E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSToday is the day the 2010 elections finally ended.
Tom Emmer (R) is reportedly set to concede in the Minnesota gubernatorial race to former Sen. Mark Dayton (D).
And Newsday reports that in the lone remaining uncalled House race, Randy Altschuler (R) has conceded to incumbent Rep. Tim Bishop (D).
That means the official number of Republican net-gains in the House for this cycle is +63.
For the full list of GOP and Dem House picks ups, click here for the full list begun on Election Night. Overall, 55 incumbents lost, including 53 Democrats.
Leave a Comment:
Thank heavens that is settled, and we can begin to fix the destruction of the Pawlenty administration. He was a disaster as a Gov, though there is no doubt that Emmer would have been worse. Those of you who support Pawlenty for President have no clue what he has done to this state. Dayton, you need to stand firm and fix this mess!
Alaska?
Alaska?? Is that a part of the USA? I mean, the REGULAR part?
Shame on me. A lot of smart people have come out of Alaska. As a matter of fact, the smarter they were, the faster they came out.
53 incumbent House Democrats lost on November 2nd.
For some historical perspective...until this year, in general and midterm elections going back 40 years, the average number of lost House incumbent seats for members of both parties COMBINED was 17.3.
This is the reality that President Obama must now deal with...even though many progressives seem to feel that it's OK to savagely attack the President for acknowledging the new political landscape.
Pretty self-destructive behavior, really.
Well, we'll see what the republicans will do come January after paying off their rich contributors, maybe more tax breaks? I guess it'll be proven once again that those tax breaks for people making over 250,000 don't really create jobs and if they do, not very much. I don't know why they didn't address the 99ers.
ntvmt-
Remember...after January, Republicans still control only the House. Democrats continue to have President Obama in the White House, and a (smaller...53-47) majority in the Senate.
Whatever happens going forward, good or bad...both parties will reap the benefits or suffer the consequences for bad policy.
Can you tell me how Democrats benefit from the attacks on President Obama by the progressive elements of the Democratic Party?
Or, how Democrats benefit from voting against compromise legislation that the leader of the party has crafted with the Republican opposition?
'Cause honestly...I'm just not seeing it.
Emmer finally figures it out. Now Miller needs to come to terms with his loss and Alaska can move on. Psychiatrist could make lots of money counseling Republicans. They seem to have a hard time accepting losing. Denial is the cure all in their small little minds.
Mixed Bag- The reason for attacking Obama is that without some voice of sobering dissent, the capitulation will only continue. Obama has not learned the lesson of playground bullies. Intimidation forces capitulation which leads only to more intimidation, etc. McConnell was not lying, his only real priority is to get the GOP elected in 2012, and the way to do so is defeat any positive action proposed by Obama or the Dems.
The GOP really cannot be trusted, except to do whatever is in the interest of the top 2% of the folks in the country. The supposed Tea Party and folk mandate of the November election was JOBS. Yet NO ONE has made a credible argument that the extended tax cuts to the wealthy will create any jobs. It is a simple campaign contribution payoff to the wealthy backers.
Does anyone truly believe that the GOP would have allowed the tax cuts to expire and unemployment to run out if Obama had not blinked? That would have been political suicide, AND THEN the GOP would have to figure out in January how to fix the disaster that their intimidation tactics created. They simply played a game of chicken and Obama flinched.
In doing so, Obama forgot a very basic rule of negotiation. "Sometimes NO DEAL is better than a BAD DEAL."
As a native Minnesotan involved in Education, I have watched MN plummet from the top 10 in states, a model of public education, to a current position of low mediocrity. This is directly a result of the lack of leadership by Pawlenty. He formerly represented school districts, so he knows better.
In terms of those looking at Pawlenty for national office. Just remember that he will sacrifice what he knows to be the right thing in order to do what will benefit him personally. He clearly has ideology, but just as clearly has no integrity. Remember Norm Coleman, anyone? Be very afraid.