Posted on 08/22/2010 5:11:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
Late last week the premier polling site, FiveThirtyEight, tweeted somberly: “I don't think people fully comprehend how scary the generic ballot numbers are for Democrats.”
The biggest sway away from Democrats is coming from independent voters.
The latest Gallup results give Republicans the broadest spread over Democrats in the history of generic-ballot polling. It’s also the first time the GOP has hit the magic 50 percent in the history of Gallup’s generic ballot.
"For independent voters, it's like the rock-paper-scissors game,” says Democratic strategist Steve McMahon. “They want bi-partisan solutions and smart policy. But right now, a 'no' to more spending beats a 'yes' to good policy, and that's the environment Democrats now find themselves in."
Despite expectations, especially given today’s political environment and intense media coverage, congressional elections are not typically competitive.
On average, about 95 percent of House members win reelection. This high rate is not simply about an incumbent's advantages (name recognition, fundraising, weak challengers) but it is also about the large number of uncompetitive seats.
Gerrymandering (partisan and racial) and demographics have helped to concentrate political competition into about 20 percent of House districts, or some 90 seats.
“The national political parties prefer this situation because it means that there are fewer districts that they have to contest, and it also tends to reduce the electoral uncertainty,” explains Dr. Lara Brown, author of Jockeying for the American Presidency.
Brown, an expert in electoral competition, explains it this way: Assume that in those 90 competitive seats, half are held by each party. For one party to gain 40 seats, it must win nearly all the competitive seats held by the opposition while retaining nearly all its competitive seats.
“This is a formidable task,” she warns, “which is why the majority control of the House does not switch that often.”
This was not the case in the 19th century, when four of the more interesting House shifts occurred from 1888 to 1894.
In 1888 Benjamin Harrison beat Grover Cleveland (who, in 1884, became the first Democrat elected president since before the Civil War). Republicans also won the House, with 179 of its 332 seats.
In 1890 – Harrison's midterm election – Republicans lost their majority. When the new House convened, they held only 86 of 332 seats; Democrats held 238 and Populists, 8.
Two years later, after reapportionment and some redistricting to account for the addition of about 25 seats, Democrats lost a few seats to Republicans even though Cleveland beat Harrison for the presidency.
Then came the financial panic of 1893 and, in Cleveland's midterm year, Democrats went from holding 218 to just 93 of the House’s 357 seats.
Between 1892 and 1894, Democrats lost 125 House seats, about 35 percent of the total.
“Right now, if the Democrats lost 35 percent of the seats in the House, we would be looking at them losing over 150 seats,” said Brown, “which is not even close to the number – about 50 seats – that most prognosticators consider to be the high end of potential Democratic losses.”
How does this relate to today?
First, the number of even minimally competitive seats in 2010 (the average among an aggregation of experts is 30; Republicans need 39 to win the majority) remains relatively small, considering that the country’s founders likely imagined many more regularly would be competitive.
The House was intended originally to be more competitive so that it would be more representative of the people's will – not representative of partisan ideologues who are safely, frequently reelected.
“Unfortunately, neither political party is interested in furthering that end and both conspire to concentrate the competition and limit the uncertainty of the biennial electoral outcomes,” said Brown.
Moreover, the volatility of the coming midterm election – and the reverse pattern witnessed in 2006 – is directly related to both parties following the advice of the majority of their members.
In 2006, President Bush’s low approval rating in his second midterm election brought a loss of House seats (and the majority) for Republicans. In 2008, the beginnings of today’s recession/depression expanded the Democrats’ hold on the House.
Given President Obama’s low approval rating, a poor economy, and the tradition of a president’s party losing House seats in midterms, Democrats are likely to lose a large number of seats this time.
Yet, thanks to gerrymandering and the number of congressional “safe seats,” we’re unlikely ever again to see the kinds of swings witnessed in the past.
I don't think the 'rats are afraid or scared, just unexpectedly surprised at their upcoming rejection.
I don't think the 'rats are afraid or scared, just unexpectedly surprised at their upcoming rejection.
No surprise,the politicians of both parties prefer this system.
I’m not sure that Obama is that concerned either - he knew that he had two years to get the machinery of his progressive movement passed by congress and under the supervision of the bureaucracy. After that, he only has to play defense and veto everything that the new congress sends him.
That, or they already have their fraud in place and ready to go. The Black Panther “case” showed them they can proceed with impunity.
And, you can never underestimate the Weepublican party’s ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
If the Republicans gain the majority, I have no doubt that he plans to use them as a scapegoat for the purpose of his own re-election.
VOTE FRAUD will be MORE RAMPANT than ever this year!!! The Dems will squeak thru.
‘...says Democratic strategist Steve McMahon. “They want bi-partisan solutions and smart policy...’
No, I don’t think that is what the public wants at all. They want the federal government to CUT IT OUT.
Stop with the massive expenditures. Stop with the mathematically impossible debt. Stop trying to control all possible outcomes of everything while compiling massive dossiers on everyone. Stop trying to prevent Americans from doing anything that upsets even a single nut case, freak or kook.
Let’s face it. The federal government is at least 50% too big, 50% too involved in our lives, 1000% too expensive, and without any discipline of any kind. We have 16 out of control intelligence agencies, 40+ out of control federal police agencies, our borders are effectively open to any criminal or terrorist who wishes to venture across them.
We have military deployments in over 100 foreign countries, the vast majority of whom are just sitting there, expensively twiddling their thumbs. The current government forbids us to harvest our own fuel, caught up in fantasies of controlling the atmosphere of the Earth with what amounts to tiny amounts of very improbable magic.
And the government is convinced that it is the source of all our prosperity, so much so that it is willing to pay the majority of the public to not work, but to spend. To do this it prints money with no basis in reality, and assures us we will all become rich if we just keep voting them into office.
The public has had enough. We don’t want “bipartisan solutions and smart policy”. The only solution we want is to pour an acidic solvent on most of the government and wash it down the drain.
The British coalition is showing the way, by firing every government employee they can catch.
And by George, I think they’ve got it!
Yep, Zer0’s still the Imam-in-Chief capable of issuing all sorts of Fatwas (E.O.’s).
I don’t there is enough possible to make a difference. This situation is like the sinking of the Titanic to the Dems. Their unsinkable ship of state is damaged beyond repair and is going to founder.
That the whole problem u Dems have Stevie, you are NOT promoting "Smart policy" you merely scream ignorant slogans rather then admit your ideological driven polices have completely failed.
PRAY...PRAY...PRAY.....only GOD can help us now.
Yep, it is TIME to DownSize DC!
Eliminate entire Departments (Education, EPA, etc.)
Force Congress and Senate to telecommute most of the year from their home district. Away from the Lobbyists and under the thumb of the electorate. Can you imagine the cost savings and it would forever change the center-of-gravity of the Federal Government.
I have been and we are seeing His hand move. We also need to repent.
Amen....we all have a lot to repent for.
Your tagline brings attention to the primary sin that this nation is under correction for now.
Sadly, so true.
Don’t be afraid to tell others the way it is.
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.