A Republican "wave" in November?

Stu Rothenberg--who is a serious political analyst--is now predicting a "wave" election in November. He projects that the GOP will gain a net of at least seven seats in the Senate--six are needed for a majority--and that it may even gain more than that: Numbers Game Still Favors GOP Senate Majority | News & Analysis | The Rothenberg Political Report

Interesting...

 

I remember the good ole days when Obama losing was a near certainty because of the economy. Before that Hillary was a shoe in for the Democratic candidate. The golden rule of politics is to never assume anything will happen as planned. While I expect them to gain seats I am skeptical of this huge wave. The only thing that might convince me is that Nate Silver is also predicting it and he has been spot on the last two election cycles.

 

Although it's fun to stick it to Democrats in forum postings in all honesty I will be surprised it the GOP retakes the Senate at all much less retakes it with any sort of meaningful majority numbers above the bare minimal. The problem being that even if they do end up taking the senate back they will not have the votes to override Obama's vetoes and he will simply shift into across the board automatic veto mode regardless of how obstructionist that makes him look as a result.

The problem with the wave theory is that it presupposes that the principle that all state elections are primarily local concern elections will be tossed out of the window by voters determined to teach their own Democratic Party a lesson or two. That smacks of wishful thinking when you get right down to it. Now what may make the critical difference is just how angry Dem voters have gotten over the economic realities of ObamaCare and even that depends on enough of them comprehending that it really is the fault of Obama and their Dem Party leadership and that the pain they are currently feeling is NOTHING compared to what they will be feeling if ever all of the essentially fiscally evil Obamacare sections actually go into play. Those are big ifs when you consider that the vast bulk of Dem (and if we are being totally honest here GOP) voters are mostly chronic low-information types.

 

Waves tend to crash on reaching their optimum.

 

Here is a list of the national indicators which you can compare to 2010 and to 2012:

What are the chances of another 2010 wave election happening in November? Here are the five criteria that must be in place. Also you compare today with 2012 and 2010.

1. President Obama’s approval rating of below 45%: Today’s rating: 43.2%. This indicator says the Republicans should make some impressive gains.

2012 approval rating 51%
2010 approval rating 44%

2. I had the ACA as my second indicator, but I have come to the conclusion that the ACA is less relevant to the upcoming senate elections than the president’s foreign policy ratings. Especially with all the problems in the Middle East and the Ukraine. Today’s presidential foreign policy rating is 35.9% approve 56.5% disapprove.
2012 approval rating 50.2%
2010 Not available


3. Generic congressional poll, the Republicans must have a lead over the Democrats of 5 points or better: Today the Republicans have taken a one point lead over the Democrats 44-43. This is news as the Democrats have lead in the Generic Congressional poll from May 13th until today and sometimes as much as 3 points. It seems that after all this time the Congressional Generic poll is beginning to come into line with the first two indicators.

2012 generic Democrats 48% Republicans 46%
2010 generic Democrats 41% Republicans 51%

4. Party Favorability/unfavorability, the Democrats must be seen in a worst light than the Republicans. But today with all voters the Republicans have a 29% favorable rating vs a 62% unfavorable. The Democrats have a 41% favorable/50% unfavorable which should say the Democrats are in for very production November.

2012 favorability/unfavorability Democrat 47/44 Republican 40/47
2010 favorability/unfavorability Democrat 39/49 Republican 44/44

5. Party affiliation/identification Republicans must have a 5 point lead as they did in 2010 when counting those who identify with each party plus those independents which lean towards each party: Today the Democrats enjoy a two point advantage 42-40.

Identify as Democrats 31%
Independents lean Democrat 15% Total 46%
Identify as Republicans 26%
Independents lean Republican 16% Total 42%

2012 party identification
Identify as Democrats 33%
Independents lean Democrat 15% Total 48%
Identify as Republicans 28%
Independents lean Republican 12% Total 40%


2010 party identification
Identify as Democrats 29%
Independents lean Democrat 13% Total 42%
Identify as Republicans 29%
Independents lean Republican 20% Total 49%


Conclusion: We have very mixed signals coming in from the electorate. The president’s approval ratings, both overall and on foreign policy are indications of huge Republican gains. But the Democrats have a huge edge in party favorability while the Republicans have gained a one point lead in the generic congressional poll. When one looks at party affiliation, that favors the Democrats big time. I still think the odds are roughly 50-50 on the senate. Kansas has become the wildcard here. A safe seat until yesterday when the Democrat withdrew. The Democrats have a realistic shot at Georgia too. A Republican wave like 2010, I do not think so.

 

Obama is a rock star and if he was somehow in the mix this year, he'd drag along a lot of Dems. I predict record yawns from Dems this November. Stupidly, they are waiting for another rock star in 2016. Hillary ain't it. Not even to women.

