot better off if they didn’t now. Love them or hate them, Democrats are going to occasionally be in power. And the country would be a hell of a lot better off if the Democrat in power looked more like Sam Nunn or Bill Clinton than the former college radical we have in there now.

        1. And there was a time when there were Democrats who could be trusted with power.

          No, no there wasn’t. Ever. See: Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Carter, et al.

          Things under Reagan were a hell of a lot different than they were under Carter.

          So what? What did that get us? Was Carter better than Nixon? Was Nixon better than Johnson?

          Bush I was Reagan Lite with 50% more Carter thrown in for larfs. Clinton came along and hammered out his own song and dance, raising taxes and setting the stage for Republican rubber stamping of 2001-2006. Bush II was a walking abortion of biblical proportions and the Anointed One looks to out do his predecessor. All along, our rights and liberties get shredded just a bit more than last year with little to show for it; 1 step forward, 26 back.

          Let me be clear: elections don’t fucking matter. Any change they bring about with regime change is temporary at best, a net negative in reality. The most you can hope for is The Gimp will tire out and you’ll get a small break before he gets his strength back for the next round.

          1. If elections don’t matter then shut the fuck up and stop whining about it. Or in that alternative go pick up a gun and start shooting people. If you in your heart have given up on the country and the Democratic proccess, than futher comment on that process is pretty pointless.

            1. I thought we were having a conversation? Oh right, it’s time to take the toys and go home.

              You hit on the one positive aspect of our system: the peaceful transfer of power. But frankly, I’m not sure that such a good thing any more. Maybe we need some civil unrest to set priorities straight. Civil behavior isn’t impressing me as an agent for change. Our masters *should* have a sizable and palpable fear of the populace. They clearly don’t any longer.

              For whatever reason, I liked Reagan. He’s got the drug war as a MAJOR black mark against him, and I think he was a good man, but the past 22 years have just been one power-hungry fucktard after another. The preceeding 17 years before him weren’t so hot either. It isn’t looking good for democracy.

              When the Republicans actually grow a spine and a pair and come in and fucking DISMANTLE a sizable chunk of the welfare state, including social security, then we can talk about some real change. Until the Democrats find their civil liberties roots buried deep, deep within their mush-like brains, and dismantle the drug war and beat the SoCons about the face and neck, then we can talk.

              Until then, it’s just jerking off.

              1. Just because your ideas are fringe and stupid doesn’t give you the right to impose them on everyone else by force.

                Scratch a libertarian and you often find a fascist underneath.

                1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The regulatin’ tax collector lecturing me on fascist tendencies.

                  Shut the fuck up Tony.

                  1. Let’s get this straight. You being a pissed off libertarian with an itchy trigger finger wanting to impose your idiotic ideas on everyone else because you’re just so sure they’re right makes you the freedom lover, and me believing in what every free country in the world has–taxes and regulations–makes me the fascist?

                    You are a libertarian fascist who doesn’t abide democracy if it doesn’t give you everything you want. Maybe fascist is too kind… how about crybaby.

                    1. Tony, you used douche, you can’t fucking ‘impose’ freedom. Freedom is our right. Everything else is an imposition.

                    2. You festering, syphilitic sore, are too stupid to understand the context of anything being said here. Go fuck your sister’s tracheostomy, you simpering authoritarian twit.

                    3. We don’t force anything on anyone, Tony. Quit being a disingenuous, lying sack of fuck.

                2. This comment is almost ironic enough to actually be Comrade Choney.

                3. “Just because your ideas are fringe and stupid doesn’t give you the right to impose them on everyone else by force.”

                  When its people like you imposing your bullshit on my individual autonomy, I have that right.

                  1. You do?

                    Fucking libertarian freeloading looters, Jesus Christ. If you don’t want to participate in your community then get off its land and stop benefiting from it.

                    1. Tony, do you know what the term ‘private property’ means? No? Come back when you do.

                    2. Steff,

                      Maybe you can’t impose freedom, but you can impose anarcho-capitalism, which, imo, is anti-freedom.

                    3. I don’t freeload. I voluntarily offer what I have to others in exchange for what I need, when I determine it will be beneficial to my interests. I don’t need anyone to tell me what I need or what I should participate in. And there is no “community” that owns my land.

                      Go suck more dicks.

                    4. Really? Fire up a meth lab on your sovereign property and see how long it remains unmolested by the authorities.

                      The umbrella of government covers your land. A non-crybaby would be grateful that you don’t have to build your own plumbing, generate your own electricity, or build roads out to it.

