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

[DrScholl]

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.

You are ignoring the poll that just came out today that showed Braley up four, from a pollster that showed Ernst up six previously.

[Torie]

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.

You are ignoring the poll that just came out today that showed Braley up four, from a pollster that showed Ernst up six previously.

Didn't know about it. Maybe attack ads are up are something. Polls do move around some based on whatever media offensives are in play at any given point sometimes.

[KCDem]

Hahahahahahaha...I was waiting for something like this from Rothenberg. One of the worst political prognosticators in history strikes again.

[Free Bird]

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.

Disadvantage = bad, right? What would you define as a "good" year? I'm saying this will be a good year for Pubs as much as 2012 was good for Dems. No 94 or 06, but still sizable. 7 seats isn't something to scoff at. Not trying to come off as mad, but we're really bickering over schemantics now.

[NHLiberal]

Disadvantage = bad, right? What would you define as a "good" year?

"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)."

I'm saying this will be a good year for Pubs as much as 2012 was good for Dems. No 94 or 06, but still sizable. 7 seats isn't something to scoff at.

It's not, but 7 seats in Romney states while losing governorships isn't exactly a banner year, either. I'm glad you acknowledge that it won't be a 94, an 06, or a 10, but look at the title of this thread. The implication that this will be a repeat of 2010, and your use of "anti-Democratic year," was the impetus for my post.

Not trying to come off as mad, but we're really bickering over schemantics now.

I don't see anything unreasonable about discussing what does or does not constitute a good year on an election forum.

[Free Bird]

Disadvantage = bad, right? What would you define as a "good" year?

"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)."

I'm saying this will be a good year for Pubs as much as 2012 was good for Dems. No 94 or 06, but still sizable. 7 seats isn't something to scoff at.

It's not, but 7 seats in Romney states while losing governorships isn't exactly a banner year, either. I'm glad you acknowledge that it won't be a 94, an 06, or a 10, but look at the title of this thread. The implication that this will be a repeat of 2010, and your use of "anti-Democratic year," was the impetus for my post.

Not trying to come off as mad, but we're really bickering over schemantics now.

I don't see anything unreasonable about discussing what does or does not constitute a good year on an election forum.

Which is very possible with IA and CO, the latter to a lesser extent.

And you know what, fair enough. Terminology is an okay thing to discuss

[Ogre Mage]

It is strange that Rothenberg is making predictions which contradict his own analysis.  It frankly looks like a crass attempt to get attention.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is absolutely not a wave year. Polling immediately after Labor Day tends to tell you the story. The 'vulnerable' seats are not moving away from the Dems (I mean some are behind... but not out of it), those that were line-ball before and during Summer are remaining so. This feels like more a set of local wars of attrition, than anything else.

Throw into the mix weeeeeird states like GA and even KS now... I think anyone claiming confidence as to how this is going to turn out, let alone the GOP picking up 5-8 seats is probably best waiting another month.

[Free Bird]

It is strange that Rothenberg is making predictions which contradict his own analysis.  It frankly looks like a crass attempt to get attention.

He outright said his analysis contradicts it, he's just giving his personal opinion before the "professional" update

[KCDem]

Republicans will not gain 7 seats. Take it to the bank.

[Free Bird]

Republicans will not gain 7 seats. Take it to the bank.

Says the biased Democrat

[KCDem]

Republicans will not gain 7 seats. Take it to the bank.

Says the biased Democrat

Says the one with more than half a brain.

[SWE]

Republicans will not gain 7 seats. Take it to the bank.

Says the biased Democrat

Says the one with more than half a brain.

SHOTS FIRED

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Republicans will not gain 7 seats. Take it to the bank.

Says the biased Democrat

Just because someone is politically aligned, doesn't mean that they're incapable of independent analysis.

I'd just really like every response from you to not be 'biased' or 'hack'.

[NHLiberal]

Republicans will not gain 7 seats. Take it to the bank.

Says the biased Democrat

Just because someone is politically aligned, doesn't mean that they're incapable of independent analysis.

I'd just really like every response from you to not be 'biased' or 'hack'.

Completely agree. That said, KCDem does frequently overstate Democratic chances so this is one instance where FH's assessment is actually legitimate. He also thinks Lincoln Chafee is popular.

[DrScholl]

3-5 is a more likely gain. Personally, I think 3 will be what the GOP gains.

[KCDem]

Republicans will not gain 7 seats. Take it to the bank.

Says the biased Democrat

Just because someone is politically aligned, doesn't mean that they're incapable of independent analysis.

I'd just really like every response from you to not be 'biased' or 'hack'.

Completely agree. That said, KCDem does frequently overstate Democratic chances so this is one instance where FH's assessment is actually legitimate. He also thinks Lincoln Chafee is popular.

Lincoln Chafee isn't unpopular enough to hurt Clay Pell among potentially persuadable Democratic primary voters. If he were, he wouldn't have endorsed Pell.

[NHLiberal]

Republicans will not gain 7 seats. Take it to the bank.

Says the biased Democrat

Just because someone is politically aligned, doesn't mean that they're incapable of independent analysis.

I'd just really like every response from you to not be 'biased' or 'hack'.

Completely agree. That said, KCDem does frequently overstate Democratic chances so this is one instance where FH's assessment is actually legitimate. He also thinks Lincoln Chafee is popular.

Lincoln Chafee isn't unpopular enough to hurt Clay Pell among potentially persuadable Democratic primary voters. If he were, he wouldn't have endorsed Pell.

Lol, whatever you say

[Mechaman]

3-5 is a more likely gain. Personally, I think 3 will be what the GOP gains.

This

[dmmidmi]

3-5 is a more likely gain. Personally, I think 3 will be what the GOP gains.

And the GOP will have to do some soul-searching. Again. Because they pissed away a bunch of winnable races. Again.

[backtored]

I don't see what is so sensationalistic about this at all. The GOP is widely favored to take back the Senate, and picking up one more seat along the way is hardly an earth-shattering prediction.

[Free Bird]

I don't see what is so sensationalistic about this at all. The GOP is widely favored to take back the Senate, and picking up one more seat along the way is hardly an earth-shattering prediction.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

I don't see what is so sensationalistic about this at all. The GOP is widely favored to take back the Senate, and picking up one more seat along the way is hardly an earth-shattering prediction.

It's basically been a coin toss this whole cycle, never fluctuating further than 55-45 and 45-55 odds for both sides. Both Dem hacks and Republican hacks both know it, even if they won't admit it.

[GaussLaw]

I don't see what is so sensationalistic about this at all. The GOP is widely favored to take back the Senate, and picking up one more seat along the way is hardly an earth-shattering prediction.

It's basically been a coin toss this whole cycle, never fluctuating further than 55-45 and 45-55 odds for both sides. Both Dem hacks and Republican hacks both know it, even if they won't admit it.

I think the GOP has retained a slight advantage by most forecasters, but I think they may be able to get to 7 or so, just based on the Generic Ballot right now really shifting GOP.