American Mid-Term Elections Part 2

[url=http://cookpolitical.com/][color=blue][u]The Cook Political Report[/u][/color][/url]: Republicans will have a net gain of between 50 and 60 House seats (meaning a 21- to 41-seat Republican majority after tomorrow's election).

As jrootham noted in the prior thread, [url=http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/][color=blue][u]FiveThirtyEight... Republicans will have a net gain of about 54 House seats (meaning about a 29-seat Republican majority after tomorrow's election).

[url=http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/ratings/house][color=blue][u]The Rothenberg Political Report[/u][/color][/url]: Republicans will have a net gain of between 55 and 65 House seats (meaning a 31- to 51-seat Republican majority after tomorrow's election).

[url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_... Republicans will have a net gain of about 67 House seats (meaning about a 55-seat Republican majority after tomorrow's election).

So, there will very likely be a gain of between 50 and 65 House seats for the Republicans.

wage zombie wrote:

Dems have a 39 seat majority right now, so net change of 50 to 60 seats would mean an 11-21 seat majority.  Sven your addition is off.

Today, there are 255 Democrats, 178 Republicans and 2 vacancies in the House.  That means there are 77 more Democrats than Republicans (not a "39 seat majority").

Sven wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Dems have a 39 seat majority right now, so net change of 50 to 60 seats would mean an 11-21 seat majority.  Sven your addition is off.

Today, there are 255 Democrats, 178 Republicans and 2 vacancies in the House.  That means there are 77 more Democrats than Republicans (not a "39 seat majority").

For every seat that changes hands there is one less Democrat and one more Republican.  If the Democrats were to lose 39 seats they would have 216 (255 minus 39).  Assuming every lost seat went to Repblicans (the only other major party), then the Republicans would have 217 (178 plus 39).  This would give the Republicans a one seat majority.

This is why we say that the Democrats have a majority of 39 seats.  If there were a third party, and the Democrats lost 39 seats to the third party, then the Democrats would have 216, the Republicans would still have 178, and the third party would have 39 seats.  The Democrats would be one seat short of a majority, even though there would still be 38 more Democrats than Republicans in the house.

This is what is meant when people talk about a 39 seat majority.  This is how your country's parliamentary system works (fyi).

Well, America isn't just one nation-state, FYI.

nyah-nyah

josh wrote:

Sven, from the previous thread:

"This may be the death of the democratic party."

LOL.

Sorry to disappoint you, but that was Rob8305 who said that in the prior thread, not me.

Rob8305, from the previous thread:

"This may be the death of the democratic party."

LOL. Despite your desire for it, and whether it would be better off for it to happen, the party will go on.

For the record, I'm predicting 56 seats lost in the House and 8 in the senate. Democrats keep the senate.

Sven wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

I think the Dems are likely to end up with 55 Senate seats (with Independents) and I think the Republicans will end up with a narrow majority (5-15 seats) in the House (meaning a net gain of 44-54 seats).

Well, in the Senate, the Republicans have 41 seats now.  Given the most recent polls (along with the polling trends), a Senate with only 45 Republicans after January 2011 is highly unlikely.  Possible, yes -- but not "likely".  The Republicans are going to win Arkansas, Indiana, and North Dakota without any question and are all but certain to pick up Wisconsin.  If so, then the Democrats would have to win the races in California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Washington, [u]and[/u] West Virginia to get a "likely" result of only 45 Republican Senate seats.

Sorry I shouldn't have used the word likely, was just giving my predictions, and I'll amend my Senate prediction to 54 seats.  I think they'll win California, Washington and West Virginia.  I think Feingold will surprise in Wisconsin.  I think they will take 2 out of 5 in Nevada, Illinois, Colorado, Alaska, or Pennsylvania.  I think Nevada and Illinois are pretty close, I think Alaska is a possibility although I would not expect a winner declared for at least a week, maybe 2, and I think Pennsylvania is a real long shot.

