• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NEWSWEEK Poll: Democrats May Not Be Headed for Midterm Bloodbath

damianvincent said:
For that to happen the GOP would have to lose 2 of the seats they now currently lead in, and that's assumeing the Dems keep Feigngold's, Reid's, Murray, all of which only lead by 1.something. That's assumeing some pretty good fortune for the Dems going forward. As far as the house is concerned I feel your way off, the GOP only needs 10 of 35 toss ups alomst all of which are Dem seats.

I mean for the Dems to hold the House they have to win 2/3 the toss up seats.
Click to expand...

What you have to understand is most of the polling that people base the bloodbath on is generic polling, which is basically worthless. The repubs will make significant gains in the south, but only small gains the rest of the country, so things could very well end up as he describes.I could easily see repubs get as any as 20 seat majority in the house, with 10 not at all unlikely, but if I where to guess, it will be a very close to split house. Dems will almost surely keep control of the senate, but probably not by more than 2 or 3 seats.
 
To add, and thanks goes to dav for this link: Senate Races - Election 2010 - The New York Times

Dems have 46 fairly solid seats in senate, with 5 leans democratic, and 8 tossups, which means that dems should retain the senate.

In the house, 168 solid democratic, 163 solid repub(and this is why I hate generic polls, which would lead one to guess otherwise on those). In leaning, it's 55 dem, 18 repub, and 31 tossups.

Now, this all does not consider some important points, such is how motivated to get out to vote people on the left and right are. I suspect that in the leadup to November, you will see strong pushes by both sides to get people out to vote(yes, you can call me Capt. Obvious for that).
 
Redress said:
What you have to understand is most of the polling that people base the bloodbath on is generic polling, which is basically worthless. The repubs will make significant gains in the south, but only small gains the rest of the country, so things could very well end up as he describes.I could easily see repubs get as any as 20 seat majority in the house, with 10 not at all unlikely, but if I where to guess, it will be a very close to split house. Dems will almost surely keep control of the senate, but probably not by more than 2 or 3 seats.
Click to expand...

To not repeat myself, I'll just link to my post in another thread here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...int-lead-generic-ballot-4.html#post1058954443

Sorry, but anyone who thinks that the GOP won't control the house either hasn't noticed what is going on, or has tried to blind themselves to it. I would be surprised if they picked up less than 50 seats, and wouldn't be surprised if they picked up more than 60.

I don't know why you said that about the South; the GOP has potential gains pretty much everywhere now, including areas where they don't usually win much, like the Northeast and the West. Maybe you said that because of numbers that show that their numbers in the South are racheting up the numbers for the country as a whole, but that is always the case. The important thing is not how well they do in a region, but how well they do in a region compared to the norm. If they win only one or two House elections in New England, it will be more than they already have now.

Generic Ballots aren't accurate tools to show election outcomes, but they do show general trends. For the Democrats to come back from the shorfall they have now would be unprecedented, and if they keep the House by a single seat, it will be one of the largest political upsets in U.S. history.
(Okay, maybe I did slightly repeat myself.)


EDIT: Maybe I should wait for Nate Silver's House model to come out before I make such sweeping generalizations though. He keeps saying he'll put it up soon but hasn't yet. It'll be interesting to see the results, at least. Nate Silver, as it happens, is a liberal who has said that he doesn't think people realize just how bad a position the House Democrats are in right now.
 
Last edited:
Dav said:
To not repeat myself, I'll just link to my post in another thread here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...int-lead-generic-ballot-4.html#post1058954443

Sorry, but anyone who thinks that the GOP won't control the house either hasn't noticed what is going on, or has tried to blind themselves to it. I would be surprised if they picked up less than 50 seats, and wouldn't be surprised if they picked up more than 60.

I don't know why you said that about the South; the GOP has potential gains pretty much everywhere now, including areas where they don't usually win much, like the Northeast and the West. Maybe you said that because of numbers that show that their numbers in the South are racheting up the numbers for the country as a whole, but that is always the case. The important thing is not how well they do in a region, but how well they do in a region compared to the norm. If they win only one or two House elections in New England, it will be more than they already have now.

Generic Ballots aren't accurate tools to show election outcomes, but they do show general trends. For the Democrats to come back from the shorfall they have now would be unprecedented, and if they keep the House by a single seat, it will be one of the largest political upsets in U.S. history.
Click to expand...

Compare the link I provided, and got from you, to your link. Notice how they tell a different story. Now, why do you think that is? It's because of the inherent flaw in generic polling.

