Republicans predict GOP "tsunami" in coming House & Senate elections - Why? I really don't see it

Politics & Elections
#1

It’s all over the news ie

“Priebus predicts ‘tsunami’ election”

that Republicans are rejoicing because they expect to win big, real big, in the next house and Senate election cycles because everybody hates Obama. I know his approval numbers are not spectacular lately, but if the choice is between the crazy, retrograde, crypto racist nonsense that is the current GOP and the Dems I’m not sure that people who chose Democrats last time are going to switch to the GOP brand that has demonstrated little in the way of effective governance.

Why do they think huge wins are on the horizon. What am I missing?

#2

What are they gonna say? “We expect to get our asses good and kicked”?

THAT’s not gonna help get your team fired up.

#3

There were some people at this very site who were quite confident of a Romney “landslide.”

But, yeah, they have to say that. Personally, I don’t see a “tusnami” in the works, but I’m bracing for some tough losses for the good guys.

#4

The narrative is that Americans hate Obamacare, and that’s going to cause the huge swings.

Whether Americans actually hate Obamacare is disputed – and it doesn’t help that they’re basically doing the same “poll the faithful and unskew” trick they did with the presidential election. Even if it really is as unpopular as they claim (which doesn’t seem to actually be the case), it’s not clear that this won’t change as it starts to work, or that folks who are unhappy with it agree with the Republicans (most folks around here would like to see it repealed, as well – assuming it was replaced by a real, single-payer health care system like the rest of the world has.)

It is true that many of the democrat seats up for re-election are Obama coattail candidates in traditionally red states, but that doesn’t a landslide make.

All in all, it remains to be seen – we’re really early, yet.

#5

I suspect the real issue will be voter turnout (as usual), and the ‘agitated’ will turn out in greater numbers than the ‘relatively satisfied’. This could, I suppose, result in a very bad election for the Dems.

#6

Perhaps they’re anticipating the effects of Voter ID laws.

#7

I agree, what you are missing is that the numbers for congress are much, much worse than Obama. Still I think that it is very likely that the Republicans will keep the house, as for the senate, the Republicans predicted the same switch last time and it did not turn out as they expected.

#8

It’s going to be a bad year for Dems just because the Senate-cycle offers some vulnerable Dem seats this year and the Pubs have been gerrymandering House districts in all the red states they control. Everybody knows this, even liberals. It’s purely a structural thing, not a national voter backlash; the latter probably will not happen, certainly not over the ACA.

#9

Also the embarrassing truth is that GOP voters are simply more reliable in mid terms.

#10

A political “landslide” in this midterm really doesn’t require huge shifts in numbers if the Republicans taking the Senate count as the proverbial landslide or tsunami. Six Senate seats, several of which are considered quite vulnerable, is all it would take.

Few are predicting any realistic chance at this point for the Democrats to take the House. Politico wrote that the Democrats are ceding the House to concentrate resources to try to hold the Senate.

If anyone thinks Obama has had it rough with only the House in republican hands for two years just imagine how it would be if Republicans hold both chambers.

#11

Well, I’d guess we’d find out just how far executive authority goes to enact policy without congressional support. Frankly, I can see this setting precedents future presidents find useful.

#12

If Republicans hold both chambers then all you get is an Obama veto of everything the Republicans do, and a bunch of meaningless votes sent to Obama to veto, mostly stuff like repealing stuff Obama championed, so obviously he will veto it, and nothing will happen unless it is veto-proof.

Then absolutely nothing happens until the next Presidential election, except partisan grandstanding and more of the same “let’s shut the government down and sit with thumbs up our asses” behavior in Congress.

Which, if anything, will motivate folks to vote Democrat the next cycle after that, to put an end to the rule of anti-government ideologues with positions in government.

I don’t know why you’d hire someone to build a building whose entire worldview is that buildings are evil and must be destroyed.

Electing Republicans to Congress is precisely that level of stupid.

