Red Tide?
Polls Open in a few hours.
My fundamental argument, that in as much as this is a national election the Republicans really aren't in that bad a shape has already been pretty much validated by the last three major polls, showing the generic shift moving toward balance. I said it would happen in the voting booth, it's happened even earlier. Now the only question is how much, and that we'll only know after tomorrow.
We'll hold the Senate. State polls, even when done with methodological bias, are more accurate than district polls and they all show movement toward Republicans. Again, the rational judgment occurs most purely in the actual vote. There's going to be movement yet. Tomorrow the results will be even better than yesterday's polls and Republicans will do just fine. Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, and Washington are even possible pick-up seats. I've heard a few things about Hawaii but I consider Hawaii in outer space so have no opinion on the matter.
The House is much more difficult. The general rule would be that if the Senate does well the House will do well In fact the House should be more stable because the districts have been gerrymandered. But there are many more seats contested and there simply aren't any reliable numbers.
But simple percentages are useful. Of the 33 Senate seats being decided the Democrats would have to net 6 to take control. They would have to net 18%. In the House they need to net 16 out of 435 or 4%, so the task is easier.
If you considered only vulnerable seats (which is the way it's done and which is where you get into fantasy) the comparative numbers would be similar.
Taking the media presumption that only Republicans are vulnerable, in the Senate the Dems would have to run 6 of 6, or 100%. In the House it would be 16 of about 40, or 40%. I suppose that's possible. But if they don't take 40% in the Senate they're not going to take 40% in the House and I don't think they're going to take any in the Senate, and so I'm not sure they're going to take any in the House.
It should be remembered that just a few months ago the argument was that the House was safe but that the Democrats had a chance at the Senate. The argument has reversed but for no other reason than blather in the bubble.
What this means is that I'm simply denying that this is a Democrat year. I think this much ballyhooed tide of Republican vulnerability is concocted entirely of dreams, and that the Republicans are actually solid.
This is my argument:
--An excellent economy
--A serious war with only one serious party
--A Republican base that pays absolutely no attention to MSM and that will vote in much larger numbers than Democrats.
My fundamental argument, that in as much as this is a national election the Republicans really aren't in that bad a shape has already been pretty much validated by the last three major polls, showing the generic shift moving toward balance. I said it would happen in the voting booth, it's happened even earlier. Now the only question is how much, and that we'll only know after tomorrow.
We'll hold the Senate. State polls, even when done with methodological bias, are more accurate than district polls and they all show movement toward Republicans. Again, the rational judgment occurs most purely in the actual vote. There's going to be movement yet. Tomorrow the results will be even better than yesterday's polls and Republicans will do just fine. Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, and Washington are even possible pick-up seats. I've heard a few things about Hawaii but I consider Hawaii in outer space so have no opinion on the matter.
The House is much more difficult. The general rule would be that if the Senate does well the House will do well In fact the House should be more stable because the districts have been gerrymandered. But there are many more seats contested and there simply aren't any reliable numbers.
But simple percentages are useful. Of the 33 Senate seats being decided the Democrats would have to net 6 to take control. They would have to net 18%. In the House they need to net 16 out of 435 or 4%, so the task is easier.
If you considered only vulnerable seats (which is the way it's done and which is where you get into fantasy) the comparative numbers would be similar.
Taking the media presumption that only Republicans are vulnerable, in the Senate the Dems would have to run 6 of 6, or 100%. In the House it would be 16 of about 40, or 40%. I suppose that's possible. But if they don't take 40% in the Senate they're not going to take 40% in the House and I don't think they're going to take any in the Senate, and so I'm not sure they're going to take any in the House.
It should be remembered that just a few months ago the argument was that the House was safe but that the Democrats had a chance at the Senate. The argument has reversed but for no other reason than blather in the bubble.
What this means is that I'm simply denying that this is a Democrat year. I think this much ballyhooed tide of Republican vulnerability is concocted entirely of dreams, and that the Republicans are actually solid.
This is my argument:
--An excellent economy
--A serious war with only one serious party
--A Republican base that pays absolutely no attention to MSM and that will vote in much larger numbers than Democrats.
posted by mouse at 12:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home