                    5. I just fucking told you that I participate in voluntary transactions for what I need- which could include things like water, electricity, and transportation. But you’re being retarded. You don’t think there could be any benefit to someone supplying those things themselves? The city water tastes like shit, the power utility is a public-private mess, and both of them are drug war accessory narcs. Private wells are common, and I thought people like you wanted decentralized electrical generation like solar panels and small scale nuclear generators. Roads? It was once common for roads to be owned and maintained by adjacent property owners, while basically being open to everyone. Early highways were private efforts. I want to experiment with private market based transportation. Avoiding subsidized infrastructure would have avoided a lot of the problems that you bitch about yourself.

                    6. How are we “imposing anarcho-capitalism”, Tony? By *gasp!* advocating it?

                      You have developed a warped sense of imposition of late. We don’t condone the use of governmental force to make people do things – that’s what your party, and the GOP, do so well.

                      But, hey, freedom is slavery. Orwell wrote a goddamned instruction manual, and the Brand X Parties have been portioning it out for the last fifty years, at least.

                      Fuck it, let’s just get the inevitable over with and impose martial law. Bush laid the last layer of bricks, it’s up to Obama to finish the wall.

                    7. It’s interesting that you can be angry with “freeloading looters” while continuing to support safety net policies that enable more of them to exist.

                    8. “it’s land” – Tony wtf?

          2. “And there was a time when there were Democrats who could be trusted with power.

            No, no there wasn’t. Ever. See: Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Carter, et al.”

            Grover Cleveland? I would trust him again…

        2. What was different under Reagan? I remember massive deficits and continued deficit spending, not to mention that his defense spending was the precursor to today’s warrantless wiretapping and national ID card and whatever else they can dream up under the guise of security. And things under Bush were a hell of a lot different, but different doesn’t mean better. As far as Clinton, well, we’re still paying the price of the massive bubble engineered by Bubba and ‘Easy’ Alan Greenspan’s policies of below-market interest rates.

          Face it, there is only the Big Government party, and the only difference is how they think your money should be spent. The Republicans are only for smaller gov’t when they’re not in power. As soon as they take the reins, expect more war, more spending, and greater deficits. These people can’t even keep their own committee chairman from overspending.

          1. Aaaaahhhhhhhhhhh . . .

            Back to sanity; things are much better when we see equal opportunity shitting upon both parties. With ObamaCare, it was starting to look like a Republitard love fest around here.

          2. What was different under Reagan?

            Well there was that little thing where he freed Eastern Europe from Communism.

            1. Communism freed eastern Europe from communism. It collapsed under its own weight.

              1. Not according to the people that live there.

                1. Maybe “Reagan ended communism” is the eastern European equivalent to “FDR ended the great depression”.

                  1. No, Reagan really did things to bring it about. He dropped the semi-official assumption that the USSR would be around forever. He pressed them militarily, directly (Afghanistan) and indirectly (SDI, Grenada), to force them to spend even more on their military. He talked the Saudis into pumping more oil to drop the price and deprive the USSR of revenues. He spoke up for Lech Walesa and other dissidents. He directly challenged the USSR to liberalize. One Soviet response was to elevate the (comparatively) young reformer Gorbachev to power. And we all know how that turned out.

        3. And the country would be a hell of a lot better off if the Democrat in power looked more like Sam Nunn or Bill Clinton than the former college radical we have in there now.


          1. And while we’re on the subject, let me take this opportunity to apologize for slavery, too.

        4. there was a time when there were Democrats who could be trusted with power


          The more I study history, the more I’m convinced that NOBODY can be trusted with power. That’s why I’m in favor of reducing the amount of power available to governments, always.


    2. If only we could be like the Italians and turn over government two or three times a year.

      1. We could replace Michelle Bachman with Cicciolina! Wait, nobody would notice the change….

      2. I had a boss that spent 21 years in Italy. He said it actually had a very stable government insofar as when there was a “collapse,” all that really happened was a shuffling of the assorted ministries amongst the entrenched ruling elite. The Minister of Wankery would become the Minister of Pudtuggery and vice-versa, then the next collapse would see them swap again.

    3. “This shit” being one party or the other’s popularity waxing and waning at the other’s expense. Until the next election cycle.

      Breads and circuses. Lather. rinse. Repeat.

