Democrats' Troubles: The Bigger Picture

Real Clear Politics ^ | October 7, 2010 | Sean Trende

[neverdem]

There's an old Wall Street saying that "even a dead cat will bounce if it falls from a great height," which brokers use to urge caution before investing in a company that seems to be on the rebound from a catastrophic fall.

In hindsight, the polling bounce we've seen for the Democrats in recent weeks will be viewed in that vein. The Democrats' fortunes in Senate races in California, Washington and Delaware have improved somewhat. Likewise, we've seen campaign polls showing Democrats like Chris Carney and Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin leading their GOP opponents, and independent polls showing Rick Boucher and Ben Chandler ahead.

But these developments obscure the bigger picture: overall, polling shows the Democrats in jeopardy of losing both chambers, and perhaps losing historic numbers of seats in the House.

Let's look first at the Senate. Any analysis must begin with the fact that this was never supposed to be a year where Republicans made massive gains, much less picked up the eleven seats that they needed to take the Senate (that number is now ten after Scott Brown's shocking win in Massachusetts in January). Democrats entered this cycle needing to protect only four seats in states in states that tilt Republican as measured by the Partisan Voting Index (PVI).

But consider the following table, which lays out the latest RealClearPolitics poll averages for each Democratic Senate incumbent, and the PVI of their state. When dealing with incumbents, it is much more important to look at the incumbents' number than the challengers' number, since undecideds usually break against the incumbent:

Note that the one Democratic incumbent in a Republican-leaning state is mired at 35 percent...

(I linked the printer friendly version which didn't have the tables. Here's the referenced tables.)

[M Kehoe]

Good evening. It does look bad for the Rats.

Although, I'm from the old school that states, you never calculate the number of fowl before incubation.

Then again, methinks on November 3, I will be partying like its 1894...

5.56mm

[BunnySlippers]

Party like it’s 1984! Yip!

[Tzimisce]

I think there is going to be a bunch of people on Nov 3 suddenly discovering that as of Jan they’re unemployed.

THANK GOD WE LIVE IN AN ECONOMIC OBAMA BOOM. :D

[HiTech RedNeck]

This is an insult to dead cats.

[meadsjn]

In the 1894 election, Republicans picked up 130 House seats; Democrats lost 125 House seats.

United States House of Representatives elections, 1894

[hershey]

A few random thoughts: Obama’s got to have an October surprise. Here in MA, we have the independent candidate for Gov., Tim Cahill (former democrat), claiming three former aids are now working in cahoots with Charlie Baker (republican candidate for Gov.), against him. Cahill is suing the three former aides. Independent Lt. Gov. candidate also quit two weeks ago, saying he was going to support Baker and the republican party. CBS affiliate channel 4, was breathless with this report and the fact that Charlie Baker hadn’t responded yet by 5 AM.

Meanwhile John Tierney, candidate for congress in the 10th district, including Gloucester, whose wife was sentenced to house confinement and a $2500 fine for money laundering and federal charges (more than $8 million in an account squirreled away for her brother, the ex-con thug now residing in Antigua.) She claimed she did it for ‘the children’ and her sick mother, or that might be her sick brother, and that John knew nothing. However, recent leaks suggest otherwise, and in any case, the sentence she received is ludicrous. Even John Conyers’ wife served prison time, but of course he’s black.

Back to Obama and the Oct. surprise. A terrorist attack? How would that play for him? I think voters would be furious with Obama.

[Jabba the Nutt]

"There's an old Wall Street saying that "even a dead cat will bounce if it falls from a great height," which brokers use to urge caution before investing in a company that seems to be on the rebound from a catastrophic fall."

Really? I thought a 'dead cat bounce' was no bounce at all, because dead cats just splat, they don't bounce.

[lentulusgracchus]

"Dead cat bounce" is old Wall Street Speak. Broken-down stocks that drop a lot often show a bounce when they hit their first new-rationalization level. But they can display that quick reaction on the way down to even more profound losses, in a "waterfall" effect.

It's a description of a suicide play for traders.

[SunkenCiv]

I'll be goin' to Disneyworld. ;') Thanks neverdem.

...polling shows the Democrats in jeopardy of losing both chambers, and perhaps losing historic numbers of seats in the House.

[TheOldLady]

They aren’t going to lose a darn thing if we don’t stop vote fraud.

[dforest]

Voter fraud keeps me from being too excited. I think the Nov 2nd election will be a nightmare before and after.

[TheOldLady]

Without question. The dims will be screaming, suing, and saying that we cheated if they lose a campaign. They’ll be recounting everywhere and “finding” ballots in car trunks and storage rooms all over the country. And they’ll do it right in our faces, knowing that we’re onto them, immune from our fury because they have many of our state attorneys general, and of course, the racist outlaw Holder.

We in deep dooo dooo. We will have to get out and vote in such numbers that they will be mathematically incapable of beating us.

Vote, vote, vote.