Edit ti respond to your edit: who is this Nate Silver?
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
What you have to understand is most of the polling that people base the bloodbath on is generic polling, which is basically worthless. The repubs will make significant gains in the south, but only small gains the rest of the country, so things could very well end up as he describes.I could easily see repubs get as any as 20 seat majority in the house, with 10 not at all unlikely, but if I where to guess, it will be a very close to split house. Dems will almost surely keep control of the senate, but probably not by more than 2 or 3 seats.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but the numbers I was speaking of where specific, not the generic ballot. Plus I'll add, the Republicans are almost certain to pick up seats in, Co, Fl, Il, In, MD, Mi, Nh, Nm, Nv, Pa, Wa, Wi, Ny, all of which are out of the South. It's really not looking good for the Dems. I'd say it's twice as likely the Repubs win the Senate than the Dems keep the house.
 
Redress said:
Compare the link I provided, and got from you, to your link. Notice how they tell a different story. Now, why do you think that is? It's because of the inherent flaw in generic polling.
Click to expand...

Generic Polling doesn't tell the whole picture. However, the NYT and all other sites that subjectively categorize solid/leans/tossups, I am pretty sure tend to overstate the chances of an incumbent, or at least seem to be doing so now. I frankly trust them less than I trust generic polling.

Edit ti respond to your edit: who is this Nate Silver?
Click to expand...

My favorite liberal ever.

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com


EDIT: to highlight what I was saying earlier: many of the Senate races the NYT map categorizes as "leans Dem" or "tossup", Nate Silver's analysis categorizes as tossup or leans GOP or even relatively safe GOP. For example, Silver gives Arkansaw a 100% chance of electing a Republican Senator, while the NYT map only has that race as "lean GOP". This probably holds true of House seats as well.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
To add, and thanks goes to dav for this link: Senate Races - Election 2010 - The New York Times

Dems have 46 fairly solid seats in senate, with 5 leans democratic, and 8 tossups, which means that dems should retain the senate.

In the house, 168 solid democratic, 163 solid repub(and this is why I hate generic polls, which would lead one to guess otherwise on those). In leaning, it's 55 dem, 18 repub, and 31 tossups.

Now, this all does not consider some important points, such is how motivated to get out to vote people on the left and right are. I suspect that in the leadup to November, you will see strong pushes by both sides to get people out to vote(yes, you can call me Capt. Obvious for that).
Click to expand...

You should check out the numbers at Real Clear Politics which averages all of the polls together, tends to iron out the anomolies. I can show you numbers that have the Republicans leading by vastly larger margins than I've stated here.

Check them out... Not looking good for the Dems.

RealClearPolitics - 2010 Election Maps - Battle for the House
 
Didn't you guys read my post?

Newsweek fudged their own numbers. Their poll doesn't show the democrats neck and neck with republicans as they reported.
 
Redress said:
What you have to understand is most of the polling that people base the bloodbath on is generic polling, which is basically worthless.
Click to expand...

nonsense, cook devotes indefatigable, fastidious effort into breaking down individual house and senate races

rcp's projections are based on local polls, like albequerque journal, like las vegas review, as well as national outfits like we ask america and aaf-ayers, in addition to more notable mason dixon's, survey usa's...

cook isn't alone, chuck todd of msnbc was a district by district guy when he worked for hotline and was a regular on brian lamb's washington journal---folks should listen when mr todd talks, even take notes...

fox's michael barone is much the same, i could tell you a very interesting story about election nite 2000...

karl rove got his start this way

these guys are like almanacs of capitol hill electorals

The repubs will make significant gains in the south, but only small gains...
Click to expand...

LOL!

where the heck did that come from
 
Last edited:
damianvincent said:
You should check out the numbers at Real Clear Politics which averages all of the polls together, tends to iron out the anomolies. I can show you numbers that have the Republicans leading by vastly larger margins than I've stated here.

Check them out... Not looking good for the Dems.

RealClearPolitics - 2010 Election Maps - Battle for the House
Click to expand...

RCP still puts it at roughtly 10ish seat majority to repubs in house, which is very much in line with what I have been saying. Trust me, if Dems don't lose the house, we will consider it a strait up victory election.
 
it's also politics 101 that late breaking undecideds tend pretty strongly to go against incumbency

the psychology is something along the lines of---if you like ms boxer, you like her, if you haven't yet made up your mind...

she being so known, and all
 
The Prof said:
why?

i'll stick with links, if you don't mind

with links, questions of character don't come up
Click to expand...

Holy ****, take 2 words out of a post and spin them to mean something totally unlike what I posted. That is one of the most dishonest things I have seen around here in awhile. Good job!
 
Dav said:
For example, Silver gives Arkansas a 100% chance of electing a Republican Senator, while the NYT map only has that race as "lean GOP". This probably holds true of House seats as well.
Click to expand...

the lady (nyt) gives lincoln a chance?

LOL!

her trailing john boozeman by 38 per rasmussen a few weeks ago was reported by politico as the worst polling ever by an incumbent

roger simon's journo listers since took it down, i'd presume because it's not true

but either way, it's dismal, impossibly dismal

my sainted old ma lives in arkansas, still tack-sharp, still totally politico herself...

bye bye blanche, in boozeman's bag

Election 2010: Arkansas Senate - Rasmussen Reports™

RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Arkansas Senate - Boozman vs. Lincoln

Blanche Lincoln Emerging As Most Vulnerable Senate Incumbent
 
Last edited:
bottom line---if carly can beat bitchy barbara in CA, reds have a better than 50-50 chance UPSTAIRS

you've got a very unpopular, unattractive, arrogant extremist standing between you and your fears

worry
 
it's getting so bad, wwf mcmahon is actually catching some excitement in connecticut, the most elitist, eggheaded and wealthy "state" in the union (connecticut is a case)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/nyregion/11dodd.html?_r=1&ref=linda_e_mcmahon

since her primary win over congressman simmons 3 weeks ago, ms mcmahon has gained on mr blumenthal, who has his own well publicized problems, by about a dozen points, she's within SEVEN in scott's latest survey

RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Connecticut Senate - McMahon vs. Blumenthal

now the constitution state is a reach, granted, that's why i have it as pickup #14

but whereas charlie cook did not use the word "romp," he did talk all about the "wave"

even connecticut is not out of reach

worry

this is dead dodd's demesne, bear in mind
 
Last edited:
Dav said:
At least to begin with, all they have to do is not vote to fund it.
Click to expand...

Most of the health care reform law is entitlement spending, not discretionary spending. That means that Congress doesn't NEED to vote to fund it; the funding is automatic. They would need to vote to repeal it.

At most, the Republicans would be able to defund a few minor bits of discretionary spending sprinkled throughout the bill. And most of them aren't very controversial anyway (e.g. funding for electronic health records).
 
a republican house will certainly move to undo the mandate, which those bellwether show me's shouted down via measure c, 71 to 29

a boehner led house will certainly act, here, and reds will be hailed as heroes and heroines for so doing

which is an excellent start
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
a republican house will certainly move to undo the mandate, which those bellwether show me's shouted down via measure c, 71 to 29

a boehner led house will certainly act, here, and reds will be hailed as heroes and heroines for so doing

which is an excellent start
Click to expand...

They can "move to undo the mandate" all they like. But they aren't actually going to get anywhere regardless of the outcome of the 2010 or 2012 elections. I think the Democrats are in for a world of hurt in 2010, but I'm not the slightest bit concerned that Republicans will have the power to undo health care reform.
 
j-mac said:
HA! You got two if you're lucky and he doesn't get impeached before that.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Sorry to break your bubble...but you are delusional if you think there is a Republican out there that is going to beat Obama in 2012. Who is it? Jindal (LOL)....Palin (JK!!!)....Gingrich (as if).....seriously....who has the GOP got?
 
Kandahar said:
They can "move to undo the mandate" all they like. But they aren't actually going to get anywhere regardless of the outcome of the 2010 or 2012 elections. I think the Democrats are in for a world of hurt in 2010, but I'm not the slightest bit concerned that Republicans will have the power to undo health care reform.
Click to expand...

Yeah, people who think the GOP will repeal health care reform in 2010 are delusional. It's literally impossible. As in, the GOP could win literally every seat in the senate that is up for election and they still wouldn't even be a supermajority, much less veto-proof.
 
Kandahar said:
I'm not the slightest bit concerned that Republicans will have the power to undo health care reform.
Click to expand...

link?

meanwhile, in THE NEWS:

health secty---reeducation is called for

Sebelius: Time for 'Reeducation' on Obama Health Care Law - The Note

but, concerning obamacare "democratic candidates are being instructed to promote their independence from the party and from capitol hill," ie, don't talk about it

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/20/in-odd-twist-gop-highlights-health-care/

nor their "legislative accomplishments"

Endangered Dems quiet on key votes - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

herndon, which "coordinates" for the seiu, aflcio, la raza, moveon and others, "abandons claims that [obamacare] will reduce costs and the deficit and instead stresses a promise to 'improve it.'"

Dems retreat on health care cost pitch - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

hcan, meanwhile, works to reward its supporters---by "changing the subject"

Health reform group aids campaigns - Sarah Kliff - POLITICO.com

kind of a pinch, no?

surviving dems will join gop house leadership in undoing the mandate

an excellent start
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Sorry to break your bubble...but you are delusional if you think there is a Republican out there that is going to beat Obama in 2012. Who is it? Jindal (LOL)....Palin (JK!!!)....Gingrich (as if).....seriously....who has the GOP got?
Click to expand...

Well, who was Obama before he came to national prominence? Maybe there's somebody that just hasn't tripped the radar yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom