Charlie Cook upgrades midterm projection from landslide to freaky deaky landslide

posted at 5:39 pm on October 26, 2010 by Allahpundit

Not only are we now in 1994 territory, we’re actually a bit beyond it: The new number predicts net gains in the range of 48 to 60 seats. Not good enough? Well, Hotline’s studying the polls too, and while they don’t offer any predictions, the tone of this post makes it sound like they’re envisioning a landslide more of the “freaky double deaky” variety. Actual quote: “Some of the polls are so striking that next Wednesday, the day after the midterm election, observers may turn to these surveys as a symbol of when the bottom fell out for Democrats.”

Eeyoreblogger pessimism status check: Uncomfortable.

The Cook Political Report’s pre-election House outlook is a Democratic net loss of 48 to 60 seats, with higher losses possible. A turnover of just 39 seats would tip majority status into Republican hands. The midterm maelstrom pulling House Democrats under shows no signs of abating, if anything it has intensified.

Whereas fewer than a third of Democratic Senate seats are up for election, House Democrats are suffering the full violence of this national undertow. Over a quarter of the entire 255-member House Democratic caucus have trailed GOP opponents in at least one public or private survey, and nearly half have tested under 50 percent of the vote in at least one poll.

Ace has been bumming me out lately by moping that the GOP might “only” pick up 44 seats or so — which, in fairness, would mean that they did in fact underperform according to these new Cook numbers. But forget Cook. In all seriousness, what sort of number are we shooting for here in order to send a message to Obama that simply can’t be spun away? My rule of thumb a month or two ago was that mid-40s is good, low 50s (which would match 1994) is superb, and 60 or more is Refudiation nirvana. Does that still hold, or do the increasingly rosy scenarios from the Cooks and Nate Silvers of the world (our own Patrick Ishmael predicts 60+) mean that it’s now 50 seats or bust? The pessimism status check is going to move to very uncomfortable if that’s the case because … 50 seats is just an awful lot. Even with everything breaking the right way, that would mean we had two 1994 blockbusters in the span of just 16 years. Lightning strikes twice?

Whatever happens, look on the bright side: Never again will the left be able to spin away Clinton’s midterm disaster as a one-off fluke. Every Democratic president from here on out will have to reckon with the possibility that an ambitious liberal agenda in his/her first two years is apt to produce utterly crushing losses in the House. They’ll never admit that publicly — the economy and “messaging” and, um, the weather will be blamed for everything, natch — but it’ll cast a shadow over them for years to come. I’ll leave you with this clip, the surest indicator yet that the GOP’s on its way to big things next week: Bob Shrum continues to insist that Democrats will hold both the Senate and the House.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Never again will the left be able to spin away Clinton’s midterm disaster as a one-off fluke.

Allahpundit, I think you are being wildly optimistic here. Democrats will spin anything, anytime, anyway they please. I mean, Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan because of a third party challenger.

bitsy on October 27, 2010 at 9:25 AM

HondaV65 on October 27, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Nunnellee leading Travis Childers in NW MS, despite all the Democratic Party negative ads against Nunnelee.

kingsjester on October 27, 2010 at 9:26 AM

orien1973, JellyToast, and canopfor

HillBuzz worked their butts off for Scotty McAwesome and predicted he would win the “Kennedy Seat” much to the dismay of you Eeoyers over here.

There is something fishy going on in Delaware. The HillBuzz boyz may be on to something. CoD did get endorsed by DuPont. Something’s up, admit it.

Jayrae on October 27, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Turnout is the only defense we have against the ungodly amount of fraud that is taking place as we speak.

What we’ve heard about is just a small fraction of what is actually happening.

labrat on October 27, 2010 at 9:59 AM

To a certain extent, I think the Republicans HAVE been overly optomistic. They’ve never been very good at managing expectations.

One of my favorite cliches:

A {pseudo}pessimist is never disappointed and often pleasantly surprised.

I think the Republicans (and Tea Party) would do better to approach the election from this point of view.

rspock on October 27, 2010 at 10:02 AM

I mean, Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan because of a third party challenger.

And Reagan still got over 50% of the vote. What will they say about the Tea Party if Marco Rubio gets over 50%?

As for the projections, since majority rules in the House, anything under 40 would be a dismal failure. Forty to 50 seats would be a marginal success, giving Republicans a fragile majority (which could be reversed by a swing of 10 seats in 2012), and a lesson in not being overconfident.

The RealClearPolitics site is projecting 225 seats as Safe/Likely/Lean Republican (47-seat gain) with 32 Tossups. If Republicans win half the Tossups, it would be a net 63-seat gain, so that a 60-to-65-seat gain would “match expectations”, and anything over 70 would be an Associated Press “unexpected” landslide, something like the unemployment figures.

But since no one knows which district will be the 40th GOP pickup, let’s go out and win every seat we can, one at a time!

Steve Z on October 27, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Turnout is the only defense we have against the ungodly amount of fraud that is taking place as we speak.

What we’ve heard about is just a small fraction of what is actually happening.

I’m afraid labrat is correct. The Right should be looking for this under every rock they come across.

rspock on October 27, 2010 at 10:05 AM

The Senate is always tough because it doesn’t change out every two years like the House. Fewer races there mean the incumbents have a huge advantage in resources they can gather and utilize.

Unlike the House – where the Democrats are throwing incumbents overboard because they don’t have the resources to support everyone.

HondaV65 on October 27, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Or, maybe people aren’t quite as angry at the Senate. They did not pass Cap-and-Trade and slowed down other House bills.

It’s still peculiar, to me, in an obvious wave vote year to see the discrepancy. If you’re sending a message to DC, and you’re definitely waiting to vote or pulling that lever to make a point, why in the world would you split your ticket?

Makes no sense to me. But then, I’m not one to believe that the “crazy and extreme” label has actually worked. It looks to me to be kitchen sink time, see what sticks, etc.

But Rand Paul has had just as many hammers thrown at him, and he’ll definitely closed the deal. I still can’t figure out why Linda M. isn’t more popular.

I think people don’t like corporate-successful women, for some reason. I really do.

Irritates me, too.

AnninCA on October 27, 2010 at 11:00 AM

If it’s Chicago? I listen to fraud stories. If it’s Dem caucuses? Definitely, fraud stories are probably legit.

Other than that, it’s peanuts. Just my 2 cents.

AnninCA on October 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Whatever happens, look on the bright side: Never again will the left be able to spin away Clinton’s midterm disaster as a one-off fluke.

No… they’ll spin it as a two-off fluke… and then a three-off fluke… and then a four-off fluke… etc. They’ll spin their own takeovers as “the natural order of things/intelligent electorat” BS that they spun ’06 and ’08.

crazy_legs on October 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM

The Right should be looking for this under every rock they come across.

rspock on October 27, 2010 at 10:05 AM

No need to look under rocks for things that are happening right before your eyes.

labrat on October 27, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3