Gallup: Obama's job approval tumbles

[Obamanation]

2014 midterms could be brutal for Dems.

Outsize concern is outsized...

[King]

It's tumbled back up to 50-43.

[Mr.Phips]

2014 midterms could be brutal for Dems.

Maybe in the senate due to staggered terms, but democrats lost pretty much everything already in 2010.

[Vosem]

2014 midterms could be brutal for Dems.

Maybe in the senate due to staggered terms, but democrats lost pretty much everything already in 2010.

The Democrats won the popular vote in the House in 2012, and they have more seats won by narrow margins than Republicans do. I don't know about 'brutal', but Republicans definitely have room to grow in the House -- more than Democrats do. In the Senate, of course it depends on your definition of 'brutal', but it looks pretty likely Democrats will lose a couple of seats.

Really, except with historical data (like how Presidents do in midterms historically and recent election results) it's far too early to try to analyze what the country's 'mood' will be like in 2014. It could be brutal for Democrats. Or if they get very lucky they could advance in the House. Who knows.

[King]

It's far too early to tell either way, but conservative enthusiasm doesn't have anywhere to go but down.  I don't see any room for the GOP to grow.  They are somehow managing to alienate independents and the base with every action.

That said, whites always turn out stronger for midterms so the GOP has a structural advantage.

[Vosem]

It's far too early to tell either way, but conservative enthusiasm doesn't have anywhere to go but down.

I tend to disagree -- attempts at gun control legislation especially will motivate them more. You don't think Romney was very good at turning them out?

  I don't see any room for the GOP to grow.  They are somehow managing to alienate independents and the base with every action.

But ultimately, if Obama's unpopular people will still blame him and vote Republican. And in 2012 Republicans didn't even attempt to get the votes of large segments of the country (Hispanics) and they've made it clear they won't be making that mistake again. And keep in mind that people tend to have a brighter opinion of their own individual Congressperson than Congress or whichever party they belong to as a whole, which is part of the GOP's inherent House advantage.

That said, whites always turn out stronger for midterms so the GOP has a structural advantage.

True. Really, the way both Houses are set up right now helps the GOP; it's the EC that has the decisive Democratic advantage. And I'm pretty sure everyone turns out weaker in midterms; whites just don't turnout as weaker as blacks and Latinos. I do think the midterm/Presidential electorate gap has been exaggerated recently because of the stark differences between 2008/2010 -- but 2006 was a midterm not long ago and Democrats did just fine, and the same except reversed goes for 2004.

[Mr.Phips]

2014 midterms could be brutal for Dems.

Maybe in the senate due to staggered terms, but democrats lost pretty much everything already in 2010.

The Democrats won the popular vote in the House in 2012, and they have more seats won by narrow margins than Republicans do. I don't know about 'brutal', but Republicans definitely have room to grow in the House -- more than Democrats do. In the Senate, of course it depends on your definition of 'brutal', but it looks pretty likely Democrats will lose a couple of seats.

Really, except with historical data (like how Presidents do in midterms historically and recent election results) it's far too early to try to analyze what the country's 'mood' will be like in 2014. It could be brutal for Democrats. Or if they get very lucky they could advance in the House. Who knows.

Democrats won the popular vote in 2012 because of safe Democratic seats having much higher turnout than usual.  Even if Democrats lose the popular vote in the House in 2014, they could still gain seats.  The close seats in 2012 seemed to be pretty evenly divided.

To grow much further, Republicans would have to start winning seats with PVI's that they couldnt even win in 2010, which was the closest thing to a perfect strom Republicans will ever find.   

[Mr.Phips]

It's far too early to tell either way, but conservative enthusiasm doesn't have anywhere to go but down.

I tend to disagree -- attempts at gun control legislation especially will motivate them more. You don't think Romney was very good at turning them out?

 I don't see any room for the GOP to grow.  They are somehow managing to alienate independents and the base with every action.

But ultimately, if Obama's unpopular people will still blame him and vote Republican. And in 2012 Republicans didn't even attempt to get the votes of large segments of the country (Hispanics) and they've made it clear they won't be making that mistake again. And keep in mind that people tend to have a brighter opinion of their own individual Congressperson than Congress or whichever party they belong to as a whole, which is part of the GOP's inherent House advantage.

The only thing Republicans could do help them with Hispanics is to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which is highly unlikely.  

And the whole "people like their Congressman, but not Congress" argument helped Democrats so much in 2010 didnt it?  Hugely popular incumbents like Jim Oberstar, Gene Taylor, and Bob Etheridge all won in landslides of course.  And wouldnt this argument also help Democrats if it were true?

[Mr.Phips]

That said, whites always turn out stronger for midterms so the GOP has a structural advantage.
[/quote]

This is one of those stupid things that people latched onto after 1994 and 2010 just because they needed an excuse for losing so badly.  Why wasnt this the case in 2006, 1998, 1990, 1986, 1982, or even 1978?

[Vosem]

2014 midterms could be brutal for Dems.

Maybe in the senate due to staggered terms, but democrats lost pretty much everything already in 2010.

The Democrats won the popular vote in the House in 2012, and they have more seats won by narrow margins than Republicans do. I don't know about 'brutal', but Republicans definitely have room to grow in the House -- more than Democrats do. In the Senate, of course it depends on your definition of 'brutal', but it looks pretty likely Democrats will lose a couple of seats.

Really, except with historical data (like how Presidents do in midterms historically and recent election results) it's far too early to try to analyze what the country's 'mood' will be like in 2014. It could be brutal for Democrats. Or if they get very lucky they could advance in the House. Who knows.