 

I agree that whatever Hillary had before the MSM and the DNC colluded in 2008 to gut her candidacy she hasn't got it today. Hell I recall back in 2008 when self-identified feminists were spurning Hillary in favor of political Rock Star Barack Obama -- leg tingling Obamagasms part of the ride.

But as to Obama's Rock Star qualities, that was over and done with before the 2012 election when he HAD to have Bill Clinton -- the Left's reliable Big Dawg Great Communicator -- hit the campaign trail for him because Barack's magic had vanished. But even at that if Hurricane Sandy had not hit at the last minute and given the MSM one last chance to (falsely) portray Obama as a great and caring and competent leader, then Romney would be president today.

 

Agree but disagree. Sandy helped but it didn't hand Obie the win. I think Romney was able to make it somewhat close because Obama played softball with him. He might have had to play hardball if his managers had told him the race was closer, but there was almost no mention of Romney's tax amnesty agreement and nobody poked fun at him because he and his wife were into prancing horsies (nobody except for people like me). I kept saying to myself "hit the sum(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)" and he never did. And Bush's New Orleans flyover after Katrina was too recent for people to be all that concerned about Obama's attitude about New Jersey. What they remembered about Sandy was how Obama and Christie became BFFs.

 

Six really mean nothing unless you have 60 or more seats. The minority can filibuster under certain circumstances if need be and if you have a Democrat President, he/she can always veto a bill if need be. Not as easy as it seems. But either way, we'll see what happens on Election day.

 

People said the same thing to Romney. You have Obama in a corner now hit him hard . . . and yet both men kept playing it safe; Obama knowing that he once again had the media generally pulling for him while subtly attacking his opponent at every opportunity. It really was Hurricane Sandy that made the ultimate difference; but it's all would have, should have, could have stuff . . . and neither of us is going to convince the other.

 

If Harry Reid is demoted to Minority Leader, so that the Republicans can set the agenda, that is of the utmost importance, it seems to me.

Perhaps.

But an alternative theory--and a more reasonable one, I believe--is that President Obama is now in full Legacy Mode; so he will probably not wish to act in such a way as to diminish his place in history.

The axiom that all politics is local (first popularized by the late "Tip" O'Neill) is really more typically true as regarding House races than it is as regarding Senate races. And, in any case, it does appear that the GOP has successfully nationalized this election.

Full disclosure: I am, indeed, a Republican (and a conservative). But I have no reason to believe that this is the case, also, for Stu Rothenberg. In any case, I believe he calls the shots as he sees them; his career as a political analyst simply could not survive his "wishful thinking."

And I do believe the Republican base is far more energized than the Democratic base is. This is especially important in midterm elections, since the voter turnout for these elections is typically very low; they are, in essence, base elections.

 

First, I want to say that the above was a very thoughtful post.

I would, however, like to make two important points, viz.: (1) Not that many independents actually vote in midterm elections, as a percentage of the total--unlike presidential elections; and (2) the Republican base is far more energized in 2014 than the Democratic base is.

 

Well, that is not entirely true, since Harry Reid changed matters less than one full year ago (at least, as regarding nominations).

In any case, having control of the Senate means precisely that: having control of the Senate. In other words, Mitch McConnell--not Harry Reid--would be setting the agenda.

I am not sure that President Obama would wish to use his veto pen promiscuously, as that would not tend to serve his legacy well...

 

Well I certainly hope that these prediction are correct. It would be great . . .

 

And the numbers to look at are

Identify as Republican 2010 - 29% , 2012 - 28%, 2014 - 26%

Identify as Democrats 2010 - 29%, 2012 - 33%, 2014 - 31%

Over the last 6 years, when all this bad stuff was supposedly happening, the number of Democrats has risen, and the number of Republicans has declined, and that is a trend that should continue for some time.

An election is a combination of an number of things adding up, and the telling detail of this upcoming election, is that with nearly everything lining up in favor of the GOP, their "best case" is a 2 vote senate majority.
And if they get that, they go into 2016 as the majority party in both Houses, so they have to have something besides baggage to run on in 2016.
And the Senate 2016 is a reprise of 2010, the Democrats should be able to pick up something there, there are 7 republican seats that look vulnerable in 2016.

 

Here is the party affiliation I have kept track of since FDR.

Here is a list of party affiliation from 1935 to present. I find it quite interesting that the Republican Party has never been higher than 35% of the electorate and that occurred in both 1945 and 1955. Truman had replaced FDR in 1945 and WWII had come to an end. In 1955 Eisenhower was president and was popular with both parties. Whereas the Democrats have been as high as 52, 1965 a year after the Goldwater debacle and passage of the civil rights act of 1964 and has now just one point off of their all-time low of 29%. The Republicans are now at 23%, just a bit higher than their all-time low of 21% the year after Nixon resigned from office because of Watergate.


Pew Research for the 1935-2000 numbers/Gallup for 2005-Today

Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
1935…51……30……19
1940…50……32……18
1945…47……35…..18
1950…48……32…..20
1955…47……35…..18
1960…51……29…..20
1965…52……24….24
1970…47……27…..26
1975…51……21…..28
1980…45……27…..28
1985…40……32…...28
1990…38……30…..32
1995…32……32…..36
2000…34……30…..36
2005…34……33……30………..14…………………....8…………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…31……26….40………..15…………………..16………………….9…..As of August 10 2014

Average party strength under different presidents
FDR Democrats 50% Republicans 32%
Truman Democrats 48% Republicans 32%
Eisenhower Democrats 47% Republicans 35%
JFK Democrats 51% Republicans 29%
LBJ Democrats 50% Republicans 26%
Nixon Democrats 50% Republicans 24%
Ford Democrats 48% Republicans 24%
Carter Democrats 45% Republicans 27%
Reagan Democrats 40% Republicans 32%
Bush SR. Democrats 38% Republicans 30%
Clinton Democrats 36% Republicans 31%
Bush JR. Democrats 33% Republicans 33%
Obama Democrats 32% Republicans 28%

Yeah, I agree on the 2016 senate forecast. If the Republicans take the senate in 2014, they are bound to lose it in 2016. I am a numbers guy and go by the numbers a whole lot more than ideology. Speaking of 2016, the electoral college math also give the Democrats a huge advantage in the race for the oval office.

 

Obama has nothing to lose at that stage; he'll no doubt veto key legislation regardless of his personal outcome and let the historians write his legacy 50 years from now.

 

I agree with that. That is why the Republicans do have an excellent shot at gaining control of the senate. But as of today, I don't see a wave election happening where the GOP makes huge gains in both chambers of congress. The House seems pretty set where it looks like either party could gain or lose a few seats. If I had to make a prediction today, I would say the Republicans gain around 5 seats. In the senate I would give the Republicans West Virginia, South Dakota, Arkansas, Montana, Louisiana. Colorado, North Carolina, Alaska, Iowa are all still tilting towards the Democrats retaining their seats there although that could change between now and election day. On the other side of the ledger, McConnell in Kentucky is beginning to pull away from Grimes, in Georgia the Republican Perdue has a slight advantage. Then there is Kansas, the possibility exist that they elect an Independent which since Orman is a former Democrat would caucus and vote with the Democrats much like Sanders from Vermont and King from Maine. In other words be independent in name only, but in actions be true Democrats. Although Orman now has a 10 point lead in Kansas, I do not expect that to last long.

 

One thing to note....most of those Senate seats the GOP may pick up...

are in States that are traditionall "Red" anyway, and went to Romney.


The point? It's hardly a "wave" election when the GOP is winning on its "home turf" of the South and Rocky Mountain states or even in Purple states like Colorado.


BTW, I expect the GOP to do well in the Senate....lots of celebrating by the Right throughtout November, December, and January....

and then the "hangover" when Mitch McConnell and John Boehner "allow" a vote on immigration reform.

 

7 seats is unlikely, but I expect a net of 4.

 

I am not so sure that President Obama (like Harry Truman) would fare much better in "50 years" than he did when he left office; especially if he were to thwart the will of the American people so very often...

 

This, too, is a well-thought-out post.

Like you, I rather doubt that Orman's lead in Kansas will last. In fact, I believe it is now down to a two-point lead. And the Democratic candidate's name (Chad Taylor) has been left on the ballot, due to a court order; which further diminishes the chances of an upset in the very red state of Kansas.

South Dakota, Montana, and West Virginia are all-but-certain GOP pickups. In order to take control of the Senate, Republicans need to win just three other states--with Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas, and North Carolina being foremost among the possibilities. Outside chances for a GOP gain also exist in Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire--and perhaps even Minnesota--although I would favor the Democratic candidates in each of these states.

My own (less-than-professional) predictions: The GOP will gain six or seven Senate seats, and make small gains in the House; exactly how many seats, I do not know. (Of course, my predictions plus a dollar will buy you a newspaper.)

 

The problem with this discussion is that in reality the Republican party is actually two separate parties. Even if the " Republicans" win the Senate the fact that the party is so ideologically divided will render the " Republicans" unable to make any significant policy initiatives.

 

Gerrymandered districts have made the House a GOP shoe in even if a national poll and numbers favor the Democrats. That is not going to change soon. The Senate is going to be about people. I think the GOP is counting chickens way too early. They could lose some serious races. We will know more at the end of the month but right now I don't think the GOP will pick up 7 seats in the Senate.

 

I do election predictions as a hobby too. I find it all very interesting. Sabato of 270 to win today switched Arkansas from toss up to lean Republican. So I am confident like you of West Virginia, Montana and South Dakota going Republican. Arkansas and Louisiana I am fairly confident will also go Republican. That leaves my tossup states of North Carolina where Hagan has a slight edge, Alaska, Begich also has slight edge but in the end I think Alaska goes Republican and that is the six states needed.. I think Colorado and Iowa remain Democratic.