Well good luck with that.
I concur. Roughly I’d say 60% constitutes a tossup, 66.67% is a “Lean” and 5/6 or 83.3% is a likely. I understand that Charlie Cook uses even higher percentages for “Lean” or “Likely”. I wouldn’t say “Safe” until we hit 99%.
Back in 2012, the Presidential election was in the likely zone for Obama: Republicans had a serious problem dealing with reality. What are the odds of a Republican Senatorial takeover?
If you must forecast, forecast often. For robustness, I discard the highest and lowest models and take the average of the remainder. That means I drop Sam Wang and WAPO. The figures show a 69.6% weighting for the Republicans: we’re into the Lean Republican takeover zone I say. The Democrats don’t have Romney odds - they are not that bad - but there’s a definite trend.
Still Bricker seems pretty confident up above. Would he say that Mitch McConnell will definitely be the next majority leader? Is that a safe seat? Should he be measuring drapes?
That post (not by me) was from Aug 14th. The odds were different then. Democrats in general are data driven. When the facts on the ground change, so do opinions. If you want examples of hemming and hawing, see adaher’s contributions in 2012. Heck Bricker predicted a Romney win as well, though admittedly not every 5 minutes.
The data showed Republicans favored then too. There have been no major changes in the election since January other than the surprise independent candidacies. The “data driven” bloggers owe Rothenberg, Cooke, and Sabato an apology.
Ironically, republicans taking the senate increases the chances of a democrat taking the white house in 2016. The mere idea of the crazies in charge of all three branches will scare the shit out of the electorate. Get used to gridlock everyone, it’s probably for the best.
The post I quoted was an example of Democrats being “data driven?” On August 14th, the chances of the GOP controlling the next Senate were fairly described by the then-extant data as “forget about it?”
Bricker, you’re trying to argue for a distinction between “most” and “not all”.
Just admit a Republican win will be bad for America and move on.
Any Republican majority in the Senate will be short-lived. The Republicans have far more seats up for grabs in 2016 to be defended than the Democrats.
Obama is going to take executive action on immigration, which is going to drive the Republican base completely insane and they are going to expect their newly elected senate to do absolutely nothing else but try to repeal whatever he does. Basically you are pretty screwed.
If we’re really lucky, the Republicans will try and impeach him.
At the very least, they can be counted upon to hold Benghazi hearings right up until President Clinton’s inauguration.
This would be a pretty poor idea on Obama’s part. Not only would it make an actual immigration reform bill impossible, since the Republicans would have good reason not to trust the President, but it would further the harmful idea that the President can ignore laws he doesn’t like. That’s going to bite the Democrats in the ass when a Republican is eventually elected and decides to take a little “executive action” on Obamacare or capital gains or civil rights.
You really think they don’t already do it whenever they can? Obama has taken less executive actions than any recent president. Just because Republicans make a fuzz about it now doesn’t mean it hasn’t always been incredibly common and perfectly legal.
Didn’t you know that Obama is only the president on a technicality and requires permission to do ANYTHING? You can tell he’s illegitimate. It’s practically visible…
(/snark, if that were actually necessary)
This is true IF they royally screw up. If they govern well, or even lay low, this will not occur.
If the Republicans win the Presidency, they will probably also hold the Senate or even increase their numbers, as the Democrats did in 2012 despite an unfavorable map. If they do not, then they probably lose the Senate too.
On the bright side, they keep the House no matter what because of gerrymandering. #notactuallythebrightside
(I’m trying this new thing where I put clever hashtags in my post.)
They could do that. THey could also play it smart and realize that the Democrats just destroyed themselves as the party of rule of law, the working class, and jobs. With poorer working class people already struggling, 5 million new green cards will increase unemployment among native poor workers by quite a bit. Think the African-American vote will turn out for you after that?
Yes, because of minority gerrymandering, which Democrats support. Hard to win elections in an evenly divided country when you’re packing your supporters into 90% Dem districts all over the country.
Republicans did gerrymander, as all parties do when they win huge in a census year, but it’s not enough to guarantee them House control on its own. A landslide Democratic victory in 2016 would cost them the House.
This is the GOP you’re talking about, right?
Not that your hyperbole is close to reality, but yes. When the alternative is the GOP, yes, black Democrats will continue to be Democrats.
The vast majority of voters don’t really vote based on issues. The Blues vote blue and the Reds vote red.