Democrats won the popular vote in 2012 because of safe Democratic seats having much higher turnout than usual.  Even if Democrats lose the popular vote in the House in 2014, they could still gain seats.  The close seats in 2012 seemed to be pretty evenly divided.

To grow much further, Republicans would have to start winning seats with PVI's that they couldnt even win in 2010, which was the closest thing to a perfect strom Republicans will ever find.   

Republicans can grow without much difficulty by getting back what they lost in 2012. Just off the top of my head, Kirkpatrick, Barber, Murphy, Matheson, and McIntyre are all in quite Republican seats and barely won in 2012. Freshman Democrats in California won't be as buoyed by minority turnout and Republicans have already begun recruitment (apparently, the NRCC wants Carl deMaio, who narrowly lost the 2012 San Diego mayoral election, to run against Scott Peters, who's district he won in the mayoral election by double-digits while Peters' race was uncalled for days; they've also got two strong candidates, ex-Rep. Doug Ose and prominent autism awareness activist/statewide loser Elizabeth Emken up against Ami Bera). The simple fact is that there are more barely-D seats than barely-R seats, so Rs have lower-hanging fruit. Do Ds have the potential for bigger gains than Rs do? Yes, that's always the case for the minority party. But in a neutral year, without a wave for either party, Republicans "should" make small gains.

That said, whites always turn out stronger for midterms so the GOP has a structural advantage.

This is one of those stupid things that people latched onto after 1994 and 2010 just because they needed an excuse for losing so badly.  Why wasnt this the case in 2006, 1998, 1990, 1986, 1982, or even 1978?
[/quote]

Well, I think there's data showing it's true. But I think it's merely the case that recently Republicans have been luckier in midterms in than regular elections, and, as you say, excuses are sought.

It's far too early to tell either way, but conservative enthusiasm doesn't have anywhere to go but down.

I tend to disagree -- attempts at gun control legislation especially will motivate them more. You don't think Romney was very good at turning them out?

  I don't see any room for the GOP to grow.  They are somehow managing to alienate independents and the base with every action.

But ultimately, if Obama's unpopular people will still blame him and vote Republican. And in 2012 Republicans didn't even attempt to get the votes of large segments of the country (Hispanics) and they've made it clear they won't be making that mistake again. And keep in mind that people tend to have a brighter opinion of their own individual Congressperson than Congress or whichever party they belong to as a whole, which is part of the GOP's inherent House advantage.

The only thing Republicans could do help them with Hispanics is to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which is highly unlikely. 

And the whole "people like their Congressman, but not Congress" argument helped Democrats so much in 2010 didnt it?  Hugely popular incumbents like Jim Oberstar, Gene Taylor, and Bob Etheridge all won in landslides of course.  And wouldnt this argument also help Democrats if it were true?

I think this would be the other way around for Oberstar; if I recall correctly he underperformed and Dayton won his district. But, yes, it certainly helped Gene Taylor throughout the '90s and '00s win amazing landslides as his district voted consistently Republican upballot. And even in 2010, it saved folks like Collin Peterson and Jim Matheson and John Barrow. These rules aren't hard-and-fast; sometimes incumbents are unpopular or Congress' actions trickle down and then they lose. It's an effect which is very irregular in its distribution.

Why would this help Democrats? Republicans have more incumbents in the House, so in the context of the battle for the House having more incumbents seems to help the Republicans.

[Mr.Phips]

2014 midterms could be brutal for Dems.

Maybe in the senate due to staggered terms, but democrats lost pretty much everything already in 2010.

The Democrats won the popular vote in the House in 2012, and they have more seats won by narrow margins than Republicans do. I don't know about 'brutal', but Republicans definitely have room to grow in the House -- more than Democrats do. In the Senate, of course it depends on your definition of 'brutal', but it looks pretty likely Democrats will lose a couple of seats.

Really, except with historical data (like how Presidents do in midterms historically and recent election results) it's far too early to try to analyze what the country's 'mood' will be like in 2014. It could be brutal for Democrats. Or if they get very lucky they could advance in the House. Who knows.

Democrats won the popular vote in 2012 because of safe Democratic seats having much higher turnout than usual.  Even if Democrats lose the popular vote in the House in 2014, they could still gain seats.  The close seats in 2012 seemed to be pretty evenly divided.

To grow much further, Republicans would have to start winning seats with PVI's that they couldnt even win in 2010, which was the closest thing to a perfect strom Republicans will ever find.   

Republicans can grow without much difficulty by getting back what they lost in 2012. Just off the top of my head, Kirkpatrick, Barber, Murphy, Matheson, and McIntyre are all in quite Republican seats and barely won in 2012. Freshman Democrats in California won't be as buoyed by minority turnout and Republicans have already begun recruitment (apparently, the NRCC wants Carl deMaio, who narrowly lost the 2012 San Diego mayoral election, to run against Scott Peters, who's district he won in the mayoral election by double-digits while Peters' race was uncalled for days; they've also got two strong candidates, ex-Rep. Doug Ose and prominent autism awareness activist/statewide loser Elizabeth Emken up against Ami Bera). The simple fact is that there are more barely-D seats than barely-R seats, so Rs have lower-hanging fruit. Do Ds have the potential for bigger gains than Rs do? Yes, that's always the case for the minority party. But in a neutral year, without a wave for either party, Republicans "should" make small gains.

