Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Hillarysworld -> The Democratic Party -> Generic Ballot Points Toward Possible 50+ Seat Loss for Democrats (FiveThirtyEight 4/9/10)
Post Info
TOPIC: Generic Ballot Points Toward Possible 50+ Seat Loss for Democrats (FiveThirtyEight 4/9/10)
Jen the Michigander


SuperModerator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1788
Date:
Generic Ballot Points Toward Possible 50+ Seat Loss for Democrats (FiveThirtyEight 4/9/10)
Permalink  
 

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/generic-ballot-points-toward-possible.html

A couple of weeks ago, we examined the potential upside case for Democrats in November's midterms. If the party were able to limit their losses to about 20 House seats and 3-4 Senate seats, it might not have as deleterious an effect on their policy agenda as you might think.

But that is the upside case for Democrats. It is not the base case, and it is certainly not the worst case -- both of which look as grim as ever. Although I think people may somewhat underestimate the probability of a shift in momentum back toward the Democrats, they may simultaneously be underestimating the magnitude of losses that might occur if momentum fails to change, or moves in the other direction.

So, for example, if the House popular vote were exactly tied, we'd expect the Democrats to lose "only" 30 seats on average, which would be enough for them to retain majority control. It would take about a 2.5 point loss in the popular vote for them to be as likely as not to lose control of the chamber. So Democrats probably do have a bit of a cushion: this is the good news for them.

Their bad news is that the House popular vote (a tabulation of the actual votes all around the country) and the generic ballot (an abstraction in the form of a poll) are not the same thing -- and the difference usually tends to work to Democrats' detriment. Although analysts debate the precise magnitude of the difference, on average the generic ballot has overestimated the Democrats' performance in the popular vote by 3.4 points since 1992. If the pattern holds, that means that a 2.3-point deficit in generic ballot polls would translate to a 5.7 point deficit in the popular vote -- which works out to a loss of 51 seats, according to our regression model.

And what if, for example, the Rasmussen case comes into being? Rasmussen has the Democrats losing the generic ballot by 9 points (and has had similar numbers for awhile). A 9-point loss in the House popular vote would translate into a projected 65-seat loss for Democrats. Or, if we adjust the Rasmussen poll to account for the fact that the Democrats' performance in the popular vote tends to lag the generic ballot, it works out to a 12.4-point loss in the popular vote, which implies a loss of 79 seats!

The point is not necessarily that these are the most likely scenarios -- we certainly ought not to formulate a judgment based on Rasmussen polls alone, as the jury is still out on whether the substantial house effect they've displayed this cycle is a feature or a bug. But these sorts of scenarios are frankly on the table. If Democrats were to lose 50, 60, 70 or even more House seats, it would not totally shock me. Nor would it shock me if they merely lost 15, or 20. But their downside case could be very far down.

__________________

4145952823_2e0edce16f.jpg

Nobody puts THIS baby in the corner!
freespirit


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Permalink  
 

Well, the Dems do appear to be in trouble, indeed! I really hope the worst of the predictions come to pass. The Dems need to recognize that they were hired by the people to participate in a government of, for, and by the people. The majority of the citizens of this country are not ultra-lib, and governing from either the extreme left or right is unacceptable.

I know it will be interpreted that the losses, if they are sweeping, are in response, primarily, to HCR and the economy, and that's probably right. However, there are many Puma's/disenfranchised Dems who are voting against Dems, or in some cases, not voting at all, in order to protest the undemocratic actions of the party in 2008.

What worries me is the possibility that the speculation of some will play out (I'll find the article regarding this, later), and the Dems, as predicted in this article, plan sweeping immigration action which will result in massive numbers of immigrants becoming citizens/voters. Obviously, these new voters will be loyal to the Dem Party, and will keep them in office for decades to come. Additionally, ACORN is still alive and well, and as we've seen, there's no limit to the extent to which they can impact an election - by both legal and illegal means, with impunity.

I don't believe for a second that the Dems are without some kind of plan. We saw the dirty dealing and bamboozling they did in 2008. They will try like hell to do it again. It's up to all of us not to let them succeed.


__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony
Jen the Michigander


SuperModerator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1788
Date:
Permalink  
 

I'm always glad to see obotic Dems go down the drain, but the Party is losing good people like Evan Bayh in the process. And in place of the bad Dems, we're gonna get Republicans, which does not please me. In the short run, yeah, the Repubs will stop a lot of the Obama madness. But in the long run, these people will probably still be in Congress long after he's out of office. So as far as I am concerned, it's a lose-lose situation. I wish we had some other alternative.

__________________

4145952823_2e0edce16f.jpg

Nobody puts THIS baby in the corner!
Sanders


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Permalink  
 

Jen the Michigander wrote:

I'm always glad to see obotic Dems go down the drain, but the Party is losing good people like Evan Bayh in the process. And in place of the bad Dems, we're gonna get Republicans, which does not please me. In the short run, yeah, the Repubs will stop a lot of the Obama madness. But in the long run, these people will probably still be in Congress long after he's out of office. So as far as I am concerned, it's a lose-lose situation. I wish we had some other alternative.

Jen, you said it well.  I agree whole-heartedly.


Making a change from Dems in favor of a Repub, especially a socially conservative bothers me greatly.  I do not favor even Dems who are socially conservative.

I want to find Socially moderate to liberal and fiscally conservative among the Dems. Scott Brown types on the Repub side are few and far between.

So, I would be very selective and cherry pick based on record of consistency between their platform positions and how they have voted in the past, and their current platform position.  Frankly that is all we can and should go by.  Have they lived by their stated goals? That will probably be the litmus test I'd use.


__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Hillarysworld -> The Democratic Party -> Generic Ballot Points Toward Possible 50+ Seat Loss for Democrats (FiveThirtyEight 4/9/10)
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard