A. Large Democratic gains allowing them to take both the Senate and House.
B. Large Democratic gains in the House to take the majority, but Republicans retain the Senate.
C. Small Democratic gains in the House to remain in the minority; Republicans retain the Senate.
D. Small Republican gains in the House and Senate, retaining power in both.
E. Large Republican gains in both the House and Senate, sending Democrats to the wilderness.
We’ll let the results from this poll come in until it dies and then dig it up again in November.
It’s Mueller time, baby! This may change soon once we have data on exactly how badly this week’s debacles have hurt the Pubbies, but right now I’m thinking like 30% A, 60% B.
Are we only counting the actual election results, or does it count as a Democratic takeover if they gain a Senate majority by virtue of some patriotic Republicans switching parties? If the former, then say 25% A, 65% B.
A. 10%. The map is unfavorable, but another week like last one and it will be much more likely.
B. 90%. The House WILL be in Democratic hands. Hail, Speaker Pelosi! If only Donald and Mike could both leave us one way or the other nearly simultaneously.
If I were a betting man (and I am! ;)) I’d put my money on C. Should be plenty of opportunity for the Dems to take advantage of and accomplish A or B but hey! - They are the Dems! :smack:
I’m going out on a limb and saying A. I have seen too many elections where polls of “the party in power is pretty much going to stay that way” (Canada, 1993; UK, 1997; and, to a lesser extent, USA 1994) were wildly off the mark not to expect it this time.
I’ve lost a lot of hope (and respect) for the American electorate. Option “A” should be a no brainer. While some special election results have been promising, I’ll hedge my bets and go for “C”
I’m not setting odds or anything and a lot can change between now and November. But if the election were held today, the likeliest scenario is one which doesn’t explicitly appear in the OP.
Democrats gain enough seats in the House to take control there, but the Republicans pick up a seat or two in the Senate. (Which would mean Trump’s agenda is dead, but he has a bit more breathing room on confirmations.)
I agree that that’s a quite plausible scenario, but it seems like it’s covered by B. Just parse the “Large Democratic gains” part as applying to the House, but not to the Senate.
There’s some detail given in other scenarios about Republican small or large gains in the House or Senate, but only in tandem with each other - nothing with about Republicans gaining in the Senate and losing (perhaps big) in the House.
That wasn’t the case in Canada in 1993. Mulroney’s government was wildly unpopular. Two years before the election, he hit 15% support in the opinion polls. The 1993 election result wasn’t a surprise; the polls called it.
His successor, Campbell, was initially popular, but she made some serious missteps during the campaign, including running an advert that was generally considered to be mocking Jean Chrétien’s facial deformity.
It wasn’t a surprise at all that the PCs were kicked out of office. What was a surprise was the magnitude of the loss: from a majority government to two seats in the Commons. That’s generally considered the most significant loss by a national government in Commonwealth history. The magnitude of the loss wasn’t predicted, because it depended so much on the vote patterns in the individual ridings. There were several ridings that were close and could easily have gone for the PCs; still would have produced a loss, but not so lop-sided. But there wasn’t much polling done at the local level.