Daniel Larison writes that the Republicans' 2010 isn't likely to be like 1994--and that, at best, it will look like the GOP's 1978. It's worth reading his analysis, as Larison's thoughts are always worth reading. I largely agree, though I suspect that Democrats won't be too displeased with the ultimate results of 2010 when it happens. For one thing, I think that new, conservative Dems like Walt Minnick and Travis Childers are not likely to hold onto their seats. Even though the GOP's self-touted "success" in 2006 (it's a victory for conservatism because conservative Democrats won!) was fraudulent it is not without a kernel of truth, and Minnick, Childers, Bobby Bright, etc. are not going to last because they are extremely conservative and were largely elected out of revulsion at the GOP leadership. Since W is gone and Rush is going ballistic at the Dems, their constituents will return to their old voting habits, and while the GOP will lose even more swing and Dem-trending districts (Jim Gerlach and Dave Reichert are looking to move up into bigger offices, Joe Cao's bound to be a one-term wonder), I suspect that the GOP will knock a few conservative Democrats out of office as Dubya recedes from view (though I doubt the Dems will let him recede too much).
The end result will be likely be a pickup of 5-10 House seats for Republicans. The Republican PR machine will start cranking after that, but as all the seats will have been Republican seats regained (and the odd loss here or there, like John Murtha, who will not likely be returning after this term) it will require a bit more bravado than usual to spin this into a conservative breakthrough (though I suspect Republican flacks will prove up to the task). I think the GOP will actually drop a few more Senate seats. FiveThirtyEight has its top six Senate pickup opportunities as Republican seats. Even if the Dems only manage to pick up three of them--and this is perhaps overly conservative--they will have over sixty votes in the Senate, and therefore get the ability to rewrite Senate rules to curtail or end the filibuster. Then the number 60 doesn't really matter anymore. If this happens, Evan Bayh will need a hug.
I think the result I have sketched is likely, and I think its results are just as likely. Republicans will go totally ballistic about the House results, talk about how Senate elections are quirky and don't correspond to trends (which is true) and that this shows that America is waking up and starting to oppose Obama's agenda (time will tell, but it won't be true if the Republicans can't articulate a compelling alternative). This will further embolden conservatives to select someone like Sarah Palin to run against Obama in 2012, despite her being unpalatable to the country at large. This will result, inevitably, in a landslide victory for Obama (providing he doesn't turn out a total disaster) similar to the Nixon-McGovern race in which chunks of the center-right aparatus defect to Obama's side. The only thing I wonder about is whether the 2012 GOP winds up being like the 1972 Dems and runs a moderate, Carter-like candidate in four years, or if it becomes the 1983 UK Labour Party and more or less stays on course (though Kinnock did moderate Labour quite a bit, eventually). Moderation is anathema within conservative circles these days, at least at the elite and activist levels. I wonder, though, about whether the base would feel the same way. People who supported George W. Bush for eight years are not likely to be people overly invested in policy outcomes so much as a few pet issues upon which Bush hewed true, and might actually be more willing to back a "Democrat-lite" candidate on some issues if it gets them back into power to focus on the issues they care about. This is why I have historically thought Mike Huckabee would be a great Republican presidential nominee, as he would be able to pivot aggressively on supply-siderism and neoconnery while retaining the confidence of the Republican base, most of whom care exclusively about social issues. After his "United Soviet States of America" rant at CPAC, however, I admit to being reluctant to believe that anymore. And I'm not much more confident that Jon Huntsman can do it, though it depends on a lot of things, doesn't it?
