Cook, Sabato's latest

Overall, Charlie Cook is predicting that Democrats chances of losing over 50 seats is greater than their chances of holding the losses below 45 seats:

“At the moment, 22 Democratic seats, including 10 open seats and 12 incumbents, sit in the Lean or Likely Republican columns, while two Republican seats sit in the Lean or Likely Democratic columns, for a net of 20 Republican seats. That means Republicans only need to win 21 of the 40 seats in the Toss Up column to win a majority, not even counting many of the 30 Democratic seats in the Lean Democratic column that are rapidly becoming more competitive. At this point, all but four of the Democrats in our Toss Up column have trailed in at least one public or private poll, and Democrats’ fortunes in most of these seats are on the decline."

Larry Sabato is sticking with 47 seats in the House, though he hints that  a few more may be added by election day. Nate Silver is at 45 seats. Pretty much a consensus of a majority, but not by a lot, for the House. I can't imagine that Pelosi stays past 2012 if that's the case, as redistricting is going to make it a long haul.

Also, two papers to dive into. First:

Underscoring the importance of the enthusiasm gap, Republicans lead 50%-41% in the 86 Democrat seats among high interest voters – those who rate their interest as an 8-10 on a scale of 1-10. That is reinforced by the finding that low interest voters prefer the Democrat by a 32% GOP/55% Dem margin. So, the group that Democrats are doing best with don’t care.

In a word- Yep. In that sense, its just like '94. The second:

For the first time in 70 years, Republican turnout in statewide mid-term primaries (for U.S. Senate and governor) exceeded Democratic turnout in a primary turnout season that produced the second lowest turnout ever.

Democratic average turnout in the 42 states which held Democratic statewide primaries was 15,482,969 or 8.2 percent of the eligible electorate, a new low turnout record eclipsing the 9.0 percent who voted in 2006. This continues a trend in which Democratic primary turnout has fallen in almost every year since the 1950s.

2006 did not turn toward the Democrats until after most primaries were past. When Lamont upset Lieberman, in August, it shifted the whole terrain and message to one of anti-war anti-occupation. This cycle has no such late shift, just a long partisan slog of nonsense claims heading into the finale.

 

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

28 Comments

Dems should be able to get the majority back in 2012

Assuming Obama wins reelection.  In Presidential years, Democratic percentages for the House vote have been identical to that of the Presidential popular vote percentage. 

by Kent 2010-10-15 01:16PM | 0 recs
RE: Dems should be able to get the majority back in 2012

I dont see anyway Obama wins re-election barrign the unlikely GOP nomination of Palin. He hasnt just lost independent voters who supported him, he is losing younger voters, elderly voters, gay voters etc. Fact is, he is both ineffective as well as being deaf to the general public. He is a one timer...one and done.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-10-15 07:07PM | 0 recs
RE: Dems should be able to get the majority back in 2012

I dont see anyway Obama wins re-election barrign the unlikely GOP nomination of Palin. He hasnt just lost independent voters who supported him, he is losing younger voters, elderly voters, gay voters etc. Fact is, he is both ineffective as well as being deaf to the general public. He is a one timer...one and done.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-10-15 07:07PM | 0 recs
RE: Dems should be able to get the majority back in 2012

I dont see anyway Obama wins re-election barrign the unlikely GOP nomination of Palin. He hasnt just lost independent voters who supported him, he is losing younger voters, elderly voters, gay voters etc. Fact is, he is both ineffective as well as being deaf to the general public. He is a one timer...one and done.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-10-15 07:07PM | 0 recs
RE: Dems should be able to get the majority back in 2012

Americans will face a choice in '12.

Many will take that seriously, do their duty and vote for their choice.

Some will pee and moan and stay home.   Screw them, they get what they deserve.

 

 

by RichardFlatts 2010-10-15 07:27PM | 0 recs
RE: Dems should be able to get the majority back in 2012

Posting something three times does not make it true. Here is some information you might want to consider-

Obama hasn't lost the independents who supported him. The makeup of people who consider themselves independents has changed. The Tea Party movement is made up of a large number of people who now consider themselves independents who perviously considered themselves Republicans. This has changed the dynamic and certainly skewed the polling data. What is worse than that is as usual the media chooses not report this aspect of the story because it does not play into the narrative that Obama is losing people.

Also, here is another reality check for you- Obama himself is still incredibly popular with people- 59% find him to have the personality and leadership qualities necessary in a President. The problem is that we are losing the battle on policy and issues- this is not because Obama or the Democrats are wrong, rather it is because we are losing the battle of communication.

This is because, not surprisingly, it is easier to sell fear, blame, and hate than it is to sell solutions. That being said, the GOP has nobody they can nominate who will be able to out campaign or out fundraise Obama AND they do not have anybody who can match his charisma. I have no problem predicting right now that Obama wins re-election in 2012 albeit by a smaller margin in the electoral college.

by JDF 2010-10-15 10:04PM | 0 recs
RE: Dems should be able to get the majority back in 2012

I think your deluding yourself. Liking someone and believing they have done a good job are not the same. Fact is, if the economy is still in the tank and unemployment still high, he will lose. Americans vote their wallet and by all accounts there wallets will be even lighter in 2012 than they are today. Its that simple. He will run and very likely lose. Fact is at it turns out, in way over his head and the public sees it. I can only look forward to a truly qualified democratic nominee in 2012.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-10-15 10:45PM | 0 recs
RE: Dems should be able to get the majority back in 2012

"He will run.."

