« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Sabato’s Crystal Ball predicts… DOOM for Congressional Democrats.

For a given value of 'DOOM.'

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  March 29th, 2012 at 02:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

They crunched some numbers, put together an equation or two, sacrificed three white cockerels to Moloch and came up with… the Democrats picking up three seats in the House, and losing seven in the Senate. Which will lead people all over the spectrum to write posts and articles all using a variant of the concept Yes, probably. (pause) But…

The actual equations themselves are a lot less impressive than they look, of course. I haven’t done statistics since grad school, but I can’t help but notice that the post in question doesn’t tell us when said equations successfully predicted the outcome of the 2006, 2008, and/or 2010 elections. If they were doing so at the end of March in those years, that’s one thing; it they were doing so two days before the elections in question, well, that’s another thing entirely. And if in March they were merely saying Well, the Democrats/Republicans are going to be in trouble this year then that is yet a third thing. In the first case we have an actually useful prediction; in the second we have a somewhat superfluous prediction; and in the third we simply have conventional wisdom all gussied up with some math.

Which is not to say that Sabato (actually, Alan Abramowitz) is wrong, here. I am actually expecting small losses in the House, myself: in 2010 we had a wave election that generally overturned the results of the two wave elections preceding it. The Republican-leaning seats that went Democratic in 2006 and 2008 have largely reverted back to the GOP, and Republican gains were mostly in fertile ideological territory anyway. A Democratic resurgence in 2012 is also hampered by what the kind would call ‘bad luck’ and the cruelly accurate would call ‘a karmic backlash:’ after the 2010 elections the redistricting process was mostly controlled by various state Republican parties. Between district reform and the need to respect Section V of the Voting Rights Act, the Democratic party were given relatively few opportunities to redraw the maps in ways that would fuel a fourth-in-a-row wave election. So I for one expect the usual churn; and net low single-digit loss sounds about right. Truth be told, freshmen Congressmen are traditionally considered vulnerable.

Likewise, gaining seven in the Senate sounds a bit high, but very possible. This is not only that the Democrats are defending twenty-three seats to the Republicans’ ten; this is also because there are either twelve (11D, 1R) or eighteen (13D, 5R) first term Senators (depending on how you score Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, West Virginia, and Wyoming) up for their first re-election fight; and there are ten Senators retiring (7D, 3R). That represents a large amount of churn for a Senate cycle, and it’s largely on the Democratic side: on the Republican side Maine is vulnerable, Massachusetts is theoretically vulnerable, Arizona is a long-shot for the Democrats… and that’s pretty much it. If I had to guess I would say that net +5 GOP would be fairly reasonable, given that the Senate is designed to minimize the reach of a wave election anyway. +7 GOP is not unreasonable; then again, +3 GOP wouldn’t surprise me either.

But all of that isn’t really based on numbers; it’s based on a feel for the races. That it fairly closely dovetails with an outside statistical analysis of favorability ratings and generic Congressional ballot races does not convince me that you can reduce the whole thing to a predictive model. Particularly one this far out…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Here are the things I look for:

  • Who is retiring? What positions do they have in Congress?
  • Who is suddenly retiring?
  • Who is getting recruited?
  • How crowded is the opposing party’s field?
  • Who is self-funding? (Self-funding candidates worry me slightly, when they’re on my side.)
  • And who just made a major howler in front of a video camera? – But this last one is mostly because I like to have fun while I’m doing this.
Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Finrod

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/327883.php

    All I can say in response to that is, from his lips to God’s ears.

  • acat

    Now, all we need is a decent-sized disconnect between the east and west coast libtards and we’ll have two regional parties vying for the name Democrat for long enough for the rest of us to save the country.

    Mew

  • izoneguy

    They should be referred to as “The New Socialists”….

    Nothing democratic about democrats…..

  • NeoKong

    I think we will gain seats in the House and at least ten seats in the Senate.

    Once we have a clear nominee and stop with all this primary nonsense thing will begin to gel solid for Republicans.
    If and when Romney is nominated with hopefully a VP that can make us swoon that will mobilize people to go support an actual ticket.
    Right now we have nothing but predictions.

    Once we can watch Romney and Obama side by side that is when the country will take clear unambiguous sides in this election.
    We will have a positive pro business,low tax candidate against an agitating angry community organizer who is still blaming others for his failures.
    The shine wore off on Obama and all he has is his horrible record, high unemployment and record gas prices.

    Hopefully Obamacare will be sinking in flames by then which will definitely hurt him after he gambled the Congress on it.
    All that drama and nothing to show for it will make a lot of lefties angry and they will blame him.

    On top of all that we may have the return of the unwashed army of the OWS goons and their union supported backers being as obnoxious as possible.
    It didn’t work in Wisconsin and I don’t think it will work this summer and fall.
    If they get crushed in Wisconsin in June with the recall it will be a demoralizing blow especially after all the time and money they spent.