      1. So there is no difference whatsoever between now and Reagan or Bush I or anything else. They are all the same. LBJ was just like Eisenhower. And things would have turned out exactly the same even if the Democrats had increased their majorities in 1994 rather than losing them. Yeah, that seems likely.

        1. In the short run? Sure. You might get a soothing creme to rub into your sores that you got from the last guy.

          In the long run? Not. One. Fucking. Bit. It’s been one long, slippery slope since the New Deal. All they do is find new ways to control your life, that are just a little bit different than the previous administration did, and kick whatever can they have to down the road to avoid having to deal with it on their watch.

          1. Congress didn’t pass any tax increases between 1995- 2006.

            1. Yeah they did. It’s called “deficit spending”. Where do you think the cash for interest rate service comes from?

              1. WRT GDP deficits weren’t nearly that bad at the time, Jersey.
                … especially compared to the 2009 fiscal year.

          2. Well, we all live in the short run, don’t we? And if the choice is 1) OK-short-run plus screwed-long-run, vs. 2) screwed-short-run plus screwed-long-run, then you’re making John’s point: voting for #1 is the best tactic.

            And progress can be made. The ’94 GOP House takeover cleaned up some corrupt practices, held the line on taxes for long time, and even got rid of farm subsidies (for a while).

    4. Actually, Im trying to figure out if we are better off with gridlock or with letting the radical left have total control.

      This seems silly, but maybe a crash and burn strategy is better.

      If I thought we could get freedom in incremental steps, I would go the gridlock route. But Im not sure its possible. On the other side, Winston didnt win at the end of 1984.

      1. It’s going to crash & burn eventually. I really can’t see how it can be avoided at this point. The country has too many unfunded entitlements & the spoiled populace just keep demanding more. The government can’t run up trillion dollar deficits forever.

      2. While I agree that “the socialist nightmare that snaps everyone awake” is appealing to me as well, I can’t let myself believe it. It has the pleasing edges and satisfaction of a well-spun daydream.

        The bitter cynic in me has never been let down by my fellow citizen’s elaborate systems of rationalization. I truly think we are at liberty’s end: the complete reversal of negative rights to positive duties.

        1. Time to move to…Canada? Nope. Europe? Nope. Costa Rica? Nope.

          I’ve got it! Antarctica! But then we’ll find an alien body in frozen in the ice, and we’ll get all paranoid and turn on each other, and it’ll be last summer all over again.

          1. I’ll never forget the sight of Warty’s head coming off and scuttling away on spidercrab legs.

            The way it screamed.

            1. Thank Jeebus we had those flamethrowers that we were using for barbecue.

              1. At least you thought of checking the blood with the heated wire. Caught Xeones before he could kill us in our sleep.

            2. How long are you going to leave me tied to this fucking couch?

              1. We’re putting you in the shed just to be sure. Don’t be building any spaceships while you’re in there.

                1. Are you Norwegian? You sound like one. Best to put a round in you, just to be sure.

                  1. Hey, where did the dog go?

                    1. As one of the few people who has read the novelization of The Thing, the best part of the book is that MacReady–who you briefly see watching The Price Is Right in the film–masturbates to game-shows. He likes the girls when they jump up and down.

                    2. High five, The Thing novelization-reading buddy. Alan Dean Foster is the king of novelizations, for the exact reason you gave an example of: The little details he sprinkles in.

                    3. Fuck Allan Dean Foster with knobs on. Try Who Goes There? by John Campbell.

                    4. I have! Naturally it’s superior to the novelization of the screenplay of the remake of the movie that was based on it. Just sayin’, ADF has book-ified a shitton of good movies, and made them into at least readable, usually decent books.

                    5. I have: Read Who Goes There, not fucked Alan Dean Foster, with or without knobs.

          2. It’s the right thing to do and a tasty way to do it!

            1. At least The Thing cured your diabeetus.

              1. Who hid my testin’ supplies?

              2. Reading the above just made my day. Seriously, hysterical. Thanks all of you.

        2. Nothing lasts forever. It might get worse, but it will eventually get better. Imagine if you were living in Poland in 1975. The prospect of future liberty looked pretty grim. But just 15 years later everything changed. And this will pass to. That old saying “no cause is ever lost because no cause is ever won” is old and often repeated because it is true.

