Democratic Pollster: GOP Poised to Seize House and Senate

Friday, October 8, 2010 06:43 PM

By: David A. Patten

Republicans are on the brink of pulling off a landslide "of potentially epic proportions" that would bring them control of both Houses of Congress and a majority of governorships, Democratic pollster and Fox News commentator Douglas Schoen says.

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Schoen says he now sees several indications that matters are going from bad to worse for Democrats in this election cycle.


Pollster Douglas Schoen says voters now appear to be as angry as he has ever seen them. "There's a sense the country is heading in the wrong direction. Voters are deeply worried about the economy and how President Obama has handled it. He continues to be far more optimistic than by all rights he should be."

He points to a RealClearPolitics.com analysis that now shows Republicans picking up a net gain of nine seats in the Senate, which would deadlock the upper chamber 50 to 50. And polls show several other GOP candidates, including Carly Fiorina in California and Dino Rossi in Washington state, remain within striking distance, he says.

Schoen, a pollster for former President Bill Clinton, is co-author of the new book "Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System."

"We're moving in the direction of the Republicans potentially picking up 10 or 11 seats," Schoen says. "More likely it will be nine to 10, which is enough to either deadlock the Senate or give them control.

"You tie that in with a House that most people, myself included, concede is going to be 45 to 50 seats at the very least, if not more, and a generic vote that is now plus 7 or 8 percent for Republicans, combined with the Gallup turnout model predicting anywhere from 13 to 18 percent for the Republicans, you're looking at the potential for the Republicans to win both houses of Congress and holding 30 or more governors' seats. We're looking at a landslide of potentially epic proportions," Schoen says.

obama,gop,house,senate,polls,midterms,landslide,schoenAsked if he believes the GOP wave will surpass that of 1994, when Republicans scored a net gain of 54 seats in the House and eight in the Senate, Schoen replied: "We're looking at gains that are comparable to, and possibly in excess of, what we saw in '94."

As a Democrat, Schoen hastens to add that he's not at all happy about the impending political tsunami that he predicts.

"I'd rather the Democrats win than lose, but you know what, these are the facts," he tells Newsmax. "This is not bashing the Democratic Party, this is just owning up to reality."

Schoen says President Obama's continued insistence that the economy is on the mend isn't helping Democrats either.

"With unemployment staying at 9.6 percent, and the economy shedding 95,000 jobs, and Gallup's own projection Thursday night being higher at 10.1 percent unemployment, the president is saying the trend line in private sector jobs is moving in the right direction," says Schoen. "I think that just about sums it up."

Schoen says voters now appear to be as angry as he has ever seen them.

"There's a sense the country is heading in the wrong direction," says the Democratic pollster. "Voters are deeply worried about the economy and how President Obama has handled it. He continues to be far more optimistic than by all rights he should be."

Schoen's book, "Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System," reveals how the energy that grass-roots conservatives are bringing into the political arena is altering the political ground rules.

"The enthusiasm is with the tea parties, it's not with the mainstream Democratic or Republican organizations," he says. "That to me is the bottom line."

He adds: "I say this as a mainstream, moderate, middle-of-the road Democrat. But as you look at this election, you would not have anywhere near the swing toward the Republicans, and away from the Democrats, if it were not for grassroots conservatives and the tea party movement. That's a statistical fact that, in my judgment, is clear and unambiguous."


Newsmax. All rights reserved.

I guess the Democrats will become the party of no for a couple of years.

(10-08-2010 11:48 PM)Claw Wrote:  I guess the Democrats will become the party of no for a couple of years.

No, the Democrats have no balls. They've failed to actually pass anything worthwhile the past two years, because they didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and not compromise. So we got a piece of **** health care bill instead of health care reform. And we got very little else...even the banking reform bill was a crock of **** compared to what it should have been. LBJ is rolling in his grave over the Democrats' lack of balls, and when a GOP president is elected in 2012, the Democrats will roll over and do as told just like when GWB was president.

(10-09-2010 05:43 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  No, the Democrats have no balls.

Why is that?

Quote:They've failed to actually pass anything worthwhile the past two years, because they didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and not compromise.

Who did the Democrats compromise with in order to get the HC bill? I'm not aware of any Republicans who voted for it.

(10-08-2010 10:18 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  "With unemployment staying at 9.6 percent, and the economy shedding 95,000 jobs, and Gallup's own projection Thursday night being higher at 10.1 percent unemployment, the president is saying the trend line in private sector jobs is moving in the right direction," says Schoen. "I think that just about sums it up."

Newsmax. All rights reserved.

I think the trend line in private sector jobs IS moving in the direction that Obama wants. A permanent unemployed class is a huge chunk of voters inclined favorably toward leftist causes, and a 10% block of voters can swing a lot of elections.

(10-09-2010 06:55 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-09-2010 05:43 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  No, the Democrats have no balls.

Why is that?

Quote:They've failed to actually pass anything worthwhile the past two years, because they didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and not compromise.

Who did the Democrats compromise with in order to get the HC bill? I'm not aware of any Republicans who voted for it.

They compromised a bunch to try to get one Republican vote and in the end got nothing, as well as their Blue Dog caucus. But they also compromised with the insurance industry big time. LBJ would have kicked all three in the nuts and gotten a bill that was internally congruous passed instead of an amalgamated cluster----.

(10-11-2010 08:06 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-09-2010 06:55 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-09-2010 05:43 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  No, the Democrats have no balls.

Why is that?

Quote:They've failed to actually pass anything worthwhile the past two years, because they didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and not compromise.

Who did the Democrats compromise with in order to get the HC bill? I'm not aware of any Republicans who voted for it.

They compromised a bunch to try to get one Republican vote and in the end got nothing, as well as their Blue Dog caucus. But they also compromised with the insurance industry big time. LBJ would have kicked all three in the nuts and gotten a bill that was internally congruous passed instead of an amalgamated cluster----.

They didn't make any serious compromises to get the republican vote on either Obamacare or "stimulus." They had to make some deals to get democrats onboard and they did those. But it's simply dishonest to say that they compromised with republicans. That's not remotely close to what happened.

(10-09-2010 05:43 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-08-2010 11:48 PM)Claw Wrote:  I guess the Democrats will become the party of no for a couple of years.

No, the Democrats have no balls. ... So we got a piece of **** health care bill instead of health care reform.

This.

(10-11-2010 03:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-11-2010 08:06 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-09-2010 06:55 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-09-2010 05:43 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  No, the Democrats have no balls.

Why is that?

Quote:They've failed to actually pass anything worthwhile the past two years, because they didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and not compromise.

Who did the Democrats compromise with in order to get the HC bill? I'm not aware of any Republicans who voted for it.

They compromised a bunch to try to get one Republican vote and in the end got nothing, as well as their Blue Dog caucus. But they also compromised with the insurance industry big time. LBJ would have kicked all three in the nuts and gotten a bill that was internally congruous passed instead of an amalgamated cluster----.

They didn't make any serious compromises to get the republican vote on either Obamacare or "stimulus." They had to make some deals to get democrats onboard and they did those. But it's simply dishonest to say that they compromised with republicans. That's not remotely close to what happened.

No, they tried to compromise with some of the more liberal Republicans. But the Republican position was simply to oppose the bill at all costs; not a one of them - even the Maine senators - was going to support it at any stage. And this is also where the "party of no" mantle came from; the GOP never offered a feasible alternative plan. If they had, they might have actually accomplished something and fixed the broken health care system.

(10-11-2010 09:18 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-11-2010 03:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-11-2010 08:06 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-09-2010 06:55 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-09-2010 05:43 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  No, the Democrats have no balls.

Why is that?

Quote:They've failed to actually pass anything worthwhile the past two years, because they didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and not compromise.

Who did the Democrats compromise with in order to get the HC bill? I'm not aware of any Republicans who voted for it.

They compromised a bunch to try to get one Republican vote and in the end got nothing, as well as their Blue Dog caucus. But they also compromised with the insurance industry big time. LBJ would have kicked all three in the nuts and gotten a bill that was internally congruous passed instead of an amalgamated cluster----.

They didn't make any serious compromises to get the republican vote on either Obamacare or "stimulus." They had to make some deals to get democrats onboard and they did those. But it's simply dishonest to say that they compromised with republicans. That's not remotely close to what happened.

No, they tried to compromise with some of the more liberal Republicans. But the Republican position was simply to oppose the bill at all costs; not a one of them - even the Maine senators - was going to support it at any stage. And this is also where the "party of no" mantle came from; the GOP never offered a feasible alternative plan. If they had, they might have actually accomplished something and fixed the broken health care system.

hahaha. you must be a jew because your comedy stylings are incredible

(10-11-2010 09:18 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  No, they tried to compromise with some of the more liberal Republicans. But the Republican position was simply to oppose the bill at all costs; not a one of them - even the Maine senators - was going to support it at any stage. And this is also where the "party of no" mantle came from; the GOP never offered a feasible alternative plan. If they had, they might have actually accomplished something and fixed the broken health care system.

You can't possibly be serious.

(10-11-2010 11:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-11-2010 09:18 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  No, they tried to compromise with some of the more liberal Republicans. But the Republican position was simply to oppose the bill at all costs; not a one of them - even the Maine senators - was going to support it at any stage. And this is also where the "party of no" mantle came from; the GOP never offered a feasible alternative plan. If they had, they might have actually accomplished something and fixed the broken health care system.

You can't possibly be serious.

"The party of Liars, calling the GOP The Party of No", he is serious.

The Dems will indeed be the party of "NO".

The new Republican Congress is going to try to repeal Obamacare, and the veto is going to say no.

Tax cuts? Veto says no.

Make a list. There will be more vetoes in the next two years than we've seen in the last 10.

Elections have consequences. Not hearing that this year. NY Times not using that theme this fall?

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Have not heard that spew in a long time. Maybe the patriots on this board don't count in their circles?.

I hope John Boehner isn't the next Speaker, but the Republicans will have a 30-35 seat majority in the House.

I see a 50-50 split in the Senate, but Biden won't often be the deciding vote, since the Republicans will find it easy to grab at least a couple of Democrats as Obama's polls really crater to Bush levels.

(10-11-2010 08:06 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  They compromised a bunch to try to get one Republican vote and in the end got nothing, as well as their Blue Dog caucus. But they also compromised with the insurance industry big time.

I considered the Democrats' "compromises" to be 99.9% symbolism and 0.1% substance. Oh, well.

Quote:LBJ would have kicked all three in the nuts and gotten a bill that was internally congruous passed instead of an amalgamated cluster----.

No doubt that Lyndon "Master of the Senate" Johnson would have handled the situation differently (and, I agree, more effectively) than Obama. But that is one the consequences of having a President who served 4 years in Washington when he took office (and 2 of those 4 years, he was out in the country seeking the nomination), versus having a President who had been in Washington for about 32 years, in one capacity or another, when he took office. When Johnson was dealing with Congress as President, he was mostly dealing with men that he had built up personal relationships with over a span of years if not decades. This was true of the Republicans and Democrats both. With Obama, who is his closest friend in the Senate? Which of those men (and women) has he really stood shoulder-to-shoulder with, and "fought the battles" with over the years? I can think of no one. It's like -- politically -- he suddenly swooped down from the heavens about 3-4 years ago with little personal connection to anything or anyone else.

(10-11-2010 11:45 PM)Claw Wrote:  Make a list. There will be more vetoes in the next two years than we've seen in the last 10.

I think that is probably true, but let's wait and see how hard the electoral hammer falls three weeks from now. If the Democrats still have control of the Senate, they will probably be able to shield Obama from having to confront any politically-unpopular vetoes.

If, however, this election does in fact turn out to be one of those massive, once-in-a-generation political wipeouts, then I think you will see enough of the surviving Democrats join up with the Republicans to override the veto on the HC bill.