    Also by then the media will be a laughing stock as they desperately try to tell us all to remain calm, things are great and the GOP are women hating racists again and again and again.

    The left has not one single success on which to run.
    All they have is anger, rhetoric, lies, name calling and demagoguery.
    If they think they can contracept their way into keeping the White House by bashing anyone religious then I say let them try.
    Seamus the dog is not a campaign issue either.

    The only wild card I can see coming up this fall are military action against Syria or Iran so naturally things will be too serious to change the CIC now or so the media will tell us or some sort of scandal from Romney’s past such as an insider trader thing or Church scandal that the left has been saving in a glass case like a fire axe.

    They will do anything to keep the focus away from the economy.

  • funwithknives

    *Progressives* Then start off as Nat’l Review did a few months ago and do a once over lightly synopsis on the history of Progressivism in this country.Complete with the writngs describing the proposed re-education camps for freed slaves, post Civil War {only to get them up to snuff, of course!} and Soviet Communist backing in 1948.

    By all means, let us use this term where-, and when-ever the opportunity arises
    .There’s some FAIR I could get used to in a hurry.
    Rinse and Repeat: P R O G R E S S I V E.
    ( Kinda sings, doesn’t it…… )

  • garfieldjl

    I mean seriously, we’re going to be pitting a liberal against a liberal, or to be charitable to Romney an “etch-a-sketch” against a liberal.

    I think some sort of scandal involving Romney will come out in the general, that is guarenteed, and unlike Rathergate which backfired on the Dems in 04, I think there is enough on Romney to sink him.

    There are only a handful of possibilities as to why the media has been shilling for Romney in the primaries (and make no mistake the media has been actively covering for Romney).

    1. They are pushing Romney because he is the most left-leaning Republican in the race.

    2. They are pushing Romney because they think he is the easiest for Obama to beat in general based on policy positions.

    3. They are pushing Romney because they think they have stuff to sink him in the General and guarentee Obama’s re-election.

    4. All of the above.

    I’m thinking it is the 4th reason.

    I think Santorum has a much better shot at beating Obama, and Gingrich would be Obama’s worst nightmare (aside from Sarah Palin running against him).

    If Romney is the nominee, I’ll be perfectly honest and say that I don’t know who I would vote for. I’ve also answered some telephone polls and made that perfectly clear recently. Gingrich or Santorum would have my vote against Obama, Romney is the one were I don’t know.

    I would vote for a ham sandwich over Obama in the general.

    Problem is I would vote for a ham sandwich over Romney in the general too if it was between Romney and a Ham sandwich.

    I imagine there is many in the base whom is like me in this regard, and to be perfectly frank while some people in the base didn’t care for McCain, he never pulled the stunts that Romney does on a regular basis.

    I want to beat Obama in the general, but more than that I want the victory to mean something. For someone that is along similar polticial ideologies as Obama to beat Obama, some may consider that a victory, but I don’t.

    If nothing else, Santorum and Gingrich are not even remotely similar to Obama.

  • garfieldjl

    Yeah, they are basically socialists, but not everyone follows politics like we do.

  • Kyle-MI

    I think the likely GOP pickups are:
    NE, ND, MT, WI, MO, and FL although I am concerned about WI.

    I would rate VA as a tossup. There are three additional vulnerable Dems:
    NM, OH, and (surprisingly) NJ.

    We will likely loose ME. I think we will keep MA. I am also concerned about NV.

  • funwithknives

    new terms enter our vernacular. Texting acronyms in the dictionary being one example.

    Liberals have chosen to use this term on their own . It would be impolite and downright {percieved ] hostile to not honor “that which they have chosen”.

    Besides,Speech Trendsetting is so New Millenium…… so it’s up to us to step up into the breach.

    More often than not, the *everyones * you speak of, do not vote either,speaking of not following politics, so may I be so bold as to say your point may be moot.

  • naraht

    I’d be fascinated to see if they should more change (in either direction) for the first election after the Redistricting.

    So far the Large States that I’ve heard about the redistricting favoring one party over the other relative to the previous cycle: California(D), Texas (?/R), New York(?), Florida(?), Illinois (D), Ohio (R), Pennsylvania(?/R), Michigan(?), North Carolina (R)

  • izoneguy

    They are regressive, but they have to cloak their true intentions to the majority who do not follow or care for politics…..

  • Filibuster Keaton

    I regret that my main contribution here is just agreeing with people, but I completely agree, and it would be redundant for me just to rephrase everything you already said.

    My secondary objection to Romney, after the fact he’s been on both sides of every issue and expects us to accept that on faith, is that he’ll kill base turnout. But everybody backing Romney is content to ignore this and assume the base is bluffing because it’s somehow their fault anyway when Romney gets shellacked like a gramophone record.

  • clintonformccain

    Mayor “Mumbles” Menino controls the Democrat machine in Boston. Here he is refusing, at this time, to support the moonbat, Elizabeth Warren. Pretty incredible, really.

    YouTube

  • carolina

    I’m guessing Scott Brown has done a good job representing the interests of MA. I remember when Brown got an amendment to the financial law that MA folks really wanted.
    I hope the good people of MA decide to keep him!

  • carolina

    I’m guessing Scott Brown has done a good job representing the interests of MA. I remember when Brown got an amendment to the financial law that MA folks really wanted.
    I hope the good people of MA decide to keep him!

  • Raven

    On their Eugenics proposals.
    Nothing says “Progress” like going door to door to kill the “unwanted.”

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    If you’re going to post a best case scenario, then why not project a three way split in Maine that lets the Republican squeak by? :)

  • moonmad

    I’ll add something else. The top of the ticket is the spot that counts. A VP is basically meaningless. Constitutionally they have only potential power not real power. Cheney is a political outlier as far a VPs go. In the end the VP will only go as far as the president will let them. So selling us a President based on the VP is a con job. Which more and more sounds like Romney’s plan. By the way, did McCain win or did he lose with a few more votes than he would have if he didn’t have Palin with him.

  • independentconservative

    “I think Santorum has a much better shot at beating Obama, and Gingrich would be Obama?s worst nightmare (aside from Sarah Palin running against him).”

    The fact you mention this invalidates everything you may have said before this trash and everything after. Gingrich is a DC INSIDER. HE IS THE ESTABLISHMENT (for those of you who hate the establishment so much here. I don’t I am a Romney supporter). Gingrich sat on the couch with Pelosi, he took money from Fannie Mae $1.6M, he has no money left now that Adelson cut off his money pit, I mean money supply. Why would Gingrich be Obama’s “worst nightmare?” because Newt keeps saying it? :( Newt is nothing but a bitter old man who is hurting the Republican party but again as Mitt fan, I am glad he’s stil in because he cost Santorum MI, OH, FL, and probably AZ.

    Palin? Gee golly, that freak? Obama would eat her for lunch. She’s nothing but a fad and an airhead media hog anyway. We should have learned our lesson from 08. She needs to go back to AK with the rest of those hicks shooting moose.

    Santorum is a one trick pony. He runs evangelical conservative campigns only fact is he’s not evangelical (he’s Catholic who don’t believe in ‘born again’ they believe Jesus died on the cross for them, thus no reason to be saved. He’s running a Right Wing campaign ala 2000 or 2004 only problem is, this election is about the economy and he is pro-big government. He gave money to planned parenthood hyprocritically, supported the bridge to nowhere in Palin’s backyard along with other major pork programs. He is a big government fiscal liberal who got us in this problem in the first place back in 2006 when HE WAS IN DC and got beat as a result. He’s a fake just like Gingrich.

    Its funny how Ging-”whine and b#tch” as I call him, and Santorum complain about how Romney outspend them 7:1 in Michigan and 10:1 in IL and is doing it again 10:1 in WI. My response is: So what? Its 100% legal and if you don’t like it, raise more money. We are going to need as much as we can in order to defeat Obama’s millions and if they can only spend 327,000 like Santorum has done in WI how can he expect to win? A loss is still a loss if you were outspent 10:1 or 2:1. We are going to need someone with personal wealth to not only go head to head with Obama because Democrats will out raise us, thus Romney has that wealth advangage, but also Romney’s money goes towards negative ads which we have seen are very effective in getting him wins. Just wait until Restore Our Future turns all that cash into good and uses it to expose and attack Obama, then will you and your ilk still be complaining?

    And for the guy that said VP doesn’t really matter. If Christie or Rubio are the VP and can unify the ticket and bring in all the Tea Party prudes and “Im not voting for Williard” hacks how can that not matter? The VP can go to the right while Mitt goes back to the center to court the moderates and independents that angry Gingrich or Santorum have no shot at bringing to our side.

  • independentconservative

    Read my diaries and I virtually agree with you Kyle on these races. I think we’ll go +5. See the races on ElectionProjection.com and they basically have this like you have it.

    I hadnt heard what you heard on NJ where did you find/read that? NM and VA can certainly be had.

    @ Filibuster Keaton,
    Its a good thing not everyone is as pessimistic as you. If you feel that way, why are you here? The base will coalese around Romney and if they stay home 1. they have no one to blame but themselves when Obama wins 2. they aren’t really the base 3. Ryan, Rubio, Cantor, Colburn all undeniable conservatives signed on. What more do you want?

  • independentconservative

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_scott_rasmussen/even_if_it_survives_the_court_the_health_care_law_is_doomed

  • garfieldjl

    Seriously, you haven’t analyzed the situation, you are acting like Romney will have all the advantages he currently has in the primary. Got news for you he won’t have any of them.

    1. Romney will have lots of money at his disposal, well considering how Santorum and Gingrich have given Romney this much trouble in the primaries would indicate to me that he can’t be elected. Obama is going to have at least as much money to throw around as Romney, probably a lot more.

    2. Romney won’t have the mainstream media covering up his baggage anymore, and serving as his attack dogs. He’s had all kinds of trouble versing Newt and Santorum even with the mainstream media serving as his attack dogs. Does anyone think that the media will continue to support Romney, I think that’s wishful thinking. So Romney won’t have the media serving as his attack dogs, Obama will.

    3. We know all of Gingrich’s baggage and probably most of Santorum’s baggage. Anyone notice Romney’s baggage has been covered up and he hasn’t been vhetted at all. I mean seriously, the press has largely left Romney alone while trying to destroy Santorum and Gingrich.

    Then to top it off we have people that are pro-Romney whom instead of trying to explain why Romney is actually a good candidate and giving actual reasons, whom instead insult people because we don’t support Romney, calling us hacks and bigots, and then you have the gall to expect us to blindly submit like mindless liberal Obamabots or the idiotic sheep in “Animal Farm” with the “Four legs good, two legs bad,” idiocy (I really couldn’t stand having to read it back in sophomore year of Highschool back in the late 90s).

    The shear contempt I’ve seen from Romney supporters towards Tea Partiers and social concervatives, demonstrates why I am so against Romney being the nominee.

    If Romney is the nominee and loses in November, don’t come whining to us social conservatives and tea partiers, cause Romney supporters and the establishment will have no one to legitimately blame but themselves for doing everything possible to alienate us.

  • Kyle-MI

    Here is the RealClearPolitics roundup on NJ:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/nj/new_jersey_senate_kyrillos_vs_menendez-1924.html

    Ignore the GOP numbers and just look at Menendez’s weakness. Since the beginning of the year he has polled at
    43, 49, 46 and 43. That is very weak for an incumbent, especially a Dem in NJ. His GOP challengers are low because of low name recognition. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

  • moonmad

    Thanks for validating my analysis that selecting a conservative as a VP would be a sop to the base. Therefore as I said a con job. You need to cool your jets a little . Look what McCain did in the General election his advisors treated conservatives like they had leprosy guess what that got him. Is Romney going to make the same mistake. He’s shown he can evolve maybe he could make himself a conservative.

  • independentconservative

    look at my diary with Colorado or Iowa how it could all come down to one state. NJ is changing politically getting more red. Romney is a moderate and I think he could swing NJ with or without Christie but especially with him.

    Thanks for the link

  • independentconservative

    “don?t come whining to us social conservatives and tea partiers, cause Romney supporters and the establishment will have no one to legitimately blame but themselves ”

    If Santorum or Gingrich would have ended up being the nominee, there is no evidence to suggest that either wouldn’t have got more than just the core Southern states and a few plain states. Much more states are in play with Romney on the ticket. How is Santorum going to go anywhere outside of the South with his far-right ideology and win over suburban voters in IN, MI, NJ, OH, PA, IA, CO, or NV like Romney can?

    Romney is going to do well in the Philly and Pittsburgh suburbs which may put PA in play. If you don’t believe me, check out the latest primary polls in PA much less wait until the general election. The sad thing is you think Romney can’t win and he’s too polarizing when in reality Santorum and Gingrich are just as much if not more (look at any poll) and you fail to make that connection. Santorum wouldn’t get any of the female vote after his gaffe’s, Newt would be painted over and over as the DC Insider he is. There is a reason Santorum lost his Senate seat by 17 points in 2006. Voters blamed him for the out of control government spending and they were exactly right. He voted to raise the debt ceiling 5 times while in office.

  • independentconservative

    Just clicked the link. Stil shows Menendez comfortably and consistently up by 10 points. How exactly is this “vunerable”? I have to disagree after seeing these trends which still heavily favor him.

  • morrigan

    >”I would vote for a ham sandwich over Romney in the general too if it was between Romney and a Ham sandwich.”

    I don’t know why your garbage is tolerated around here. If you want to root for Obama over Romney – and you’re already doing that – then go do it someplace else.

  • Kyle-MI

    Look at the number of undecideds. That is huge for an incumbent. Undecideds do not break for the incumbent. At this point in the campaign the challengers’ numbers do not matter as much as the incumbent’s.

    Of course, it is not a slam dunk. I said he was vulnerable, not that he was doomed. There are more races with higher priority for the GOP, but, after spending on those races, they ought to give a good hard look at NJ.