Open Your Mind to the Possibility of Another Midterm Mess for Democrats

[Torie]

Fabulous news!    This article is from Stu Rothenberg's number's man.

Moving right along, this sort of states the obvious, and one never knows, and the Pubs have perfected the art of fumbling the ball, and nominating road kill, into a veritable discordant dirge of disaster, and seem in the hunt to perhaps do that in a couple of places in 2014 with respect to Senate seats. That being said, it looks very inclement out there for Dems - very inclement - at the moment. If I had to guess, I would handicap the odds that the Dems will lose control of the Senate at about 50% at this point in time. But as the article states, 11 months is a long, long, time in politics. But also no, the Pubs won't be playing the threaten-to-shut-down-the-government-with-real-no- intention-of-doing-so-to-try-to-gain-leverage-that-they-don't-have game, so that lifeboat will not be available for the Dems.

[free my dawg]

Yeah, I'm beginning to believe this is a possibility. To be honest I think the only reason we don't lose it at this point is Broun sh**tting the bed.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Laundrieu and Begich are resilent enough to fend off challengers.

[Mr.Phips]

Sure, Dems could lose the Senate.  I could easily see six seats falling.  However, Democrats could really only fall another ten seats in the House.  You gotta remember that when Republicans Gerrymandered in 2012, they had to make the remaining Dem seats safer in order to protect their 2010 gains.  That is what insulates Democrats from a further major falloff there.

[Torie]

Sure, Dems could lose the Senate.  I could easily see six seats falling.  However, Democrats could really only fall another ten seats in the House.  You gotta remember that when Republicans Gerrymandered in 2012, they had to make the remaining Dem seats safer in order to protect their 2010 gains.  That is what insulates Democrats from a further major falloff there.

All correct, except that I would move the stop loss number for the Dems in the House up to a score myself. One problem is that many of the losers from Obamacare tend to be swing voters.

[NewYorkExpress]

I still think in a worst case scenario the Democrats will pick up either Kentucky or Georgia... but they'll lose a lot more seats maybe 7+ in the Senate.

In the House they'll lose at minimum 15 and at maximum 35... there isn't room for a massive wave  ala 2010...

[ElectionsGuy]

The article makes a very good point:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This could be very true. Right now, in the Senate, it looks like the absolute best scenario for the R's is to gain 9 seats, and the absolute worst is for the D's to gain 1 seat. In the House, the absolute best scenario for R's to gain around 20-25 seats, and the absolute worst is for R's to lose around 20  narrowly losing the House. Both of the fringes that I've described can happen, but I definitely don't think the republicans will do 2010 good, maybe in the Senate, but fur sure not in the House or Governorships.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Guys, we'll be fine.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's been at least a possibility for quite a while, surely? And so far at least that's all it remains: for better forecasting, we must wait. If we look back to 2006 and 2010, we ought to remember that the respective electoral routs only became 'obvious' in the summer, even if losses were always on the cards.

[Mr.Phips]

I still think in a worst case scenario the Democrats will pick up either Kentucky or Georgia... but they'll lose a lot more seats maybe 7+ in the Senate.

In the House they'll lose at minimum 15 and at maximum 35... there isn't room for a massive wave  ala 2010...

15 is probably the maximum.  There only like six Democrats in Romney/McCain districts left. To get gains above 15, Republicans would have to start winning districts Obama won by double digits, which Republicans couldnt even do in 2010.

[Mr.Phips]

Sure, Dems could lose the Senate.  I could easily see six seats falling.  However, Democrats could really only fall another ten seats in the House.  You gotta remember that when Republicans Gerrymandered in 2012, they had to make the remaining Dem seats safer in order to protect their 2010 gains.  That is what insulates Democrats from a further major falloff there.

All correct, except that I would move the stop loss number for the Dems in the House up to a score myself. One problem is that many of the losers from Obamacare tend to be swing voters.

I could see maybe 15 if things got horrendous.  Even then, Republicans would have to go a bit beyond swing voters and get some Dem base crossover support.

[Torie]

Sure, Dems could lose the Senate.  I could easily see six seats falling.  However, Democrats could really only fall another ten seats in the House.  You gotta remember that when Republicans Gerrymandered in 2012, they had to make the remaining Dem seats safer in order to protect their 2010 gains.  That is what insulates Democrats from a further major falloff there.

All correct, except that I would move the stop loss number for the Dems in the House up to a score myself. One problem is that many of the losers from Obamacare tend to be swing voters.

I could see maybe 15 if things got horrendous.  Even then, Republicans would have to go a bit beyond swing voters and get some Dem base crossover support.

And that is the thing. Look at the polling numbers for young people these days. The party's over. Of course, many may change their minds tomorrow, after the next binge, the next significant other, whatever. But this is all really, really tentative. They're volatile out there - discontented, mad, disappointed in the political class, worried, and yes, the Pub brand sucks at the moment. But throw the bums out, can be a powerful thing against the party perceived to be in power, when things go really wrong.

[Mr.Phips]

Sure, Dems could lose the Senate.  I could easily see six seats falling.  However, Democrats could really only fall another ten seats in the House.  You gotta remember that when Republicans Gerrymandered in 2012, they had to make the remaining Dem seats safer in order to protect their 2010 gains.  That is what insulates Democrats from a further major falloff there.

All correct, except that I would move the stop loss number for the Dems in the House up to a score myself. One problem is that many of the losers from Obamacare tend to be swing voters.

I could see maybe 15 if things got horrendous.  Even then, Republicans would have to go a bit beyond swing voters and get some Dem base crossover support.

And that is the thing. Look at the polling numbers for young people these days. The party's over. Of course, many may change their minds tomorrow, after the next binge, the next significant other, whatever. But this is all really, really tentative. They're volatile out there - discontented, mad, disappointed in the political class, worried, and yes, the Pub brand sucks at the moment. But throw the bums out, can be a powerful thing against the party perceived to be in power, when things go really wrong.

People know Republicans control the House and I think people are reluctant to give them more power, which wasnt the case in 2010.  This scenario would probably end up helping incumbents from both parties ironically. Swing voters sure as hell dont want to reward Obama, but the thought of even more Republicans in Congress after how they have behavedwould simply leave them giving incumbents of both parties the benefit of the doubt. 

[DrScholl]

There aren't another 60+ House seats Republicans can gain, at least not realistically. I'm probably going to get called all sorts of rude names for this, but Republicans would have to win a lot of 60+% Obama seats to make that happen, and that's just not possible. And I would not count on there not being another shutdown, there is absolutely no guarantee that there won't be another showdown over something.

[publicunofficial]

Sure, Dems could lose the Senate.  I could easily see six seats falling.  However, Democrats could really only fall another ten seats in the House.  You gotta remember that when Republicans Gerrymandered in 2012, they had to make the remaining Dem seats safer in order to protect their 2010 gains.  That is what insulates Democrats from a further major falloff there.

All correct, except that I would move the stop loss number for the Dems in the House up to a score myself. One problem is that many of the losers from Obamacare tend to be swing voters.

I could see maybe 15 if things got horrendous.  Even then, Republicans would have to go a bit beyond swing voters and get some Dem base crossover support.

And that is the thing. Look at the polling numbers for young people these days. The party's over. Of course, many may change their minds tomorrow, after the next binge, the next significant other, whatever. But this is all really, really tentative. They're volatile out there - discontented, mad, disappointed in the political class, worried, and yes, the Pub brand sucks at the moment. But throw the bums out, can be a powerful thing against the party perceived to be in power, when things go really wrong.

As a young person, I feel that the current mindset is "Obama is in over his head, but no way in hell am I going to vote Republican". They'll either vote Democrat or not at all.

[Mr.Phips]

There aren't another 60+ House seats Republicans can gain, at least not realistically. I'm probably going to get called all sorts of rude names for this, but Republicans would have to win a lot of 60+% Obama seats to make that happen, and that's just not possible. And I would not count on there not being another shutdown, there is absolutely no guarantee that there won't be another showdown over something.

Theyd have to win some 60% Obama seats just to get a gain of 30-35.

[Skill and Chance]

The president's party getting creamed in both midterms during a 2 term presidency is actually quite rare.  I think the Democrats will rebound from where they are now but still lose a few seats in both houses.  Not sure about Senate control either way yet.  Dems should gain governorships in any non-2010 scenario. 

[Skill and Chance]

The president's party getting creamed in both midterms during a 2 term presidency is actually quite rare.  I think the Democrats will rebound from where they are now but still lose a few seats in both houses.  Not sure about Senate control either way yet.  Dems should gain governorships in any non-2010 scenario. 

Reagan, his own party did not do well in '82 or '86.

Senate barely shifted in 1982, House barely shifted in 1986.  And Dem house gains in 1982 were pretty underwhelming.  The best example is Ike.  Although 1954 wasn't catastrophic for him, Dems did flip both chambers narrowly.  1958 was full on reverse 2010. 

[Meeker]

Could happen. Could rain that day, too.

[Vosem]

People who are making specific comparisons with 2010 are missing the point. Yes, the chances of Republicans gaining a net 63 seats in 2014 basically round to zero. A '2010-style election' means an election where the mindset of voters is similar to 2010, not necessarily where the results are similar. Because of the shifting political map, such would probably result in much smaller House gains (in the 20s, I would imagine) but much more significant Senate gains (in the high single digits) than what happened in 2010; the 'landslide' would be more similar in the numbers to a reverse 2008 in that regard. 63 House seats is more than Republicans are thinking of in their wildest dreams, while in a 2010-style atmosphere just 6 net Senate seats would almost be a letdown.

[Sbane]

Sure, Dems could lose the Senate.  I could easily see six seats falling.  However, Democrats could really only fall another ten seats in the House.  You gotta remember that when Republicans Gerrymandered in 2012, they had to make the remaining Dem seats safer in order to protect their 2010 gains.  That is what insulates Democrats from a further major falloff there.

All correct, except that I would move the stop loss number for the Dems in the House up to a score myself. One problem is that many of the losers from Obamacare tend to be swing voters.

I could see maybe 15 if things got horrendous.  Even then, Republicans would have to go a bit beyond swing voters and get some Dem base crossover support.

And that is the thing. Look at the polling numbers for young people these days. The party's over. Of course, many may change their minds tomorrow, after the next binge, the next significant other, whatever. But this is all really, really tentative. They're volatile out there - discontented, mad, disappointed in the political class, worried, and yes, the Pub brand sucks at the moment. But throw the bums out, can be a powerful thing against the party perceived to be in power, when things go really wrong.

It's hard to see young people actually turning out and voting for the GOP though. A lot will just not vote in 2014, in even larger numbers than the usual fall in turnout for midterm elections. Of course the conservative youngs will turn out in high numbers, making it seem like a change in ideology amongst the youngs, when that is not what is happening. Same could happen in 2016 if the Democratic candidate does not inspire them, but then a Republican might get into office which would engender a backlash.

[JacobNC]

I really wonder if a horrible midterm environment (thanks to Obamacare) for Democrats would hurt Mike McIntyre.  After all, he voted to repeal Obamacare forty-some times, so could that be an asset for him?

[DC Al Fine]

Sure, Dems could lose the Senate.  I could easily see six seats falling.  However, Democrats could really only fall another ten seats in the House.  You gotta remember that when Republicans Gerrymandered in 2012, they had to make the remaining Dem seats safer in order to protect their 2010 gains.  That is what insulates Democrats from a further major falloff there.

All correct, except that I would move the stop loss number for the Dems in the House up to a score myself. One problem is that many of the losers from Obamacare tend to be swing voters.

I could see maybe 15 if things got horrendous.  Even then, Republicans would have to go a bit beyond swing voters and get some Dem base crossover support.

And that is the thing. Look at the polling numbers for young people these days. The party's over. Of course, many may change their minds tomorrow, after the next binge, the next significant other, whatever. But this is all really, really tentative. They're volatile out there - discontented, mad, disappointed in the political class, worried, and yes, the Pub brand sucks at the moment. But throw the bums out, can be a powerful thing against the party perceived to be in power, when things go really wrong.

It's hard to see young people actually turning out and voting for the GOP though. A lot will just not vote in 2014, in even larger numbers than the usual fall in turnout for midterm elections. Of course the conservative youngs will turn out in high numbers, making it seem like a change in ideology amongst the youngs, when that is not what is happening. Same could happen in 2016 if the Democratic candidate does not inspire them, but then a Republican might get into office which would engender a backlash.

Exactly. I think the GOP will do well in 2014, but it will be off youngs and minorities not getting their butts to the polls.

[old timey villain]

I think it's really telling that one party does well when people don't vote while the other party does well when people do.

[J. J.]

I think it's really telling that one party does well when people don't vote while the other party does well when people do.

I think we are two a point where you could say that about either party.

My guess would be an 15-20 seat GOP gain in the House.  Senate, a 5-7 seat gain.