Skip to main content

View Diary: Senate pickup looking tougher for Republicans, because of Ladies and Latinos (147 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They'll hold the House (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dinotrac, pademocrat

    I've said this before, even if the GOP House shuts down the government and impeaches Obama in mid-October, they have a better than 50/50 chance to hold the House.

    •  Probably, but only because the competition isn't (0+ / 0-)

      real stiff.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 01:04:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it's because of gerrymandering (0+ / 0-)

        but that does have the effect of eliminating any real competition.  

        you can shit on my face but that doesn't mean I have to lick my lips

        by red rabbit on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 01:26:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've never seen any good evidence that, (0+ / 0-)

          on a national scale, gerrymandering makes much difference.
          Certainly on a state scale. My old home state of Illinois was heavily gerrymandered to favor Democrats.  I have zero doubt that some states are just as badly jiggered in the Republican direction.

          But -- Democrats and Republicans run a similar number of states, so it's hard for me to see a very big tilt ever opening up one way or the other.

          Biggest benefit to Republicans is the incumbent effect in the House -- but even that's been weakening in the last few elections.

          I expect Republicans to hold the House, but it doesn't look like a slam dunk to me.  They've been damned stupid and have very little to show for themselves since 2010.  We have enough long-term unemployed people, enough people who have lost homes are can't move out of homes they own, etc, to haunt them for their refusal to act to help the country.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 02:53:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Gerrymandering and off-year turnout (0+ / 0-)

            Even gerrymandering won't save the repukes in a Clinton Presidential landslide, but it probably will in an off-year election.  Especially a President's sixth year election.  the White house almost always loses seats in those cases.

            Dems can make me wrong, if they want it bad enough--and I call on them to do so.  The history of light turnout in off-year elections means that's just not how I'm going to bet this time.

            "The law, in its majestic equality, allows the poor as well as the rich to donate unlimited funds to the politicians of their choice." ---attributed to Anatole France

            by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 04:29:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The "Democrats won't turn out" meme is (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AdmiralNaismith, pademocrat

              overblown.

              If you look at more than 2010, you won't see nearly the shortfall people hyperventilate about.

              Hell, it was an off-year election that gave us Speaker Pelosi and Democratic control of the House along with Majority Leader Reid and control of the Senate.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 05:14:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Right (0+ / 0-)

                See "President's sixth year election; the White house almost always loses seats", above.

                "The law, in its majestic equality, allows the poor as well as the rich to donate unlimited funds to the politicians of their choice." ---attributed to Anatole France

                by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:24:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Bullshit. If you're going to make excuses, you (0+ / 0-)

                  should pick ones that ring true.

                  Second midterm elections are dangerous, as we saw in 2010, but there is hardly any consistent trend and no support for the proposition that Democrats don't show up.

                  Here are the results of every sixth year election since the start of the 20th century, with 1926 thrown in for no good reason

                  1998: President Clinton
                  Democrats pick up 4 seats in the House
                  No change in the Senate.
                  And this was in the midst of the Lewinsky scandal

                  1990:  President Reagan
                  Democrats add to 85 seat majority in House, going to 100 (267 to 167)
                  Democrats add 1 seat to solid majority in House

                  1966: Lyndon Johnson *
                  Should probably be two asterisks on this one, thanks to Vietnam and an unpopularity that led Johnson not to seek office in 1968.
                  Democrats held House, but majority fell from 195 seats to 61.
                  They lost 3 Senate seats, but retained huge 64-36 majority.

                  1958: President Eisenhower
                  Democrats increase majority in House, from 33 to 133 seats
                  Democrats increase majority in Senate from 2 seats to 30.

                  1950: President Truman
                  Democrats hold House, but majority dips from 92 to 36 seats.
                  Democrats hold Senate, but majority dips from 12 to 2 seats.

                  1936: President Roosevelt
                  Democrats win 76 Senate seats, increasing majority from 49 to 60 votes
                  Democrats increase size of majority in house from 219 to 246 (334 to 88!)

                  1926: Calvin Coolidge *
                  Republican Senate majority drops from 13 to 2 seats.
                  Their House majority dropped from 64 to 44 seats.

                  1918: Woodrow Wilson
                  Republicans take Senate, 49-47 effective Senate Majority, Republican House majority goes from 1 to 48 seats.

                  1906: Theodore Roosevelt
                  Republicans expand Senate majority from 26 to 30 seats, with a 61-31 majority
                  Their House majority, however, drops from 114 seats to 57 seats.

                  *Coolidge served the majority of Warren Harding's term and then was elected President in his own right.  Same for Lyndon Johnson.

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:12:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hey, fine (0+ / 0-)

                    If we can pull it off against the tide, go us!  It'll be that much sweeter knowing we bucked a trend.

                    I'm in Oregon, far from the whole mess, so it's not like my vote will do much.  Merkley's one of the easy re-elects.  Now let's go get Montana and Kentucky!

                    "The law, in its majestic equality, allows the poor as well as the rich to donate unlimited funds to the politicians of their choice." ---attributed to Anatole France

                    by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:37:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site