Democrats will not get clobbered today...

[David__77]

I don't like to air my predictions generally (at least on on-line forums), but I've been right a lot of the time.

We have seen, throughout this election cycle, incredible polls with historically massive discrepancies between the "registered voter" and "likely voter" results. We have heard endlessly about "enthusiasm gaps" ad infinitum. And it is certainly possible the Rasmussen et al. are right - we will soon know. But as of this moment, I don't buy it.

Democrats and other progressives are certainly dispirited. Right-wingers are hankering to seize power and "restore" something-or-another... But enthusiasm does not make for victory - not enthusiasm alone. It has been repeated many times: but an "unenthusiastic" vote counts the same as an enthusiastic one, provided it is cast. Later, I will cast a vote in California, which, admittedly, is inured from the "Tea Party" for the most part. Perhaps this clouds my vision.

I would like to point out the Critz-Burns race to replace John Murtha last spring. PPP had Republican Burns up by 1 point. A GOP internal had Burns up by 5 points. The pundits said the Republicans "should pick up" this district because it is allegedly conservative and anti-Obama. This was a district McCain won in 2008. The right-wing lavished money on their candidate, who was the strongest they could find. The RESULT: Critz won 53%-44%. No polling organization had numbers like these. While Democrats lost a district in Hawaii, even there, the polls relatively underestimated the aggregate Democratic vote split between two candidates.

Democrats and progressive-minded people will not be caught off guard. For months, we have been warned about the "enthusiasm" of the right-wing. Progressive abstention is an act of a more conscious nature than, say, a complacent Democrat in 1994, when relatively few pundits spoke of a right-wing sweep. I expect high turnout on all ideological fronts. And that is precisely what the pollsters and pundits do NOT expect.

I also would like to point to the California gubernatorial recall election in 2003. Survey USA and Rasmussen came out with polls that showed the "yes" on recall to have very high levels of support: even as high as 66% yes! Just before the election, a poll showed 61% yes (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/26620/arnold_maintains_the_pace_in_california/) In the end, 55% supported the recall. While this midterm election is not as "strange" as that recall election, certain of the political contours are similar: "energized Republicans," "depressed Democrats," etc., which seemed to confound pollsters and pundits. Democrats seemed to positively despise Davis, but many came out to vote no on the recall, contrary to expectations.

We will win a number of races that were written off as unwinnable. The "shockers" will all be to the benefit of the Democrats.

Tomorrow, regardless of the results, we must get to work to remake the Democratic Party as a progressive party in defense of the people's interests, and to create real sustainable social movements that will continuously demand progressive change! Not one step back - ever forward, never backward!

[Vincardog]

1. Not one step back - ever forward, never backward!

[PopSixSquish]

4. Ni Shagu Nazad!

:hi:

[katty]

2. concur-the shocks will be welcome

[Beetwasher]

3. The Tea Party Also May Turn Off A Significant Amount Of Moderate Repubs

While the tea baggers are enthused, they are a subset of the larger Republican party. I'm not so sure how enthused moderate Repubs are going to be to come out and vote for all these nutty tea baggers. They may stay home. In addition, all this propoganda about how great the Repubs are going to do may result in Repubs thinking they don't HAVE to go vote, especially if they are turned off by the nutbags they have running.

Meanwhile, all the propoganda about how well Repubs are going to do may in fact server to super motivate Democratic voters.

Who knows, we'll see.

[Frances]

6. i hope you are right

and that all the gloating by the media about a Republican sweep will motivate Dems. There's so much at stake: jobs and social security and the repudiation of meaness.

[Tigermoose]

5. I hope so.

kick

[stopbush]

7. When has a supposed "enthusiasm gap" ever been THE factor in winning an election?

I'd say - never.

This "gap" is a manufactured "reason" to throw the election to the Rs. In the past, winning elections was about your GOTV effort. It was about which side had the votes and could get their voters to the polls. A strong turnout at the polls has always been an indication that Ds are going to do just fine.

The fact is that every indicator says that the Ds are in the driver's seat. They have the superior GOTV effort. They have the better fund raising, and funds raised from hundreds of thousands of small donors, not from a handful of wealthy corporatists looking to buy an election.

Yes, by every PAST measure, Ds should win in a landslide. Which is why the phony "enthusiasm gap" has been hammered home as if it was THE determining factor in 2010.

It ain't.

[Erose999]

8. The MSM determined that their narrative for this election would be "Republican sweep" back in July.

They are gonna go with that because it reflects the very close polling, which as we all know skews right because it relies on landline phones and other old-media.

Some outlets made predictions that put Mayor McCheese on top in the '08 election.

Its still anybody's race.

[David__77]

10. "Republican sweep" was formulated a year ago or more.

In fact, the "Chamber of Commerce" wing of the elites decided it when they promoted the "Tax Day Tea Party" in April 2009, when Obama has barely settled into the White House. Obama then pissed off the bankers and the dye was cast, so to speak. "Scott Brown" as a political phenomenon then brought in the rest of the media/pundit elite. Anything to challenge the narrative has been studiously ignored.

We will soon see. I want to emphasize, although I do not believe that a historical defeat is in the works, regardless of the outcome of this particular election, we have cause for great optimism. Strategically, the situation is excellent. Demography is destiny, and there are many routes that will be open to long-term, progressive majority in the relatively near future.

[barbtries]

9. i really hope you're right.

i'm no pundit or prophet when it comes to elections, but in my small circle, i can think of several democrats just as determined to vote as myself. because it would be a step backward to let the republicans take over.

[David__77]

11. Well...

I expected Bush to win by 2% on election day in 2004, and expected a similar margin in 2000, I expected the California recall to succeed by 10%, just for example. I've never expected a better scenario for Democrats than actually materialized, and on that note, I've been more pessimistic. I could be surprised, of course. I just thought I may as well put my thought out there, since there is a good deal of pessimism that I feel is not necessarily based on a sober political analysis, which would mean more than simply consuming/aggregating raw poll data.

Nate Silver, for instance, has many statistical gifts, and as an economist I appreciate that. But as a social scientist, one must probe deeper and necessarily inform quantitative analysis with qualitative analysis.