Krugman: Will 2010 be 1948?

[Pirate Smile]

Will 2010 be 1948?

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/10-us-house-genballot.php?xml=http://www.pollster.com/flashcharts/content/xml/10USHouseGenBallot.xml&choices=Democrat,Republican&phone=&ivr=&internet=&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=2010-1-01&to_date=&min_pct=40&max_pct=50&grid=&points=&trends=&lines=


There are hints in the polling data (see this one, not yet in the Pollster average above) — and, more generally, in the tone and feel of the news — that November may not be quite the Republican blowout everyone is expecting.

This has me thinking about the 1948 election, when Harry Truman shocked the pundits by pulling it out at the last minute. You might have thought that such a narrow victory wouldn’t have changed that much — that people would have dismissed it as not giving Democrats a mandate to do much. In fact, however, it marked the end of Republican attempts to undo the New Deal (that is, until the rise of the hard right several decades later.) In effect, many people came to the conclusion that if the GOP couldn’t pull off a win in such favorable circumstances, it wasn’t ever going to be able to win until it changed its positions.

If Democrats hold on to the House this year — if a recovering economy and growing public revulsion over the crazies does the trick — it may have a similar effect.

I guess the message is, don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched and you’ve managed to barter them for medical care.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/will-2010-be-1948/

I'm trying to copy over the graphic but it isn't working. Go check it out. Looks great.


edit to add - this is the best I could get to copy. You can see the Dem and Repub lines cross back with Dems going back into the lead. Still trying to get the larger version.


Looks similar to Obama's approval rating heading up too.

[dumpdabaggers]

1. I agree. Media has jumped to giant conclusions based on little real data.

People have not focused on these elections yet. It reminds me of when Dukakis had a 28 point lead over Bush in 1988. Most people do not even know who is running yet.

[Cosmocat]

3. Media has jumped to conclusions based on ...

their being gutless republican whores ...

Not for nothing ...

If the shoes were reversed we would be hearing the media in mass decrying "TOO EARLY TO MAKE ANY CONCLUSIONS ..." They also, as the have done in the past, would focus on the money ... Ds have more money in their coffers by far, and we have heard JACK about it ... When the Ds have the edge in money earlier in the 2000s all we heard was about their money and how money wins elections ...

[NorthCarolina]

7. I think it is more about media manipulation of an uninformed public

Talk as if the GOP is going to make big strides, limit guests and pundits to discussing either (a) GOP gains and/or (b) Dem losses, rely purely on agenda driven polling data, and repeat these same messages over and over ad nauseum, thereby attempting to steer the outcome to your desired goal.

[Hansel]

13. I agree. And their manipulation has failed.

I think that they will start back peddling big time over the next several months so they can pretend that they never believed there would be a Republican rout.

They keep underestimating Obama and they lose every time. It is no coincidence that Obama has strengthened his tone and rhetoric over the past couple of weeks. The snowball has started to roll and the media either needs to get out of the way or be bowled over. I predict, and some signs already exist it is happening, that they are going to get out of the way.

[SpiralHawk]

2. "Republicon blowout"? Is that some kind of Wide-stance Family Values sex act?

If so, then I don't want to know about it...

[glitch]

5. More like a Crime Against Nature a la Deepwater Horizon

Actually it's the same act, different venue.

[NWHarkness]

4. The same people who say the GOP is going to take back Congress

said that the Dems couldn't take it in 2006, that Obama could never beat Hillary and that Sarah Palin would help McCain win the White House.

[Merlot]

6. Agreed.

[Robbins]

9. Exactly

To win congress Republicans need to win 39 seats In The House,and 10 In the senate and not lose
a single seat they presently hold.Back In 2006 Democrats won 30 House seats and 6 seate seats
and Bush was In far worse shape than Obama Is.Despite what some would have you believe Obama Is
stronger at this time than Clinton In 1994,and Reagan In 1982.

How many times have the Media counted out Obama?They said he couldn't beat Hillary,Reverand
Wright was the end of him,and Palin would help Mccain win.Remember there were times when some said
because of primarys battle eh couldn't win Florida or Michigan.They said helath Care would be
his waterloo/end.we have several polls with him at 50 percent/slightly lower/slighter higher.

Come January Pelosi will still be speaker(she will have a slighter smalller caucus) and Reid may still
be majority leader(the fact he Is now seen as competive should be huge news)

I firmly believe we are looking at 1998 and not 1994 this november.Back then they were shocked Democrats picked up 5 House seats and 2 Senate seats(keeping the margain In the senate where It was
and ousting 2 anti clinton Republicans) and now the pickups for Republicans will be much smaller than
they have been predicting.

[w4rma]

8. Dems have the potential to pick up seats if the leadership plays their cards right.

Unfortunately, the leadership is making mistakes by using corruption to help raise money, rather than fighting corruption. The DLC is costing us big time.

[CTyankee]

10. But, but, Joe Scarborough SAID the repubs were gonna get the House and Senate!

Oh, nooooo!!!

[depakid]

16. They'd have to run the table to take the Senate

but the fact that people are even seriously talking about losing the House & Senate to this pathetic bunch says a LOT about the Democratic leadership.

Starting with the Republican enabler and legitimizer in Chief and his tireless, quixotic quest for "bipartisanship."

[CTyankee]

18. No, I think they're going on historic evidence that the out party wins in the mid term elections

in the new president's first term.

OK, I get that. I just don't think it'll be enough to upset the majority in the House and the Seante. I'm sure there will be seats in the House that will turn over because they are in conservative districts. But I don't see this being a bloodbath....

[NJmaverick]

11. K&R

[old mark]

12. It is s long time till November, but some state's primaries are next week

and the talking heads will have a long time to tell us the real meaning of the results - who got chosen over who, how many voted, what party had high turnout...

We expect some rain Tuesday here in PA - we have Specter/Sestak and a governor and many State officers to choose, so if you are eligible to vote, I strongly urge you to do it...we need your input, and frankly, I don't care WHO YOU VOTE FOR so long as it's a Democrat.

mark

[Colonel Bat Guano]

14. 1998

Well, I've done this a couple of times. I don't think it's 1948. I think it's 1998.

A lot of pundit history has been scrubbed and revised, but back then, all year long, it was considered a foregone conclusion that Rs would make major strides...a)because it was an offyear election with a Dem president, historically that means the opposition party makes gains and b) the pundits decided that the public was really disgusted with Clinton's private behavior and would punish the party. In fact, the opposite occurred, and Dems actually made slight gains. There was about a half an hour during election coverage when it seemed that Dems would recapture the house.

I think something similar will happen this year. The pundits and press have wildly overstated anger against Obama, Obama fatigue, whatever they call it. The Tea Party gets a lot of media coverage, but numerically they're really not significant. They're big enough to screw up Republican primaries and put forward the craziest possible candidates and ideas (how about that Maine platform?).

There are a lot of factors in play in individual races. But I think the overall trend will be Dems holding their own, or maybe even gaining. Health care ain't gonna work for Repubs...neither is pushing oil drilling...neither is trying to push back on Wall Street regulations.

Everybody work on local races and turnout. And ignore the conventional wisdom about a Republican landslide this year.

[Jennicut]

20. Or Reagan in 1982.

"It's worth looking back to the 1982 midterm elections to bear out an exceedingly important point that is overlooked when reciting the general rule that close Senate elections tend to break in a particular party's favor: The party winning the close elections isn't necessarily the one you might expect.

The 1982 midterm elections saw a whopping 11 Senate elections decided by fewer than 10 percentage points. Considering that Ronald Reagan's approval rating lagged at 43 percent and that the economy, while improving, was still in the doldrums, one might have expected most of these races to have broken in favor of the opposition Democrats. Indeed, in House elections that year, the Democrats were able to capitalize, picking up a net 26 seats.

Yet come election day, the races didn't break overwhelmingly in the Democrats' favor. In fact, the opposite occurred, with Reagan's Republicans winning nine of 11 single-digit Senate elections." http://mydd.com/2010/1/8/what-if-2010-is-like-1982


I think many seats will be close in the Senate and may not break the way Rethugs expect.

[depakid]

15. "...barter them for medical care."

Goes to show how one colorfully stupid comment can bring a politician down.

Lowden will ever after be looked at as the chicken lady.

:rofl:

[PM Martin]

17. How is chicken lady doing these days?

[Ozymanithrax]

19. The media needs drama to keep eyes on screen.

Having a titanic conflict with the Right Wing battling back into power keeps eyes on screen.

They will do what ever it takes to increase drama.

[fishwax]

21. i think he might be right

and all the doom we've been hearing about democrats in the fall may not come to pass. Here's hoping.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. The prospect of Congress changing parties makes for good television

But I still think Democrats will hold the House.

[backscatter712]

23. It's possible, but as Krugman advises, don't count your chickens before they're bartered...

Recent events have been making things look a little better for the Democrats - the health care bill is a done deal, financial reform is likely to pass (though it's still possible for it to be watered down), the economy is slowing improving, so the picture's not as bleak as it was earlier this year and late last year.

Stay tuned for the pullout from Iraq to accelerate (despite the drama we've been seeing, the troops have been packing up and getting ready to leave Iraq for some time now, and a significant number of them are already gone. The withdrawal is still on track.) That will do good things for our chances in November.