According to this article the GOP still has an uphill battle to take back there 06 and 08 loses

[bigdarryl]

http://www.polising.com/2010/09/just-how-is-gop-supposed-to-pick-up-55.html

[FBaggins]

1. Interesting attempt to raise the bar for the GOP.

Now they have to win 55 seats or it's a loss? 13 senate seats?

Somehow I don't think 45 and 9 would feel like a win to me. You?

[LiberalFighter]

2. I don't see it happening anywhere near where they are projecting.

There are too many factors that were not in play in previous mid term elections.

Republican(s) hit with scandals.
Wacko third party candidates beating out Republicans in primaries.
Republican districts being contested.
Republicans not as well funded.
Republicans don't have a plan. Well they really never did.

[FBaggins]

3. 9.6% unemployment trumps all of that.

"It's the economy, stupid"

Republican(s) hit with scandals. - Democrats too.

Wacko third party candidates beating out Republicans in primaries. They picked their races pretty well. They may lose a couple of them, but some (AK for instance) could just turn a 30-point win into a five point win.

Republican districts being contested. Not nearly as many as in '94.

Republicans not as well funded. Nonsense. They have less money in direct party spending, but their overall media buys (including corporations and advocacy groups) will probably outspend us.

Republicans don't have a plan. Well they really never did.

They don't need one. They just need to wear a placard that says "I'm not a democrat... you know.. the ones in power that you're mad at?"

In addition to the weak economy... it's a midterm election (much lower turnout), and they have an opposition party that is dispirited from having seemingly overwhelming majorities... and little to show for it on the issues that matter the most to the base. There are teachers... and GLBT... and anti-war... and any number of others who will be less likely to vote.

In answer to the obvious reply. I agree... but it doesn't matter that it's really the republicans' fault. It just won't sell.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Sometimes "It Is What It Is"

You see the train coming but you can't avoid it.

I think barely keeping the Republicants under 40 seats in the House and ten seats in the Senate would be a huge victory for the Democrats.

On the bright side, President Obama will have a perfect foil in his 012 re-election campaign if he can take advantage of it.

[FBaggins]

7. Of course... but we need to know where to build the firewall.

BTW - I disagree with your second sentance. There's no way that I'm going to consider 30 house seats and eight senate seats to be a "huge victory". I may get to the "any landing you can walk away from" level, but I'm not there yet.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Keeping The Senate And House Would Be Huge Victories

But if unemployment is really going to be >9% in 012 President Obama will desperately need a foil and the Republicants will make good ones.

[KingFlorez]

5. I've been saying that they will not have huge gains

For one reason, they haven't managed to put anything but very marginal seats in play, in order to gain big they'd have to win in more places than that.

[FBaggins]

6. If that's your "one reason"... you need to find a new reason.

How long have you been following the trends? I think there are races that you now assume to be marginal that were far from it just weeks/months ago. Take a look at the Cook Political Report website:

http://www.cookpolitical.com/node/4060
http://www.cookpolitical.com/node/4056

Open the latest table and then open one from just a few months ago. There are dozens of races that are now tossups (i.e., "in play") that were FAR from "marginal" not too long ago.

Heck go back one year and you'll see that we had two senate seats that were tossups and three that were "lean D". Since then we've lost one and have 13 others that are now "in play".

Or take a look at my post from this morning:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x429229

That's a house seat that is way down in "Likely D" territory. It just barely got added to the "top 100 most vulnerable" list for CNN... yet a poll was just released showing our guy up by only two and under 50%. I don't think we lose that race, but it's most certainly a non-marginal seat that is very much "in play".

Yesterday it was the VA 5th. Supposedly a tossup race for us... and the republican is up by 26 points.

[Aramchek]

8. Cook is a moron. And it's obvious you're in love with the idea of a Repuke Congress

but it ain't gonna happen.

[FBaggins]

9. Lol! Cook is one of the top guys in the industry (and a democrat)

Nate Silver is also a Democrat and his predictions say the same thing. Pick any one you want from either end of the apectrum. There isn't a single professional political analyst who would agree with the BS position that only a few "very marginal seats" are in play. Not one.

it's obvious you're in love with the idea of a Repuke Congress

What an intellectually dishonest way to debate. That's all you have? If I want a Democratic congress I have to ignore all the evidence and just assume things are really better than they look? What is that but an admission that you own position has no basis in any reality beyond your own hopes and dreams?

[Aramchek]

13. Cook is one of the top-paid guys in the industry. That doesn't make him right.

He has his own biases that color his predictions.

Nate Silver doesn't say even close to the same thing as Cook.

In fact, Silver says there is a very good chance that the Democrats retain both Houses.

You can wallow in your 'evidence' of impending doom,
or you can do something to actually help Democrats win.

What will you do?

[FBaggins]

16. He's one of the top guys BECAUSE his track record is one of the best.

To say otherwise is just ignorant wishful thinking.

Nate Silver doesn't say even close to the same thing as Cook.

Lol... right. Currently he's MORE pessimistic than Cook is. There are races that cook has as tossup or leans R that Silver has between 95%-100% republican pickups. PA is a tossup for Cook but 88% chance of loss to Silver. Silver says there's a 77% chance of losing Colorado... Cook says it's a tossup. Cook has KY, MO, & NH as tossups and Silver gives us 25%, 9%, and 23% chances respective.y.

In short... you have no clue what you're talking about.

In fact, Silver says there is a very good chance that the Democrats retain both Houses.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "very good chance".

You can wallow in your 'evidence' of impending doom, or you can do something to actually help Democrats win. What will you do?

