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

[Free Bird]

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.

[Free Bird]

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

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

[Free Bird]

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

[Free Bird]

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

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

[Free Bird]

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

[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.

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

[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.

[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

[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

[Free Bird]

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

Says the biased Democrat

[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.