Gallup: 60 - 80 seats

I've been re-reading a text-book on the election period from 1888 to 1896, "Years of Decision", and the tumultuous whipsaw elections that occurred in that period. '88 swept in the Republican congress and President Harrison; '90 swept in a Democratic Congress; '92 brought in Cleveland; '94 swept in a Republican Congress; '96 brought in McKinley. Back and forth it went. When I first read this book, about 5 years ago, I recall talking about it with a friend that we could be headed for a similar type of swings. The analogy between the parties is tough to hold straight. A lot of progressives look back to the Republican Party of Lincoln's era as their representatives in the day.

What I've in particular found fascinating is the '88 to '90 period, when pent-up Republican frustration of not having control of Congress and the Presidency in prior times, resulted in a record of congressional activity and centralization of power. You can imagine Speaker Pelosi's echo in this quote of the Republican Lodge after his party being demolished in 1890: "The sting of the present defeat lies in the fact that the Republican Party never since the war deserved so well."

Back to today. Gallup is giving us a 15% generic likely voter gap in favor of Republicans. The Independents have deserted the Democrats. What they've decided, amidst the stupidity of partisanship on display while the country is mired in seemingly intractable conflicts, is that they will make the Republicans and Democrats even madder at each other.

How many seats can Republicans possibly gain? 

And if Gallup is right, it implies an almost unprecedented Republican sweep on Tuesday. As Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz explains via email, "Republicans have never had anything close to a 15-point popular vote margin in the past 80 years." Their biggest national margin in that period was "7 points in 1946, followed by a 6 point margin in 1994." A 15-point majority this year, he adds, "would probably result in a gain of close to 80 seats and between 250 and 260 GOP seats in the new House, more than in any Congress since the 1920s.


Gallup says above 60. Their numbers say up to 80.

Tags: (all tags)



A few more numbers

4 Billion was spent this last election cycle, with 85% of it according to non partisan sources - going towards the republicans in corporate controlled special purpose entity transaction.

The house of representatives dared to do what the American people actually wanted. They passed a healthcare reform bill with a national health service built into it.

When the big pharmaceutical lobbies spent 20 million dollars trying to stop it, and failed.  They decided to spend more.

They even bought out political commentary, editorial control, -anyone who depends on this kind of money can be reasonably suspect. The big theme? "Polls say the GOP will win big!"


But what really counts is the vote. I liken Jeromes fascination and continual re-posting of the same general story  that "the gop will win big" - to that of a person who can only enjoy baseball, by spouting off stats of the other team.

I, on the other hand, simply enjoy deep baseball - and know that the team that will win is the team that plays the best. In midterms, it's all about who really cares and who's not listening to the bullshit.

I know how I'm going to vote. Jerome has already said he's voting against the democratic party. I'm voting for them. I think they did a good job, and the things that the GOP has done for our country - especially their humongous economic crash that they refused to clean up - reminds me too much of a spoiled rich kid who refuses to work or do anything.

And if everyone wants to pay their congressman to go to DC to do absolutely nothing. Then just let it all happen.  Think about this. 85% of 4 Billion spent in only 5 months - amounts to about 19.2 MILLION DOLLARS PER DAY. Where did that money go?


I for one don't care. If they have that much money to throw away on trying to rig an election , they have enough money to hire people and get this country back to work. If they learn (and yes, I believe we can teach them) to stop trying to rig the game. Then we'll have a nice, heads down kind of environment in the US

  Just go get your friends, and get out there and vote. Ignore the hype.




by Trey Rentz 2010-11-01 12:46PM | 0 recs
RE: A few more numbers

Drug Industry to Run Ads Favoring White House Plan

Obama's Deal With Big Pharma's_deal_with_big_pharma/

Obama's agreement with Big Pharma may help healthcare reform pass, but it may also mean higher drug prices for you ROBERT REICH

by changeagain2012 2010-11-01 01:06PM | 0 recs
“Big Pharma Wins Big With Health Care Reform Bill”

From AP, March 29, 2010:

"Pharma came out of this better than anyone else," said Ramsey Baghdadi, a Washington health policy analyst who projects a $30 billion, 10-year net gain for the industry. "I don't see how they could have done much better."…

Lobbyists beat back proposals to allow importation of low-cost medicines and to have Medicare negotiate drug prices with companies. They also defeated efforts to require more industry rebates for the 9 million beneficiaries of both Medicare and Medicaid, and to bar brand-name drugmakers' payments to generic companies to delay the marketing of competitor products.

And who killed drug imports?

Washington has its share of murder mysteries, but the one that interests Sen. Byron Dorgan involves the untimely death of his amendment to allow cheaper prescription drug imports from Canada.

There are several sets of fingerprints in the Senate chamber where the legislation died, including some from the White House, says Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat. “They did not support this,” and worked with Democratic Senate leaders to kill it in order to move the larger bill forward, he said in an interview. The amendment failed in the Senate Tuesday evening.

by tsunado 2010-11-01 04:31PM | 0 recs
There you go just don't get it.

You're making the mistake of confusing what you personally like with what the country as a whole prefers. This is a centrist country, and radicals like yourself just can't bear to admit it. Your comment on health care provides a perfect example:

"The house of representatives dared to do what the American people actually wanted. They passed a healthcare reform bill with a national health service built into it."

No, no, no. The American people to this day are negative on Obamacare. The reason that people are so angry is that they feel their representatives voted that monstrosity into law, in defiance of their wishes. And for these voters, tomorrow is payback time.

And like many liberals, you make elections and issues way too complicated. This is about jobs, and the economy. If Obama had devoted one quarter of the effort he gave to passing his horrible health care bill to fighting joblessness and reducing unemployment, I can assure you he wouldn't be facing the ass-kicking that he is going to receive tomorrow.


by BJJ Fighter 2010-11-01 05:37PM | 0 recs
my stomach hurts

im a totally discouraged dem out supposedly door knockin in a freshman cong district in 100% working class white part of MD (actually in an area where he racked up votes last time)

i started at 7 am - after less than 4 hours sleep - and it has been a toil.

the anger level is very high. i have heard 3 times today people telling me that they are angry about being called racists.

now thats not anything that i ever heard before in any gotv door knocking that ive done before - and this is about my 12th congressional cycle.

i truly resented that false charge during the 2008 and the voters resent it now.

these people arent dumb - the endless taunting of independents who chose to rally together - the hated "racist" "tea baggers" (i wonder how many votes the adoption of that foul term lost dems alone) has gotten down through the media mix and they feel it was aimed at them.

id bet we lose this area im in now - by a 70 -30 number - a thirty point swing from 2008.

alright back to well... back to it..

by changeagain2012 2010-11-01 12:56PM | 0 recs
RE: my stomach hurts

Well the Teabaggers that I know refer to Obama as "the Kenyan" openly and as "the N____" when only whites are around. One, a Polish fellow from Chicago called him in a fit of anger, "your Shine President". I haven't heard THAT word in forty years. I had almost forgotten it. So, yeah, his skin color is a HUGE part of it. If it was Hillary, it would be her gender and I would be hearing the "C" word. In fact, just mention her name and they start foaming at the mouth.


Not dumb? They all listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and think they are getting the truth. My boss actually spent his vacation to go to the Glen Beck rally in Washington. He was angry with the Park Service for only providing four port-a-potties. And here I thought he was for less government services!  Another thinks the answer to more jobs is less spending. I told him every economics textbook would say this will make the economy worse. His reply was,"It's got to get worse before it can get better. Glen Beck said so."

by antiHyde 2010-11-01 08:42PM | 0 recs
RE: my stomach hurts

none of these people i spoke with watch beck

none of these people i spoke with are racists.

they dont know your Polish fellow from Chicago...



by changeagain2012 2010-11-02 01:42AM | 0 recs
I'm going with the Onion on this one

The Democrats could lose up to 8,000 seats.

by the mollusk 2010-11-01 01:32PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm going with the Onion on this one

by Jack Landsman 2010-11-01 03:16PM | 1 recs
RE: I'm going with the Onion on this one

Undecided voters?

by the mollusk 2010-11-01 04:16PM | 0 recs

about ugly. An 80 seat loss would be horrific but maybe the party will do some soul searching. I know Obama won't. His way of thinking is that this wouldn't be a repeat of '94 because he's in office. He will give them everything that they want.

by Ga6thDem 2010-11-01 04:43PM | 2 recs
An 80 seats loss would end the party

The party would never recover from that. 

by Kent 2010-11-01 08:43PM | 0 recs
RE: An 80 seats loss would end the party

Yeah, it would but it wouldn't be soon. Remember the Dem landslide in '74 and then what happened 6 years later?

by Ga6thDem 2010-11-02 12:05AM | 0 recs
It will get ugly

but what we need to do from the left is to find someone who is able to mount a credible primary challenge against this President.

by tarheel74 2010-11-01 08:08PM | 2 recs
RE: It will get ugly

But it can't succeed. If it does, the Party will be badly split on racial lines. The best scenario is if a challenger and Obama deadlock and a compromise candidate (Hillary?) acceptable to both factions takes the nomination.

by antiHyde 2010-11-01 08:50PM | 1 recs
There you go again.

You still don't get it: this is a center right country. Trust me: Obama is going to get an ass-kicking tomorrow, and it's not because the country regards him as insufficiently liberal. They want a return to Clinton-style pragmatism.


by BJJ Fighter 2010-11-01 10:07PM | 0 recs
RE: There you go again.

The irony of that statement is that Obama is to the right of Clinton on almost everything. It's not a center right country. If it was, McCain would have won in 2008.


You know the saying: Why vote for a fake republican when you can have the real thing?

by Ga6thDem 2010-11-02 12:04AM | 0 recs
RE: It will get ugly

Well you could always join the dump Obama campaign over at Firedoglake. 


Maybe someone can sit him down and tell him he shouldn't run for a second term though in reality anyone following Obama with a D behind their name is going to have a hard time getting elected.

by Ga6thDem 2010-11-02 12:09AM | 0 recs
RE: It will get ugly

ill join in 14 hours.

by changeagain2012 2010-11-02 06:01AM | 0 recs
60, 70, 99....

I think it's around 60, with some upside.  Nate is too optimistic with his 53-54 seat forecast. 

50 or 51 Dems in the Senate, not sure about Patty Murray.  Divergent polling on WA-Sen makes it a real tossup.

Can a primary challenge to Obama unite the left with at least part of the center?  If so, it has a real chance.

by esconded 2010-11-01 08:25PM | 0 recs
A primary challenge to Obama is a must

Dean or Feingold would be good.  Anything that gets Obama out of office in 2012. 

by Kent 2010-11-01 08:45PM | 0 recs
RE: A primary challenge to Obama is a must

No, if white Dean unseats black Obama, black Democrats will stay home and the Republicans will take it all. Enough votes to undo minimum wage, ban abortion, make homosexuality illegal, start concentration camps for illegal immigrants, you name it.

by antiHyde 2010-11-01 08:54PM | 0 recs
RE: A primary challenge to Obama is a must

why are black Democrats stupid?

anti democracy?

should we cancel the primaries now?

by changeagain2012 2010-11-02 06:04AM | 0 recs

After tomorrow, Feingold is history. Why would the Democratic party want to run a failed United States Senator as its nominee for President?


by BJJ Fighter 2010-11-01 10:11PM | 0 recs
RE: Huh?

Doesn't matter what the party wants. Feingold can do it all by himself.

by Ga6thDem 2010-11-02 12:10AM | 0 recs
RE: Huh?

Right. Feingold can't win a Senate race in Wisconsin, but he can win the Presidency, as you put it, "all by himself".

Think about what you're writing before you post comments.


by BJJ Fighter 2010-11-02 01:21AM | 0 recs
RE: Huh?

obama couldnt win a house seat in south chicago

by changeagain2012 2010-11-02 06:06AM | 0 recs
RE: Huh?

No, what I"m saying is that Feingold can sit around Iowa and run for president whether the party wants it or not.

by Ga6thDem 2010-11-02 09:23AM | 0 recs
RE: A primary challenge to Obama is a must

What's Michael Dukakis doing these days?  Maybe someone should start a "draft Michael Dukakis" movement.  He and Dennis Kucinich could really make a dent.  They might even win Massachusetts.

by the mollusk 2010-11-02 12:08PM | 0 recs
RE: A primary challenge to Obama is a must

Do you really believe that Obama still has "it" to win? I think people see his approval, and mistake the belief that it translates into anything. It clearly doesn't as the same poll with a 50 something approval will show a 39% re-elect number. A 'nice guy, but too bad he's not a good leader' is the translation.

Or just go by the numbers for '12: CO & NV, no way; IN, OH, MI, PA, WI, I don't think so; VA, NC, FL not this time.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-11-02 12:59PM | 0 recs
RE: A primary challenge to Obama is a must

I'm not sure if he does or not.  But either way, I wouldn't base that expectation on a poll taken just before an election in which the Democrats were widely expected to lose badly, while the economy has 9.5 % unemployment, the public is divided on the Democrats' biggest achievements, and there is no Republican nominee to compare against.

Paul Krugman had an article a while back about the "reality-based" community and the ability of the Republicans to stand firm even in the face of almost universal criticism against basically anything the Democrats wanted to do.  Pundits everywhere said it was political suicide for them to resist Financial Regulation in this environment, but they did it anyhow.  The reason was that they were able to step back from the hourly, hyperventilating coverage of every twist and turn of legislation.  They knew that in the long run, the economy would trump most of the narrative and that allowing anything to be portrayed as a Democratic victory would be poisonous to them.  The overall point of his article was that sometimes the minute-to-minute coverage gives you a false impression of the overall trajectory or historical significance of any one piece of data.  And that basing your policy (or political decisions) based on the day-to-day noise leads to an equally ineffective political or policy strategy.

So, there may be some terrible polls out about Obama right now.  But I believe he is still getting his legs under him.  Plus, Obama has had to absorb must of the brunt of both the economic stagnation and the Congressional stalemate brought on by centrist Democrats.  Once he has a political rival to play against, people will come to see him differently.  Whether that gets him re-elected in 2012 I have no idea.

by the mollusk 2010-11-02 01:58PM | 0 recs
The guy on CNN

Just said if it goes over a +47 it will be the 3rd biggest loss in US House elections history

by donkeykong 2010-11-02 12:56AM | 0 recs
RE: The guy on CNN

Well, if that ain't refudiation, then my real name ain't the mollusk.

by the mollusk 2010-11-02 12:09PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads