Experts forecasting Democratic "bloodbath" in House -- losses of 47 -70+ seats.

[jefferson_dem]

We would all love to prove these so-called experts wrong but best brace ourselves for the nasty Rethuglican red tide wave...

Reviewing the House Forecasts

Larry Sabato: "We are raising the total to +55 net R seats. We consider 47 to be in the ballpark still, but more of a floor than a ceiling."

Charlie Cook: "House outlook is a Democratic net loss of 48 to 60 seats, with higher losses possible."

Stuart Rothenberg: "House Democrats appear headed for a historic bloodbath, with losses probably exceeding 1994's 52 seats. We estimate likely GOP House gains at 55 to 65 seats, with gains at or above 70 seats possible."

Nate Silver: "The model's best guess is that the new Congress will be composed of 203 Democrats and 232 Republicans: a net gain of 53 seats for the G.O.P. In addition, Democratic odds of retaining the House dropped to 17 percent from 20 percent."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/10/29/reviewing_the_house_forecasts.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. You Are A Braver Man Than Me For Posting It But I Goi Your Back

~

[jefferson_dem]

2. I love this party and am an optimist but reality requires we face it...sooner or later.

Anyway, here's to hoping we feed platefulls of crow to Nate-Rothenberg-Sabato et al on Tuesday.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. You Are A Political Scientist

You know any model would have predicted this outcome. And if the economy doesn't improve you know what the "models" portend for 2012. Here's to a real economic recovery

[jefferson_dem]

6. On that note, the latest issue of PS includes a few of these political science models.

They pretty much mirror what others are saying.

Symposium: Forecasts of the 2010 Midterm Elections
From the Editor's Introduction, by James E. Campbell, University at Buffalo-SUNY:

There is a broad consensus among the models that the Republicans will make substantial gains in the House in the 2010 midterms. There is not a consensus, however, over how large those gains will be. There is a 30-seat spread between the low and high end of the seat change forecast range, with two forecasts giving an edge to Democrats in controlling the House and three placing the odds in the Republicans' favor. Lewis-Beck and Tien forecast a 22-seat gain for the Republicans. Their 200 seats would leave Republicans 18 seats short of a majority. Cuzán forecasts Republican gains of 27 to 30 seats, leaving Republicans with 205 to 208 seats and Democrats with continued control of the House. Abramowitz predicts a 43-seat gain for the Republicans. Since he uses a 179 pre-election seat base, this outcome would install a new Republican majority in place by five seats. Bafumi, Erikson, and Wlezien predict that Republicans are likely to gain 51 seats, which would give Republicans 229 seats and a 12-seat majority. Finally, my forecast is for Republicans to gain 51 or 52 seats, giving them a 12 or 13 seat majority. Whether Democrats or Republicans control the House in 2011, their majority is likely to be much narrower than the current Democratic majority. This may well present a roadblock to the Obama administration's legislative agenda and will quite probably make control of the House a real question again in 2012.

http://www.apsanet.org/PS/

[maddezmom]

3. I'm feeling sick to my stomach

need to bring out the industrial size bottle of Tums soon.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

14. We have gone batshit fucking insane as a nation. nt

[virtualobserver]

5. I have a fiirm policy of never heading to a historic bloodbath.....

over at the ballpark, when models are guessing.

[RichGirl]

7. Experts...schmexperts....(try and say that five times)

Hopefully this will get dems off their butts and to the polls on Tuesday.

[virtualobserver]

8. I use that phrase as a mantra for my morning meditation...... n/t

[BootinUp]

9. We will come in a little better than these forecasts

thanks to some good work by the whitehouse, the party, and certain professional lefties in the final month. Keeping my fingers crossed.

[Kdillard]

10. Great.

[WI_DEM]

11. Well the experts are sometimes wrong too, I'm not saying they are

but they were in '94 when they predicted that the Dems would keep the house and senate.

[pstokely]

21. Who predicted that?

When have they been wrong?

[Bluenorthwest]

12. It is like unto living satire

This cycle is so much like that Monty Python sketch where the Silly Party faces off with the Sensible Party. That is to say, this cycle is surreal, absurd, and the punch lines will fall in unpredictable places.

[budkin]

13. I'm glad the Repugs will be rewarded for their hard work...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. The Privatizing Party (maybe they should change their name)

[Ter]

15. Waiting for the buffoon with the "Dewey Defeats Truman" sign

3...2...1...

[Phoonzang]

16. Ok...I'm jumping ship. Any Canadians out there want to adopt a liberal American?

Preferably an attractive, single, female Canadian? :evilgrin:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. 60-70 seats POSSIBLE???

:wtf:

Is it potentially going to be THAT bad?? Really???

