What do you know? Wash. Examiner’s Byron York tries this one on for size:
It’s a possibility many Republicans speak of only in whispers and Democrats are just now beginning to face. After passionate and contentious fights over health care, the environment, and taxes, could Democrats lose big — really big — in next year’s elections?
No, say many Dems, pointing to Obama’s popularity. So what? says one Dem strategist:
“I think what’s going to happen is Obama’s going to be fine, and the Democrats in Congress are going to get their asses kicked in 2010, . . . . This is following a curve like the Clinton years: take on really controversial things early, fail, or succeed partially, ask Democrats to take really tough votes, and then lose. A lot of guys are going to get beat, but the president has time to recover.”
But Repubs need 40 House seats to take the reins. But that’s 12 fewer than they took in 1994, the year of the Newt. Anyhow, even short of 40, they could cut Pelosi’s margin considerably, and with that her room to maneuver.
The polls are definitely moving in the GOP’s direction. Just look at the Real Clear Politics average of the generic ballot question, which asks whether, if the election were held today, you would vote for your local Democratic or Republican candidate for Congress. It’s been dominated by Democrats for the last few years — until now.
In recent weeks, poll after poll has shown Republicans neck-and-neck, or even ahead, of Democrats. Even a National Public Radio survey found Republicans in the lead. [Can’t find this.] “There’s no question that you’re seeing a shift across virtually all the polling,” says one GOP strategist, “with Democrats losing ground.”
The town hall meetings have something to do with this.
“This month has opened our eyes,” says one plugged-in [Republican] House aide. “We’re seeing real people who are fired up who weren’t engaged before — the first time we’ve had a popular movement that could really benefit us electorally.”
Gallup numbers undercut Dems’ accusations of mobsterism: “34 percent of respondents said they were more sympathetic [to town hall questioners], while just 21 percent said less sympathetic.”
This wouldn’t hurt Obama?
Some Obama supporters think it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. “The truth is, Democratic presidents do better when there’s a Republican Congress,” says the Democratic strategist [quoted above]. “If there were a Republican Congress, there would be things that are non-starters.”
Huh? Such as?
Things like a public option in health care reform, a massive cap-and-trade energy scheme, and all sorts of tax increases . . . proposals that are popular with the Democratic base but unpopular with the independent voters who hold the president’s fate in their hands.
Argument apparently being that Obama could safely ignore his base and be free to play for independent votes. Wouldn’t have San Francisco Nancy (Pelosi), Hollywood Henry (Waxman), Massachusetts Barney (Frank), and others of their ilk to worry about.
But this assumes he wants to be free of those fellows and girls. Does he?
Blithe Spirit 