I will help Democrats win by accurately assessing the risks so that we pay attention to the races that are on the bubble. What you fail to realize is that the '94 debacle was largely because of people like you who assumed that bubble was somewhere closer to break even. So we wasted funds and efforts on races that turned out not to be close and didn't put much effort in to some races that we didn't think were competitive and lost several that we could have won.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. That's Why I Am Always Loathe To Get In These Debates

The messenger always gets killed.

[totodeinhere]

12. I am getting sick and tired of cynical posters at DU who attack anyone who doesn't

have rose colored glasses on when it comes to the upcoming election. If I think that the Dems are going to have setbacks in November, I am going to say so. But to accuse me of wanting it to happen just because in my best judgment I think it might happen is laughable and I'm tired of it. When I said that I thought that Brown might win in Massachusetts, I got flamed like crazy for merely saying that. Yet when it turned out that my prediction was correct, none of the flamers came back to apologize to me even though it turned out that they were the ones who were wrong.

We need to get our heads out of our asses and tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they may. That doesn't mean that we like it. It just means that we are making an honest analysis of what we think might happen.

[Aramchek]

14. is it really your best judgement?

or are you letting others narrate for you?

[totodeinhere]

18. No, I can think for myself. Can you? n/t

[KingFlorez]

20. It's not even worth arguing with that person

The only thing they do on this board is run down Democrats, it's so transparent what their motivation is.

[smiley_glad_hands]

24. +1 n/t

[KingFlorez]

19. Your wishful thinking again

SurveyUSA has had some very weird polls lately, because a Republican internal only had the Republican ahead by a few points in VA-05. Their polls have to be taken with a grain of salt this cycle.

The Republicans are not going to win in a landslide, they'll be lucky if they can manage a one seat majority and even that's generous. They have to win every toss-up, plus over 10 lean Democratic races and winning every single toss-up is impossible in any cycle. Yeah, we know there will be losses, but there is such a thing as overestimating those loses.

[FBaggins]

21. The you have an opportunity to make some serious cash.

I believe the intrade chances of a 40-seat shift in the house are currently above 80%. Think of the money you could make!

The Republicans are not going to win in a landslide,

From your lips, etc.

Unfortunately... the key to them not winning in a landslide is a firm recognition that the big loss is absolutely in play right now. That means not wasting time and money on races that are almost certainly lost and instead focusing on a "firewall" at the more honest risk levels. My goal is to not repeat the mistakes of '94... while you seem insistent on trying.

They have to win every toss-up, plus over 10 lean Democratic races

Your ratings are out of date. They can lose a handful of tossups as well as the four of their own seats that they are likely to lose. They don't need to win a single "leans D" race right now (and there's more than one that they lead in).

and winning every single toss-up is impossible in any cycle.

Wrong again. That's essentially what happened in '94 and in the senate races of '08.

SurveyUSA has had some very weird polls lately

Indeed. Including a handful where Rasmussen looks like the more rational pollster. They are, however, one of the best out there pretty consistently. They're also just about the only national polling firm that's going to be doing house races at this point... so it's the best we can get right now.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

15. I really don't think the Republicans are going to be happy with the 2010 outcome

It's not even Labor Day. The serious part of campaign season is yet to start. There's plenty of general discontent given the slow growth economy, but I just don't see the Independents/moderates going back to the Republicans. I'm also not sure there is as much of an intensity gap as the media narrative has been pushing. The bottom line comes down to turnout. A strong Get out The Vote effort will be needed to ensure the Republicans are denied the victories they crave.

[FBaggins]

17. It's certainly possible. There has been a great deal of "measuring the drapes"

'94 snuck up on everyone... now they're almost setting up the wave to be their expected outcome. It's quite possible that they'll win LOTS of seats and STILL be depressed.

Of course... it's entirely possible for BOTH sides to be depressed. Particularly if we listen to self-medicating predictions of actually gaining seats.

[craigmatic]

22. Bobby Bright is actually leading in a district that favors repubs by +23. They should be winning

that seat but they're not. The guy who wrote that article is right repubs should be doing better given the way they cluck on and on about it on the news everyday.

[FBaggins]

23. The district is closer to +16 republican... and the only reason we have a shot...

...is because it's Bobby Bright. A guy who had a tough time deciding whether to run as a republican or a democrat and avoided answering whether he would support Pelosi next time by speculating that she might die between now and then.


Also... since there hasn't been any polling out of that district... on what are you basing your claim that we're winning?

[craigmatic]

25. the fivethirtyeight.com blog has it as lean democratic. Still wouldn't the same thing apply to dems

in all these toss up districts nation wide. They have the cash advantage.

[FBaggins]

26. I don't think 538 has updated their predictions yet.

That's the older NYT prediction. It looks like he's still refining his House formula and decided to go with the governors first (just released).

Still wouldn't the same thing apply to dems in all these toss up districts nation wide?

Sorry... wouldn't what apply? The lack of polling? No. In many cases there has been polling. The analysts look at that and compare it to the district's partisan bent then account for national generic trends. All that gets added to what is known about the specific race (including fund-raising advantage and the strength of competition the other side was able to recruit.

In this district one of the things they consider is the fact that the democrat isn't much of a democrat. He's tailor made for that district. I'm not sure that republicans didn't put a lightweight against him in anticipation that he would switch parties if the house fell to republicans anyway.

The long and short of it is that this isn't a particularly useful district to look at if you're trying to draw larger conclusions about the national picture.

[Hekate]

27. From your keyboard to your Deity-of-Choice's eyes