Based on the first 100 days, Democrats are clearly going to kick ass in 2010

[zulchzulu]

Short of something beyond anything that is radically off direction from how things are going, Obama is clearly going to fairly be seen as doing well in terms of trying to help get America in the correct direction.

His popularity worldwide will remain very high throughout his presidency, which will be two terms. Although the war in Afghanistan will spill into Pakistan, people across the globe will support the diplomatic efforts as well as the strategies that Obama will provide with other countries.

In terms of the economic situation, there will be mixed situations worldwide in 2010. Aside from possible pandemic health crisis situations, the worldwide economy will hopefully be climbing out of the funk. That is critical, but I seriously doubt that people will actually look to the Republicans and their lackluster "leadership" to offer solutions to moderates. Of course, the 21% of the population will be either for a more theocratic and/or a free-for-all tinfoil hat faux-libertarian "solution, but that number will neither come out fully to vote and will be too scatterbrained to form a viable grassroots movement.

I know someone who is clearly within the RNC thinktank and he, after a few beers and a shot or two of Johnny Walker Red, admits that the Republicans are "f*cked" for a few upcoming election cycles.

The GOP message is stale, predictable and its "leaders" are stiff theocratic asshats that even Karl Rove is getting nervous. The GOP is not really a circular firing squad. It's even worse. It's a circular tractor pull into a big, muddy hole.

[liberalpragmatist]

1. I'm not ready to say that

Look, I like what Obama's been doing so far, but given how unemployment lags in recessions, even if growth returns by the end of this year (a real question), unemployment may well be 12% next year. Or gas prices may shoot back up if there's a hint of recovery. Or banks may still not be lending.

I do think we have pretty good odds of at least holding our ground in the midterms and picking up a couple of Senate seats. But political fortunes can change fast, and a disappointing midterm can't be ruled out. I doubt there will be huge Republican gains, but small Republican gains in both the House and even in the Senate wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility.

[Clio the Leo]

2. I'm already starting to do what I was doing last October...

... when I was trying judge how likely the Barack was to win the election.

I tried to look at things from the other perspective, I tried to LOOK for things that could go wrong.

I could never come up with anything.

Baring some Clinton-esque scandal that simply wont happen (I dont mean sex necessarily as much as I mean a scandal that has NOTHING to do with politics) the ONLY way we lose in '10 or even '12 is if the economy does not improve like everyone hopes.

But he has an advantage in that his admin. can see things coming before we do .... and can address policy accordingly. The ONLY was we lose the next two elections is if they completely screw the pooch on the economy AND also fail to control the message regarding said pooch screwing.

And BOTH of those things simply wont happen.

The guy we saw tonight wont allow it. There is a small chance that the first thing might happen, but there is NO chance that the second thing will.

[Confusious]

3. Still waiting for health care..... etc

The repugs have just been having a run of bad luck lately. Don't count them out... they're like the sith, they always come back, nastier then ever!

[zulchzulu]

4. Although I don't think we'll get single payer for a few years, there will be major steps forward

I've always thought that single-payer healthcare will be incremental legislatively, so advances towards it leading up to 2010 will offer promise to those looking for a new direction.

Of course, we, as the grassroots studs and studdettes, need to be vigilant.

[TwilightZone]

5. The shift to blue really started in '06.

I see little reason for it not to continue in 2010.

[mwooldri]

6. Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting the same results.

Also see Republican Party.

If they keep on doing the same things again and again and expect to win then they're wrong. They need to change their message and shift to the left if they are going to win votes.

2010-2016 are for the Democratic Party to lose. If the Republicans win big in this timeframe it will not be because they're successful but because the Democrats lost it somewhere.

Mark.

[Jennicut]

7. Barring some horrible scandal I doubt the Dems loose control of the House or Senate

The Rethugs are shifting toward being an extremist minority parry. Specter's jump really signifies that moderates are less welcome in the Rethug party. The big tent party is the Dems now. The shift in registrations and party ID has changed so drastically as well.

[Awsi Dooger]

8. 2006 and 2008 were extremely favorable cycles

A second term midterm, and then opposing a party in freefall with a remarkably unpopular president and tanking economy.

I'd be careful about expecting anything similar in 2010. The senate looks good piece by piece but we figure to have trouble in the House unless Obama's approval rating remains at current level, which is the underdog.

In the gov races we have many unlikely seats in GOP leaning states, but our incumbents from 2002/2006 will be gone.

2012 looks great in terms of the presidency, incumbent with his party in power only one term. Obama should be a 90+% chalk. The senate offense/defense numbers start to turn against us.

[Juche]

9. Of the top 10 senate seats likely to change parties in 2010, 7 are GOP

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/senate-rankings-april-2009-edition.html

Dodd is the only dem with a reasonable chance of losing office. If he is primaried out by a dem with a better reputation in CT then the dems hold that seat. The dems will likely gain seats in FL, MO, NH, KY, OH and/or NC. If Specter gets primaried in PA then the dems pick up a seat there too.

If you include Specter (which I don't) then the dems might have 65-66 seats in 2010. You need 67 to change the constitution. LOL, wait until Hannity figures that out.