Have the Republicans Set Themselves Up?

[Gangster Octopus]

The momentum seems to be with the Democrats. To what extent that effects the outcome is yet to be seen of course. It seems the Republicans have been talking a lot about a 1994 type tidal wave, and if it doesn't happen what then? They have grown a bit cocky, it seems. But from having a good chance to get the Senate they will now be lucky to come away with holding the Dems to 53 seats. I expect they will get the House, but who knows. I am just not buying the Republican tidal wave thesis.

[Mr. Moto]

First of all, both sides seem to be claiming momentum in the polls.

Secondly, momentum can only take you so far. Say you're down in the polls 10 points and then voters start breaking your way - you gain 5 points quickly. Given that momentum, you should pass your opponent every time, right?

Except that sometimes you run out of time, the gains stagnate and things no longer move, or your opponent gains some momentum of his own.

Let's just see how things shake out on election day.

[Jas09]

The only sense in which I'd agree that they've "set themselves up" is all of the talk of repealing health care, and cutting taxes and spending. If they take the House and not the Senate (the most likely outcome), it is highly unlikely they can get any of that done. And considering the election rhetoric it will be interesting if any sort of compromise legislation is possible without significantly upsetting the Tea Party base.

"Momentum" in the polls doesn't mean much - the only race I think might move enough is PA Senate. Depending on how you think NV is sitting, that could be considered a late mover as well. Places like WI, MO, and KY are likely too far gone for the Dems to get them back.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Places like WI, MO, and KY are likely too far gone for the Dems to get them back.

I think you can add Illinois to this list as well.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

I think you can add Illinois to this list as well.

Hm. Not sure about that. I have IL, CO, and WV as the true toss-ups (and probably NV too, only because of the Angle factor).

CA and WA only go GOP in a true Republican "surge" where they take both houses.

In a "best-case scenario" for the Dems, they hold IL, CO, WV, and perhaps PA.

[Chronos]

Depending on how you think NV is sitting, that could be considered a late mover as well.

Last I saw of the NV polling, neither outcome would really be all that surprising. You can't really say that a coin flip shows a late move to heads or tails when it lands.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Last I saw of the NV polling, neither outcome would really be all that surprising. You can't really say that a coin flip shows a late move to heads or tails when it lands.

I agree. But for those that have accepted either they "Reid is so disliked he's a dead man walking" or the "Angle is so crazy she's unelectable" narrative it could be perceived as momentum, I guess.

[DoctorJ]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Places like WI, MO, and KY are likely too far gone for the Dems to get them back.

I wouldn't count KY out yet. The polls show a consistent lead for Paul, but the actual numbers are all over the place, showing the lead to be anywhere from three to 13 points in the past week. This is just a hard race to poll, and I feel like most of the "intangibles" favor Conway.

I know I'm thinking wishfully, and I wouldn't put any money on Conway, but I think it's going to be closer than the polls would suggest.

[C3]

That's why there's all this noise about "voter fraud" this week. If the "tidal wave" happens, good (for the Republicans). If not, they've already set up their excuses and the revolution can begin!

[Markxxx]

Polls always change in the final week, especially in tight races. The problem is the economy. People vote their pocketbooks. Both sides have made this about bigger things. It's not, it's about high unemployment and the worst economic downturn since the 1930s.

The Democrats got in in 2008 because of the bad economy. The Republicans will make gains because of it. The party in office always suffers durng bad economic times, so people should not see any of the results as an endorsment of one party.

It's simply people are looking for a better economy and if the party in power can't give it to them, they need to look elsewhere.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

But from having a good chance to get the Senate they will now be lucky to come away with holding the Dems to 53 seats. I expect they will get the House, but who knows.

The Senate was always an outside shot, especially after O'Donnell won in DE.

If the Republicans don't take the House, they will have blown it. On the Senate side unless they lose all the close ones (WV, NV & IL) they're on par for expectations.

One good sign for Democrats today was the consumer confidence number, which came in higher than expected.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

First of all, both sides seem to be claiming momentum in the polls.

Yes, and the media tells us this is an exciting race -- keep your eyes glued to your set!

This is silly. I'll bet even money that the Republicans will take the House. I would have said the same thing a month ago. Nate Silver puts the odds of Democratic House retention at 20%. Sure there are uncertainties: polls don't pick up cell phones very well, which deweights the Democratic-leaning young; Silver's modeling parameters don't reflect the tsunami of corporate cash in the wake of Citizens United, because this is the first election where that occurred. Nonetheless, the Republican House members are measuring the drapes and plotting gridlock, shutdowns and all manner of bogus investigations. As is appropriate, given their odds.

If the Dems hold their losses to a mere 50 or 60 seats, it will only be because the current crop of Republican candidates possess deficient sanity.

[New Deal Democrat]

Republicans have become so deranged that if the Democrats hold on to both houses of Congress many will suspect election fraud. If that happens there may be Timothy McVeigh acts of terrorism, and even armed "rebellions" in various parts of the country by pot bellied militia men.

[Doug Bowe]

The polls I've come to trust give Republicans the house.

If there's anthing "set up" it's the victory of the Tea Party movement in a few states. If some of those people get elected I feel the set-up will be gridlock in the house.
Attempts to repeal previous measures would meet with a presidential veto.

[Leaper]

Originally Posted by Doug Bowe

Attempts to repeal previous measures would meet with a presidential veto.

That reminds me... Many Republican candidates are promising the moon and the stars as far as repealing legislation goes. How do they figure on getting past the veto, assuming any of the repeals make it to the President's desk at all? Do they expect to be able to shut down the government without negative consequence? Or do they figure their supporters will be happy enough with attempts?

[Death of Rats]

I don't think the Republicans have thought that far ahead. They really do not seem to have any plan to meet realistic goals or to rein in the teabaggers. All they have done is set themselves up for epic failure that will bite them in the ass in 2012. They have made promises they can't keep and set expectations they can't meet.

[Leaper]

Or (and I just thought of this), they expect to fail, so they can use it as get out the vote impetus for 2012. OTOH, I can't figure how they can get their base any more upset at Obama than they already are. The independents are the ones that might be turned off by the strategy.

[Evil Captor]

If the Pubs win the House and/or the Senate they will have to actually propose things instead of just bitching about the Democrats. This will create problems down the road for them if they stick with their campaign promises, as their ideas are the same ones that screwed over the economy in the first place. Just sitting there and holding investigations wont work either ... it will cement in people's minds that the Republicans cant and wont do any effective governing. Gonna be interesting, no matter how it turns out.

[Cyberhwk]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

If the Pubs win the House and/or the Senate they will have to actually propose things instead of just bitching about the Democrats. This will create problems down the road for them if they stick with their campaign promises, as their ideas are the same ones that screwed over the economy in the first place. Just sitting there and holding investigations wont work either ... it will cement in people's minds that the Republicans cant and wont do any effective governing. Gonna be interesting, no matter how it turns out.

How do you figure?

Things improve: "SEE!!! You elected us to crush the SOCIALIST AGENDA and look at how much better things have gotten!"
Things get worse: "SEE!!! Obama has been an utter failure! Give us the Senate and Presidency too so we can turn things around!"
Things are about the same: "SEE!!! Obama can't fix the economy! Good thing we were around to at least let you keep your paycheck and not let OBAMA tax you into poverty!"