General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRCP: Dems winning White House, LOSING the other House...BADLY.
Just a word of caution. DON'T GET COCKY, and DO NOT IGNORE THE DOWN BALLOT Democrats. According to the RCP averages, if the election were held today, Obama would win the White House by a landslide. That was the good news. The BAD news is that the Republicans would win the House by a landslide.
RCP Current Numbers: Here's what you'd see if the election were held today.
Presidency (Electoral College -no toss ups)
Obama: 332
Romney: 206
HOUSE (no toss ups):
Republicans: 248
Democrats: 191
SENATE (no toss ups):
Democrats: 52
Republicans: 48
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/
If the election were held today, Obama would win the White House, Democrats would hang on to the Senate by a thin majority, and Republicans would have a large, 57 seat majority in the House.
In other words, we'd be right back where we started in 2010, with Republicans continuing to block everything, and keep government in a perpetual state of paralysis, if that's still what they want to do. Obviously, they won't have the incentive to clusterf--k the Country in order to satisfy their insane, psychopathological obsession with defeating Obama, but they may still play obstructionist in the hopes of getting larger majorities in 2014.
So, this is just a reminder to KEEP ORGANIZING THE GROUND GAME. Keep working on getting people registered, and getting out the vote. Obama may be in a good spot to win the White House, but if we don't win larger majorities in the House and Senate, he'll be in a hopeless position even if he wins.
ananda
(28,858 posts).. and his 50 state strategy which we SO need right now!
TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)back in that job.
After Obama wins the election, I'm hoping he'll AT LEAST put Dean in as head of HHS. We'll need a champion and a fighter to run the healthcare system in the next term.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)It wasted money in districts and states where Dems had no chance. Many experts have said that it actually cost the Dems several seats that were possible wins because money was diverted to unwinnable races. The real reason that the Dems did so well in '06 and '08 was because they were wave elections due to GOP mismanagement of the government. The same was true of the '10 election. Despite Michael Steele being a terrible GOP chairman who completely mismanaged his party's funds, the republicans picked up a record number of seats in the House.
Qutzupalotl
(14,302 posts)That's not money wasted, even in losing races. it plants seeds for future harvest if we ever get another DNC chair with vision.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)because they didn't have enough money.
Qutzupalotl
(14,302 posts)Examples?
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)He ran against Vito Fossella and was endorsed by the NY Times. But he couldn't get any money from the DNC because they were spending it elsewhere because of the 50 state strategy.
justice1
(795 posts)Unlike other candidates, Obama visited the state, and the Democratic party started spending money. They got a return on their investment. Today, Republicans are having to spend money in a state, that's been considered a "gimme" for decades.
You have no idea what it was like, to feel abandoned by your own party, for so many years. And If I remember a recent Obama speech correctly, he informed Texans, they' are going to be working to turn that state, in the future as well. The 50 state strategy isn't dead, it simply isn't discussed. There are 50 states in the union, and everyone is worth fighting for.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Which is not what the 50 state strategy was doing.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)prioritizing spending is essential, IMO. Most House districts have been designed to never allow an election to be close. Different analyses will choose different sets of districts as most competitive (for example, see the NY Times's list of the 81 most competitive House districts at
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/ratings/house ), but it would be foolhardy for the DCCC to divide up its limited funds into 435 equal parts.
Remember, only a net of 25 districts need to flip from R to D for Nancy Pelosi to become Speaker again. So the House is challenging, but by no means hopeless.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Spend where it will be effective. Don't spread it around in districts where there is no hope of winning.
cr8tvlde
(1,185 posts)There's a reason he has just sunk a ton of cash in Wisconsin. As opposed to Mitt, he has a government job to go back to. I don't think we'll be hearing a whole lot from Rep. Ryan in the next few weeks. That is unless the Democrats hammer on his plan...put it on the web, leak parts of it at a time...drip, drip, drip... like they did Romney's dirt. That's what sticks...snippets of video and audio with short-term audiences in mind.
OTOH, give it to James Carter and David Corn. They know what to do with it.
Panasonic
(2,921 posts)and retaking the house.
Trust me on this. RCP has no clue what they're looking for.
november3rd
(1,113 posts)RCP is the Fox News of polling sites.
TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)in their averages. I wish there was a button you could push that says "Poll Results" vs "Poll Results (Excluding Rasmussen)."
For example, at this point EVERY POLLING organization is showing Obama with increasingly bigger leads, except Rasmussen showing the exact opposite. Rasmussen showing Romney with increasingly bigger leads. Which leads me to believe that at this point Rasmussen is just trying to diminish Obama's lead to avoid Republican voter discouragement. If Obama is WAY ahead, a lot of Republicans might not even show up to vote, and Rasmussen's job is to prevent that.
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/12/rasmussen-vs-the-rest/192361/
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/my-probem-with-rasmussen.html
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/living-in-rasmussen-land.html
DLnyc
(2,479 posts)Electoral-vote.com has electoral and Senate maps without Rasmussen
TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)To flip the house that dramatically in two straight cycles?
I don't see it, especially since the Rethugs have made the narrative all about the President, but I could see a gain of about 15-20 seats on general principal for all the good that will really do. I know in my district my Dem Rep is in trouble for non-Washington reasons, so you never know the little battles in each district playing out.
global1
(25,241 posts)people need to know that they feel the same way Rmoney does - except that they are too smart to say it.
The American People need to know that a vote for any Repug is like shooting themselves in their foot. We need to give President Obama both the House and Senate if we really want to move Forward. Anything less will keep us in this stalemate that the Repugs have created.
Please get the word out to everyone you know.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)If the Romney campaign keeps sinking then there will probably be a bunch of republicans that won't given go to the polls to vote.
TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)The only reason those people would turn out to vote with the knowledge that Obama is going to win anyway, is if they still think that Republicans in the House are going to change everything. There's already evidence that they don't really want to.
That's also why partisan polling organizations like Rasmussen are working so hard to diminish Obama's apparent lead. To avoid having Obama ahead by too big a margin, when, in fact, the obsession with defeating Obama is the only thing driving half the GOP voters.
rachel1
(538 posts)Except for some reich-wingers and fundie scum I can't think of anyone who'd vote for them.
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)would vote for the down ticket dems too.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)Glimmer of Hope
(5,823 posts)Boo! I have a hard time believing we don't have a chance!
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)there was a lady ahead of me at the checkout. She was talking to the checker and I said something to her (can't remember now) about the 47% and she turned to me and said "can you believe that man" "he has the nerve I used to be a Republican but after what he said no way" "I will vote for Obama he isn't all perfect but a hell of a better choice". I said I agree. Mitt sure thinks us stupid out here we the 47% and she said "I know I delivered mail and no we are not" We smiled and I said have a nice evening. Everyone in the checkouts (three of them) were looking and listening to us. He's in real trouble because I live in a very red county in So. Oregon and people were acknowledging and shaking their heads yes to what we were saying. I left with a smile on my face.
So perhaps we can really get back the house. Those Republicans do not like what ole Willard said no sir ree....