Barber and Kirkpatrick's seats are not "quite" Republican.  Locally, they are actually quite Democratic and they were both only barely won by Romney and even Bush.  Matheson survived the best possible Republican challenger in a year with a favorite son at the top of the district and survived 2010 in an even more Republican district. 

In California, the minority dropoff is nowhere near as severe as in other states.  Notice that even in 2010, Democrats lost no seats. 

[Vosem]

2014 midterms could be brutal for Dems.

Maybe in the senate due to staggered terms, but democrats lost pretty much everything already in 2010.

The Democrats won the popular vote in the House in 2012, and they have more seats won by narrow margins than Republicans do. I don't know about 'brutal', but Republicans definitely have room to grow in the House -- more than Democrats do. In the Senate, of course it depends on your definition of 'brutal', but it looks pretty likely Democrats will lose a couple of seats.

Really, except with historical data (like how Presidents do in midterms historically and recent election results) it's far too early to try to analyze what the country's 'mood' will be like in 2014. It could be brutal for Democrats. Or if they get very lucky they could advance in the House. Who knows.

Democrats won the popular vote in 2012 because of safe Democratic seats having much higher turnout than usual.  Even if Democrats lose the popular vote in the House in 2014, they could still gain seats.  The close seats in 2012 seemed to be pretty evenly divided.

To grow much further, Republicans would have to start winning seats with PVI's that they couldnt even win in 2010, which was the closest thing to a perfect strom Republicans will ever find.   

Republicans can grow without much difficulty by getting back what they lost in 2012. Just off the top of my head, Kirkpatrick, Barber, Murphy, Matheson, and McIntyre are all in quite Republican seats and barely won in 2012. Freshman Democrats in California won't be as buoyed by minority turnout and Republicans have already begun recruitment (apparently, the NRCC wants Carl deMaio, who narrowly lost the 2012 San Diego mayoral election, to run against Scott Peters, who's district he won in the mayoral election by double-digits while Peters' race was uncalled for days; they've also got two strong candidates, ex-Rep. Doug Ose and prominent autism awareness activist/statewide loser Elizabeth Emken up against Ami Bera). The simple fact is that there are more barely-D seats than barely-R seats, so Rs have lower-hanging fruit. Do Ds have the potential for bigger gains than Rs do? Yes, that's always the case for the minority party. But in a neutral year, without a wave for either party, Republicans "should" make small gains.

Barber and Kirkpatrick's seats are not "quite" Republican.  Locally, they are actually quite Democratic and they were both only barely won by Romney and even Bush.  Matheson survived the best possible Republican challenger in a year with a favorite son at the top of the district and survived 2010 in an even more Republican district. 

In California, the minority dropoff is nowhere near as severe as in other states.  Notice that even in 2010, Democrats lost no seats. 

Romney lost nationwide by four points. Barber and Kirkpatrick's districts both voted Romney; these are districts with Republican PVIs in the mid-single digits. I guarantee if I showed you a district which tilted about the same the other way (one Obama won in 2012 by ~8 points) you would tell me it is unwinnable for the GOP. As for Matheson, Love got lots of national attention but she wasn't funded as well as you would think; a Republican victory in that seat was taken for granted, which won't be the case in 2014.

In 2010, the seats were gerrymandered for incumbent protection purposes, and there were only a few competitive districts (if I recall correctly, just two; McNerney and Costa); Costa was an entrenched incumbent facing a Some Dude and McNerney faced a fellow who had carpetbagged in from Utah. In 2014, there'll be more competition and a lot more attention directed to California by the NRCC (especially vis a vis recruitment; basically no recruitment effort was put into CA in advance of 2010) because there're more competitive seats and more opportunities. The Republicans will also have to play defense in CA, let's not forget; Miller, Denham, and Valadao -- in, I think, that order -- are quite vulnerable.

[pbrower2a]

It's far too early to tell either way, but conservative enthusiasm doesn't have anywhere to go but down.

I tend to disagree -- attempts at gun control legislation especially will motivate them more. You don't think Romney was very good at turning them out?

The Sandy Hook massacre came after the election. Maybe you think that President Obama went demagogue... but Republicans have a lost cause to defend.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But ultimately, if Obama's unpopular people will still blame him and vote Republican. And in 2012 Republicans didn't even attempt to get the votes of large segments of the country (Hispanics) and they've made it clear they won't be making that mistake again. And keep in mind that people tend to have a brighter opinion of their own individual Congressperson than Congress or whichever party they belong to as a whole, which is part of the GOP's inherent House advantage. [/quote]

Wishful thinking. You are stuck with him as President, and he has been adept at pushing public opinion when it seems to work.

That said, whites always turn out stronger for midterms so the GOP has a structural advantage.

True. Really, the way both Houses are set up right now helps the GOP; it's the EC that has the decisive Democratic advantage. And I'm pretty sure everyone turns out weaker in midterms; whites just don't turnout as weaker as blacks and Latinos. I do think the midterm/Presidential electorate gap has been exaggerated recently because of the stark differences between 2008/2010 -- but 2006 was a midterm not long ago and Democrats did just fine, and the same except reversed goes for 2004.
[/quote]

If Republicans are saddled with unpopular positions, they lose.

[Brittain33]

Vosem, PVIs in AZ (like those in IL) are skewed by who ran in 2008.

[Sbane]

2014 midterms could be brutal for Dems.

Maybe in the senate due to staggered terms, but democrats lost pretty much everything already in 2010.

The Democrats won the popular vote in the House in 2012, and they have more seats won by narrow margins than Republicans do. I don't know about 'brutal', but Republicans definitely have room to grow in the House -- more than Democrats do. In the Senate, of course it depends on your definition of 'brutal', but it looks pretty likely Democrats will lose a couple of seats.

Really, except with historical data (like how Presidents do in midterms historically and recent election results) it's far too early to try to analyze what the country's 'mood' will be like in 2014. It could be brutal for Democrats. Or if they get very lucky they could advance in the House. Who knows.

Democrats won the popular vote in 2012 because of safe Democratic seats having much higher turnout than usual.  Even if Democrats lose the popular vote in the House in 2014, they could still gain seats.  The close seats in 2012 seemed to be pretty evenly divided.

To grow much further, Republicans would have to start winning seats with PVI's that they couldnt even win in 2010, which was the closest thing to a perfect strom Republicans will ever find.   

Republicans can grow without much difficulty by getting back what they lost in 2012. Just off the top of my head, Kirkpatrick, Barber, Murphy, Matheson, and McIntyre are all in quite Republican seats and barely won in 2012. Freshman Democrats in California won't be as buoyed by minority turnout and Republicans have already begun recruitment (apparently, the NRCC wants Carl deMaio, who narrowly lost the 2012 San Diego mayoral election, to run against Scott Peters, who's district he won in the mayoral election by double-digits while Peters' race was uncalled for days; they've also got two strong candidates, ex-Rep. Doug Ose and prominent autism awareness activist/statewide loser Elizabeth Emken up against Ami Bera). The simple fact is that there are more barely-D seats than barely-R seats, so Rs have lower-hanging fruit. Do Ds have the potential for bigger gains than Rs do? Yes, that's always the case for the minority party. But in a neutral year, without a wave for either party, Republicans "should" make small gains.

Barber and Kirkpatrick's seats are not "quite" Republican.  Locally, they are actually quite Democratic and they were both only barely won by Romney and even Bush.  Matheson survived the best possible Republican challenger in a year with a favorite son at the top of the district and survived 2010 in an even more Republican district. 

In California, the minority dropoff is nowhere near as severe as in other states.  Notice that even in 2010, Democrats lost no seats. 

In 2010, the seats were gerrymandered for incumbent protection purposes, and there were only a few competitive districts (if I recall correctly, just two; McNerney and Costa); Costa was an entrenched incumbent facing a Some Dude and McNerney faced a fellow who had carpetbagged in from Utah. In 2014, there'll be more competition and a lot more attention directed to California by the NRCC (especially vis a vis recruitment; basically no recruitment effort was put into CA in advance of 2010) because there're more competitive seats and more opportunities. The Republicans will also have to play defense in CA, let's not forget; Miller, Denham, and Valadao -- in, I think, that order -- are quite vulnerable.

No, 2010 was not gerrymandered for incumbent protection purposes, 2000 was. This actually ended up becoming a Republican gerrymander by 2010 as Republicans did very poorly in the state. A more or less fair map was drawn for 2010 and Bono and Lungren really have no excuse. Torie thinks the California map is not fair, and I agree with him in some instances, but for the most part it is fair and is certainly not an incumbent protection gerrymander. If Republican keep losing the congressional vote in California by more than 20 points, they don't have much hope.

Mcnerney is safe, btw. Whether his district is fair or not is certainly up for debate. I would have preferred an inland east bay district and a San Joaquin district. Of course, both would have voted Dem in 2012, and likely in 2014. Republicans need to stop nominating crazies, and up their game.

Also, Miller is more or less done. Any competent Democrat will defeat him in that district. Denham and Valado should be safe. Bera should be ok too, I think. That's a hard one to read. Emken is a good candidate, but did get crushed, although against Feinstein....hmm.

[Mr.Phips]

2014 midterms could be brutal for Dems.

Maybe in the senate due to staggered terms, but democrats lost pretty much everything already in 2010.

The Democrats won the popular vote in the House in 2012, and they have more seats won by narrow margins than Republicans do. I don't know about 'brutal', but Republicans definitely have room to grow in the House -- more than Democrats do. In the Senate, of course it depends on your definition of 'brutal', but it looks pretty likely Democrats will lose a couple of seats.

Really, except with historical data (like how Presidents do in midterms historically and recent election results) it's far too early to try to analyze what the country's 'mood' will be like in 2014. It could be brutal for Democrats. Or if they get very lucky they could advance in the House. Who knows.

Democrats won the popular vote in 2012 because of safe Democratic seats having much higher turnout than usual.  Even if Democrats lose the popular vote in the House in 2014, they could still gain seats.  The close seats in 2012 seemed to be pretty evenly divided.

To grow much further, Republicans would have to start winning seats with PVI's that they couldnt even win in 2010, which was the closest thing to a perfect strom Republicans will ever find.   

Republicans can grow without much difficulty by getting back what they lost in 2012. Just off the top of my head, Kirkpatrick, Barber, Murphy, Matheson, and McIntyre are all in quite Republican seats and barely won in 2012. Freshman Democrats in California won't be as buoyed by minority turnout and Republicans have already begun recruitment (apparently, the NRCC wants Carl deMaio, who narrowly lost the 2012 San Diego mayoral election, to run against Scott Peters, who's district he won in the mayoral election by double-digits while Peters' race was uncalled for days; they've also got two strong candidates, ex-Rep. Doug Ose and prominent autism awareness activist/statewide loser Elizabeth Emken up against Ami Bera). The simple fact is that there are more barely-D seats than barely-R seats, so Rs have lower-hanging fruit. Do Ds have the potential for bigger gains than Rs do? Yes, that's always the case for the minority party. But in a neutral year, without a wave for either party, Republicans "should" make small gains.

Barber and Kirkpatrick's seats are not "quite" Republican.  Locally, they are actually quite Democratic and they were both only barely won by Romney and even Bush.  Matheson survived the best possible Republican challenger in a year with a favorite son at the top of the district and survived 2010 in an even more Republican district. 

In California, the minority dropoff is nowhere near as severe as in other states.  Notice that even in 2010, Democrats lost no seats. 

In 2010, the seats were gerrymandered for incumbent protection purposes, and there were only a few competitive districts (if I recall correctly, just two; McNerney and Costa); Costa was an entrenched incumbent facing a Some Dude and McNerney faced a fellow who had carpetbagged in from Utah. In 2014, there'll be more competition and a lot more attention directed to California by the NRCC (especially vis a vis recruitment; basically no recruitment effort was put into CA in advance of 2010) because there're more competitive seats and more opportunities. The Republicans will also have to play defense in CA, let's not forget; Miller, Denham, and Valadao -- in, I think, that order -- are quite vulnerable.

No, 2010 was not gerrymandered for incumbent protection purposes, 2000 was. This actually ended up becoming a Republican gerrymander by 2010 as Republicans did very poorly in the state. A more or less fair map was drawn for 2010 and Bono and Lungren really have no excuse. Torie thinks the California map is not fair, and I agree with him in some instances, but for the most part it is fair and is certainly not an incumbent protection gerrymander. If Republican keep losing the congressional vote in California by more than 20 points, they don't have much hope.

Mcnerney is safe, btw. Whether his district is fair or not is certainly up for debate. I would have preferred an inland east bay district and a San Joaquin district. Of course, both would have voted Dem in 2012, and likely in 2014. Republicans need to stop nominating crazies, and up their game.

Also, Miller is more or less done. Any competent Democrat will defeat him in that district. Denham and Valado should be safe. Bera should be ok too, I think. That's a hard one to read. Emken is a good candidate, but did get crushed, although against Feinstein....hmm.

Yeah, Republicans simply are not beating McNerney.  That seat went almost 60% for Obama and is only getting bluer. 

In a GOP wave, Republicans could probably get CA-07, CA-45, and CA-52, that's it. 

And Vosem forgets that in 2010, Republicans finally got then candidate they had been trying to get for years to run against Loretta Sanchez in a district that went for Bush in 2004 and he lost by double digits. 

[Vosem]

The Sandy Hook massacre came after the election. Maybe you think that President Obama went demagogue... but Republicans have a lost cause to defend.

Er, this is simply not the case. After Sandy Hook, support for gun control surged to 2005 levels. It was much higher in the '90s and there was still a backlash to the Assault Weapons Ban. The general trend has been, very fast, towards less and less support for gun control, with short, sharp peaks in the aftermath of mass shootings (although the peaks are getting shorter, too). The data here is not on your side, my friend; if current trends continue, within 15 years or so being pro-gun will be a Democratic Party litmus test (and being pro-gay will be a Republican Party litmus test, and it will be impossible to win without doing passably well among Hispanics; the future's not all bad).

Wishful thinking. You are stuck with him as President, and he has been adept at pushing public opinion when it seems to work.

Er, not really. Obama's been adept at getting himself elected, but otherwise his attempts at manipulating public opinion on policy (health-care is the most notable case, but not the only one) have been feeble at best. We're only stuck with him till 2017, bro.

If Republicans are saddled with unpopular positions, they lose.

If Republicans are saddled with unpopular positions, their vote totals decline. Whether they are saddled with unpopular positions to a greater extent than the Democrats are is arguable, and in any case they still win if Democratic vote totals decline further. Keep in mind that people have a tendency to blame the President's party for misfortune even if Congress is controlled by other party outright (see 1958, 1974, 1982, 2008), so Democrats are more likely than Republicans to be saddled by general governmental unpopularity. Democratic vote totals will also decline if they continue to pursue gun control legislation (I've noticed a lack of emphasis on this recently in the press, however; the Democrats aren't going to just piss away votes). 'Republicans saddled with unpopular positions' do not exist in a vacuum.

Vosem, PVIs in AZ (like those in IL) are skewed by who ran in 2008.

Still. Romney lost the nation by 4 points. Kirkpatrick's district voted for Romney by 2 points; making it 6 points more Republican the nation as a whole; an equivalent Democratic district would've voted Obama by 10 points. Not impossible for the Republicans (Valadao and loBiondo are in such districts), but very difficult and only isolated cases.

No, 2010 was not gerrymandered for incumbent protection purposes, 2000 was.

The 2000 lines were still in use in 2010.

This actually ended up becoming a Republican gerrymander by 2010 as Republicans did very poorly in the state. A more or less fair map was drawn for 2010 and Bono and Lungren really have no excuse. Torie thinks the California map is not fair, and I agree with him in some instances, but for the most part it is fair and is certainly not an incumbent protection gerrymander.

True, California trended Democratic through the '00s. What was incumbent protection in 2000 became pro-Republican by 2010. This is known.

If Republican keep losing the congressional vote in California by more than 20 points, they don't have much hope.

To take the majority of the delegation, of course not. But to have 2-3 more seats than they do now, which they just barely lost in 2012, which was a leans-Democratic year? Of course Bera and Peters and Ruiz who all just barely won are vulnerable, especially in a good Republican year but they don't deserve to be given free passes in neutral years either. A House delegation isn't the presidential vote; there is a difference between losing a state by 15 and 20. I don't know what the congressional vote in California was in 2012, but if it was the latter, Republicans can aim for the former and pick up a few seats. It's a start, at the least.  

Mcnerney is safe, btw. Whether his district is fair or not is certainly up for debate. I would have preferred an inland east bay district and a San Joaquin district. Of course, both would have voted Dem in 2012, and likely in 2014. Republicans need to stop nominating crazies, and up their game.

I agree completely. McNerney is an entrenched incumbent who knows how to campaign, and the redistricting only made his district more Democratic. It would take scandal or a remarkable wave to uproot him.

Also, Miller is more or less done. Any competent Democrat will defeat him in that district. Denham and Valado should be safe. Bera should be ok too, I think. That's a hard one to read. Emken is a good candidate, but did get crushed, although against Feinstein....hmm.

Bera will have the advantage of Emken facing a primary against ex-Rep. Doug Ose, a moderate Republican (who lost a comeback primary once before, in 2008) who represented the district prior to Lungren. Either would be a strong candidate, IMO. Bera's district voted 51-47 Obama, or basically equivalent to the nation. With a strong candidate it can be won.

Yeah, Republicans simply are not beating McNerney.  That seat went almost 60% for Obama and is only getting bluer.  

In a GOP wave, Republicans could probably get CA-07, CA-45, and CA-52, that's it.

I assume by CA-45, you mean CA-36, which is Raul Ruiz's district; it was numbered '45' during the last decade. Today's CA-45 is a safe Republican seat held by John Campbell which voted Romney by double-digits.

None of those seats would take a wave (except McNerney's seat, which probably wouldn't fall even in a wave). It would take a good candidate with a good campaign in an OK year. DeMaio is being recruited to run against Peters; when he ran for Mayor of San Diego, he won Peters' district by double-digits. Republicans have already recruited two strong moderates against Bera. (When put that way, I worry...) As for Ruiz, I don't know who might face him, but his district is more Republican than the trio (at 51-48 Obama, the district voted slightly more Romney than the nation did) and he is definitely not safe.

These seats are perfectly winnable for the GOP.

And Vosem forgets that in 2010, Republicans finally got then candidate they had been trying to get for years to run against Loretta Sanchez in a district that went for Bush in 2004 and he lost by double digits.  

Sanchez was an entrenched incumbent and Tran ran an underfunded campaign. I'm not sure why this matters; I'm not saying she's vulnerable. The modern iteration of that district voted 61-36 Obama (25 points...making it 21 points more Obama than the nation). That buddy ain't goin' nowhere.

[Mr.Phips]

The Sandy Hook massacre came after the election. Maybe you think that President Obama went demagogue... but Republicans have a lost cause to defend.

Er, this is simply not the case. After Sandy Hook, support for gun control surged to 2005 levels. It was much higher in the '90s and there was still a backlash to the Assault Weapons Ban. The general trend has been, very fast, towards less and less support for gun control, with short, sharp peaks in the aftermath of mass shootings (although the peaks are getting shorter, too). The data here is not on your side, my friend; if current trends continue, within 15 years or so being pro-gun will be a Democratic Party litmus test (and being pro-gay will be a Republican Party litmus test, and it will be impossible to win without doing passably well among Hispanics; the future's not all bad).

Wishful thinking. You are stuck with him as President, and he has been adept at pushing public opinion when it seems to work.

Er, not really. Obama's been adept at getting himself elected, but otherwise his attempts at manipulating public opinion on policy (health-care is the most notable case, but not the only one) have been feeble at best. We're only stuck with him till 2017, bro.

If Republicans are saddled with unpopular positions, they lose.

If Republicans are saddled with unpopular positions, their vote totals decline. Whether they are saddled with unpopular positions to a greater extent than the Democrats are is arguable, and in any case they still win if Democratic vote totals decline further. Keep in mind that people have a tendency to blame the President's party for misfortune even if Congress is controlled by other party outright (see 1958, 1974, 1982, 2008), so Democrats are more likely than Republicans to be saddled by general governmental unpopularity. Democratic vote totals will also decline if they continue to pursue gun control legislation (I've noticed a lack of emphasis on this recently in the press, however; the Democrats aren't going to just piss away votes). 'Republicans saddled with unpopular positions' do not exist in a vacuum.

Vosem, PVIs in AZ (like those in IL) are skewed by who ran in 2008.

Still. Romney lost the nation by 4 points. Kirkpatrick's district voted for Romney by 2 points; making it 6 points more Republican the nation as a whole; an equivalent Democratic district would've voted Obama by 10 points. Not impossible for the Republicans (Valadao and loBiondo are in such districts), but very difficult and only isolated cases.

It would not make AZ-01 six points more Republican than the nation as a whole.  If Romney got 47% nationally and 50% in AZ-01, it would be three points more Republican than the nation as a whole. 

In 1958, the Democratic Congress was hugely popular and closer to Eisenhower than Republicans were.  In 1974, again, the Democratic Congress had very high approval ratings(something like 42% approval to 30% disapprove, which is huge for Congress) and this was in the immediate aftermath of one of the biggest Presidential scandals in US history. 

1982 was actually a pretty standpat year outside of the House(and governorships due to the a lot of Republican deadwood coming up from their good year in 1978).  More than two thirds of Democrats' House gains that year came from gerrymanders in Calfornia(which gave them about ten seats alone), Florida and New Jersey and getting lucky by having judges pick Democratic maps in Michigan and Illinois. 

2008 was a situation where by the time the election rolled around, Bush, the economy and Republicans were just so toxic that it its amazing that they didnt lose even more seats.  Throw in the fact that this was also a Presidential year where the turnout situation is different. 

[Vosem]

The Sandy Hook massacre came after the election. Maybe you think that President Obama went demagogue... but Republicans have a lost cause to defend.

Er, this is simply not the case. After Sandy Hook, support for gun control surged to 2005 levels. It was much higher in the '90s and there was still a backlash to the Assault Weapons Ban. The general trend has been, very fast, towards less and less support for gun control, with short, sharp peaks in the aftermath of mass shootings (although the peaks are getting shorter, too). The data here is not on your side, my friend; if current trends continue, within 15 years or so being pro-gun will be a Democratic Party litmus test (and being pro-gay will be a Republican Party litmus test, and it will be impossible to win without doing passably well among Hispanics; the future's not all bad).

Wishful thinking. You are stuck with him as President, and he has been adept at pushing public opinion when it seems to work.

Er, not really. Obama's been adept at getting himself elected, but otherwise his attempts at manipulating public opinion on policy (health-care is the most notable case, but not the only one) have been feeble at best. We're only stuck with him till 2017, bro.

If Republicans are saddled with unpopular positions, they lose.

If Republicans are saddled with unpopular positions, their vote totals decline. Whether they are saddled with unpopular positions to a greater extent than the Democrats are is arguable, and in any case they still win if Democratic vote totals decline further. Keep in mind that people have a tendency to blame the President's party for misfortune even if Congress is controlled by other party outright (see 1958, 1974, 1982, 2008), so Democrats are more likely than Republicans to be saddled by general governmental unpopularity. Democratic vote totals will also decline if they continue to pursue gun control legislation (I've noticed a lack of emphasis on this recently in the press, however; the Democrats aren't going to just piss away votes). 'Republicans saddled with unpopular positions' do not exist in a vacuum.

Vosem, PVIs in AZ (like those in IL) are skewed by who ran in 2008.

Still. Romney lost the nation by 4 points. Kirkpatrick's district voted for Romney by 2 points; making it 6 points more Republican the nation as a whole; an equivalent Democratic district would've voted Obama by 10 points. Not impossible for the Republicans (Valadao and loBiondo are in such districts), but very difficult and only isolated cases.

It would not make AZ-01 six points more Republican than the nation as a whole.  If Romney got 47% nationally and 50% in AZ-01, it would be three points more Republican than the nation as a whole.

You're comparing percentages and I'm comparing margins. As the Reverend Herman Cain would say, it's like apples and oranges.

In 1958, the Democratic Congress was hugely popular and closer to Eisenhower than Republicans were.  In 1974, again, the Democratic Congress had very high approval ratings(something like 42% approval to 30% disapprove, which is huge for Congress) and this was in the immediate aftermath of one of the biggest Presidential scandals in US history. 

1982 was actually a pretty standpat year outside of the House(and governorships due to the a lot of Republican deadwood coming up from their good year in 1978).  More than two thirds of Democrats' House gains that year came from gerrymanders in Calfornia(which gave them about ten seats alone), Florida and New Jersey and getting lucky by having judges pick Democratic maps in Michigan and Illinois. 

2008 was a situation where by the time the election rolled around, Bush, the economy and Republicans were just so toxic that it its amazing that they didnt lose even more seats.  Throw in the fact that this was also a Presidential year where the turnout situation is different. 

OK. But you're still not disputing my basic point (and backing it up with your summary of '08) which is that when things go south and one party controls the Presidency and another Congress, people usually blame the presidential party.

[Mr.Phips]

The Sandy Hook massacre came after the election. Maybe you think that President Obama went demagogue... but Republicans have a lost cause to defend.

Er, this is simply not the case. After Sandy Hook, support for gun control surged to 2005 levels. It was much higher in the '90s and there was still a backlash to the Assault Weapons Ban. The general trend has been, very fast, towards less and less support for gun control, with short, sharp peaks in the aftermath of mass shootings (although the peaks are getting shorter, too). The data here is not on your side, my friend; if current trends continue, within 15 years or so being pro-gun will be a Democratic Party litmus test (and being pro-gay will be a Republican Party litmus test, and it will be impossible to win without doing passably well among Hispanics; the future's not all bad).

Wishful thinking. You are stuck with him as President, and he has been adept at pushing public opinion when it seems to work.

Er, not really. Obama's been adept at getting himself elected, but otherwise his attempts at manipulating public opinion on policy (health-care is the most notable case, but not the only one) have been feeble at best. We're only stuck with him till 2017, bro.

If Republicans are saddled with unpopular positions, they lose.

If Republicans are saddled with unpopular positions, their vote totals decline. Whether they are saddled with unpopular positions to a greater extent than the Democrats are is arguable, and in any case they still win if Democratic vote totals decline further. Keep in mind that people have a tendency to blame the President's party for misfortune even if Congress is controlled by other party outright (see 1958, 1974, 1982, 2008), so Democrats are more likely than Republicans to be saddled by general governmental unpopularity. Democratic vote totals will also decline if they continue to pursue gun control legislation (I've noticed a lack of emphasis on this recently in the press, however; the Democrats aren't going to just piss away votes). 'Republicans saddled with unpopular positions' do not exist in a vacuum.

Vosem, PVIs in AZ (like those in IL) are skewed by who ran in 2008.

Still. Romney lost the nation by 4 points. Kirkpatrick's district voted for Romney by 2 points; making it 6 points more Republican the nation as a whole; an equivalent Democratic district would've voted Obama by 10 points. Not impossible for the Republicans (Valadao and loBiondo are in such districts), but very difficult and only isolated cases.

It would not make AZ-01 six points more Republican than the nation as a whole.  If Romney got 47% nationally and 50% in AZ-01, it would be three points more Republican than the nation as a whole.

You're comparing percentages and I'm comparing margins. As the Reverend Herman Cain would say, it's like apples and oranges.

In 1958, the Democratic Congress was hugely popular and closer to Eisenhower than Republicans were.  In 1974, again, the Democratic Congress had very high approval ratings(something like 42% approval to 30% disapprove, which is huge for Congress) and this was in the immediate aftermath of one of the biggest Presidential scandals in US history. 

1982 was actually a pretty standpat year outside of the House(and governorships due to the a lot of Republican deadwood coming up from their good year in 1978).  More than two thirds of Democrats' House gains that year came from gerrymanders in Calfornia(which gave them about ten seats alone), Florida and New Jersey and getting lucky by having judges pick Democratic maps in Michigan and Illinois. 

2008 was a situation where by the time the election rolled around, Bush, the economy and Republicans were just so toxic that it its amazing that they didnt lose even more seats.  Throw in the fact that this was also a Presidential year where the turnout situation is different. 

OK. But you're still not disputing my basic point (and backing it up with your summary of '08) which is that when things go south and one party controls the Presidency and another Congress, people usually blame the presidential party.

If Obama's approval rating is 19 percent in 2014, as Bush's was in 2008, then would agree that it would be a GOP wave.

[Vosem]

The Sandy Hook massacre came after the election. Maybe you think that President Obama went demagogue... but Republicans have a lost cause to defend.

Er, this is simply not the case. After Sandy Hook, support for gun control surged to 2005 levels. It was much higher in the '90s and there was still a backlash to the Assault Weapons Ban. The general trend has been, very fast, towards less and less support for gun control, with short, sharp peaks in the aftermath of mass shootings (although the peaks are getting shorter, too). The data here is not on your side, my friend; if current trends continue, within 15 years or so being pro-gun will be a Democratic Party litmus test (and being pro-gay will be a Republican Party litmus test, and it will be impossible to win without doing passably well among Hispanics; the future's not all bad).

Wishful thinking. You are stuck with him as President, and he has been adept at pushing public opinion when it seems to work.

Er, not really. Obama's been adept at getting himself elected, but otherwise his attempts at manipulating public opinion on policy (health-care is the most notable case, but not the only one) have been feeble at best. We're only stuck with him till 2017, bro.

If Republicans are saddled with unpopular positions, they lose.

If Republicans are saddled with unpopular positions, their vote totals decline. Whether they are saddled with unpopular positions to a greater extent than the Democrats are is arguable, and in any case they still win if Democratic vote totals decline further. Keep in mind that people have a tendency to blame the President's party for misfortune even if Congress is controlled by other party outright (see 1958, 1974, 1982, 2008), so Democrats are more likely than Republicans to be saddled by general governmental unpopularity. Democratic vote totals will also decline if they continue to pursue gun control legislation (I've noticed a lack of emphasis on this recently in the press, however; the Democrats aren't going to just piss away votes). 'Republicans saddled with unpopular positions' do not exist in a vacuum.

Vosem, PVIs in AZ (like those in IL) are skewed by who ran in 2008.

Still. Romney lost the nation by 4 points. Kirkpatrick's district voted for Romney by 2 points; making it 6 points more Republican the nation as a whole; an equivalent Democratic district would've voted Obama by 10 points. Not impossible for the Republicans (Valadao and loBiondo are in such districts), but very difficult and only isolated cases.

It would not make AZ-01 six points more Republican than the nation as a whole.  If Romney got 47% nationally and 50% in AZ-01, it would be three points more Republican than the nation as a whole.

You're comparing percentages and I'm comparing margins. As the Reverend Herman Cain would say, it's like apples and oranges.

In 1958, the Democratic Congress was hugely popular and closer to Eisenhower than Republicans were.  In 1974, again, the Democratic Congress had very high approval ratings(something like 42% approval to 30% disapprove, which is huge for Congress) and this was in the immediate aftermath of one of the biggest Presidential scandals in US history. 

1982 was actually a pretty standpat year outside of the House(and governorships due to the a lot of Republican deadwood coming up from their good year in 1978).  More than two thirds of Democrats' House gains that year came from gerrymanders in Calfornia(which gave them about ten seats alone), Florida and New Jersey and getting lucky by having judges pick Democratic maps in Michigan and Illinois. 

2008 was a situation where by the time the election rolled around, Bush, the economy and Republicans were just so toxic that it its amazing that they didnt lose even more seats.  Throw in the fact that this was also a Presidential year where the turnout situation is different. 

OK. But you're still not disputing my basic point (and backing it up with your summary of '08) which is that when things go south and one party controls the Presidency and another Congress, people usually blame the presidential party.

If Obama's approval rating is 19 percent in 2014, as Bush's was in 2008, then would agree that it would be a GOP wave.

Obama's approval doesn't have to be 19. 35-40%, even low 40s, should be enough to take the Senate with high single digit number of gains and 10-20 House seats.