Handicapping the 2014 midterms

Politics & Elections
21

With a 43% approval rating? It’s never been done before. The only way that happens is if the 43% who still like him love him so much that they’ll turn out in higher than usual numbers for him.

So far, that hasn’t happened when he was more popular than he is now. They aren’t turning out in special elections, they didn’t turn out in 2009, 2010, or 2013. Why would they start now? Because he’s beleagured and he needs them? Like I said, anything is possible, but that sounds unlikely.

Plus polls show that the people who hate him right now are much more motivated than the people who love him. If there’s a wellspring of Obama supporters planning to turn out for him in 2014, we’ll start to see it in enthusiasm polls.

The fact that the op-ed writer cites ACA enrollment exceeding expectations(only 5-6 million actually enrolled and paid), and he’s believing that Americans are growing more comfortable with ACA(they aren’t showing it in polls), means that his writing is probably 90% hope, 10% analysis.

22

What’s “it” that has never been done before? It’s important to see where your goalposts are.

23

Well, obviously we’re talking about the incumbent president and his record being popular enough to be a net help rather than hindrance to congressional candidates of his own party in a midterm. The author of the linked article makes a case for that in this case. adaher seems to be saying that has never happened when the president had only a 43% approval rating in April. I don’t know if that’s true.

24

Or, perhaps adaher is saying simply that, disregarding mechanisms, the incumbent president’s party’s congressional seats have never increased in a midterm when the president had only a 43% approval rating in April. I don’t know if that’s true either.

25

Here’s a chart showing Presidential approval and whether the President’s party won or lost seats going back to 1994:

Real Clear Politics posted one going back to 1948, I’ll see if I can find it.

But suffice to say, Presidents with underwater approval have never won seats in a midterm elections. So it would be an unprecedented achievement if Obama managed to rally his shrinking base of supporters. It would be a doubly impressive achievement given that Democratic voters don’t turn out much in midterms as a general rule.

Ah, here’s a chart that goes back further:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php

Harry Truman, 1950, approval-41%- lost 29 House seats, 6 Senate seats

LBJ, 1966, approval- 44%, lost 47 House seats, 4 Senate seats

Ronald Reagan, 1982, approval- 42%, lost 26 House seats, gained 1 Senate seat

And you already know about Clinton in 1994, Bush in 2006, and Obama in 2010.

The lowest approval a President has had in the postwar era while gaining House Seats is 65%.

The lowest approval a President has had while gaining Senate seats is 42%. However, Reagan also had a far more favorable Senate map than Obama does, since Democrats were defending twice as many seats.

Unlike Reagan, Obama is facing a perfect storm.

26

Hm. NYT now says the Dems have a 51% chance of retaining control of the Senate.

27

Yeah, I’m seeing some weakness too. THe Democrats have gained a little ground in the past month.

But tell ya what, still a LOT of places where things can go bad for Democrats if the Republicans have a good election. If everything goes the GOP’s way, they get 11 seats.

28

Well, we can always place our hopes in a lot of Tea Party victories in the primaries.

29

A roll-up (yes, via Politico and Kos, get over it) has the chances better than that.

AndHuffPost Pollster does not have the Republican ahead in any race.

Must be skewed, huh?

Now, what’s the record for a party gaining seats when its approval rating is below Fidel Castro’s?

30

Probably the record set by the Russian Bolsheviks in 1917.

And even they lost out in the post-Revolutionary elections to the Constituent Assembly, which is probably why Lenin sent Red Army troops to disperse it.

31

Hopefully only in the reddest states this time, and only with the most talented candidates. Tom Cotton is Tea Party through and through and very likely to be the next junior Senator from Arkansas. But in places like WV, NH, and VA, there seems to be more intelligent candidate selection going on.

32

Not skewed, but you’re looking at polls where the challengers enjoy much less name recognition than the incumbents, yet are still within the margin of error.

Perhaps you should look at what the polls looked like for George Allen, Norm Coleman, Jim Talent, and Conrad Burns looked like in the spring before their defeats.

Hint: polling at 45% or lower is more often than not fatal to an incumbent. Incumbents don’t gain support as a campaign goes on very often. Not unless their challenger self destructs like a Todd Akin.

Pryor, Landrieu, and Hagan are toast. Udall is in deep trouble.

33

I suppose McConnell is toast as well?

34

He could very well be. The only reason I give him a chance is because he survived when he should have been toast last time, plus he’s representing a state where by all rights he should never be threatened by a Democrat. He just sucks so bad that he has to fight for his life in a red state.

Landrieu, Hagan, and Pryor are representing states in which their views are out of the mainstream. And to a lesser extent, this applies to Udall as well. The gun issue is going to kill him like it’s killed so many other Democrats. Might take Hickenlooper as well.

But yeah, if I’m a betting man, I bet against McConnell. And I’d shed no tears if he was defeated. I actually think if Bevin beats him the GOP has a better chance of holding the seat because at least the public hasn’t made up their minds about Bevin.

35

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ky/kentucky_senate_mcconnell_vs_grimes-3485.html

McConnell is at 42.8 in the RCP average, which sure would indicate that he’s a goner. Only a Republican wave can save him.

36

Make no predictions of that kind until after the primaries. It’s not a question of how popular McConnell is absolutely, but compared to his opponent.

37

Looks like there won’t be a Republican wave. Obamacare is not the poison pill previously thought to be.

38

You’re right, but how popular a candidate is does matter. Dick Durbin is not threatened, because he’s popular. McConnell is threatened because he’s not. And the incumbent has less ability to change things than a challenger. Durbin isn’t going to suddenly become unpopular and McConnell isn’t going to get popular. So all Grimes has to do is hurdle a relatively low bar: be better than Mitch McConnell.

In states where a Democrat is trying to stay viable in a red state, being at 41-45% is even more dangerous. How do they beat a challenger who is actually in step with the state’s voters? One way is by praying for a Tea Party candidate that even red state voters can’t stomach. Which is why Hagan is interfering in the Republican primary and why McCaskill did the same thing to get Akin nominated.

But you’ve heard my view on those types. Incumbents that have the power of the office and are still disliked so much should not be running for reelection. They should let new blood in.

39

I’d say that’s wishful thinking. Kentucky’s competence helped partially neutralize the ACA issue, but you won’t see Grimes going so far as to embrace the law either.

Rejecting the Medicaid expansion comes with its own set of problems as well. Opposing ACA is the better position in the current political climate, but it too has a cost.

WHether there will be a wave depends on what you consider a wave. Winning six seats when you have to go through a few incumbents to do it is really, really hard. If they succeed, that’s pretty close to a wave. If they fall short, you can just chalk that up to the Senate map and the six year itch.

40

Now I think McConnell is going to win after the huge solid Jon Stewart did him by helping his ad go viral.