Quote:

A Republican 15-seat majority in the House is certainly likely -- but what do you base the possibility of a mere 5-seat Republican majority on?

I base it on the lack of polling in many House races.  Many races have not had any polling, and there are many tossup races in this election (some having no polls at all):

So in absence of local polling for specific races, it is assumed that polling of generic Congressional ballot is the best indicator.  It seems like many people are predicting about 55 seats, based on this.  That makes sense, but I don't find it convincing.

Mostly I'm just trying to be optimistic.  I think the Dems will lose the House but I don't think it will be anything approaching 1994.  Nate Silver has an optimistic article up outlining various reasons why some are hoping that the polls are not quite accurate: 5 Reasons Democrats Could Beat the Polls and Hold the House.  He is predicting a Republican majority of 233-201, a 16 seat majority, and he's basing it running the polls through mathematical formulas.

If the Democrats can outperform the polls by +2%, they could keep the House.  I don't think they will be outperforming the polls by that much--but I think they will outperform the polls, and I think the Republican majority will be narrow.

The biggest question about the polls in my mind is that many generic Congressional ballot polls have Republicans winning likely voters while Democrats are winning registered voters.  There are questions here because a) in previous elections, polls of registered voters end up predicting elections accurately more often than polls of likely voters (I could dig around for a reference if asked) and b) the polling companies are making assumptions about the enthusiasm gap--and using those assumptions in order to determine who is a likely voter.

Seems like a net gain of 50-60 seats is the common prediction.  I think there's enough bias in the polls that it will be on the low end of that, which is why I said 44-54.

The Tea Party isn't defeating the democrats; the independents' are.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20101102/us_time/08599202880000

Quote:

 

This dramatic swing of independent voters from left to right, notes Pew Research Center president Andrew Kohut, is perhaps the most significant force shaping American politics today. "This appears to be the third consecutive election that independents have voted against the powers that be," Kohut said on Monday afternoon. "These voters are very performance-oriented. Keeping them on your side is a challenge for the powers that be of both parties."

I enjoy American elections because it really doesn't make much difference who wins. That means I can enjoy the pure (albeit tragic) theatre without painful emotional involvement. I'm planning an evening in front of the tv with popcorn. I wish I could invite a few of you over! 

(Apologies for the purely personal stuff.)

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

The Tea Party isn't defeating the democrats; the independents' are.

I agree.  If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times: The voters in the middle always determine who will have political power in America.

And it now appears that the middle, while easy to sway into voting for is not easy to hold onto if your economic plan takes more than two years... I don't think that's politically healthy for the nation in the long run.

So far it looks like a good election for the Republicans but not a great election. The House ends up in their control but not by a lot and the Senate remains Democratic.

And it's not all bad. Kentucky elected its first openly gay mayor in the city of Lexington.

NorthReport wrote:

What a dumbas Democratic candidate!!! He deserves to lose.

 Midterm Elections 2010 - Tea Party Candidate Rand Paul Declared Senate Winner in Kentucky

 http://all247news.com/midterm-elections-2010-%E2%80%93-tea-party-candidate-rand-paul-declared-senate-winner-in-kentucky/7384/

 

Why becouse he questioned Rand Paul's religous faith? I wish Rand Paul would have lost. Wait till Kentucky gets a load of him... same with all the other Tea Party dumb asses people elected... If I wasn't crying in my beer so much right now I'd say I almost can't wait for them fuckers to show up in Washington DC.

ghoris wrote:

All networks now projecting the Republicans will win control of the House.

So far, however, this is not the tidal wave that was predicted.

There goes the neighbourhood... again. 

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/11/02/us-midterm-elections.html

Quote:

The Republicans have won control of the House of Representatives in the U.S. midterm elections, according to projections by several U.S. media outlets.

Republicans have also picked up three U.S. Senate seats so far, but some key Democratic wins appeared to hurt the chances of the GOP taking the upper chamber.

Earlier, candidates backed by the Tea Party movement recorded some early wins.

[double post]

ghoris wrote:

The real fight for the Senate will be in 2012, when the map is brutal for the Dems.

Yeah, I think the Dems will have about 21 Senate seats exposed in 2012 and the Repubs will only have something like 11 to protect.

As of about 1:15am (Eastern), RealClearPolitics.com is indicating that there are 226 seats called for the Republicans and 154 seats called for the Democrats (with 55 seats yet to be decided).  If the Republicans only pick up 35% of those 55 seats and the Democrats pick up 65% of those 55 seats, then the Republicans will have a net gain of 68 seats.

Sven wrote:

ghoris wrote:

So far, however, this is not the tidal wave that was predicted.

The Repubs are likely going to pick up at least 60 House seats.  That's a tidal wave...

If that's not a tidal wave, then there never has been a tidal wave.  A 60-seat pick up would be about the biggest mid-term election swing in the House in a hundred years.

72, to be exact.  1938, when the Dems lost over 70.

And the final total will likely be 65, give or take a seat.  There are still 13 outstanding, with Dems leading in 8 of them

The Senate was more encouraging, with the Dems likely to have 52 or 53.  Plus, teabaggers Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell went down to defeat.  The secret money that cost at least a few house seats had less effect in senate races, which are more high profile.

But, as the denouement of the latest chapter in a family feud between the Murkowskis and the Palins, the drama playing out in Alaska continued to attract national attention.

It may be weeks before all those write-in ballots are manually opened and read and it is known whether Ms. Murkowski pulled off the upset of the night. If Ms. Murkowski succeeds, her victory will be counted pretty much everywhere as a loss for Ms. Palin, a leading light of the Tea Party movement who will have failed to put her chosen candidate, Mr. Miller, over the top in her home state.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us/politics/04alaska.html?_r=1

The good thing is alot of Palin endorsed candidates went down , includiing the senate race in West Virginia , Delaware, and Alaska probably.

Well, sure got that uppity pres. eh? 

Midterm Election Further Demonstrates Need for Revolution

http://ampedstatus.com/midterm-election-further-demonstrates-need-for-re...

"The past two years have clearly exposed Obama as a spineless corporate puppet and he deserves to be voted out in 2012. Both parties serve the same corporate masters. We cannot get away with being apolitical any more. It's time for us to pay attention, to become directly involved.."

Dissatisfied Mind: Flicker of Hope in a Deadly Political Cycle  -  by Chris Floyd

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd11032010.html

"What is less heartening, of course, is the fact that the American electorate never quite grasps the obvious, glaring, brutal fact that neither of these factions is ever going to change the system one iota if they can help it; they ARE the system, they are its servants, its enablers, its enactors. Then again, we are dealing with, to borrow Gore Vidal's deathless phrase, the United States of Amnesia...

Both factions are - literally, legally, formally, undeniably - packs of war criminals, pledged to the continuation of a rapacious empire of military domination that is killing innocent people, fomenting hatred and extremism and destabilizing the world...Most Americans apparently cannot break out of the narrow cognitive structure that has been imposed on their understanding of reality..."

wage zombie wrote:

I don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected either...but will things get better if he is voted out?  Or would they get worse?

So Mrs. Lincoln, besides that, did you enjoy the play?

So much for civil rights in Oklahoma, where the wind comes sweepin down the plain.

70% of Oklahoma voters voted to ban Sharia law.

Sharia law banned: Oklahoma to become the first U.S. state to veto use of Islamic code

George Victor wrote:

thorin_bane wrote:

Good luck sven it looks like the lunatics are now running the asylum.

"sven is a small-L libertarian"...this is his idea of a win.

Oh I know, but what he doesn't get is it will take down the american empire with the tea party driving the bus. I mean it was going over the cliff anyways, but why would you speed up to get there.