Rothenberg: 2014 = 2010, GOP gaining (at least) 7 seats
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:31:48 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Rothenberg: 2014 = 2010, GOP gaining (at least) 7 seats
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Rothenberg: 2014 = 2010, GOP gaining (at least) 7 seats  (Read 1780 times)
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 08, 2014, 02:03:31 PM »

Even though thats not what his own ratings suggest...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,967
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2014, 02:05:41 PM »

I think they gain 7 but that's all they are getting unless they win Iowa or Colorado. I just don't think winning 7 Romney states is a big accomplishment and if Dems win several swing state governorships in PA, WI, FL, MI it's a problem for GOP.
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,609


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2014, 02:10:31 PM »

It does seem like the swing seats are falling away from the Dems, but yeah - I put that more on hostile terrain after the massive swing of 2008. The Reps will be facing a similar situation, although with less to defend, in 2016.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2014, 02:13:04 PM »

2014 isn't looking like 2010 at all, but okay. If it were, Republicans would be picking up 10+ seats. Right now they're only winning, in some cases only by a few points, Senate races in states that Romney carried by 10-20 or more points.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2014, 02:13:14 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

- Stu Rothenberg, April 2009
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2014, 02:15:04 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

- Stu Rothenberg, April 2009

Eh, I don't think people saw a GOP wave coming in April of 2009, to be fair to Rothenberg.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2014, 02:17:02 PM »

Well,
Rothenberg really needs to update its rankings haha.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2014, 02:18:14 PM »



But yeah, this is definitely 2010 2.0, real good analysis Stu.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2014, 02:20:17 PM »



But yeah, this is definitely 2010 2.0, real good analysis Stu.

Stu feels the vibrations just like Peggy Noonan. I wonder if he's polled the yard signs yet?
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2014, 02:27:11 PM »

Liiiiiiiiiiief,
The problem is that the 2014 senate map is much worse than the 2010 senate map for the dems Sad.
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,967
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2014, 02:29:59 PM »

I just don't see it as a GOP big year if they can't even win an open seat in swing state Iowa and lost several incumbent Govs in swing states. One (Corbett) is already cooked.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2014, 02:34:12 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

- Stu Rothenberg, April 2009

Eh, I don't think people saw a GOP wave coming in April of 2009, to be fair to Rothenberg.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2014, 02:35:25 PM »

Liiiiiiiiiiief,
The problem is that the 2014 senate map is much worse than the 2010 senate map for the dems Sad.

Well, right. Even in a Democratic year, Republicans would probably still be picking up some seats. But it's not a wave if Republicans just win Senate seats in states that Mitt Romney won by double digits. If this were really a wave they would be picking up IA, CO, NC, NH, etc. and wouldn't be losing governor's races in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Kansas, etc.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2014, 02:37:52 PM »

At this point in 2010, the polling was more favorable to Republicans. Right now, they aren't running up the sort of numbers they were then, let alone anywhere close to wave numbers.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2014, 02:45:01 PM »
« Edited: September 08, 2014, 02:48:49 PM by windjammer »

Liiiiiiiiiiief,
The problem is that the 2014 senate map is much worse than the 2010 senate map for the dems Sad.

Well, right. Even in a Democratic year, Republicans would probably still be picking up some seats. But it's not a wave if Republicans just win Senate seats in states that Mitt Romney won by double digits. If this were really a wave they would be picking up IA, CO, NC, NH, etc. and wouldn't be losing governor's races in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Kansas, etc.
Well, you're right,
You're always right!

EDIT: Oh and by the way, if republicans won all rep and toss seats with rothenberg, they would just pick 6 seats. Funny
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2014, 02:50:29 PM »

Liiiiiiiiiiief,
The problem is that the 2014 senate map is much worse than the 2010 senate map for the dems Sad.

Well, right. Even in a Democratic year, Republicans would probably still be picking up some seats. But it's not a wave if Republicans just win Senate seats in states that Mitt Romney won by double digits. If this were really a wave they would be picking up IA, CO, NC, NH, etc. and wouldn't be losing governor's races in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Kansas, etc.

Which are all still very competitive
Which is also very competitive and tilting Walker
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2014, 02:52:23 PM »

Just to add to the mix, Iowa appears to be trending Pub now - as reflected in the changing party registration figures in part. At the moment, Iowa appears to be politically in equipoise, rather than lean Dem. That is what can happen in part, when a place is very light on the ground when it comes to persons of color and hip/green whites. Colorado on the other hand is trending the other way, due to the fact that hip young whites and green whites (the two groups overlap of course) are migrating there, along with more Hispanic voters. That state is only in play this year because of the Pub tilt of this election cycle, and the Pubs having an excellent candidate. Just my two cents anyway.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2014, 02:54:16 PM »

Just to add to the mix, Iowa appears to be trending Pub now - as reflected in the changing party registration figures in part. At the moment, Iowa appears to be politically in equipoise, rather than lean Dem. That is what can happen in part, when a place is very light on the ground when it comes to persons of color and hip/green whites. Colorado on the other hand is trending the other way, due to the fact that hip young whites and green whites (the two groups overlap of course) are migrating there, along with more Hispanic voters. That state is only in play this year because of the Pub tilt of this election cycle, and the Pubs having an excellent candidate. Just my two cents anyway.

Prepared to be met with cries of NO YOU'RE WRONG
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 08, 2014, 03:07:30 PM »

Liiiiiiiiiiief,
The problem is that the 2014 senate map is much worse than the 2010 senate map for the dems Sad.

Well, right. Even in a Democratic year, Republicans would probably still be picking up some seats. But it's not a wave if Republicans just win Senate seats in states that Mitt Romney won by double digits. If this were really a wave they would be picking up IA, CO, NC, NH, etc. and wouldn't be losing governor's races in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Kansas, etc.

Which are all still very competitive
Which is also very competitive and tilting Walker

Burke was leading in 3 of the last 4 polls.
Logged
SamInTheSouth
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 389


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2014, 03:10:01 PM »

I think they gain 7 but that's all they are getting unless they win Iowa or Colorado. I just don't think winning 7 Romney states is a big accomplishment and if Dems win several swing state governorships in PA, WI, FL, MI it's a problem for GOP.

I think Ernst is going to win in Iowa.

The Dems have put Pennsylvania away in the gubernatorial race.  I think Florida and Michigan will ultimately not flip.  Developments in Wisconsin, however, have gotten interesting.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 08, 2014, 03:11:21 PM »

Liiiiiiiiiiief,
The problem is that the 2014 senate map is much worse than the 2010 senate map for the dems Sad.

Well, right. Even in a Democratic year, Republicans would probably still be picking up some seats. But it's not a wave if Republicans just win Senate seats in states that Mitt Romney won by double digits. If this were really a wave they would be picking up IA, CO, NC, NH, etc. and wouldn't be losing governor's races in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Kansas, etc.

Which are all still very competitive
Which is also very competitive and tilting Walker

Burke was leading in 3 of the last 4 polls.

That were questionable, WAA in particular, and it is an anti-Democrat year. To be fair, I should have put a pure tossup
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 08, 2014, 03:12:30 PM »

I think they gain 7 but that's all they are getting unless they win Iowa or Colorado. I just don't think winning 7 Romney states is a big accomplishment and if Dems win several swing state governorships in PA, WI, FL, MI it's a problem for GOP.

I think Ernst is going to win in Iowa.

The Dems have put Pennsylvania away in the gubernatorial race.  I think Florida and Michigan will ultimately not flip.  Developments in Wisconsin, however, have gotten interesting.

Wisconsin has gotten VERY fun to watch, since I feel split between the two on issues. My money is still with Walker only because I feel he would be a strong contender in 16
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 08, 2014, 03:18:50 PM »

No dude, the point is that it's explicitly NOT an anti-Democratic year. That is the point we are trying to make here, and the point that Stu is sweeping under the rug in an effort to make some grand statement about how this year is just 2010 redux.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2014, 03:23:51 PM »

No dude, the point is that it's explicitly NOT an anti-Democratic year. That is the point we are trying to make here, and the point that Stu is sweeping under the rug in an effort to make some grand statement about how this year is just 2010 redux.

It's not 2010 again. That much is clear. But at the same time, Obama is unpopular and sentiment against both parties is high , but since Dems have a vulnerable senate, it is drifting towards Pubs
Logged
NHLiberal
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 790


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 08, 2014, 03:30:11 PM »
« Edited: September 08, 2014, 03:34:03 PM by NHLiberal »

No dude, the point is that it's explicitly NOT an anti-Democratic year. That is the point we are trying to make here, and the point that Stu is sweeping under the rug in an effort to make some grand statement about how this year is just 2010 redux.

Exactly-- it's a "reversion to the mean year," with a slight Democratic disadvantage overall (a large disadvantage in the Senate and a medium advantage in governorships) due to an unpopular Democratic president in his 6th year with reduced midterm turnout. If it was an explicitly anti-Democratic year, Republicans would be strong favorites in an open-seat in swing state Iowa, to defeat an incumbent with mediocre approvals in light red North Carolina, and to defeat an incumbent in dark red Alaska. Meanwhile, they would have stronger outlooks in an open seat in Michigan and against incumbents with modest approvals in Colorado and New Hampshire (where they also would have recruited a better candidate). Meanwhile, they wouldn't be at heavy risk of losing governorships in Florida, Maine, KANSAS, GEORGIA, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Finally, their house outlook would be better than single digit gains.

Republicans picking up 7 seats in Republican states does not a good year make. Because a lot of the potential Republican gains in the Senate are simply explained by normalization from 2008, just like a lot of the potential Democratic gains in the governorships are explained by normalization from 2010. The House is a bit more complex, due to being up every two years and the gerrymandering, but the fact that neither party is likely to flip more than a handful of seats backs this up. For it to truly be a good Republican night or an anti-Democratic year like you contend, Republicans would have to win a couple of Senate seats in Obama states, experience a net gain in governorships (for example, picking up CT, IL, and AR while only losing PA and ME, though that's just one scenario and they could still hold Maine), and do a bit better in the House than they look to do right now (the House expectations are still lower since they pretty much maxed out in 2010).

Does that make sense?



EDIT:


No dude, the point is that it's explicitly NOT an anti-Democratic year. That is the point we are trying to make here, and the point that Stu is sweeping under the rug in an effort to make some grand statement about how this year is just 2010 redux.

It's not 2010 again. That much is clear. But at the same time, Obama is unpopular and sentiment against both parties is high , but since Dems have a vulnerable senate, it is drifting towards Pubs

Exactly. What you just described is not an anti-Democratic year, "it's a reversion to the mean with a slight Democratic disadvantage overall (a large disadvantage in the Senate and a medium advantage in governorships) due to an unpopular Democratic President in his 6th year with reduced midterm turnout", exactly what I said it is.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 13 queries.