Let's just make clear what the definition of a GOP victory is on November 2nd

[Politics_Guy25]

It is:
1. Winning back the house and the senate with workable majorities.
2. Winning all of the key governors races including CA, CO, FL, TX, etc.
3. Large majorities in the state houses.

If they fall short on ANY of these measures, the tea partiers, the media and the GOP have FAILED.

We have been told that a massive wave never before seen in all American history is coming. If they don't accomplish those 3 tasks, the wave ended up being a whimper and they have been rejected.

No half measures will do. They have told us to expect way more.

Anything less than those 3 happening is a huge victory for us and the dems. A huge startling comebehind unexpected victory for us at that!!

The media spin if those 3 events fail to materialize, which they will fail to, will be fascinating indeed.

[JuniperLea]

1. Spot on!

Thanks for the early framing!

[Politics_Guy25]

4. Hehe-yep I am getting a head start on the framing-n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

2. LImbaugh predicted winning 80 seats in the Congress...

Any less will be seen of proof that Democrats fixed the vote.

[Beetwasher]

3. While I Agree, The Media Will Spin Any Outcome As A GOP Victory

Even if they fail at all 3 above, they will be portrayed as having made "significant gains" that shows the country disagrees with the "Democratic Agenda".

[emulatorloo]

9. And as a "repudiation" of the Democrats. Any Dem victory will be spun as a Dem loss by the pundits

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. And they wii not get Cali

There is more, no Senate and yes, I'm willing to go there for technical reasons... I think we will keep the house... Narrowly.

[tridim]

6. It's the GOP vs. historical trends.

Trends that say the party out of power usually regains control two years after a presidential election.

If they don't regain control, they lose. Period.

If they don't even win control of the House, it will be much more than just a typical loss, it'll be their worst nightmare. That would be three wholesale losses in a row.

[JuniperLea]

7. "That would be three wholesale losses in a row."

You sweet talker!

That would be so very, very awesome!

It could happen. We really have no idea how close these races are... that damned lying librul media, donchano.

[mediaman007]

8. We should realize that all the Teabagger stuff is about re-districting and drawing

the lines for the next ten years. It wouldn't matter who the President, Speaker of the House or the Leader are. The Republicans (and corporations) are spending big so they can re-district to their advantage.

[JaneQPublic]

10. Hell, Dems aren't in charge unless we have 60+ votes in the Senate.

The GOPers should be considered losers unless they achieve the same.

Another interesting yardstick would be to compare this November's electioni results to the level of losses the Republicans suffered in mid-term voting during Reagan's first term. The GOP lost seats, but the losses were spun as a win, because they didn't lose as many seats "as expected."

Considering the press has been using such hyperbolic terms for GOP expected wins, anything short of 60+ votes in the Senate should be hailed as a pitiful failure for the GOP/Teabagger crowd.

[sadbear]

11. What? They've ALREADY won

No matter what happens, even if they don't claim the House, they, along with their co-conspirators in the media will paint it as a HUGE Democratic defeat.

[Top Cat]

12. KICK

[golfguru]

13. If GOP victory matches your criteria, then I am moving to Canada.

[CakeGrrl]

14. The media spin is inevitable in favor of the GOP.

Wins for the GOP will be hyped, wins for the Dems will be minimized.

[totodeinhere]

15. I call BS on that. We can't afford to have even modest GOP gains.

Hell, it was hard enough to get anything done with 59 Senate votes and a majority in the House. Any gains that they can make over the present makeup of Congress will be a setback for us and make it even more hard to accomplish anything. Especially consider the Senate, where only a modest pickup of seats would allow them to successfully filibuster almost everything.

[FBaggins]

17. Sure it is... But it's reasonable to play the expectations game.

It's silly to pretend that anything less that losing every single competitive seat is a victory... But it's still
reasonable to try to set a really high bar.

It's spin to be sure... But that may be what we're left with. I remember trying and failing in '94... But it's better than crying in your beer.

[krawhitham]

16. That is a landslide not a win

If they Win either the Senate or House back that is a win for the GOP. Stop deluding yourself

[quakerboy]

18. I am pretty sure you are wrong

Im pretty sure that anything short of 103 seats in the senate and 700 seats in the house is a loss for us dems, and that anything more than 1 in the senate and 1 in the house is a massive win for the pubs.

[struggle4progress]

19. we can talk about it next wednesday: gotv

[sweetapogee]

20. I'm sure

this will not make me very popular here but this is my thought on the whole thing. Just assume for the sake of arguement that we loose the house but the rethugs gain only 4 or 5 seats in the senate. We may be able to say the pukes lost because the right wing media said they would win bigger, but looking ahead at 2012, the dems in the senate have almost twice as many up for re-election as the pukes and unless the economy is humming then, I think at least a few of those 21 dem senators will side with the pukes over the next 2 years on matters important to the democrat base. Factor that in with congressional redistricting, illustrates the need to either hold on to everything OR loose everything in 2010!

It all hinges on the economy over the next 2 years. If the economy doesn't take off big time, we will have nothing to run on except a sluggish economy, more government debt, high unemployment and the real possibility that the national debt will cause severe inflation. All of this is going to be a tough sell to the voters. The pukes can start saying next year and pound it into the ground that they stand for less spending and tax breaks and point to their efforts in this vain. This will make sense to the voters in 2012 IF the economy is still in the shit can.

So, there is a silver lining for us in the storm clouds of a big puke win next week. Such a win would allow us to blame a continued bad economy on the repricks. This would be hard to take for sure but there is this thing called the big picture. Actually, a partial win for the neo-shrub crowd next week would be better for them than a complete rout, in my opinion. If I'm correct, it really comes down to this, which is more important, this election or 2012? I think we would all agree that 2012 is more important and you might think that I'm minning for gold in a salt lick. Salt may not be as valuable as gold but it has some value and can be handy to have in a pinch.

In summery, don't worry, be happy and look at next week as a speed bump on the road to 2012!

[Bellcon10]

21. Really?

This is what we call a victory now? If we lose the house and we lose more than 6-7 seats in the senate and do poorly in the Governor races than we lose. Let's tell it like it is. It means we are not getting the message out and we are not getting the vote out. We can learn something from a loss. I suppose if we lose only 3-4 Senate seats in 2012 it will be a win because we did better than 2010. If we spin it as a win then the people at the top will continue to run campaigns in the same losing manner as this year. That is unacceptable. If we lose the House and 6-7 Senate seats we lost. Get angry and do something about it. Don't spin it.