          1. But, like Poland, do we have to hit bottom first? If so, is it better to get there as quick as possible?

            1. I wouldn’t take the analogy too far. I’d hate to think a union will have to save us.

              1. A couple months ago, I was walking (drunkenly) in NYC, and we passed the Polish embassy. They have a creepy sculpture of a dude out front, which I assumed must be Lech Walesa, so naturally I posed for a lap-dance-esque photo. Take that, communism.

                1. But you routinely grind on creepy sculptures, right? Not that makes you any less of a lovely young lady, of course.

                  Also, look at what your old stomping grounds hath wrought.

                  1. Posing inappropriately near public art is our birthright, Sug. Embrace it. Just don’t try to explain the Solidarity movement to your drunk friends.

                    And, that pizza looks oddly delicious. Also, it’s on Commercial Drive, where cheap food & weird stuff abound. Sketchy ass SkyTrain station though.

                2. So where’s the link to the pic, you dirty whore?

                  1. Uh oh, you got Warty excited.

            2. I don’t know if we have to hit rock bottom. Can’t we just quit now?

          2. I’m really not so sure about this. Liberty is really an obscure thing in history. There are many places in the world were things have always sucked & probably always will. It is possible we are nearing the end of any true freedom in America.

            1. That’s the spirit!

              1. I always try to look on the bright side of things. 🙂

      3. We’re out of money. A slightly “radicalized” GOP Congress isn’t going to buy the establishment another decade or so with a VAT and carbon taxes.

  10. “Now they have done it.”

    Tony will be around soon to explain that the Dems haven’t gone all the way left, and had they run a single-payer health care bill, it would’ve been more popular.

    1. That is going to be the excuse; we weren’t really leftist. But I think everyone with an IQ over 100 knows otherwise whether they admit it or not.

      1. You’re missing a decimal point in that figger, Johann.

      2. Actually, funny thing is it is true. but that doesn’t mean that a “really” leftist health care bill would have been better. Or worse.

        Honestly, I don’t see how you could do worse than an no-preexisting-conditions/mandatory insurance craptola than if you eliminated the mandatory part and added price caps.

        Would single-payer be worse than the total cluster-fuck this will turn the insurance market into? I suppose it depends on what flavor of shit you like to eat.

  11. How many cycles of “not happy with [party in power]” do we have to go through before voters, you know, vote for a party that hasn’t been in power before?

  12. “The worse the better” has been every revolutionary’s battle cry.

    The only sure thing is the “worse” part. “Better” rarely shows up, and when it does, its never as good as you thought it would be.

    1. Historically “worse” usually double taps “better” right in the back of the head.

  13. Voter on Election Day:

    Dbag, Dbag, Dbag… oh look, a guy I’m not familiar with.

    [sigh] guess I’ll just vote for the Dbag.

  14. It’s so bad I heard Specter is switching back.

    1. I wish he’d just switch off.

  15. This Healthcare legislation isn’t all that bad. We kinda like it. That VAT tax is looking mighty sexy too.

    1. They won’t go for a tax increase, that just might bring the government down or at least actually shrink it through “austerity” measures.

  16. I don’t buy the CW about there being a great wave for Team Red this fall. The Dems will lose some seats, but not enough to lose their majorities.

    What have the Republicans done to warrant going back to them? They are already backing off on doing anything about Obamacare. In fact, their mantra is the same as with every other entitlement program. That is “hey let’s make changes to improve upon”. There are no changes sort of full repeal to improve this shit sandwich.

    Then there is the fact that Republicans have no credibility when it comes to the restraint of government growth/power along with massive borrowing & spending.

    Same story, but under different management.

    1. Then there is the fact that Republicans have no credibility when it comes to the restraint of government growth/power along with massive borrowing & spending.

      Under Clinton they did. We want to see that. But I see your concern….troll.

      1. You’re calling him a troll for not cheerleading for the GOP like most people on this site?

        Can someone point me to an actual libertarian site? I don’t go to free republic for a reason.

        1. If you’re reading anything even closely resembling GOP cheerleading from all but a few transient conservative Dbags around of late, you’re an even bigger douche than I thought.

          Even thoough in your tiny little brain all you can comprehend is the liberal/conservative dichotomy that your party is partly responsible for, the anti-dem commentary has nothing to do with pro-GOP. It just so happens that Demotards are in unfettered fucking power right now and we have no other targets at which to aim our generic ire.

          If you ask most of us, I’d think that most around here would say fuck you and your democrats, and fuck the republitards too. They both lick nasty taint.

          1. They both lick nasty taint.

            Speaking of, when are they sending Tony’s mom back to him?

          2. yep…we hate both…you really know that

          3. Not cheerleading for the Democrat Party = cheerleading for Republicans.

            Didn’t you get the memo?

    2. I don’t buy the CW about there being a great wave for Team Red this fall. The Dems will lose some seats, but not enough to lose their majorities.

      I don’t know if you were paying attention in ’92-’94, but the popular mood before the GOP took Congress was much less ticked off than it is now. People had voted against tax-raiser Bush and for the “moderate, centrist, not one of the old-fashioned tax-and-spend types” Clinton fellow, with the near-total slavish assistance of the major media, and quickly felt betrayed. The backlash was epic. Now, the betrayal is bigger, the public mood is angrier, and the economy is worse. And now people have the web and Fox News and more conservative talk radio, to learn about the latest outrage in DC and to talk with others and organize.

      Yes, many are still ticked at Bush and the GOP Congress. Yes, the election’s seven months away. But polls, fundraising, retirements, special elections, etc., all point to a GOP blowout in November: at least the House, maybe the Senate. And that would be, on balance, a big victory for liberty.

  17. Doherty fails to RTFA article again. He makes four assertions before the quote. Let’s examine them.

    1) The article is long — It was 2 pg downs on my laptop.

    2) The article is poll-technical — The most technical thing is a reference to a regression analysis done elsewhere. There isn’t so much as 2+2=4 ITFA.

    3) Silver gives evidence that the Dems could lose up to 51 seats — Doherty’s quote is referring to the current Rasmussen current poll which, as sentient beings understand, forms the “base” ITFA’s worst, base, and best case scenarios.

    4) “The heart of the analysis:” — My 7th grade English teacher used to call the last paragraph the “conclusion.” Let’s see how that works out.

    ” If Democrats were to lose 50, 60, 70 or even more House seats, it would not totally shock me. Nor would it shock me if they merely lost 15, or 20. But their downside case could be very far down.”

    1. Silver’s always like that. He hedges by a whole fucking bunch.

      1. I don’t really like Silver or many other BP guys, but Doherty’s posts are always full of fail. The “up to” in Silver’s post is 70 or more (whatever that means), not 51 (as Doherty suggests).

  18. Does it not matter to anyone that the Republicans are fucking insane?

    If we just had the Democratic party, we’d have a wide spectrum from right to left that would pretty much mirror the rest of the democratic world.

    But they’d believe in science and not be completely fucking loony toons. All we’d be lacking is what has become exclusively the ultra-right part of the spectrum. And ultra-right is always wrong.

    1. Aaah, Democrats and science. If Democratology is anything like we saw in the past four years is that we won’t know what it is until Pelosi lets you.

      1. Indeed. Except for, say, The Bell Curve. “Those statistics don’t fit our Diversity religion and so are declared sinful!” And Kennewick Man. And, of course, economic science.

    2. I didn’t know you were a member of the ultra-right, Tony.

    3. If we just had the Democratic party, we’d have a wide spectrum from right to left that would pretty much mirror the rest of the democratic world.

      Yeah Tony, that’s exactly what we want, European style socialist democracy. I heard the Netherlands got a really nice box to live in after going bankrupt.

      1. Have you been to Europe? It’s nice.

        It does suck that your neoliberal economic fantasies have screwed the world economy in various ways, but the grownups are working on fixing it.

        1. PIIGS doesn’t mean Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Georgia and South Dakota. It stands for the shitbag set of Eurotrash countries: Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain.

        2. PIIGS doesn’t mean Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Georgia and South Dakota. It stands for the shitbag set of Eurotrash countries: Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain.

          1. Every single one of those countries is a better place to live than pretty much any red state in this country.

            1. Every single one of those countries is a better place to live if you don’t have, or particularly want, a job than pretty much any red state in this country.

              To Tony, that’s a feature. To those of us who actually pay the bills, not so much.

            2. By all means, why don’t you head there?

            3. Uh, well…maybe Ireland.

        3. There you go, Chony, whatever is ailing Europe can be fixed with another round of taxes, regulation and bureaucratic featherbedding. Brilliant.

        4. It does suck that your neoliberal economic fantasies have screwed the world economy in various ways, but the grownups are working on fixing it.

          Worked for the Soviet Union.

        5. but the grownups are working on fixing it

          In other words, government = parent, people = children.

        6. “Have you been to Europe? It’s nice.

          It does suck that your neoliberal economic fantasies have screwed the world economy in various ways, but the grownups are working on fixing it.”

          Yeah, I’ve been to Italy, Spain, and England. Sure it’s nice, if you’re a tourist. I sure as fuck wouldn’t want to live in any of those countries, under an even more fucked up government.

    4. If we just had the Democratic party, we’d have a wide spectrum from right to left total control that would pretty much mirror the rest of the democratic world a gulag.

      All fixed.

    5. But they’d believe in science and not be completely fucking loony toons.

      Stop right there…



      1. Wow, what a stupid fucking article.

        Am I to be shocked that the more fundamentalist Christians don’t express belief in versions of the occult that don’t accord with their religious narrative?

        1. I wonder what percentage of Democrats thing the CIA killed Kennedy, or the moon landing was faked, or 9/11 was an inside job, or the CIA created the AIDS virus, … etc.

          1. I think something like a third of them believe 9-11 was an inside job, so there’s no limit to what the rational, scientific types will go to it seems.

            1. Not to mention their earth worshipping religion with it’s basic article of faith of man-made global warming – despite the fact that they no actual proof whatsoever of such.

              1. You are such an ignorant tool. How embarrassing is it to live in the age of the Internet and to be so completely up the ass of whatever fat fuck on cable you get all your thoughts from that you can make such totally ignorant and false claims as that?

                But thanks for taking the bait.

                1. I’m not sure what Scott Rasmussen’s waistline looks like, and I’ve only seem him fleetingly on cable:


                  But remember it’s “the Republicans are fucking insane.”

                  1. Sorry wasn’t talking to you Jeffersonian. I was referring to Gilbert’s mind-blowingly ignorant comment about global warming.

          2. I dunno, but none of those have to do with believing or disbelieving in science. Any one of those propositions is technically possible, unlike Jesus riding on dinosaurs.

            1. That’s crazy talk. Jesus kick dinosaur ass.

            2. Any one of those propositions is technically possible

              I suppose that depends how deep your technical knowledge goes. There are plenty of claims by 9/11 truther and the other conspiracy theorists that are provably false, and clearly based on an inadequate understanding of the underlying science.

              The whole thing about melting steel, for example. You don’t have to melt steel, you just have to make it bend.

              Also, I suspect that most “intelligent design” advocates (I’m not one) would dispute the notion that they are against science. They would argue their own semi-scientific case, in *exactly* the same way that the Truthers attempt to put *their* case on a scientific footing.

              In other words, both sides THINK they are being scientific when they are not. It’s just erroneous to say the other side is “anti-science”, just because you happen to find Teams Blue’s pseudo-science more plausible than Team Red’s.

              1. Ask any Democratic politician if he believes 9/11 was an inside job. Then ask any Republican politician if they believe in evolution.

                Democrats don’t have to pander to their crazies. Republicans have nothing but crazies to pander to. You’ll see a lot more hedging in the second instance.

                1. How about Dennis Kuchinich?

                  But it’s not a good comparison. Evolution pertains to religious beliefs that are thousands of years old. 9/11 is a recent event. Wait 40 years. The passage of time tends to make “facts” harder to determine, which makes it easier for people to believe all sorts of wierd shit. History gets rewritten all the time.

                  Democrats don’t have to pander to their crazies.

                  I wonder if Michelle Obama has any GMO corn in her organic garden.

                2. Listen, whitey, we’ll have you know we make the Democrats pander to us all the time.

        2. What’s amusing is that non-religious types, who you’d expect to be more “scientific,” are the ones seeing spirits floating around.

          1. That’s idiotic. The study shows two things:

            1. Less evangelical monotheists are more likely to believe in the occult.

            2. People who never attend a place of worship are more likely to believe in the occult.

            Obviously #1 has nothing to do with whether or not atheists believe in the occult. And “people who never attend a place of worship” does not represent only atheists. It also represents people who believe in God but simply don’t worship. So #2 also does not necessarily show any relationship between atheism and idiotic beliefs.

      2. More Science!!

        Tumor Phones

    7. But they’d believe in science

      In Democrat land, GMOs eat you.

    8. Matters to me. Republicans are grievously awful.

      Too bad the only other major party travels on the same boat and visits the same country clubs.

    9. If we just had the Democratic party, we’d have a wide spectrum from right to far left to extreme far left that would pretty much mirror the rest of the democratic world.


    10. One-party rule is a bad thing, Tony. Ask the Cubans, for instance.

      1. Pshaw. Those whiners don’t know how good they’ve got it. Cuba is a nicer place to be a political prisoner than pretty much every red state.

        1. Yeah, in Cuba you don’t even spend so much time in jail before they take you out to be shot.

          1. This has to be a hoax Tony. The real Tony isn’t THAT sycophantic to the Cuban regime…

            I mean, he’s close, but he can’t be that bad. Right

  19. How the hell do you end the vampire state?
    When there ain’t nothin’ the empire ain’t ate?

    You want to know what will have to be done,
    If there be hope for your daughter and son?

    A world wide EMP,
    Would take us back
    To self sufficiency.

    You ready to lose that much,
    To be rid of the ingrained mooch?

    Tax collector wont have time to be bothering us,
    When he is too busy planting heads of lettuce.

    A world wide EMP,
    Would take us back
    To self sufficiency.

    School teacher wont be misleading your child,
    When she is left to fend in the wild.

    Cop wont be slamming you to the ground,
    When all he is got to feed on is his drug sniffing hound.

    A world wide EMP,
    Would take us back
    To self sufficiency.

  20. The r team won’t go for a tax “increase”…they will go for tax “reform”. 2000 pages later we will get new taxes on the middle class…as the country finally descends into flames the history books will blame it on “libertarian” tax cuts

  21. Every single one of those countries is a better place to live than pretty much any red state in this country.

    Right, let’s say you’re a talented soccer player, and you sign for a big Italian team. You step on the field, begin running down the field, and a teammate passes you the ball. It touches your foot and suddenly:


    What’s that? Well, that’s 20,000 of your opponent’s fans screaming monkey noises at you from the stands. You see, you’re from Equitorial Guinea, and it’s perfectly acceptable to make monkey noises to you. In public. With 20,000 buddies.

    So, the game progresses, and your opponents score a nice goal on your keeper. The goal scorer runs to the corner of the field, where he gives a fascist salute to a crowd of screaming fans, who gladly return the salute and chant 1930s fascist slogans.

    Do you see this happening in 2010 Mississippi or Alabama? It happens in 2010 Spain and Italy.

    1. I don’t recall saying Italians weren’t crotch-grabbing morons. But Italy really is nice.

      1. I’ve never shit in a hole in the floor in America.

        1. I guess you’re not the girl I keep locked up in my basement.

      2. so is alabama…but they aren’t as racist as italians

      3. There’s really no point in continuing this discussion, since Tony prefers nice views of the Italian countryside to freedom.

  22. I wonder why libertarians and their sympathizers can not co-opt the Democratic Party. Or the Republican Party, for that matter.

    After all, the abortionist lobby managed to co-opt the Democratic Party over a decade ago.

    1. Abortions tickle.

      1. Only if you do it right.

    2. There is a significant libertarianish faction in the Republican Party, on the economic issues at least. And that trumps the social stuff IMHO.

      OTOH, libertarians will never make significant inroads in the Democratic Party, because big (and bigger) government is central to their philosophy. Any agreement on gay marriage or whatever is insignificant in comparison.

  23. A couple months ago, I was walking (drunkenly) in NYC, and we passed the Polish embassy. They have a creepy sculpture of a dude out front, which I assumed must be Lech Walesa, so naturally I posed for a lap-dance-esque photo. Take that, communism.

    Wow, you must have been drunk. The Polish Embassy is in Washington DC.

    But then I’ve been so drunk I didn’t know what day it was, so if I thought about it I probably wouldn’t have known what city I was in.

    But then, maybe you’re thinking of the Polish Consulate.

  24. How Bad Could 2010 Be for the Democratic Party?

    Far worse than they imagine.

  25. I have no big hope of good work from a GOP running the legislature, just that the gift of divided government will mean fewer bad things. I’ve never seen a group more worthless than the Dems in the last two years of Bush. I think a Dem Prez and GOP Congress may be the option we get until we can break the duopoly of power.

  26. In the 142nd House race in Missouri, the incumbent boo-hiss Republican is being challenged by a Libertarian… and no Democrat.

    We’re hoping for good things here. Even some of the Republicans don’t like the incumbent.

    1. Another very interesting race.

      I’d love to see an LP candidate beat an R candidate (even more than a Democrat).

      At this point, I think the MSM fears the LP more than the Rs. Just watch for them to beat up on Ron Paul in favor of Romney or Palin.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.