Political Scientists Forecast Big Losses For Democrats In 2010 Midterm Elections

[onehandle]

With the midterm elections now just nine weeks away, a group of political scientists gathered for a conference in Washington D.C. this weekend forecast significant losses for the Democrats. Three of the five forecasts predicted that Republicans will gain majority control of the House of Representatives.

The annual meeting of the American Political Science Association (APSA), which featured nearly 5,000 participants and close to 900 panel and roundtable sessions, was about far more than election forecasting. Those most interested in the 2010 campaigns, however, gravitated to a Saturday session in which five political scientists presented the latest results from their forecasting models, some of which have been in development for 30 years or more.

Democrats currently hold a 256 to 179 seat advantage, so Republicans need to win at least 39 seats to gain majority control. Three of the models, two of which draw on national polls measuring whether voters plan to support the Democrat or Republican candidate in their district, point to Republicans picking up between 49 and 52 seats in the House, more than enough to win majority control.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/06/political-scientists-fore_n_706643.html

[Peacetrain]

1. Oh Lord.. not even 15 minutes

[WI_DEM]

2. ah, who cares? it's not going to be as bad as the pollsters say.

[ProSense]

3. "It's Not Easy Being a Democrat"

This is from October 2006: "It's Not Easy Being a Democrat"


Here's how it turned out:

The 2006 elections produced an historic sea change, as Democrats, despite the impediments of gerrymandered districts, incumbency, money, machinery and mobilization capacity, took control of the House and the Senate. Democrats have gained 29 seats and counting in the House and six in the Senate. Stunningly, incumbent Democrats lost not one seat. Democrats also made gains in the states. They picked up 275 seats in state legislatures, taking control of nine new chambers and winning six new governors’ offices. Democrats now control a majority of statehouses, and both legislative bodies in 23 states, with Republicans controlling 10 states and 16 split.
Democrats won in every region, but the bulk of the gains were in the Northeast and Midwest. This was a sweeping repudiation of one party rule in Washington, with Republicans suffering down ballot as well.

<...>

PDF

[onehandle]

8. The prediction was that we were going to win. We won by more than predicted.

In 1994 they predicted that the GOP would win. They won by more than predicted.

[ProSense]

10. Of course the prediction was that we were going to win.

Everything was going the Dems way. Americans were increasingly opposed to the Iraq war and the Republicans were doing nothing. What did the media do all the way up to the election: downplay the Dems' chances.

Now, they spend every second hyping a massive takeover by the GOP. What exactly is it based on?

[onehandle]

12. Math. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. Not math, necessarily. History. The party in control typically loses seats in midterm or off-year

elections. There's nothing new here, and I wish people would stop buying into the M$M meme. As for the political scientists, I am one, too. In fact, Alan Abramovitz was one of my professors when I was at Emory in college. I should call him up. He, of all people, should know better that it's too early to predict anything in politics, even when taking the conventional wisdom about losing seats in midterm elections is accounted for?

[Greybnk48]

4. Good old Huffington Post. I go there everyday and I don't

know why because it's almost 100% negative and slanted anti-Dem.

[FrenchieCat]

5. You want to talk about it? Cause I don't see your comments in your post.....

so are you just bringing us what the Fuffingtonpost has to pontificate about?

Because if I want to read the Fuffington, I'll go on their site and read it.

[onehandle]

6. 1994. Unless Obama voters vote, I've seen this movie before. nt

[Aramchek]

7. you haven't seen much, have you?

[jaxx]

9. Wait till those political scientists get a load of Obama's speech today.

[Catherina]

11. La la la la la. Rec'd

[rasputin1952]

13. The Political Scientists need to take a couple of more courses...

No political party ever won when they had nothing to offer. This one will be no different.

When I took Poli-Sci one of the things that was most overlooked but still ballyhooed was how congress consistently polls in the negative. Yes it does, regardless of which party is in control, but that is not the end-all. The only way to get an honest poll is to go to each district and see how the individual candidates rate in that district. This takes an incredible amount of time and is expensive, so general polls are conducted. These are inherently skewed, as many voters are not necessarily in the district being polled. Another way some come to erroneous conclusions is to rely on the media polls, once again these have been cheapened in several ways, one of the most blatant is the # of polls, (sometimes 2-3 in a single day), and each poll cheapens the next one coming up. People are more pack like than individualized. When people see "45% of voters have a negative view of __________", it is very easy to say, "yeah, I can see that"...and the situation is already falsified.

These guys are looking a lot at history as well. But FDR kept a hefty majority in congress through his 3+ terms and congress still had a negative nationwide. History sometimes works, and sometimes it doesn't.

Here is the reality of the situation...the more people we have that vote D, the better chance we have at retaining congress and enhancing the majorities we now have. I can't say much for giving them a spine when they are seated/reseated, we all have to pressure our congresscritters to vote and enact legislation we feel will benefit the nation. We have a voice and we often fail to use it, we have power, but we often squander it.

Boehner is thinking he will be Speaker of the House. He's an asshole, and even his constituents know that. It is remotely possible that he could actually lose his seat, albeit D's would have to show up in droves and R's sit out the election. But a lot of people are talking about doing just that...bit in a reversal of the situation. I see posts from good DU'ers saying they are fed up, usually because of an issue that means a lot to them, regardless of the issue. By sitting this election out, the possibility that R's take the House back and then guess what, you have created your own nightmare. If anyone thinks the D's stall on things...the R's will stop the government in it's tracks and no matter what your favorite issue is...you can kiss it goodbye...for a very long time.

I am not happy with everything the D's have done or failed to do...but just thinking of the GOP gaining one more seat has me fired up enough to carry voters to the polls on my back if I have to to get them to vote D.

For Pete's sake people...it was just under two years ago that we finally relieved the nation from the neo-con horror that drove this nation right up to the gates of hell...if anyone thinks they are "proving a point" by sitting this out...they are deluding themselves.

Get active...get out and talk to people...don't let a media that no longer reports news but creates "crisis" after "crisis" dictate how this country will be run...Damn it all people...act, educate the people around you and VOTE!

[firedupdem]

25. Excellent post! n/t

[provis99]

14. everytime I've been to the APSA election forcasting panel, they've been right.

You may not like it, but the Democrats are going to lose the House.

[ProSense]

15. They were right on the House in 2006

not so much on the Senate. They predicted a gain of two seats, Dems gained six.

Still, some of the House models were really off (PDF).

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. I know that that's what you're hoping for, but if people get out and vote, it doesn't have to be.

Sure, the Democrats will lose seats. That's undoubtedly true. But with more people voting, they don't HAVE to!

[harun]

16. They need to win 39 seats AND hold 179, I don't see it happening.

[Imajika]

17. Almost all those 179 are solid Republican...

..the GOP lost so many seats in 2006 and 2008 that all but a handful are completely safe.

The Republicans will likely lose a handful of seats they shouldn't even have (Dem leaning seats in Louisiana, Hawaii, etc), but they are poised to win vastly more to make up the difference.

Looking at the polls and analysis, it looks pretty clear that a massive wave election could be on the horizon. A couple weeks ago I thought we could hold back the tide. I still hope we can, but almost all the polling I see looks horrendous - and it seems to be getting worse rather than better.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. Me, either. I just don't trust the current meme. The M$M, the corporate powers that be, and yes,

even many political scientists, who tend to be center-right, want to see it happen. But, it doesn't have to be just because the conventional wisdom says it's so.

[Drunken Irishman]

18. Polls suggest this won't be as bad as 2006 was for Republicans.

If you go by generic ballots, the Democrats are in better position today than Republicans were in 2006.

Currently, the average generic ballot gives Republicans a http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/10-us-house-genballot.php">45-41 advantage, or a four-point margin. In 2006, the final week anyway, the average for the major polls had Democrats up 52-41, a margin of eleven-points.



That was among likely voters. It was even worse among registered voters.

Two big differences: The margin and most importantly, Democrats were above 50%.

Republicans aren't, on average.

[Dawson Leery]

19. +1

[onehandle]

20. That's one ballot, and those polls are from the week of the election.

All signs point to an orange Speaker.

[Drunken Irishman]

26. All signs do not point to that.

Firstly, the margin in generic ballots is extremely narrow. Sure, you can examine it by each race - but even there, it's still very tight races across the board.

Secondly, Pres. Obama's approval has rebounded a bit since where it was a few weeks ago. Moreover, it's far better, and most likely will be far better, than what Pres. Bush saw in 2006. Presidential approval is a key factor in determining midterm election results. If Pres. Obama's approval is only a shade under 50%, they'll probably lose seats - but it won't be a blood bath.

Thirdly, the current results, unlike the ones I posted, have time to rebound. This isn't a week before the election. Sure, it could get worse. But as the campaign heats up, no one knows what to expect. Especially if people get last-second jitters about the Republicans.

[butterfly77]

21. They figure..

if they say it long enough and often enough like asshole David Gergen then the people will believe this shit and stay home...