[FrenchieCat]

18. The media made this happen more than anyone else,

and we haven't done or said shit about it.

We should be ashamed of ourselves for being as weak as we are....
We number in the millions, but we simply sit on our collective
asses and complaint about those on our side for months and months,
while repeating what those who are not on our side say.


So in the end,
We allow the media to steal our democracy by not only allowing them to repeat
over and over again the same lies, but by many of us repeating whatever they say,
as often as we can, in as many forums as possible,
until it becomes the inevitable truth.

We continue to unwisely choose to defeat ourselves,
days before election day.

We are not the ones that we were waiting for....
we are the ones that we need to run from....
because with friends like us, we need no enemies....
just a Television and some polling outfits
to tell us what to do,
and what to think,
and how to react.

We suck,
and I wouldn't want to be caught in a fox hole if my life depended on it,
with most of us here at DU.

I'll be canvassing tomorrow and Sunday in East Oakland,
instead of sitting my ass in front of the TV watching
A "Sanity" Rally, or typing at DU.

I'll also be canvassing on Tuesday, election day.....
and taking folks to the polls.

I have written over 200 letters this election season
attempting to fight the media meme, but I am only one person....
and apparently that hasn't been enough.

One voice is < Millions of voices

[wisteria]

19. I don't think it will be that bad, but I suspect we will lose the House.

I really want us to hold onto the Senate. And, I have faith in voters, many of whom see through the media spin.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. I don't think the losses will be nearly as bad as the OP's quote suggests.

[pstokely]

27. Why?

?

[GreenPartyVoter]

41. No reason. Just a hunch, I guess. So don't put any money down on my opinion. LOL

[kwolf68]

20. Im hearing

Close to 50, possibly a few more, but 60+ is very unlikely.

Senate will be close, but dems should have slight control come Wed...either way, losing the USHouse to this crew coming in will basically make Obama lameduck for the next 2 years. and that's the best case scenario. I can see impeachment hearings beginning as early as Jan 2011.

[Drunken Irishman]

22. That would rival Roosevelt's 71 seats lost in the 1938 presidential election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. But Not As Bad As 94

1894.

[Drunken Irishman]

38. LOL

[pstokely]

26. Will GOTV beat math?

They were wrong in 98

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I'd Have To See The Evidence Before I Conclude Tbe Polls Were Wrong In 98

~

[Milo_Bloom]

30. The Polls weren't wrong.. the predictions were.

The polls were showing the right information in 1998... the media assumption was that democratic turnout would be depressed and the polls were misrepresenting the turnout. The assumptions were backwards.

Republican turnout was depressed (because even many republicans were disgusted by the antics of the GOP) and democrats were energized as they felt they were being wrongfully attacked and needed to defend Clinton.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Exactly

~

[pstokely]

33. Like a lot of people here think and hope is right?

nt

[pstokely]

35. They overestimated "Enthusiasm gap" then?

Like they probably are now?

[Milo_Bloom]

36. Yeah, but there was an actual reason.

They expected the president's impeachment to have a negative effect on turnout, when it actually had a positive effect for the incumbent party.

The problem here is that democrats are disappointed in this administration and the democrats performance in congress.

In 1998, there was a feeling that Clinton was being UNFAIRLY attacked. There is no such perception this time.

[Cosmocat]

39. eh ...

The dems have more raw numbers this year than in 98, and an infinitely better GOTV ...

People want to make it out like people don't see any gains ... The Rs are going to make gains, but 40 seats is A LOT of seats ... The Ds had 52% of the vote and the Rs got 46.5% of the vote to give the Ds a 31 seat gain in the House 2006 ... It would have to be, what 55% of the vote for the Rs and 43 percent of the vote for the Ds to get to 50+ ???

It just is not going to be THAT bad ...

[Milo_Bloom]

40. It will be what it will be.

I just hope they learn the right lesson from it.

[Cosmocat]

42. Learn what?

that the MSM is completely in tank with the Rs, who are deranged enough to put up the likes of Angle, O'Donnell and Miller to be some of the most powerful people on the planet?

What lesson is there here? What could they have done differently, HCR which LITERALLY passed by one vote? Making it more liberal would have gotten in passed?

They have done A FRIGGEN LOT, the finance reform was real and meaningful, and it has been the most productive congress since FDR.

BO being meaner would have changed things, how? Lending some actual meat for the MSM to point to when the Rs play the victim role? other than that, what would it have achieved ...

We sure are about to learn how good it will be to not have the "blue dogs" ... Sure, the Rs who replace them are going to be A LOT better ...

[Milo_Bloom]

43. So many excuses.. and no lessons learned.

70% of the PEOPLE supported the public option. Polls STILL show that the biggest problem with health care is that it didn't go far enough. But they didn't FIGHT for it. They were so desperate to take whatever the mean, nasty republicans would give them, that they took a crappy deal and tried to call it a victory.

Had they fought for it, for what they were elected to fight for... and dug in and made the midterm elections ABOUT health care, they would have won with overwhelming support. Instead they pass a weak bill, that doesn't address the problem... winds up creating more problems than there were before (see rate hikes all over the country and companies dropping children only policies, etc..) and gave the GOP something to run against.. something that the same 70% of people are unhappy with for one reason or another.

Financial reform real and meaningful? That's a pretty big joke. Same problem as health care... never really addressed the PROBLEM and left holes big enough to drive an entire economy through.

Your post of excuses is exactly what I am afraid of.. the democrats are going to lose the house, you know it, I know it. They will likely hold the senate by the slimest of margins and instead of learnig how to stick to their principles... they will wonder how many more of their principles they will have to sell to make the republicans start liking them.

[Cosmocat]

48. Horsesnot ...

complete and total nonsense ...

First off, 70% of people did NOT support a public option, that is just a bold faced lie ...

Not even close to reality ...

Second, again, REALITY is that they got HCR passed by ONE friggen vote ... This mystical "fight" for a more progressive HCR would have lost that single vote necessary to get it passed ...

"Had they fought for it, for what they were elected to fight for... and dug in and made the midterm elections ABOUT health care, they would have won with overwhelming support."

Seriously, you believe this? ABC just hired Andrew Brietbart to be an election night talking head, and you actually believe the media would not paint BO as an abject failure for not getting HCR passed, and instead would have used not getting passed in the democrats favor?

You believe that shiite?

When SS was first passed, it only covered widows and their children ...

Again, next in line as the most short sighted and petulent after hard core right wingers are those on our team who can't see the forest for the trees ...

[Milo_Bloom]

51. Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

First off, 70% of people did NOT support a public option, that is just a bold faced lie ...

Not even close to reality ...


You're right... it was actually 77%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693)



#2 "When SS was first passed, it only covered widows and their children ... "

No. Untrue. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=492589&mesg_id=492589



Like I said, there is no question in my mine what will happen on Tuesday. The only question is whether the democrats will learn the actual lesson.


Oh, by the way, save the "media is against us" BS. Both sides whine about it all the time. The media goes with whatever side is winning, because their goal is to be POPULAR.

[pstokely]

37. Could the Tea Party actually depress Repuke turnout?

nt

[Imajika]

44. Yup, that is exactly accurate

It's rare someone actually points this out.

The polls were almost dead on. They showed a nearly 50/50 split in the generic ballot and that is the way things turned out. We won a few seats around the margins, but it was mostly a draw. Expectations were so high for Republicans that it was considered a major Democratic victory.

The polls aren't so friendly this time around. Actually, they are looking downright dismal.

[Milo_Bloom]

29. The real question is will they (the Democrats) learn the right lesson??

[BlueIdaho]

31. You know we have the next two years to talk about this - Please don't supress the vote.

[truebrit71]

34. Yeah, I'm not buying it...I think this is made up bullshit by the rethuglicans and the presstitutes

..in the M$M...

We are certainly going to lose seats, but 50-70 seats. No fucking way. We could have two pickups here in illinois alone...

GOTV people...no-one has won a thing...

[LittleBlue]

45. This was not the change we sought

Somehow the Rethugs changed from political untouchables to preferable. This is surreal.

[Skittles]

46. they have not been held accountable for the damage they did to America

without that, it is easy to shift the blame

[rasputin1952]

47. Are rhese idiots ever right?

There seems to me an invisible thread that connects them, and each time one moron speaks, the next one has to up the ante...these people are worse than perpetual gamblers at a Roulette table.

[pstokely]

50. They have been the last few elections

There were a bit off in 98 though

[Honeycombe8]

49. 47 isn't a bloodbath. That's the conservative loss estimated. It's the 70 that is the fringe.

Expect at least 47.

Hope is a great thing. Optimism is lofty. But realism is necessary. Expect at least in the mid-40's for losses in the House. Anything worse...terrible. Anything better....a huge win for the Dems. A loss of about 47? To be expected, and that is no tsunami.

[Exilednight]

52. The final outcome will be ............

We keep the Senate with 52 seats in our majority - that includes Lieberman.

We lose the House and republicans take control with somewhere around a 5 seat majority.

[enough already 2]

53. god help us all if this happens.

I'm scared to death of this lunatics.

[niceypoo]

54. Get ready for impeachment hearings

And tons of frivolous investigations