Cornyn Admits GOP Likely to Lose More Senate Seats
I wrote the other day that “It’s remarkable the extent to which press coverage of current politics doesn’t reflect the deep unpopularity of the opposition party.” Thinking more about this in the interim it struck me that perhaps the clearest evidence of this is that you don’t seem to hear many people talking about the fact that the Senate Republican caucus, though it’s been highly effective at obstructing legislation, is almost certain to further shrink and yet you rarely see this reflected in the coverage. But don’t ask me, ask NRSC Chairman Jon Cornyn (R-TX):
“That’s going to be real hard, to be honest with you,” Cornyn said of keeping Democrats from reaching 60 seats, adding: “Everybody who runs could be the potential tipping point to get Democrats to 60. We’ve not only got to play defense; we’ve got to claw our way back in 2010. It’ll be a huge challenge.”
So far this cycle, Republicans have been faced with retirements in four swing states, emerging primaries against at least three of their members and a map that, after two cycles of big GOP losses, continues to favor Democrats.
After losing ground in 2006, you might have expected Republicans to start distancing themselves from the hugely unpopular president and his failed conservative policies. Instead, the caucus held remarkably firm behind Bush’s agenda. And then they lost a bunch of additional seats in 2008. At this point you again might have expected them to start acting conciliatory. But they haven’t been. Which might lead you to suspect that they have some kind of secret master plan to explain why this makes sense. But, clearly, they don’t—Cornyn acknowledges that his side is likely to lose more seats.
58 Responses to “Cornyn Admits GOP Likely to Lose More Senate Seats”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
it’s a matter of incentives: the incentive structure for getting ahead in the republican party for many years now has been in favor of authoritarian personalities. the party is now full of authoritarian personalities, who are quite literally psychologically unequipped to deal with changing circumstances.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
For a second I thought I was reading huffington post. I mean where does he say the GOP is “likely” to loose more seats? Does admitting something may be a challenge imply it is unlikely? And yes there is a difference. A huge difference. Health care reform is going to be hard too. Does that mean everyone who says it’s hard (or really hard) think it’s not going to happen?
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Or, you know, he could be setting expectations. “I’ll be surprised if we can get by the Pistons, because they’re so awesome. They were world champs, you know.”
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Any prognosticators care to make a guess on the likely Dem pickups?
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I only hope Cornyn’s right. It’d be a first, but still …
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
The GOP could realistically be looking at a rump caucus of 34 or 35 senators in the next election cycle. At some point, reason dictates that they will change tactics, but I’m ok if it takes a few more election cycles for them to learn 90’s style obstructionism is out of style.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Gordon – That’s a distinction without much of a difference.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Open seats in Ohio, NH, FL and MO. Bunning (KY), Burr (NC), and whoever-beats-Specter in PA primary.
Must be a couple in there.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Or in other words, Gordon, huge majorities of American voters hate your party and most of what it does and stands for. They favor Democrats generically and specifically. The things they like about Democrats, Democrats keep doing. The things they hate about your Republicans – and they really, really hate you – the Republicans keep doing. Are you saying it’s unlikely you’ll lose more seats in swing states?
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Of course Matt implicitly does this himself (underestimate the intense unpopularity of the Republicans) every time he argues that if the economy doesn’t mean some unnamed benchmarks, the Republicans will automatically make a political comeback.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
By the way, one of the reasons why the GOP hasn’t changed its suicide course after 2006 and 2008 is that the remaining GOP loyalists are too proficient at spinning themselves, ala Gordon Gekko.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
oh, they’ve got a secret master plan, alright.
only it’s not so secret.
they have been pretty much telling us, since election night last fall, that if they cannot hold power by democratic means, then they will resort to force.
to shooting elected officials.
to armed secession from the union.
to million-man marches of gun-toting yahoos, intended to intimidate elected officials.
there’s no secret here: the republican rump is refusing to face up to political reality, because it gets its jollies by indulging in extra-political fantasy.
the bushist dead-enders don’t want votes. they want violent extremism.
and that’s the remaining base for the republican party.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Gordon – That’s a distinction without much of a difference.
