We interrupt this pity-party to deliver a fivethirtyeight.com prediction of 2010 election results

[backscatter712]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/2010-senate-races-present-rewards-but.html

If I aggregate my estimates from the individual races, I show Republicans picking up an average of 4.60 Democratic seats, but also, Democrats picking up an average of 2.65 Republican seats, for a net Republican gain of 1.95 seats.

But this is very important: the average is somewhat noninformative here, as these races do not operate independently from one another. It is somewhat unlikely -- though certainly not impossible -- that Republicans will pick up 4-5 Democratic seats and Democrats will pick up 2-3 Republican seats. If the national environment continues to improve for the Republicans, for example, perhaps they'll pick up six or all seven of the seats that are basically toss-ups or better (everything from Illinois upward), and perhaps put another race like California or Wisconsin into play, while defending one or all but one of their own seats.

On the other hand, if conditions improve for the Democrats, perhaps they can hold their losses to 2-3 seats (say North Dakota plus one or two from the group DE/NV/CO/AR) while picking up Missouri, perhaps two from the OH/KY/NH group, and one from the NC/FL/LA group. In that case, Democrats could hold at 60 seats or even improve their numbers to 61-62.

There are an unusually large number of Senate races in play this year and as such there is an unusually large amount of uncertainty surrounding the outcome. It also bears remembering that, although I remain quite pessimistic about what will happen to Democrats in the House, the Senate playing field is intriniscally more favorable to them. The Senators who are up for re-election this year are those who were elected in 2004 -- a good cycle for Republicans. And while Democrats were hurt by their retirements in North Dakota, Delaware, New York, Illinois and probably Colorado (they were helped by Chris Dodd's retirement in Connecticut), the Republicans have created opportunities for them with the retirements in Missouri, Ohio, New Hampshire and perhaps Florida (they were helped by Jim Bunning's retirement in Kentucky). If the 2006 senate class were up for re-election this year, Democrats would potentially face very substantial losses, but fortunately for Democrats they aren't.

[tekisui]

1. Good analysis.

[saracat]

2. Yah but the House could be wiped out.That is the problem

[tekisui]

5. They will definitely take a hit.

I think the jobs numbers will largely determine if the hit is hard enough to lose the majority. I don't see that kind of loss coming for the Dems.

[backscatter712]

13. That's possible.

I'm predicting, completely out of my ass, just based on the retirements & such, that we'll lose 25-30 seats in the House. Not quite enough to lose the majority, but it will hurt and make it harder to pass legislation when Stupak and his fellow fetus fetishists, or other Blue Dogs throw temper tantrums. At the same time, Nancy Pelosi's been far more skillful in cat-herding then Reid was in the Senate, so I have confidence she'll be able to get a few things done.

Of course, that all depends on what happens. If the economy starts turning around and jobs start coming back, election season will be far less unpleasant. If the economy double-dips, we're screwed.

My advice to Democrats, get the jobs bill through Congress before the ink's dried after Obama signs the health care bill.

[TexasObserver]

3. Recommend. Looks a little rosy.

Apparently the Nader erosion isn't happening, except among his diehard supporters of longstanding, and they're not Democrats anyway.

[WI_DEM]

4. I see the Dems losing 3-5 Senate seats. We will hold the majority

but won't have the 60 votes, which has not really been much help in the Senate anyway.

[backscatter712]

6. The one bright side is that Joe LIEberman won't be the one required to get 60...

so we can safely diss and dismiss his sorry ass when the election's over.

[Bucky]

7. They won't ever punish him. He's one of the club.

I like, but do not trust, this analysis. The Dems have got to go on the offensive this fall; that's the only way they'll keep from losing lots of ground in November.

[backscatter712]

9. 2012 is when we're gonna have to get some revenge.

That's Connecticut's next chance to throw out that piece of shit.

[rhett o rick]

10. I think he will have Rahmbo in his corner. Just sayin nt

[Duke Newcombe]

12. Due to the ineffectual way he's managed HCR, there's nothing to fear from him.

See my "Rahm Emanuel is a Punk" post here...

[rhett o rick]

24. Ah contrary. I think Rahmbo was very successful in managing HCR. He got everything he wanted. nt

[treestar]

14. I would personally drive up there and help with the campaign

of his Democratic opponent.

[backscatter712]

16. Chances are good it will be Lieberman versus a Democratic opponent.

There's no way he'll be able to rejoin the Democratic party in Connecticut unchallenged, his Lieberman for Connecticut party turned against him, so if he wants another term, he'll be likely to run as a Republican.

[RoyGBiv]

17. They're not in campaign mode yet ...

I, too, think that if this this analysis errs, it is on the side of being too positive. But, like a good analyst of his type, he qualifies his remarks with some rather significant "ifs."

As you say, the Democrats do have to go on the offensive, and I believe they will do so earlier than the Fall. Part of what getting HCR voted upon in the Senate and into conference as soon as possible was all about was keeping to a timeline. That is, if the bickering that went on this fall and winter had taken place later this year, it spells doomsday. Getting that out of the way earlier, allows them to move on more substantial issues that favor their mid-term prospects.

A lot will ride on the so-called "jobs" bill, which is really just another stimulus, whether it is big enough, and how well it works. Then too we're looking at not making the grave mistake of pulling a 1937, as Paul Krugman pointed out in a recent column. If we do that, or if Republicans force it, even in the bits that Bernanke could do by preemptively tightening money, we're going to have some serious problems and a Congress that will be in no shape even to attempt to address them.

[DarthDem]

11. Good Call

It doesn't really matter if the Democrats have 60 seats unless those 60 seats are occupied by solid progressives, not people like Nelson of Nebraska, (to a lesser extent) Lincoln, and of course the maniacal Lieberman. So, all we really need is 51 actual Democrats. Accordingly, I can't really get very wound up about the possibility of some of these people losing.

All that aside, I don't think the situation is really that bad. Nate is a great statistician, but he recognizes that it's way too early to tell about most of these races.

[Joanne98]

8. The MSM keeps pushing this FALSE landslide by Republicans!

All they care about is getting a horserace to report.

[Hello_Kitty]

15. Nate is greatly underestimating the public anger toward this HCR fiasco

Members of the House are frantically trying to get the idiotic tax on health care plans stripped out because it's that unpopular.

[backscatter712]

18. Personally, I think the Cadillac Tax won't cause as many problems as you might think.

The reason for that particular tax is cost control, because insurance companies will be motivated to price their plans below the threshold where the Cadillac Tax kicks in. A lot of economists, including Krugman IIRC, like the concept of this tax.

The question is where do we set the threshold? Set it too low, and too many people get burned - ideally, it'd be able to hit only highly-compensated executives with, well, Cadillac health care plans, be able to raise enough money to not cause deficit issues, and not hit the middle class.

The problems lie in union negotiation issues - the Cadillac tax throws a monkey-wrench in union tactics to negotiate better health care plans in lieu of pay raises, and the problems that would ensue if the threshold was too low and a lot of people got hit with the tax.

[ChicagoSuz219]

21. My guess is...

...that by the time the bill is finished, unions will be exempt from the tax...

...at least, I hope so!

[backscatter712]

22. They've already carved a few exemptions from the Cadillac Tax

For example, high-risk professions such as longshoremen are exempt from the Cadillac Tax, IIRC.

Exempting union-negotiated health care would certainly be something I'd support.

[ChicagoSuz219]

25. :-) n/t

[quiller4]

19. It isn't all that unpopular if you look at polling data. n/t

[timeforpeace]

20. Thanks for this. Now we don't have to worry anymore.

[backscatter712]

23. I believe Nate Silver's point was...

that neither despair nor complacency was appropriate.