First thread! Will Repubs retake the House? Senate?

[Fenris]

I'm thinking in terms of numbers, not whether they "should" or not.

I say "yes" to the house, "not a chance" to the Senate.

[Enderw24]

No. and no.

They will gain seats in both. That seems inevitable.

[Marley23]

I'll say the Senate is out of the question. The House is a possibility but I'm not sure. The campaigns are just gearing up and we'll have to see what the economy does.

[RTFirefly]

House: No. Possible, I suppose, but IMHO it's extremely unlikely.

Senate: no freakin' way.

Things I'd cheerfully bet on at even odds:

1) There will be at least 54 Dem Senators once the new Senate is fully seated next year. (By 'fully seated,' I'd say the Senate for the current Congress was only fully seated until Franken was sworn in. You get the idea.)

2) There will be at least 225 Dem Congresscritters in the new House.

[Gyrate]

Barring some major disaster that can be pinned to Obama or the Democrats, no and no. The Republicans will make some modest midterm gains as per usual but not enough to take either house.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Barring some major disaster that can be pinned to Obama or the Democrats, no and no.

If the oil gusher in the Gulf doesn't count as a major disaster, I really don't want to see a major disaster. Not that I hold Obama solely responsible for that, and I don't think most of the public does either, but it does not make him look good and it is not going away.

[BrainGlutton]

The Tea Partiers are just hurting the GOP's chances, by supporting hard-right candidates in the primaries who, in most cases, will have no hope of winning the general election.

Still, I'd actually like to see Rand Paul get in, if only for the sake of more ideological diversity in Congress.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Marley23

If the oil gusher in the Gulf doesn't count as a major disaster, I really don't want to see a major disaster. Not that I hold Obama solely responsible for that, and I don't think most of the public does either, but it does not make him look good and it is not going away.

Hence the requirement for it to be pinned on Obama. I really don't know what people expect him to do that he's already doing.

I feel a GD thread coming on...

[Paul in Qatar]

It politically impossible for the GOP to retake the Senate. Not enough seats are truly in play. The best they can hope for is to get 40 + 1 seats. That is darn tough.

Since the entire House is up for reelection, the GOP could take control. But again, few seats are really in play.

[BobLibDem]

No. Neither one. The jobs situation will improve, albeit slowly, and the feeling of crisis will pass. The health care debate is over and since the sky has not fallen, the anger over the issue will fade. The oil spill will be seen as the Bush-Cheney deregulation fiasco. Looking at recent special elections, the only GOP win was in Hawaii, where the Democratic vote was split. The Dems will easily take back that seat. Rand Paul is exposing the Teabaggers for the racist halfwits that they are, this will scare moderate independents away from marking the R side of the ballot.

Republican gains will be minimal this fall, if at all. The anti-incumbent feeling may be out there in theory, but when it gets down to voting a lot of people still like their damned rascal.

I look for little change this year, then as the economy gathers steam in 2012, the reelection of Obama and a filibuster-proof solid Dem majority in the Senate.

[Squink]

No and no.
Healthcare reform will continue to slowly increase in popularity, and Republicans who run against it will only hurt themselves at the polls. Lots of Republicans will run against it.

The extent of Bush's dysregulation at the MMS will become better known, and many southern Republicans will find themselves at odds with the party's anti-regulatory planks, especially when it comes to oiling their beaches. That'll hurt GOPers at the polls too.

The teaparty bit will continue to hurt where it matters, in actually getting GOPers elected. Too much extremist crap actually does alienate the independents.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Squink

The extent of Bush's dysregulation at the MMS will become better known, and many southern Republicans will find themselves at odds with the party's anti-regulatory planks, especially when it comes to oiling their beaches. That'll hurt GOPers at the polls too.

Eh - that would require the Democrats (individually and collectively) to get this message across without any blame rebounding onto themselves and Obama (who has had control of MMS for the past 1.5 years, higher priorities notwithstanding). Without a FoxNews-type organ to coordinate the message, it ain't gonna happen.

[CandidGamera]

I'm thinking the GOP has even odds of taking the House, and might whittle the Dems down to 52-53 Senators, but that's about it.

[BrainGlutton]

The problem is, the GOP has no big energizing message this year, like the Contract With America in 1994. Jobs are the big issue, but what ideas do Republicans have to offer there? "No!" ain't enough to win.

[kenner116]

Originally Posted by CandidGamera

I'm thinking the GOP has even odds of taking the House, and might whittle the Dems down to 52-53 Senators, but that's about it.

This. Polls show the Republicans with a slight advantage in the House, and FiveThirtyEight.com is showing the Dems losing 4 to 8 seats in the Senate. I'm guessing Sestak will win in PA and the Dem may win in Colorado. So that's a loss of 6 or 7 for the Dems.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Without a FoxNews-type organ to coordinate the message, it ain't gonna happen.

A nice juicy federal prosecution would do wonders for the message. Of course, it's not clear that Obama's justice has the balls for that. Still, what with housing collapse and bank debacles and insurance company ripoffs there appears to be a bit of reexamination of antiregulatory sentiments. That can only hurt the GOP.

[TriPolar]

Too soon to tell. The mood of the country may be apparent in September, but the next couple of months will affect people's attitudes in various ways. Big factors will be the price of gasoline at the pump (which may remain low), unemployment (which may remain high), the Gulf oil spill, hurricanes, international affairs, the flaming out or flaming up of the Tea Party, more political scandals, etc.. Until these coalesce, the electorate will maintain its obvious anti-incumbent dissatisfaction shown in primaries, but when election day comes, they have to decide if the unknown candidate is better than the known incumbent. The challengers negatives may make them undesirable in the general election.
To make a general guess, Republican gains in the House and Senate, no change in the dominant party, just the level of dominance.
More interesting will be the changes in the political atmosphere if lots of incumbents are booted out.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by kenner116

This. Polls show the Republicans with a slight advantage in the House, and FiveThirtyEight.com is showing the Dems losing 4 to 8 seats in the Senate. I'm guessing Sestak will win in PA and the Dem may win in Colorado. So that's a loss of 6 or 7 for the Dems.

That's a possibility. I think there are two pretty realistic Dem pickups though - MO (I actually thought this was a strong possiblity considering the relative brand value of the Carnahan and Blunt names here - but it looks less likely now) and FL (assuming Crist will caucus with the Dems, which he must if he hopes to win).

Quite frankly, if I got to pick just one result for November, it would be Rubio losing to Crist.

[Gangster Octopus]

No and no.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Squink

No and no.
Healthcare reform will continue to slowly increase in popularity, and Republicans who run against it will only hurt themselves at the polls. Lots of Republicans will run against it.

Popular views are already against repeal, as the GOP made the mistake of promoting as its platform.

But when asked if they would be more likely to vote for a congressional candidate willing to give the law a chance to work and make changes as needed, or one who would repeal it entirely and start over, respondents picked the one who would give it a chance by 55-42.

Political independents favored giving the law a chance 57-40 in the poll, taken in early May.
..
An Associated Press-GfK poll in May found that 47-39 percent, Americans trust Democrats to do a better job of handling the issue.

The extent of Bush's dysregulation at the MMS will become better known

But that won't matter - Obama's been in charge long enough that the problems are now his, and the issues will come up only in relation to how much / whether he's fixed them, not who created them. That said, you may have heard the last of "Drill, baby, drill!" said in earnest.

The teaparty bit will continue to hurt where it matters, in actually getting GOPers elected. Too much extremist crap actually does alienate the independents.

Don't be too sure that will matter either. Fox does know how to motivate their viewers, er, excuse me, the Tea Partiers, to get out to vote, and alienated independents tend to stay home. We've seen a lot of hard-right candidates elected even before there was a name for them.

Oh, right, the OP: Senate impossible, House almost so.

[Evil Captor]

I think the Tea Party will hurt the Republicans in November. No majority in either house of Congress, and a smaller gain than expected.

[Jas09]

Forgot to add that Rand Paul is making it more and more likely by the week that the Dems will pick up the KY Senate seat as well.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

The problem is, the GOP has no big energizing message this year, like the Contract With America in 1994.

You don't think the Ninja Cats are going to come through for them?

[Captain Amazing]

They'll gain seats, but I don't think they'll win a majority in either house, with the caveat that it's a long time until November, and that if the economy stays the same or gets worse, that'll help the Republicans, and that might let them pick up more House seats. I'm also assuming, of course, that no one does anything insane.

[Skammer]

Moderate gains for the GOP, but the Dems will keep their majorities in both houses. The 'pubs will be emboldened, however, and dig in in 2011 and with 41+ senate seats will try to block just about anything the Dems try to pass.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I think the Tea Party will hurt the Republicans in November. No majority in either house of Congress, and a smaller gain than expected.

I think it's impossible to say what the Tea Party will do. It will doubtless split the Republican vote, and result in a bunch of primary wins by candidates too far to the right to win an election, but it may also increase GOP turnout enough to offset these issues.

[Tanbarkie]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I think it's impossible to say what the Tea Party will do. It will doubtless split the Republican vote, and result in a bunch of primary wins by candidates too far to the right to win an election, but it may also increase GOP turnout enough to offset these issues.

Indeed. Democrats underestimate the Tea Party at their own peril - not because the 'baggers necessarily have useful policy ideas or even popular support, but because they are doing a helluva job of firing up the Republican base, while the Democratic base is at a nadir of enthusiasm. And independents don't just include politically-active moderates, sadly. It also includes lots of apathetic non-political types who might swing towards the Paulbots just because they represent something new (you can tell this type because, if pressed on why they vote the way they do, they can't come up with anything more specific than "Washington is full of dirt, throw the bastards out!").

That being said, I still think the Dems hold both the House and Senate, although the former only narrowly. A major factor that could tilt the election one way or the other will be how the economy acts over the next five months. If things look good, the Dems may be able to minimize their losses (it is unlikely in the extreme that they will actually make any gains). If things start looking bad again, then the Dems will probably lose the House.

[Little Nemo]

Indeed. Democrats underestimate the Tea Party at their own peril - not because the 'baggers necessarily have useful policy ideas or even popular support, but because they are doing a helluva job of firing up the Republican base, while the Democratic base is at a nadir of enthusiasm. And independents don't just include politically-active moderates, sadly. It also includes lots of apathetic non-political types who might swing towards the Paulbots just because they represent something new (you can tell this type because, if pressed on why they vote the way they do, they can't come up with anything more specific than "Washington is full of dirt, throw the bastards out!").

The problem the Republicans are going to have is whether they can turn the movement from being anti-Democratic into being pro-Republican. The Tea Partiers are already convinced that the Democrats in office a problem but they still have to be sold the idea that electing Republicans is the solution.

There's a strong possibility that the Tea Partiers will just drop out of the election process entirely. That will be a disaster for the Republicans. The Democrats will still be able to use the Tea Party as a focus to run against while the Republicans will gain nothing from the movement.

[Tanbarkie]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The problem the Republicans are going to have is whether they can turn the movement from being anti-Democratic into being pro-Republican. The Tea Partiers are already convinced that the Democrats in office a problem but they still have to be sold the idea that electing Republicans is the solution.

There's a strong possibility that the Tea Partiers will just drop out of the election process entirely. That will be a disaster for the Republicans. The Democrats will still be able to use the Tea Party as a focus to run against while the Republicans will gain nothing from the movement.

I don't think this is true. The Tea Party is, for all intents and purposes, a subset of the Republican Party. This isn't a "Green Party" situation, wherein the extremists might vote for Nader over the less-palatable but more-electable Gore. They're not even like Perot's supporters, who disdained both major parties more or less equally.

In contrast, Tea Party members strongly identify with and support the Republican Party (Nate Silver goes over the relevant data here). They're looking to move the Pubbies rightward, to be sure, but only via the primaries. They'll happily support a moderate Republican over ANY Democrat in general elections. Just look at what happened here in Massachusetts. Scott Brown wasn't expected to be a blip on the radar, and ended up winning - partly because his opponent was one of the least-effective candidates I've ever seen (seriously, who is stupid enough to call Curt Schilling a Yankees fan in Boston?!), but just as much because he had some serious Teabagger energy behind him.

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The problem the Republicans are going to have is whether they can turn the movement from being anti-Democratic into being pro-Republican. The Tea Partiers are already convinced that the Democrats in office a problem but they still have to be sold the idea that electing Republicans is the solution.

There's a strong possibility that the Tea Partiers will just drop out of the election process entirely. That will be a disaster for the Republicans. The Democrats will still be able to use the Tea Party as a focus to run against while the Republicans will gain nothing from the movement.

Where are you getting that there's a 'strong' possibility, or even a possibility that the TPers will sit the election out? I'm not getting that at all, well, aside from the rhetoric from talking heads.

Further, to your excellent point that the TPers sitting out would be a disaster for Republicans, I think the meme that TPers are not primarily Republicans is a bunch of hooey, and because they're Republicans first, idealists second, and because they will oppose any Democrat for any reason and no reason, in the end, the TPers will fall in line and back the Republican candidate, even if said candidate promotes an agenda that's against their better interests.

To answer the OP, close but no cigar in the House, and not a chance in Hell in the Senate.

ETA: Tanbarkie pretty much said what I did, but better.

[Chronos]

Still, I'd actually like to see Rand Paul get in, if only for the sake of more ideological diversity in Congress.

More diversity, say, from a few libertarians, might be a nice thing, but Rand Paul is just far-right economically and socially, putting him in about the same place as plenty of other Republicans. There's nothing new there.

To the OP, I give a House takeover at most 1 chance in 10, and the odds of a Senate takeover are too low to even bother worrying about. I also think that the Democrats will probably lose seats in both houses, but that in the House, at least, anything that leaves the Democrats with a majority should be viewed as a victory for Dems, just perhaps a smaller victory than it might be. Control of the chamber is decided by the number of seats, not the derivative of the number.

[appleciders]

For what it's worth, Intrade favors the Democrats about 3 to 1 to retain the Senate and about 55-45 to retain the House.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Still, I'd actually like to see Rand Paul get in, if only for the sake of more ideological diversity in Congress.

The stupid are already overrepresented in Congress.

[Death of Rats]

No and No. The GOP will pick up some seats but not enough for control and to make thing worse for the GOP the few wins the Teabaggers do get will replace incumbent GOPers in already red areas with freshman Congresscritters with no seniority and no clout in Congress.

[Lok]

Originally Posted by Jas09

That's a possibility. I think there are two pretty realistic Dem pickups though - MO (I actually thought this was a strong possiblity considering the relative brand value of the Carnahan and Blunt names here - but it looks less likely now) and FL (assuming Crist will caucus with the Dems, which he must if he hopes to win).

Quite frankly, if I got to pick just one result for November, it would be Rubio losing to Crist.

There is a decent chance of a Dem pickup in Ohio also. If Voinovich was running again, he would win, but Fisher has a chance against Portman. If Brunner had won the primary, I think the left would have been more excited about the general election, but I don't know if that would have been enough to make her the better candidate. (Well, I thought she was, but that does not necessarily follow in the General Election.)

For the OP, barring something really horrendous happening, no and no.

There are not enough Dem seats vulnerable for the GOP to take over, even if they hold onto their own vulnerable seats. And the Tea Party candidates could help some of the Dems. What happens if Sue Lowden is the GOP candidate in Nevada? While Blumenthal will have some problems in Connecticut, McMahon was hardly the best choice for the GOP.

The House is more volatile, but if the economy continues to improve, even as slowly as it is, the Dems should be able to keep their majority. It will probably mean even more power to the Blue Dogs, which is not good, but better than the GOP taking over.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Lok

And the Tea Party candidates could help some of the Dems. What happens if Sue Lowden is the GOP candidate in Nevada? While Blumenthal will have some problems in Connecticut, McMahon was hardly the best choice for the GOP.

This is a great point, I think. The impact of the Tea Party could be positive for the Republicans in races where there was not a contested primary (or where the TP didn't "win" the primary), like they were in MA, but in races where they were or may be a factor in the Republican primary (KY, CT, FL, maybe NV, maybe AZ if they primary McCain) it's possible they will do the GOP some damage.

I was never really counting CT as in play though, even with the Blumenthal "scandal".

Another interesting factor will be the impact of any immigration reform talk. The AZ law has already given Reid a nice boost in the polls, and had what seems to be a large impact in the NM races this week. It could be significant in CO as well.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Jas09

This is a great point, I think. The impact of the Tea Party could be positive for the Republicans in races where there was not a contested primary (or where the TP didn't "win" the primary), like they were in MA, but in races where they were or may be a factor in the Republican primary (KY, CT, FL, maybe NV, maybe AZ if they primary McCain) it's possible they will do the GOP some damage.

The interesting thing will be the post-election repercussions, if so. I'm sure that some Republican leaders (coffMcConnellcoff) are already regarding the Tea Party crowd as a bunch of rabble who ought to stay in their place (which is to show up and make a fuss when, and only when, their betters consider it politically useful for them to do so). That attitude would surely spread, and inevitably become known, if they have reason to blame the TP for disappointingly low gains.

[Lok]

I think if Paul loses in Kentucky, the GOP leaders will start trying to dump the Tea Party. Rubio losing to Crist would suck from their POV, but would be livable. Reid hanging on in Nevada, again, not a good thing. But both of those have some outside explanation. But Paul losing in Kentucky would be an outright rejection of the Tea Party line by the general populace, with no name recognition or incumbent power to explain it. The name recognition would even go the other way, with Ron Paul's wide exposure in the Presidential elections.

Nate Silver at 538.com shows a 50-50 chance the Dems will have at least 54 seats after the elections. (Unfortunately, quite a lot has happened since the last update to the forecast, like Crist going independent. Will be interesting to see how that affects things.) While not a great number, still solidly in control. IMO, what will really tell the tale for future elections is who wins the Republican pickups.

If Tea Party candidates win a decent share of the Republican seats (Amazing how a "non-partisan" movement is not attempting to win any Democratics primaries. ) The GOP will have no choice but to continue to pander to them. Which will probably really hurt come 2012's Presidential race. I can't see the people that actually decide the races, the moderates and independents in the middle, going for someone like Ron Paul after being exposed to their ideology for a couple of years at the Federal level.

If, OTOH, the Tea Party candidates don't make it in, the GOP can try to start working back to the center, maybe getting a more moderate image going by then. I don't know if they would succeed at that, some of the leaders just don't seem to be able to lead in that direction. But it is a possibility.

[elfkin477]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

Further, to your excellent point that the TPers sitting out would be a disaster for Republicans, I think the meme that TPers are not primarily Republicans is a bunch of hooey, and because they're Republicans first, idealists second, and because they will oppose any Democrat for any reason and no reason, in the end, the TPers will fall in line and back the Republican candidate, even if said candidate promotes an agenda that's against their better interests.

Exactly. People who think they're not going to fall in and vote Republican this fall or in 2012 are just engaging in wishful thinking. They're not going to vote for a third party candidate. Conservatives don't do that (well, 27% of the people 19% who voted for Perot in 1992 were conservatives. look at how well that turned out, though.) Liberals don't even vote for third party candidates very often, despite Nader having been a far bigger name than any supposed tea-party candidate thus far.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

The interesting thing will be the post-election repercussions, if so. I'm sure that some Republican leaders (coffMcConnellcoff) are already regarding the Tea Party crowd as a bunch of rabble who ought to stay in their place (which is to show up and make a fuss when, and only when, their betters consider it politically useful for them to do so). That attitude would surely spread, and inevitably become known, if they have reason to blame the TP for disappointingly low gains.

That's more or less why the Tea Party exists in the first place: the Republican Party got very skilled at using Tea Party type voters. For maybe 30 years, Republican candidate and the RNC used wedge issues and such to get them to turn out and vote Republican in elections, but they did not deliver very much for them at least on the federal level. After a fashion the Tea Party is Karl Rove's fault: if you take your liberal goggles off, what did Bush really do for these voters? He didn't ban abortion, and didn't even move the Supreme Court significantly close to doing so. He didn't ban gay marriage. He ramped up the size of the government and government spending, including TARP, which was one of the real 'last straws' here. Not that Bush was the only Republican president or candidate who excited these people and didn't deliver as much as he promised. But maybe you get the idea here.

[DoctorJ]

Originally Posted by appleciders

For what it's worth, Intrade favors the Democrats about 3 to 1 to retain the Senate

That's money in the bank, right there. I'm not saying it's impossible for the Republicans to pick up eleven seats, but some crazy shit would need to happen between now and then. There's nowhere near a 25% chance.

and about 55-45 to retain the House.

Probably a little closer to reality, but it's still a bet worth making, IMO.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Marley23

That's more or less why the Tea Party exists in the first place: the Republican Party got very skilled at using Tea Party type voters. For maybe 30 years, Republican candidate and the RNC used wedge issues and such to get them to turn out and vote Republican in elections, but they did not deliver very much for them at least on the federal level. After a fashion the Tea Party is Karl Rove's fault: if you take your liberal goggles off, what did Bush really do for these voters? He didn't ban abortion, and didn't even move the Supreme Court significantly close to doing so. He didn't ban gay marriage. He ramped up the size of the government and government spending, including TARP, which was one of the real 'last straws' here. Not that Bush was the only Republican president or candidate who excited these people and didn't deliver as much as he promised. But maybe you get the idea here.

Ronald Reagan did all the same stuff and didn't create a Tea Party.

[Lok]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Ronald Reagan did all the same stuff and didn't create a Tea Party.

But St. Ronnie was the first to do it. They could still believe that he was starting things off and it would all happen "any day now". Harder to do that after 30 years of getting bent over with no lube. Even today, if you point out that under Reagan middle class taxes went up, the federal government got bigger, and the federal deficit got huge, they don't believe. Reality after all, has a liberal bias.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Ronald Reagan did all the same stuff and didn't create a Tea Party.

That's because he was the one who sucked all those people into the Republican party in the first place. Being conservatives, it took them 30 years to realize that they weren't getting the end of the deal they thought they were going to get by joining the GOP, hence the current discontent.

It's a marriage made in hell, gone bad.

[Chronos]

Exactly. People who think they're not going to fall in and vote Republican this fall or in 2012 are just engaging in wishful thinking. They're not going to vote for a third party candidate. Conservatives don't do that (well, 27% of the people 19% who voted for Perot in 1992 were conservatives. look at how well that turned out, though.)

Wouldn't the more recent example be NY-23, where Tea Partiers and mainstream Republicans did in fact split the vote enough for the Democrat to win? Now, obviously, the nation as a whole is not NY-23, but it seems dangerous to generalize the reverse.

[lel]

It seems fairly reasonable that in the Senate a GOP majority seems quite unlikely, but is possible in the House. I think to get that GOP majority in the House, they need another 1994 Contract with America, and Newt Gingrich needs to get out there and create a new vision like he did back in '94 to get a GOP majority.

If something doesn't happen soon, I'd put my bets on Dems retaining the House but losing seats.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Slight Republican majority in the House and five or six seats gained in the Senate. Possibly this will mean the rise of moderate/Rockefeller Republicans like Brown in Massachusetts, Kirk in Illinois, and Fiorna or Campbell in California.

[lel]

Originally Posted by Curtis LeMay

Slight Republican majority in the House and five or six seats gained in the Senate. Possibly this will mean the rise of moderate/Rockefeller Republicans like Brown in Massachusetts, Kirk in Illinois, and Fiorna or Campbell in California.

That could go either way. For example, if you count McCain as a more moderate Republican, he's in a major primary fight against a well-known opponent coming from the right who claims he is insufficiently conservative. Will the moderate Republicans who win in traditionally blue state areas be offset by the moderate Republicans who may lose in primaries to those farther right in more red states?

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by lel

It seems fairly reasonable that in the Senate a GOP majority seems quite unlikely, but is possible in the House. I think to get that GOP majority in the House, they need another 1994 Contract with America, and Newt Gingrich needs to get out there and create a new vision like he did back in '94 to get a GOP majority.

Gingrich? Hah! He's like a tired, long-dead ghost, still clinging to the remnants of memories of a life he once had, having not yet come to grips with the fact that it's simply time to walk into the damned light already.

[Superhal]

If the Repugs continue to be divided by the tea baggers, they'll lose even more seats.

Their only hope is that the crazies vote with the less crazy. Separately, they can't win.