#13

The U. of Iowa Prediction Market gives the GOP a 51% to win the Senate in 2014. Their graph shows that GOP chances improved in July, fell in October, then came back. Betfair.com also implies a similar chance. Eight GOP seats were lost in 2008 to Obama’s coattails.

I’m not sure GOP control of Senate will hurt much. GOP already has a standing policy of sabotaging any Democratic President as long as they control the House or can exploit minority privileges in the Senate.

#14

There’s solid political science behind their prediction.

Obama’s approval is lower than Clinton’s in 1994, Bush’s in 2006, and Obama’s again in 2010. Unless the President finds a way to raise his approval or defy recent history, a tsunami is coming.

YOu also have to look at things like candidate recruitment. The Democrats have recruited no new exciting people to run. Can you think of any new Senate or House candidate that gets you excited like Liz Warren? The Republicans, rather than nominating nuts, have nominated credible challengers in most of the competitive seats. Ken Buck, Tea Party darling, stepped aside in Colorado for Cory Gardner, who trails Udall by only two points(Udall is polling in the ugly low-40s). Meanwhile, Democratic heroes aren’t signing up to run, they are retiring.

#15

There’s nothing to sabotage after 2015. Presidents after their second midterm have been regarded as lame ducks for most of our lifetimes, unless you’re old enough to remember FDR. Since FDR, every single President has faced an opposition Congress in their sixth year. And the focus of the public shifts to who the next guy(or lady) is going to be the day after those midterm elections.

#16

Plus, most Democrats don’t know how to handle the Obama situation. One incumbent in particular is a moron:

He’s a Democrat running for reelection this November in a district where President Obama won just 33 percent of the vote in 2012. And he’s trying to run as far away from Obama as possible. But it’s not working.

Earlier this month, Rahall – in an attempt to argue his independence from the national Democratic Party – told The Hill newspaper that he “probably” supported George W. Bush more when the Republican was in the White House than he has supported President Obama.

#17

Democrats are weak-willed, limp-wristed, milquetoast, moderate middling centrists, painted “far left” by the insanely far right looney bin, and these Democrats, if transplanted to most other major western industrialized nations, would look like right-wing conservatives who don’t trust their own ideas and run and hide in fear at the very thought of defending their ideology and spend their time apologizing for it or pretending to be more conservative than they are.

There’s only one actual liberal in Congress and his name is Bernie Sanders.

I saw Nancy Pelosi on TV the other day, playing the partisan game and painting Democrats as holy defenders of the impoverished, and Republicans as the evil money-takers, before being soundly beaten to a pulp by comedian Jon Stewart who had precisely the same reaction everyone else did while listening to her tripe.

If Nancy Pelosi the gigantic flaming hypocrite and Harry Reid the frail and passionless represent the Democratic party, then the Democratic party represents blaming Republicans for stuff Democrats do, and generally being weak and ineffective, much like the Affordable Care Act and its half-measures and compromises that take a broken profit-based insurance system and force it on those who couldn’t begin to afford it even with subsidies.

There is no actual liberal party in Congress, and the only reason I continue to support Democrats at the ballot box is because, absent a liberal party, I’ll vote for the limp and watered down version of Republicans, who will do less damage than full blown Republicans would.

#18

applause

Man, that was beautiful!

#19

Because they are collectively delusional and have been for years. They live in their media bubble telling each other what they want to believe, and ignoring anything they don’t want to believe.

Yes, they’ll likely pick up some seats, it’s a midterm and they do better then as said. But there’s not likely to be any “tsunami”.

#20

I don’t see a landslide. Republicans may pick up a few Senate seats, maybe even get above 51. But realistically, all numbers of Republican seats over 40 are equivalent. The difference between filibustering everything or pushing through nonsense while in the majority and getting vetoed is quite academic. In the House, their gerrymandering will keep the GOP in control but by a smaller margin. The day after election day, we start counting down to the Democratic tsunami of 2016.