An inconvenient truth for the GOP: Their majority in the House will be smaller than the Dems was.

[LLStarks]

This applies even to the best-case scenario for them.

Why is nobody talking about this?

[DarthDem]

1. Assuming Facts . . .

. . . not in evidence.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. On the other hand, they are better than Dems and enforcing party discipline.

Pass out a few checks from big business on the floor. Call out the leg breakers to get a reluctant Representative's vote. And they are much better at marching to Sousa than Democrats.

[FSogol]

3. Their "Majority" won't exist. GOTV. n/t

[LLStarks]

4. GOTV only goes so far. It does not make up for delusions. nt

[DarthDem]

6. Weird Sentiment

Delusions? The math for them getting to the 43 seats they'll likely need is actually hard. No one's talking about this in the MSM because it doesn't fit the prepackaged narrative, but that doesn't make it a "delusion."

[BzaDem]

7. It is more likely that they will get over 70 seats than that they won't hit 43. n/t

[DarthDem]

8. Based on What?

Facts, please.

[BzaDem]

14. Based on the model political scientists use that uses the congressional generic,

and based on Nate Silver's model which uses a lot more than just the congressional generic (such as all the public polls in individual races, suitably adjusted based on pollster house effects and other criteria).

If we lost the generic by 2, we would probably lose the house. We are losing it by 10 on average, and by 15 with Gallup (that has NEVER been wrong by more than 3 points in a midterm).

[DarthDem]

17. You're Right on Gallup

Wrong on the average, wrong on the correlation, and wrong to be relying on Silver. The polls this season have been garbage, or haven't you been paying attention? Silver's modeling is thus affected. In any case even Silver doesn't think we're going to lose 80 seats or whatever nonsense.

Or are you rooting for some other outcome?

[BzaDem]

18. Actually, I'm right on the average, right on the correlation, and right to be relying on Silver.

Real Clear Politics generic average: 51-41

If you believe they have been wrong in ANY midterm election by more than 3 points in any direction, please give me the year. Just a 4 digit number. If I'm wrong, that shouldn't be too hard.

I never said it was likely we would lose 80 seats. I said us keeping the House was AS likely as us losing 80 seats. Since the chances of us keeping the House are negligible, so are the chances of us losing 80 seats (unless Gallup is right, in which case 80 is easily possible).

We will find out tonight whether the polls (taken in the aggregate) are garbage. After all, Republicans spouted the same nonsense for months when Obama was leading McCain, right up until the minute Ohio was called on Election night. Denial is a powerful force in political forecasting.

"Or are you rooting for some other outcome?"

It's amazing how some people equate living in reality to rooting for the outcome that happens.

[DarthDem]

20. Here Ya Go . . . .

Your four-digit number: 1-9-9-8.

Here's another one: 1-9-6-2.

You're wrong.

And for someone who seems to follow all this (and seems eerily invested in a certain outcome, which is just weird, as I mentioned), you sure are missing some things. Back in the day, Gallup called people at home and they answered their phones, and then people voted on election day. Now, Gallup relies on a silly likely voter screen that is laughably inapposite, ignores cell-phone only households, relies on outdated calling methods in an era when most people don't answer their phones at home, and early voting totally destroys (or, at best, and I'm being charitable, seriously impairs) their model.

But hey, don't let all of these things get in the way of your doom 'n' gloom party!

(BTW, doesn't Silver have cances of Dems retaining the House at something like 20%, or at least 15%? That's not "negligible," I'm afraid.)

[FSogol]

11. Go vote. You can whine tomorrow. n/t

[BzaDem]

5. We hope. Gallup's generic result would predict an 80+ seat gain (and they have never been wrong by

more than 3 points in a midterm since they started polling midterms in 1950).

But luckily, most other pollsters say otherwise.

[deaniac21]

9. because it doesn't make any difference. ain't no repubs going

to vote against the party.

[KamaAina]

10. Yes, but there are but a handful of "Red Dogs" who would dare to gainsay the almighty Boner.

Conversely, our majority in the Senate may be small enough to allow Lieberman, Nelson and Landrieu the usual suspects to cross over and let them win some floor votes. Only our committee chairs could stop them... :scared:

[subterranean]

12. Even a majority of one would be declared an overwhelming mandate

for them and a rejection of Obama's policies. We all know this.

[hayu_lol]

15. They could get only 30 seats...

and our Blue Dogs would put them over the top. Blanche may not be one of those...hooray for our side.

[gratuitous]

13. They held a small majority from 1994-2006

And they still governed like they had 400 seats. Republicans aren't quite as beholden to that idea of bipartisanship as Democrats are, and for some reason, the popular media don't obsess over bipartisanship when Republicans are holding the reins. It's a curious phenomenon, what with the media being all liberal and stuff.

[LLStarks]

16. Rachel and Ed will make sure to call out the GOP every time they try the reach-around. nt

[DavidDvorkin]

19. But they won't have a unified, disciplined, determined opposition.