I’m not sure that Stu Rothenberg is correct, here:
…it isn’t clear how much of an impact, if any, the controversies will have on the 2014 midterms. Even if (when) those controversies fade, however, there could be short-term consequences for both the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the area of recruitment.
Largely because it doesn’t look like either organization was having stellar recruitment before everything in the world fell on the Democrats’ heads. We’re about eighteen months out from the election, which is close enough to start seeing trends (at this point in the 2010 cycle I was interviewing a bunch of insurgent candidates and seeing the first signs of the 2010 tsunami). A look at my usual House race handicappers is… instructive: Continue reading Obama’s scandal atmosphere and 2014 Democratic recruitment efforts.
For a given value of ‘DOOM.’
They crunched some numbers, put together an equation or two, sacrificed three white cockerels to Moloch and came up with… the Democrats picking up three seats in the House, and losing seven in the Senate. Which will lead people all over the spectrum to write posts and articles all using a variant of the concept Yes, probably. (pause) But…
Continue reading Sabato’s Crystal Ball predicts… DOOM for Congressional Democrats.
He really goes out on a limb, here:
Domestically, there will be historic midterm contests that will reshape the entire political landscape, at least until the next election. I can see clearly that there will be far more losing than winning candidates, counting primary contenders. A fair number of the winners will eventually be found to be corrupt, having extramarital affairs, or involved in other categories of scandal. One more prediction is coming into focus: The November 2, 2010 results will be over-interpreted.
I wrote that while smiling, by the way. Larry Sabato was just having fun.
Watch this PJTV interview (via Instapundit), if you would. The stuff on the Senate is very interesting – established wisdom this far out is that we’re looking at an incremental shift – but even more interesting is the fact that, when the issue came up about whether or not the GOP would take back the House in 2010, Dr. Sabato did everything except actually make a statement, one way or the other. He’s careful to note that seats will probably be gained by the Republicans, but nothing more specific.
The ostensible reason is that it’s all based on Presidential approval ratings – which Dr. Sabato could at least extrapolate from, based on where the President is now. Which he was unwilling to do: either because he doesn’t think that it’d result in a meaningful answer… or it’ll result in a meanignful answer that possibly may not be all that wonderful news for the current party in power. Either way, no new real semantic content there.
*Classical reference. See also here. And, upon looking around, here as well.
Crossposted to RedState.
The Democrats are not in as good a position as their position two weeks ago might have suggested.
Larry Sabato has done the first half of his anaylsis of the governor’s races for 2010 (the Democratic half): the basic results are below.
- ARKANSAS: DEMOCRATIC HOLD.
- COLORADO: LEANS DEMOCRATIC.
- ILLINOIS: TOSS-UP.
- IOWA: LEANS DEMOCRATIC.
- KANSAS: LEANS REPUBLICAN TURNOVER.
- MAINE: TOSS-UP.
- MARYLAND: LEANS DEMOCRATIC.
- MASSACHUSETTS: DEMOCRATIC HOLD.
- MICHIGAN: TOSS-UP.
- NEW HAMPSHIRE: DEMOCRATIC HOLD / TOSS-UP
- NEW MEXICO: LEANS DEMOCRATIC HOLD
- NEW YORK: LEANS DEMOCRATIC / TOSS UP
- OHIO: LEANS DEMOCRATIC.
- OKLAHOMA: TOSS-UP.
- OREGON: TOSS-UP
- PENNSYLVANIA: TOSS-UP.
- TENNESSEE: TOSS-UP.
- WISCONSIN: LEANS DEMOCRATIC.
- WYOMING: LEANS DEMOCRATIC.
Continue reading Sabato’s Handicapping the Governors’ races, Part One.