Reuters calls the election

[ProSense]

Republicans to win control of House with 231 seats: Reuters/Ipsos poll

[KingFlorez]

1. Would be close to what they had last time they had control

It would be a short walk back to control for Democrats in 2012, 12 seats wouldn't be hard to grab in a presidential year.

[thewiseguy]

2. It may be even worse

Do not be surprised if Republicans win close to 250 seats in the house.

[Jennicut]

3. That would be 72 seats. Possible, but I think 50 something is more

likely. Unless we all believe Gallup, then it would be over 100 seats!

[thewiseguy]

8. Have a look at this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_map.html

RCP gives Republicans 224 seats vs the 167 for Democrats. Another 44 seats are toss ups. If we split the tossups then it will be somewhere around 244 seats for the GOP.

[PBS Poll-435]

11. They also have placed Herseth-Sandlin and Gabby Giffords in the Rep column

Not likely.

[FBaggins]

14. Herseth-Sandline is likely to lose.

She only leads in one current poll, and that's by a Democratic polling firm and at levels (45-42) that would still hint at a loss.

Giffords is closer to a tossup, but there hasn't been any decent polling from that race.

[PBS Poll-435]

27. Likely to lose! Only leads in one poll!

Wow. :wow:

[FBaggins]

31. She's the incumbent.

To trail in a Mason Dixon poll (even ignoring all the Rasmussen polls) with 43% of the vote in a red state during a bad year?

Yeah... she's likely to lose. Not certain... but quite likely.

[PBS Poll-435]

33. Bet'cha a Coke that she wins by 2-3 pts, at least.

:)

[FBaggins]

34. I can do better than that.

There's bound to be an intrade line on her race... probably giving 4:1 odds now.

[PBS Poll-435]

37. 30-65 in favor of the Republican

With only 25 contracts ever traded on the race.


Not exactly concrete.


We will see. I still bet you a Coke. :P

[FBaggins]

50. Keep your coke.

Looks like I'll need something a bit stronger.

[bornskeptic]

12. No it wouldn't. They have, I think, 178 now, so 231 would be a gain of53. n/t

[Jennicut]

16. It would be 72 seats gained if they had 250., not 231, which is what the poster was

talking about.

[bornskeptic]

20. I apologize. I thought you were responding to the OP

[S_E_Fudd]

5. Looks like 72 - 80 to me...nt

[fugop]

9. Nah, the even worse

The Onion nailed it. Frankly, I'm now thinking 8,000 seats is a best-case scenario.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/democrats-could-lose-up-to-8000-seats-in-upcoming,18285/

[Aramchek]

36. says the constant ray of sunshine...

[Kdillard]

4. Why bother having an election?

[ProSense]

7. This is the weirdest election

Republicans are running the most bizarre campaigns. Fox has become the RNC/Teabagger network. Yet somehow none of this seems to matter to people.

[Kdillard]

13. Yep. I have no clue what people are seeing that they want to reward. I am heartsick because I don't

want to lose Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.

[FBaggins]

15. They have little interest in "rewarding" anyone. This is all about punishment.

It worked in our favor in 2008, but now they're still not happy and there are only democrats in power.

[Jennicut]

17. I think that is right on. And there will be continued punishment of whomever is in power

unless the economy rebounds. It is all about the economy this time.

[Marsala]

18. 2012: Republican President, Republican Senate and Democratic House?

Probably not, but if the economy goes stagnant like Japan's lost decade, I could easily see the House flipping control every two years.

[Jennicut]

19. I think we may have a lost decade here, or at least a lost half a decade.

It will bounce around for years then. Ugg.

[Kdillard]

21. Really and they think giving power back to Republicans is going to help

with the economy when Obama and Dems have had more private job sector creation in two years than under Bush's entire Presidency. There is just such a disconnect there.

[Jennicut]

22. People are not the brightest. Even in America where lots of us go to college.

[golfguru]

25. It is always about the economy stupid

The published unemployment is 9.6%. If you include those who
can't find any job, those who have given up looking for a job,
and those who work part-time jobs below their skill level,
the real unemployment number is close to 25%.

Which means half of all voters are either without a job or
have a close relative/friend without a good job.

It does not matter which party is in control, it does not
matter how many good bills have been passed, those job numbers
will get any incumbent facing wrath of voters.

[ProSense]

23. "It worked in our favor in 2008"

Sorry, 2008 was not about punishment. Republicans were on the wrong side of all the issues and had driven the country into the ground.

The punishment people want to inflict is because Democrats didn't do things fast enough. The enthusiasm gap is on the Democratic side. In fact, for the majority of the past two years, the polls have been completely screwy (meaning inconsistent with returning Republicans to power) in this regard, showing that the public still blames Bush and Republicans for the economy.

