Posted on 10/02/2014 8:08:05 AM PDT by GonzoII
What may have happened is this: Over the summer Democrats used their money advantage to savage Republican opponents. When spending got equalized in September, Republicans’ numbers rose.So Republicans retain big leads to pick up three open seats in states carried by Mitt Romney —West Virginia, Montana and South Dakota. Republican nominees have moved ahead of three Democratic incumbents in Romney states (Alaska, Arkansas, and Louisiana) and in two target states carried by President Obama (Colorado and Iowa).
Only in North Carolina, which Romney narrowly carried, has the Republican not yet overtaken the incumbent Democrat Sen. Kay Hagan — and her edge is narrowing in the most recent polls.
Psephologists used to have a rule that incumbents running below 50 percent against lesser known challengers would inevitably lose. Everyone knows them, the logic went, and half aren’t voting for them.
That rule doesn’t seem to apply anymore, but perhaps another one does. The RealClearPolitics average of recent polls puts Democratic incumbents in these five states at 41 to 44 percent of the vote.
In seriously contested races in the last six Senate cycles, starting with 2002, only two incumbents polling at that level in September ended up winning. One was appointed to an open seat and thus probably not widely known. Both ended up with less than 50 percent and won by plurality.
Psephological rules are made to be broken, sooner or later. Polls can fluctuate. Events or campaigning can change attitudes. Democrats now trailing might win Republican seats in Kentucky or Georgia. Or the former Democrat running as an Independent in Kansas could win and cast the deciding vote for Democrats. There are ways they can hold their Senate majority. But most likely they won’t.
That should settle the ongoing argument in psephological circles about whether this is a “wave” year. Some argued that since Republicans were expected to gain only a few seats in the House — something the insiders pretty much agree on — and since they were by no means certain of winning a Senate majority, it might not be a wave at all.
But it depends on what your benchmark is. In 2012 Republicans won 234 House seats — the second most they’ve won since 1946, just behind the 242 in 2010. Expecting them to gain anything like the 63 seats they did in 2010 or the 52 in 1994 was always unrealistic.
As for Senate elections, the Republicans entered this cycle down 55 to 45. It’s noteworthy when well-informed analysts give a party a better than even chance of making a net gain of six Senate seats, as they have throughout this cycle. I can’t remember consensus predictions of six-Senate-seat gains in 1974, 1980, 1994 or 2006 — all now regarded as wave years.
All of which is to say that focusing too closely on fluctuations in the polls risks losing sight of the bigger picture. Rewind back five years: The Obama Democrats expected their major policies to be popular.
They expected that most voters would be grateful for the stimulus package, for Obamacare, for raising the tax rate on high earners. They aren’t.
Democrats expected that running for re-election they’d be running ads touting these genuine accomplishments. They aren’t. Instead you get personal attacks on Republican nominees and oldie-but-supposedly-goodie reprises of the “war on women” theme.
Out in Colorado about half of Democrat Mark Udall’s TV spots have been on abortion. Even liberal commentators are questioning whether that’s smart. But maybe the Udall consultants sitting around the table can’t come up with anything better.
Early in the 2010 cycle, Barack Obama told an Arkansas House Democrat that he needn’t worry about voters because “you’ve got me.” Today all four Arkansas House seats are held by Republicans. Democratic Senate candidates in multiple states have been shunning Obama campaign appearances.
We’re watching a wave come in. We just can’t be sure how far it goes.
But then it would be an impure, illegitimate wave, according to the SAVE HARRY REID club.
I’ve heard this enthusiasm before. If the GOP thinks it is going to cause a ripple, it will do something to prevent it. Forget about a wave.
Conservatives do not vote for Democrats.
*unless they are running against Mitch McConnell or John Boehner
Interesting. Mr. Barone mentions nothing about voter fraud. Personally, I’m more concerned about voter fraud than I am about personalities.
He who counts the votes has ultimate power.
“Early in the 2010 cycle, Barack Obama told an Arkansas House Democrat that he needn’t worry about voters because “you’ve got me.” Today all four Arkansas House seats are held by Republicans.”
Better put some ice on that, Dimwits.
Midterm elections are not the same as presidential elections. The electorate in midterm elections tends to be much smaller than in presidential elections. The electorate also tends to somewhat older, whiter, more disciplined, and more conservative, therefore much more Republican. Not good news for the Dems.
Further, even more worrisome from the Dems are historical trends and voting patterns. Midterm elections almost always favor the party out of power. This is even more pronounced in the sixth year of an incumbent administration. Consider the following:
In 1958, the 6th year of the Eisenhower Administration, the Dems scored huge gains in the midterm election that year.
In 1966, the 6th year of the JKF-LBJ Administrations, the GOP scored huge gains in the midterm election that year.
In 1974, the 6th year of the Nixon-Ford Administrations, the Dems scored huge gains in the midterm election that year.
In 1986, the 6th year of the RR Administration, the Dems scored huge gains in the midterm election that year.
In 1998, the 6th year of the Clinton Administration, the GOP did not do so well, but that is because they already scored huge gains in the 1994 midterm election and managed to hold on to them throughout the remainder of the Clinton Administration.
In 2006, the 6th year of the GWB Administration, the Dems scored huge gains in the midterm election that year.
Polls fluctuate back and forth which each passing day, but historical patterns remain relatively constant. Why should this year be any different? Further, Dems are hampered by the fact that they must defend so many US Senate seats in red states carried by McCain and MR where BHO’s poll ratings are even lower than the national average. No wonder the Dems are crapping bricks this year.
And McConnell “declared war” on conservatives.
IMHO, that right there should be enough to guarantee his loss.
On which day did US Military Commander in Chief B. Hussein Obama effectively stop defending the United States of America?
A. The day after Osama Bin Laden was killed.
B. The day after B. Hussein retreated from Iraq.
C. The day after B. Hussein retreated from his Syrian “Redline” Strategy.
D. The day after B. Hussein admitted that he had no strategy toward the Islamic State.
E. Other (no profanity please).
However far it goes; we can be sure of one thing. The GOPe will find a way to screw it up.
Check out the polls and predictions for Ohio.
I think I will save my Comments on this until the day after the Election.
My lack of Faith in the Electorate will not allow me to be caught up in the hope that people are bright enough to realize what a disaster the Democrat Party is.
Remember, THEY LIVE, and we’re the only ones wearing the Sunglasses.
I hope so too, but I wouldn't be surprised to see GOP-e Peanuts try to kick Democrat Lucy's football for the umpteenth time.
Some Republicans can only remember the defeats.
Bookmark
Conservatives do not vote for Democrats.
*unless they are running against Mitch McConnell or John Boehner
______________________________________________________________________________________
Or Thad Cockroach in Mississippi
Into the toilet?
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.