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.