[FBaggins]

24. "had driven the country into the ground" doesn't result in punishment?

The punishment people want to inflict is because Democrats didn't do things fast enough.

There's certainly going to be a debate in democratic circles after the election re: whether that's true or not. Some will say that the president moved too far too fast (and the republicans will no doubt encourage such a position) while others will claim as you have. I hope that you're right... because republicans will definitely overreach in that case and we'll win much of this back again in two years.

The enthusiasm gap is on the Democratic side.

That's incorrect. Sorry. Take a look at those enthusiasm numbers and compare them to prior elections. They're as high or higher than almost any recent election. Democrats are plenty motivated. It's just that R's and I's are significantly more motivated... and the I's have turned against us.

On edit - Take a look at your own post from earlier today re: Gallup's prior polling. "Absolutely certain to vote" and "paying attention" are only slightly behind 2006 when we did regained Congress... it's the republican number that has gapped up to record levels.

The exit polling will play a big role in the debate.

[ProSense]

26. Hmmm?

I see a three point drop among Democrats

[FBaggins]

28. A three point drop from a VERY solid election...

...how does the number you see compare to '94,'98,&'02 ?

[ProSense]

30. You just claimed Democrats are plenty motivated.

A 3-point drop from 2006 is not "plenty motivated." Coming off 2008, and if you believe the polls, it's pathetic.

[FBaggins]

32. And all the polling says that they are.

The meme that democrats are "discouraged" (etc) has not been bourn out by the polling.

A 3-point drop from 2006 is not "plenty motivated."

Yes it is. A tiny drop from our best performance in a couple decades? The enthusiasm gap is not primarily on our side.

[ProSense]

35. Oh brother

"The meme that democrats are 'discourage' (etc) has not been bourn out by the polling."

The polls are the basis for the stupid meme.

The constant drumbeat about Republicans having anywhere from an 8 to 14 point lead among likely voters, narrowing slightly or significantly among registered voterd.

[FBaggins]

38. No offense... but that's simply wrong.

The constant drumbeat about Republicans having anywhere from an 8 to 14 point lead among likely voters, narrowing slightly or significantly among registered voterd.


What you're missing is that an enthusiasm "gap" can come from abnormally low enthusiasm on the part of one party, OR from an unusually high enthusiasm for the other party (or some combination of the two of course). You're acting as if the very existence of the gap proves which is the cause.

Nate Silver explains it quite well:

From the standpoint of explaining voter behavior, however, the relative standing of the two parties only tells us part of the story: it’s also worth thinking about, in absolute terms, how committed each party’s voters are to the midterms. The enthusiasm gap could mean one of two things:

It could mean that Democrats were particularly unenthusiastic, relative to a typical midterm election year — whereas Republican enthusiasm was about average. That would produce an enthusiasm gap, and would tell us a story about a depressed (or dissatisfied, or complacent) Democratic base. Or, it could mean that Republicans were unusually excited about the elections, while Democratic enthusiasm was just at par. That would also produce an enthusiasm gap. But it would be much more a story about Republican excitement than one about disarray in the Democratic base.In fact, it’s the latter explanation that seems to hold this year. The enthusiasm gap has more to do with abnormally high levels of Republican interest in the election than with despondent Democrats.

Gallup periodically asks a question about whether voters are more enthusiastic than usual about voting in the midterms. When they did so in March, shortly after passage of the health care bill, 57 percent of Democrats said they were more excited than usual about voting in the November elections. This was, in fact, the highest figure that Gallup had ever recorded among Democrats in a midterm year (they began tracking the question in 1994). The problem for Democrats? Some 69 percent of Republicans also answered the question affirmatively. As I wrote at the time, “if the Democrats’ total was record-breaking, Republicans just blew the competition away in Usain Bolt-type fashion.”

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/understanding-and-misunderstanding-the-enthusiasm-gap/

[ProSense]

39. See this is where polling semantics simply becomes bullshit

...The enthusiasm gap has more to do with abnormally high levels of Republican interest in the election than with despondent Democrats.

Gallup periodically asks a question about whether voters are more enthusiastic than usual about voting in the midterms. When they did so in March, shortly after passage of the health care bill, 57 percent of Democrats said they were more excited than usual about voting in the November elections. This was, in fact, the highest figure that Gallup had ever recorded among Democrats in a midterm year (they began tracking the question in 1994).

So 57 percent was the highest ever among Democrats and the poll you posted shows Republicans at an abnormal high of 59 percent?

If 57 percent was the highest ever recorded for Democrats, how on earth can the current 40 to 44 percent not be considered a deficit? The spin is now that the gap is really due to an abnormally high level among Republicans?

Democrats lead among registered voters.

Call it whatever, the media created the enthusiasm gap, and it's based on the polls.

[FBaggins]

40. Don't confuse that which you don't understand... with that which doesn't make sense.

So 57 percent was the highest ever among Democrats and the poll you posted shows Republicans at an abnormal high of 59 percent?

59% was one of the data points this year. They also cited 69%.

If 57 percent was the highest ever recorded for Democrats, how on earth can the current 40 to 44 percent not be considered a deficit?

By being higher than most previous years. The more relevant question is how you can see democrats at the highest point ever recorded back in March yet think that the enthusiasm gap is primarily on our side.

The spin is now that the gap is really due to an abnormally high level among Republicans?

They're regularly scoring higher than in any prior election (including 1994) yet you question that they're at abnormally high levels? I can't think how I can make this any simpler.

Call it whatever, the media created the enthusiasm gap, and it's based on the polls.

Let's see if I've got this straight. The enthusiasm gap is primarily from low support on our side... and that low support was created by clever media manipulation? So you're saying that you think democrats are stupid, manipulated puppets, eh?

[ProSense]

41. What?

If 57 percent was the highest ever recorded for Democrats, how on earth can the current 40 to 44 percent not be considered a deficit?

By being higher than most previous years. The more relevant question is how you can see democrats at the highest point ever recorded back in March yet think that the enthusiasm gap is primarily on our side."

I can see how the it goes from 57 percent to 40 percent and that means Democrats are "plenty motivated."

And you think I'm the one who is confused?

[FBaggins]

42. Are you saying that you're incapable of comparing it to prior years?

How hard do you need to make this? If enthusiasm among Democrats is higher than in prior cycles... you can't credibly call it depressed.

And this wasn't the only poll to show this same effect (nor was it the only measure used to describe the phenomenon in the link). The big dollar donors (Soros?) aren't giving this year, but Democrats have had record fundraising (in many cases better than in 2008). How does that represent depressed enthusiasm?

[ProSense]

43. March at 57 percent

March is not a prior year.

Is it depressed from March? Yes or No?

[FBaggins]

44. So you're saying that this discouragement is a brand new phenomenon?

The enthusiasm gap started some time after march?

[ProSense]

45. Are you going to

answer the question?

[FBaggins]

46. Sure. Right after you do.

How does the current level of enthusiasm compare to the last few midterm elections overall?

[ProSense]

47. It's higher?

Your chart:



32, 36, 38, 50, 44 (oops)

One on these things doesn't belong.

Now, your turn: March at 57 percent. Is the current 40 percent to 44 percent depressed from March? Yes or No?

[FBaggins]

48. Yes... it's higher.

Even that lower weekly number (which varies a fair bit from prior weeks') is higher than three of the last four elections.

One on these things doesn't belong.

One? That must be the 32%, right?

Now, your turn: March at 57 percent. Is the current 40 percent to 44 percent depressed from March? Yes or No?

That ONE figure for ONE week? Sure. But that's only one of a handful of "enthusiasm" measures and only from one pollster. The overwhelming weight of the evidence says that democratic enthusiasm overall is NOT depressed this year compared to prior midterm elections. In MANY ways it's higher... in some cases lots higher.

And, of course, you continue to ignore the other side of the coin.

42,40,42,40,59 (oops)

In this example (unlike yours)... one of these things really doesn't belong.

Early start tomorrow... so you'll have to think on that for awhile until it sinks in. I'm getting some sleep.

[ProSense]

49. "is higher than three of the last four elections."

How convenient. Let's skip one: 2006

Ever heard of a trend?

If it reached 57 in March even for one day, the current number is depressed.

As for this: "42,40,42,40,59 (oops)"

Republicans aren't Democrats. The 59 percent may be abnormally high for Republicans, but to claim that Dems, after registering 50 percent in 2006 and reaching 57 percent in March, are "plenty motivated" at 44 percent by comparison to 1994-2002, is highly selective.

It completely ignores the dynamics of 2006 and 2008, dynamics that likely play a factor in the Republicans' current numbers.

On edit, one thing is certain: The media predictions of GOP blowouts, likely voter models and Democratic enthusiasm are going to be put to a test tomorrow.

[BeFree]

6. Of course they do

Most of their $$ buddies are pukes. If they told the truth they'd piss off their customers.

Oh wait... ya saying the media is truthful and they wouldn't lie to us?

[fedupinBushcountry]

10. If half of the poll

are not registered voters, how in the hell are they likely to vote. I HATE POLLS!!!

[moondust]

29. Oh heck, it's over again.

I should have tuned it all out and gone back to sleep the first dozen times they crowned the victors.

:eyes: