Interesting shift here from Stu Rothenberg: basically, he’s shifting six of his House ratings, and all in the Republicans’ favor. Of the three Democrats involved: Julia Brownley of CA-26 and Pete Gallego of TX-23 are now kind of in trouble, maybe, while Bill Enyart in IL-12 is now definitely in trouble. I’m not trying to be cute, here, but this kind of shift before Labor Day is fully compatible with an even greater shift after Labor Day. September is when most normal people start caring about politics and pollsters start concentrating on screening for likely voters.
I still don’t think that we are going to see a wave in the House, if only because we’re in a strong place already. But we could see more seats than expected moving our way, yeah.
More accurately: if you understand the humor then there’s no hope for you. You’re just too deep into the weeds to ever come back out again.
My new statistical model of the open Wisconsin Senate seat suggests that Democrats now have only a 54.496 percent chance of holding the seat. That’s a dramatic change from just three weeks ago, when my model showed them with a 55.501 percent chance.
The change results from three main developments: (1) changes in the national generic ballot that are likely to filter down the ballot, (2) changes in my turnout model, specifically among voters with Scandinavian surnames, and (3) the unexpected development that Pisces has entered the House of Scorpio, indicating an increasing sexual energy that should benefit Republicans, who have had a long-term advantage with macho male voters.
Continue reading If you think that this Rothenberg article is funny, there’s no hope for you.
Hey, tell me again how utterly doomed the Republican party is next year.
Republicans don’t need to win Michigan to get the majority in the Senate, but the Wolverine State could become a serious takeover target later next year.
Make no mistake, [Democratic candidate Gary] Peters has shown remarkable political agility and starts this race with the edge, but this open seat should no longer be considered safe.
The Michigan Senate race is now rated Democrat Favored according to Rothenberg Political Report/Roll Call.
Continue reading Stu Rothenberg: Michigan Senate race no longer a lock for the Democrats.
Stu Rothenberg, after looking at the 2012 exit polls and noting that the same electorate that re-elected Barack Obama also supported repeal of Obamacare over not-repeal 49/44, finishes up with:
There is no denying that Obama won the 2012 presidential election. But that vote shouldn’t be held up as a vote of confidence for Obamacare. And it’s worth mentioning (again) that the Republicans taking a stand against the president were elected, too.
Continue reading Quote of the Day, Pro-#Obamacare Trolls Will HATE Reading This edition.
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.
I should note right from the start that I like Stu Rothenberg as a pundit and a political handicapper: he’s a pretty bright person and he has a lot of experience. But Rothenberg is also very much plugged into the professional political establishment… and sometimes, it shows. Case in point: Rothenberg’s otherwise spot-on analysis about the travails of Barack Obama these days has what I will charitably call a ‘howler.’
This president, like Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush before him, learned the lesson that every investment fund manager knows: Evidence of past performance doesn’t guarantee future results.
And now the president, who is expected to raise close to $1 billion for his re-election campaign, who faces a Republican field widely mocked as undistinguished and who can rely on the same team of brilliant political gurus who masterminded his 2008 victory, suddenly finds his re-election in doubt.
Two howlers, actually: the first is the frankly unsupported-by-historical-evidence assumption that Barack Obama ever learns a lesson on anything. The second is that Barack Obama’s past performance should have justified any expectations in the first place. Continue reading Why is Barack Obama’s re-election in 2012 only *now* in doubt?
Three out of four, at least, as CA-10 is not mentioned (to be fair, a GOP win there is the dark horse in this particular race). Short version: Virginia is at how-far-the-rubble-bounces; NJ is too close to call, but the breaks favor Christie; and NY-23 is between the Democratic and the Conservative candidate, with the NRCC contenting itself with publicly whaling on the former*. His conclusion:
Democrats could win two out of the three races, but only because multicandidate contests might allow Corzine and Owens to sneak through with a minority of the vote. A win is a win, but even if that happens, it’s not great news for Democrats for 2010.
In a sort-of-related aside, may I offer some suggestions? If you’re a member of the grassroots, stop complaining about the national party from the outside. If you’re a member of the national party organization, do a better job about being open and forthright about what you’re doing next time.
And, for both groups: life is not fair.
*Yes, I’ve seen reports otherwise.
Crossposted to RedState.