I have an exam tomorrow. It is going to be really hard. But I would never say I am likely to do bad. It has completely different implications. “Really hard” means it is a challenge and requires a lot of attention/work/change/whatever. Saying you’re likely to fail implies an acceptance of inevitable defeat. Big difference.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
a map that, after two cycles of big GOP losses, continues to favor Democrats
If “the map” favors the Democrats in the Senate three times in a row, when one third of the Senate is elected each cycle, maybe it’s time to stop saying “the map” favors the Democrats. Maybe it’s the whole damn country that favors the Democrats.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Gordon Gekko,
Would you say it is going to be real hard for you to do as well as 50% on your test? Because that is a more proper analogy to Cornyn admitting it will be real hard for them to avoid losing seats on a net basis.
Seriously, you are spinning yourself.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
And sadly – loosing more seats will still not teach them any lessons.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
DonBoy,
Indeed. What that really means is just that back in 2004, the GOP was a lot more popular than they are likely going to be in 2010.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
If “the map” favors the Democrats in the Senate three times in a row, when one third of the Senate is elected each cycle, maybe it’s time to stop saying “the map” favors the Democrats.
The map *didn’t* favor the Democrats in 2006; the Democrats just pulled an inside straight, winning all the close races in a year that the American public viewed the Republican Party as substantially less appealing than dogshit. In 2010, the Democrats have a much easier job.
2012 will be much tougher.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
In the Senate, the Republicans were the minority party from 1932-1994 in all but FIVE terms.
Even after the “revolution” of 1994, they had a very weak majority that they lost in 2000 before losing it for good in 2006.
The Republicans are returning to being the minority party they have been since 1932. It doesn’t really matter to them that they don’t govern, so long as they can obstruct.
What’s amazing, of course, is that our discourse does not reflect that underlying reality–that the Republicans are basically the opposition, minority party. That’s because the people who run the discourse are pretty rich, by national standards. And the Republicans represent their interests, along with interests of the fabulously rich.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
This seems to be hard to grasp — I guess I see why — but the answer to your quandary seems pretty clear: they actually believe what they are saying, and are sticking to it. This is kind of admirable, in a way, if you disregard the part about what they believe being stupid and destructive.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Oh, and the other goofy thing about Gordon’s test analogy is that this isn’t a test, it is a contest. And if it is going to be real hard for you to just scratch out a draw, that implies your opponent is in a superior position.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Re “Cornyn acknowledges that his side is likely to lose more seats. ”
———
Er.. I have no problem with Matthew judging that the Republicans are dumbfuck losers — but he should not then BASE that conclusion on the opinions of those same dumbfuck losers. If you accept the primary proposition, the anything Cornyn says is worthless by definition. In which case, you need to look elsewhere for evidence to support the primary proposition.
It seems strange to explain this to a philosophy major.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I agree. The GOP is a natural opposition party and is capable of offering interesting and constructive critiques of the majority’s policy ideas. That’s not what they’re doing right at this moment, of course – they’re mainly denying and undermining science and facts, trafficking in paranoia, stoking white separatism, launching rhetorical pogroms against minorities, and speculating about committing violent treason against America…generally making repulsive asses of themselves. But in a decade or two, they’ll mellow out into a nice, sedate minority party.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
What anon said. I wish I could go up to the top of the page and attach it to Matt’s original post, because it’s actually the answer to the question that Matt keeps posing.
Anon has explained, precisely, why our political discourse doesn’t reflect the unpopularity of the minority party. And he also explains why the Republicans act this way. It’s okay to be a permanent minority, in the American system, if your only goal is obstruction.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I feel obliged to acknowledge Gabriel’s convincing answer to me at #18.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Besides Specter in PA and Lieberman, what races are up in 2010?
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
@12 kid bitzer: “oh, they’ve got a secret master plan, alright.”
You got it. Republicans have looked into the future and decided the electoral process really isn’t for them.
That’s why they whine or scream “Obama is becoming a commie/fascist dictator!” They are afraid Obama is going to beat them to the punch.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
reason dictates that they will change tactics
They won’t change tactics because doing so is reasonable. They will change tactics because the next generation of Republicans will want to win seats without the benefit of incumbency. Once Cornyn, Inhofe, and other assorted crazies retire, you’ll see a group of fresh-faced Republican politicians more concerned about winning than about hanging on to destructive right-wing dogmas. This will take a while.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Each GOP senator wants to be the market leader in buggy whips.
(Magic Capitalists use that gag all the time. Apt to turn the tables.)
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Even better, the Dems could get over 60 seats and lose Harry Reid.
Majority Leader Durbin, with a filibuster-proof majority.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Good answer, Gabriel, at 18. That’s it, exactly.
Of course, in 2012, the most successful fundraiser and turnout organizer in American history is going to be running for re-election as a wartime president who took over in the midst of an economic crisis that turned around in his first term.
I hear he’s going to campaign in a coat with tails.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
“Majority Leader Durbin, with a filibuster-proof majority.”
Me likey.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Maybe they’re just trying to heighten the contradictions. Grover Norquist is a well-known admirer of Lenin, after all.
As for the GOP being a natural minority party, Thomas Dewey once said that if the parties ever aligned on an ideological basis, the Democrats would win every election and the Republicans would lose every election. Well, for the past 40 years or so, the Republicans have been able to have their cake and eat it too by adding Southern conservatives to their coalition without corresponding losses in moderates in other parts of the country. Now that the other shoe has dropped, Dewey’s prediction might be coming true.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
@30 joe from Lowell: “Majority Leader Durbin, with a filibuster-proof majority.”
Perfect scenario. I’d miss old Harry. But, hey, you have to move on.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Of course, in 2012, the most successful fundraiser and turnout organizer in American history is going to be running for re-election as a wartime president who took over in the midst of an economic crisis that turned around in his first term.
I hear he’s going to campaign in a coat with tails.
Well, this is true. If Barack Obama gets to campaign as an incumbent president with a recovering economy, a wound-down Iraq War and no new crises, he’ll win 40 states, including South Carolina and Louisiana.
That would make the congressional races substantially easier.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
If the economy begins to grow by the middle of 2011, the 2012 election is going to look like 1984, 1972, or 1964.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Besides Specter in PA and Lieberman, what races are up in 2010?
538’s current rankings of seats most likely to flip:
1. NH (R): Open seat in what is now a very blue state, with the most popular House Democrat running.
2. PA (R): Goes without saying.
3. MO (R): Open seat with popular Robin Carnahan for Democrats and no very good Republican option.
4. KY (R): Very unpopular and broke Bunning running behind in polls against numerous challengers.
5. CT (D): Completely up to whether Dodd rehabilitates his image or retires/gets primaried. Generic Democrat would win handily.
6. OH (R): Bushie Portman vs one of several popular Democrats. Looks like a true toss-up.
7. FL (R): Probably not happening as Crist looks like he’s entering which would lock it up.
8. NC (R): Burr is very unpopular and behind in polls. Looks similar to the Dole race.
9. NV (D): Reid’s really unpopular but there’s absolutely no good Republican candidate. I could see him winning by a couple points with a 30% approval rating.
10. CO (D): Depends whether Bennet’s actually a good candidate. Colorado looks pretty blue these days.
So yeah, that’s a pretty good map. Could lose Reid and Dodd and be just fine. Also, Lieberman is up in 2012, not next year.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I hear he’s going to campaign in a coat with tails.
You know, even the Republicans lost seats in the Senate in 1972. Sometimes the math just isn’t in your favor, even when the president wins in a landslide.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
The fly in the Dems ointment is that there are some Dem seats that should be safe but aren’t. Dodd in CT and, yes, Reid in NV may be seats that switch to the GOP. All the Reid-bashers should probably take a minute to think things through a bit before continuing the bashing. ANY Dem leader with 64 or 65 seats would have a much easier time passing legislation, even with the filibuster as it now stands.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Watching lefties talk about the death of the GOP is like listening to the media talk about the death of the Democrats in 1994.
Seems like the Dems managed to come back from that.
As to 2010, I’d say it all depends on what the economy does or does not do. If people think things are improving in October of 2010, then the Dems will do well. If they think things are bad, the Dems won’t do well.
Keep in mind that by 2010, Obama and the Dems will not only own the economy, but whatever is still happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like the Republicans in 2004, they won’t have a split government to point fingers at.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
As to 2010, I’d say it all depends on what the economy does or does not do. If people think things are improving in October of 2010, then the Dems will do well. If they think things are bad, the Dems won’t do well.
Traditionally, this is true. And for things like the House results it certainly will be true.
But Senate maps are a different beast. The 2010 map is very favorable and the 2012 map is very unfavorable for Democrats regardless of any other circumstances.
People like Jim Bunning and Richard Burr are just awful, awful candidates who may well lose even if the economy still sucks. And having several high-profile retirements in states that voted for Obama creates a somewhat unique situations.
It seems to me the overwhelmingly likely scenario is a House loss of 10-15 seats and a Senate gain of 3-5 seats.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
All the Reid-bashers should probably take a minute to think things through a bit before continuing the bashing.
You need to explain how this is supposed to work. Do you really think swing voters in Nevada slavishly follow the dictates of left-wing bloggers?
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
1994 was a single election. The Democrats won the White House two years before. That’s not quite where we are right now.
Interesting historical fact: no incumbent wartime president has ever lost a reelection campaign. This includes Nixon in 1972, when the Vietnam War was extremely unpopular, and he had failed to end or even begin to end it as he promised in 1968.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
On a tangent–Cornyn’s wearing a flag pin–but it ain’t the good ol’ Stars and Stripes. It’s a flag of treasonous secession!!
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Watching lefties talk about the death of the GOP is like listening to the media talk about the death of the Democrats in 1994.
As joe from Lowell pointed out, 1992 and 1994 was not nearly the same for the Democrats as 2006 and 2008 were for the Republicans.
Keep in mind that by 2010, Obama and the Dems will not only own the economy . . . .
There is no evidence in the polling of ownership of the economic crisis switching from Bush to Obama. Republican hacks like to tell themselves that this will magically happen at some point, but it makes no sense: as long as people see current economic conditions as being caused by the economic crisis that started under Bush, the Republicans will continue to take most of the blame.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Hate to be a broken record, but all this means the GOP Senators will do anything and everything to block the Democrats’ agenda in Congress. They need (not just want) to have Obama fail.
If they lose seats in ‘10, and Obama wins reelection in ‘12, only then will the GOP change. But until that happens, be prepared for obstructionism, obstructionism, and more obstructionism.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Well, once Texas secedes that’ll be two losses for Republicans right there. It also means that we’d only need to get to what? 58 or 59 seats for a filibuster-proof majority.
Of course, filibuster-proof does not equal Glenn Beck-with-a-semtex-vest-proof, but that’s another issue.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Watching lefties talk about the death of the GOP is like listening to the media talk about the death of the Democrats in 1994.
Like, but not a whole lot like. Lips move. Words are sounded. That’s about it. If that’s comforting for you, congrats.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Years ago, Republicans figured out that politics are cyclical. Rush Liimbaugh egged them to run the ball as far up field as they can while they have it and thats how they governed.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
“2012 will be much tougher.”
Au contraire. The 2010 census and the following redistricting is going to be very tough on Republicans in the house.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I wonder why the Democrats didn’t move away from the left and toward the center in 2005, after having lost two Congressional and two Presidential elections in a row.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
“I wonder why the Democrats didn’t move away from the left and toward the center in 2005, after having lost two Congressional and two Presidential elections in a row.”
I think it’s because the the losers in the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections were the DLC/centrist branches of the Democratic leadership. Once both Al Gore and John Kerry have lost (well, Gore won, but anyway), it doesn’t make sense to claim that only centrists can save you. Whereas George Bush and Sarah Palin are not centrists by any definition, and nor is the Republican leadership.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:07 pm
I wonder why the Democrats didn’t move away from the left and toward the center in 2005, after having lost two Congressional and two Presidential elections in a row.
tomemos is right–the Democrats had already responded to 1980 and 1984 by moving to the center. Obviously, they also didn’t feel like Gore losing in 2000 was necessarily an issue of popularity.
But most importantly, I think it is worth noting the combined effects for the Democrats of 2002 and 2004 were nothing like the combined effects for the Republicans of 2006 and 2008.
In 2002 and 2004, in the House I believe the Democrats went something like -7 and -2, and in the Senate it was -2 and -4. In 2006 and 2008, in the House the Republicans were -30 and -21, and in the Senate -6 and -8. That just isn’t comparable.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:46 pm
I wonder why the Democrats didn’t move away from the left and toward the center in 2005, after having lost two Congressional and two Presidential elections in a row.
As noted earlier, the architects of the 2002 and 2004 disasters were the very definition of accommodating centrists. Remember how John Kerry and Joe Lieberman practically fainted in shock after Howard Dean suggested that capturing Saddam didn’t make America safer? Plus, the Republicans dramatically overplayed their hand at the beginning of 2005. The Schiavo case and Bush’s frontal assault on Social Security made it clear that these were not people who could be fruitfully cooperated with.
Also note that the only reason Democrats lost House seats in 2004 is because of Delay’s redistricting.
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Of course, in 2012, the most successful fundraiser and turnout organizer in American history is going to be running for re-election as a wartime president
What war?
who took over in the midst of an economic crisis
Yes.
that turned around in his first term.
Not as likely as you think.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:50 am
he had failed to end or even begin to end it as he promised in 1968.
whoah, hold on there pardner.
When the PAVN launched the Easter Offensive of 1972 there were NO US ground formations involved in the fight, just advisor teams and air assets. There were 300 US KIA for the entire year of 1972, about the level of KIA our forces suffered in Iraq in 2008.
Kissinger had come back with a “Peace is at Hand” agreement in late October IIRC, at any rate just before the election.
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:43 am
What war?
Af-Pak. Wow, it really IS the Forgotten War!
Not as likely as you think.
1. You’d better hope not.
2. Even if it doesn’t, think about FDR. If I recall correctly, you’re of the opinion that he didn’t manage to get us out of the depression that he inherited.
Troy,
Nixon’s expanded the war upon coming into office, bombing Cambodia, launching Linebacker 2, and keeping troop levels where they were. That was precisely the opposite of ending the war.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
and keeping troop levels where they were
BS. The incursion into Cambodia in 1970 was to give Vietnamization a year or two of breathing room. After that was wrapped up, ground forces were pulled out of the country at a pell-mell pace 1971-1972, until there were no more ground formations by the election season.
His political problem with the war was all the draftees and ROTC peeps getting wasted in the mud going toe-to-toe with the communists.
The USAF would still be willingly bombing the jungle from 30,000 feet if they had their way, but the Army was largely falling apart and through with the ground war by 1971.
That was precisely the opposite of ending the war.
Linebacker II was a 10-day demonstration to the Hanoi Regime that Nixon was willing to let the USAF do its thing if the peace agreement wasn’t ratified. While questionable public policy (writing checks that our political process wasn’t going to cash), it certainly ended the fucking war.