Posted on 07/24/2014 11:24:35 AM PDT by cotton1706
Analysts always strain to generalize about elections. We want to “model” them, find the common elements, and project them as early as possible based on the commonalities. That’s a legitimate approach, but we need always remember that every election is different. Every single one.
It isn’t just the candidates that change up, or the specific events that end up defining an election season, or the particulars about presidential and congressional job approval. In midterm elections, especially, the combination of competitive districts and states varies greatly, expanding or contracting the potential for change.
Last year, and even in the beginning of 2014, we and others were inclined to think that 2014 would be another wave midterm, like 2006 or 2010. After all, it’s the “sixth-year itch” of the Obama administration — always a dangerous time for the White House party — and President Obama’s popularity had been sinking well below the 50% level. Then there was the Senate map for 2014. Arguably, this year features the best lineup for the Republicans since 1980. Almost all — some would say all — of the GOP’s 15 Senate seats are either in the bag or will be by Election Day, owing to the Red nature of the states. By contrast, many of the 21 Democratic seats are located in Red or Purple states, some with shaky incumbents and others left vacant for easy Republican pickup. Finally, midterm turnout usually (not always) favors Republicans, with poor turnouts registered by Democratic-leaning groups such as minorities and the young versus decent turnouts by GOP cohorts, including whites and those over age 60.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
The best outcome would be for the republicans to retake the senate while losing McConnell, Graham and Cochran. That means nine seats, AK, AR, LA, WV, MT, MN, IA, NC, MI, CO, with VA, NH and OR as unlikely possibilities.
Will it be the year that Harry The Reid goes home for good ?
No.
There is too much Anti-Bush on the brain in this Larry Sabato article to even take it serious at the moment.
Historical voting patterns clearly demonstrate that the Party out of power usually make significant gains in midterm elections. This is especially pronounced in the 6th year of an incumbent administration. Consider the following facts:
In 1958 (6th year of the Eisenhower Administration) the Democrats scored a massive victory in the midterm elections.
In 1966 (6th year of the JFK-LBJ Administrations) the GOP scored a massive victory in the midterm elections.
In 1974 (6th year of the Nixon-Ford Administrations) the Democrats scored a massive victory in the midterm elections.
In 1986 (6th year of the Reagan Administration) the Democrats scored a massive victory in the midterm elections retaking the US Senate.
In 1998 (6th year of the Clinton Administration) the GOP did not score huge gains, but that is mainly because they scored a massive victory already in the 1994 midterm elections and managed to keep control of both the House and Senate for the last six years of the Clinton Administration.
In 2006 (6th year of the Bush Administration) the Democrats scored a massive gain in the midterm elections taking both the House and the US Senate.
Polls fluctuate back and forth. But historical patterns remain relatively constant over the years. The Dems are particularly vulnerable defending US Senate seats in a large number of red states carried by both McCain and MR where BHO poll ratings are even lower than the national level. This probably explains BHO’s obsession with fundraising. They know they know they are in deep do do.
Harry the horse or Mitch the Beo... No difference
Or, as coulter erringly says about McDaniel and Cochran, not a dimes worth of difference
Conservative takeover? Big diff. All forces are against that.
Harry the horse or Mitch the Beo... No difference
Or, as coulter erringly says about McDaniel and Cochran, not a dimes worth of difference
Conservative takeover? Big diff. All forces are against that.
I have refused to allow myself any elation at all over the prospect of the GOP strengthening its hold on the House and winning the Senate.
Because that joy would soon melt into nausea when that little turtle, McConnell, waves his chubby arms in victory on election night. With him as Senate majority leader and Boo-Hoo Boehner as Speaker, there can be no real victory for conservatives.
Have to agree with Sabato. I don’t see this lining up as some big Repub year as earlier predicted. There is no excitement here in NH, in what should be a competitive race. Shaheen seems now to be running away with it, incredibly. Also, the Tea Party is not fired up like it was in 2010. And if you look at each contest singularly, the Dems are holding their own in the 4 big (red state) races that were supposed to be slam dunks for the GOP - LA, NC, AR, AK. All four are dead heats. Repubs basically have 3 locked up (WV, MT, and ND). But that’s it. They could win 3 or 9.
Golly gee, why wouldn’t there be any excitement in New Hampshire?? Could it be because of liberal republican Scott Brown?? He and Charlie Baker here in MA certainly know how to depress the republican electorate. They do it on purpose, to suppress any groundswell.
NH used to be a conservative leaning state.
Not anymore. It usually goes the way of its neighbors.
+4 for the GOP is where I strongly believe it’ll all shake out.
I think they're sufficiently fired up, but we're simply being increasingly outnumbered by democrat voters. We don't have the numbers we once did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.