Sitting president will run?  Now that's going out on a limb!

by minnesotaryan 2010-10-15 11:00PM | 0 recs
RE: Dems should be able to get the majority back in 2012

"and by all accounts there wallets will be even lighter in 2012"

Whose accounts are these exactly? Because, ignoring the fact that predicting the economy that far out is not what one would call an exact science, the evidence is that the economy is improving, albeit slowly.

And if 2004 taught us anything it is that the American public votes for personality- John Kerry was unlikeable, smug, and disconnected from the American public. That is not how Obama is viewed, nor is it likely to ever be how he is viewed. Again, I would suggest that the fact that his policies are not well liked is in fact a problem of communication- that being that we do not effectively fight back against the lies the far right tells.

However, since you are so sure that Obama will not win a second term would you care to make a wager? If so I will be happy to discuss the terms. However, you should know that I won a significant number of wagers regarding both the Democratic primary in 2008 and the general election as well.

Let me know.

by JDF 2010-10-16 12:19PM | 0 recs
Pelosi would probably retire ..

There is no way Pelosi would be the face of the minority party , if the dems want to win back the house anytime soon , she is that damaged.. The house has been gone for about a couple of months now , closer to a year in my view , ever since the prolonged health care debacle. I think it would be closer to 55 - 60 seats for the republicans ..

by lori 2010-10-15 03:25PM | 0 recs
RE: Pelosi would probably retire ..

The problem isnt Pelosi, its really Obama.  He is the most politically inept and tone-deaf President I have ever seen.  He might be good on the campaign trail, spouting off empty slogans, but once in the White House, he's a bumbling idiot. 

by Kent 2010-10-15 07:12PM | 0 recs
RE: Pelosi would probably retire ..

Reid and Pelosi suck.

I am sorry, I want the Senate, I want that firewall.   But boy would I love to see Harry lose.   I hate them both.   Harry looking like the past his prime dottering old fool and Pelosi with that fake smile plastered on her face constantly touching her hair as she addresses the press.   They are awful. 

For now, the Senate in the balance, I'll root for Reid, but he is awful on tv.

Why can' they leaders delegate pressers and tv interviews, etc. to more charismatic member?   And why do Dem Senators, like Shumer for instance, who is good on tv, wear those silly granny glasses perched on the bottom of their noses when they are working?   They look silly. 

by RichardFlatts 2010-10-15 07:24PM | 0 recs
RE: Pelosi would probably retire ..

I think Pelosi has been a great speaker.  She pushed for health care reform when Obama was ready to cave.  If you think that was a mistake, you are buying Republican bullshit claims about the effects.  This was a major victory.  Politicking around it has been awful and Obama has failed to make a case for many of his administration's policies.  But Pelosi kept the House caucus together under extraordinarily difficult circumstances.  She deserves credit and defense against those who attack her for her gender as much as anything else.

by Thaddeus 2010-10-15 11:57PM | 0 recs
RE: Pelosi would probably retire ..

Giving Pelosi credit for fighting for HCR, which she desrves every bit of, means acknowledging that the President is basically taking credit without doing any of the heavy lifting (if you consider the "health care summit" to be heavy lifting). If we got a HCR bill that has some progressive measures, it is because of the Speaker and the progressive caucus and no thanks either to this President or his best buddies Max Baucus, Kent Conrad and Chuck Grassley.

by tarheel74 2010-10-16 12:55AM | 0 recs
RE: Pelosi would probably retire ..

Lori, the redstate Repub chimes in.

 

Who cares what you think.  You are a Republican. 

by RichardFlatts 2010-10-15 07:25PM | 0 recs
I guess we're screwed

Corporate America and self interested billionaires will make sure that they take the White in '12 at all cost, and they have the favorable draw in incumbant Senators.   If they take it all, they will do away with the filibuster.   They have balls.    We will be an oligarchy.   We can all post to kingdom come and pee moan about it and attack Democrats will the sins of Republicans, but the outcome will not change.

Unless we contribute and we vote. 

by RichardFlatts 2010-10-15 07:19PM | 0 recs
RE: I guess we're screwed

It is all about the downside of liberal democracy. Didn't the Supreme Court just tell us that it is okay for the wealthy to control our democratic process? That damned first amendment. Did us in again. We need another Marx on the scene.

by MainStreet 2010-10-15 08:57PM | 0 recs
A word about '06

If I recall the Dems had a large generic lead in late '05.

Folks like Cook explained it away.  They used excused like the GOP GOTV efforts would carry the day, that Republicans knew how to win.   One pundit, and it may have been Cook, I don't remember, fairly late in the game, even said Democrats still risked finding a way to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

In short they over estimated GOP political ability. 

This election is a bit different.   Republicans are not far ahead (not at all in some polls) in the generic, and their favorables as a party are LOWER than the Democrats.   So it really seems that turnout will drive this thing.    Which appears to be in the Repubs fav big time. 

by RichardFlatts 2010-10-15 07:32PM | 0 recs
So what your telling me is that I should stop payment on my check to the DNC. Right?

What the hell are these DNC folks doing? Trying a last minute ditch effort. Or perhaps it is just that the Dems are still tired out from the 2008 Pres election?

Come to think of it, I'm tired too.

by MainStreet 2010-10-15 08:51PM | 0 recs
RE: So what your telling me is that I should stop payment on my check to the DNC. Right?

Why do you even make payments to DNC? So that they can piss a million dollars on Blanche Lincoln? Mike Lux recently wrote that in face of this onslaught by Republican third party groups, the WH is now asking where are the progressive third parties, when in fact it was the WH that froze the cash flow to these groups so that they could centralize and control the message. Anyway some big donors have already switched their contributions to progressive groups and I ask all grass-roots activists to do the same. Contribute to Act Blue, Bold Progressive and Move On. Screw DNC.

by tarheel74 2010-10-16 01:17AM | 0 recs
About that primary turnout gap...

Am I only one who isn't at all frightened by the primary turnout gap?  I mean, the Republicans have had a number of very intense primary battles, while the Dems, what with their numerous incumbents who ran unopposed in primaries, had relatively few primaries of note.

I'm not saying it's going to be a good election for us at all, but that is one metric that always rang false to me.

by minnesotaryan 2010-10-15 11:03PM | 0 recs
Jerome seems to exult in the bad news for Dems

I really don't get that.

Why not offer more of a focused strategy for those who are making the case for Dem candidates?  If we're experiencing a "long partisan slog of nonsense claims," why not light a candle instead of cursing the darkness?

 

Here's a non-nonsense claim.  Republicans don't support environmental health and safety.  The health care bill passed by the Dems and signed by Obama has a host of very positive features.  Extending the tax cuts for the wealthy is a Republican idea--it will increase the deficit and not help economic growth.  The Dow is over 11,000. It was at 6,600 not long ago.  TARP restored confidence in financial institutions, etc.

by Thaddeus 2010-10-15 11:54PM | 0 recs
RE: Jerome seems to exult in the bad news for Dems

ah, last post I made: http://mydd.com/2010/10/9/sos-and-mess

Of course, you think Dems should run on TARP, so no one is going to take you seriously.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-16 11:02AM | 1 recs
RE: Jerome seems to exult in the bad news for Dems

Guess who's running on TARP!  Joe Sestak.   What's going to matter in the final result is candidates and campaigns.  Currently Nate has the Dems losing 48.3 seats; there are some ratings I disagree with, and the number of seats in play may be higher than he's showing.

by esconded 2010-10-16 12:18PM | 0 recs
Oh quite a few people take me seriously, Jerome

and I don't think they should "run on TARP," but I do think they need to explain why it was necessary to prevent a further collapse of the economy.

 

 

by Thaddeus 2010-10-16 02:23PM | 0 recs
RE: Jerome seems to exult in the bad news for Dems

You are right and wrong on how Dems should campaign. We lost the battle for the public on healthcare when we chose not to fight it effectively. It is too late now. People love the bill in parts, but will never view it as a positive in whole. The same is true of the stimulus and TARP. We lost the communications battle on these issues a long time ago and re-fighting it now will not help us. What we need to have learned moving forward from this is that educational campaigns are important as is conducting business in the light of day.

by JDF 2010-10-16 12:24PM | 0 recs
Stop campaigning now?

and learn lessons for the future?  I don't think so.  And generalizing about "people" won't help either.  In the last weeks it is important to mobilize the base to vote, first of all, and to win voters who haven't made up their minds.  Talking about how Republicans did nothing but obstruct is very important in some districts, and underlining the benefits of health care reform is important as well.  Members of Congress need to defend their votes, not run for cover.

by Thaddeus 2010-10-16 02:26PM | 0 recs
Lets see

Tax burdens on individuals and businesses are increasing, healthcare costs are increasing, incomes are not keeping up with cost of living increases. So exactly how are the wallets of average americans going to be better in 2012 than they are today?

The federal government and the criminals in congress continue to spend taxpayer money increasing the debt and requiring additional tax burdern. How can my wallet possible be fatter?

 

As for your statement that americans vote personality over their wallet, they dont when the economy is in the tank. As for why they didnt vote for Kerry, beside his personality shortcomings as you mentioned, he did little to defend himself against personal attacks and at a time when Americans where feeling insecure at a time of war, they put their trust in the residing commander in chief. Obama has proven to be incompetent. His policies decisions have not succeeded, he has shown few leadership skills and he is tone deaf to the average american. The party will get slaughtered in November and he will be a one term President come 2012. Since I dont place wagers for religious reasons, I will politely decline your offer.

 

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-10-16 03:47PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads