Here are excerpts from a few predictions by the major election analysts that were published in Campaigns & Elections two weeks before the 1994 midterms:
Charles Cook, editor and publisher of the Cook Political Report:
"The Democrats will lose 20-25 in the House; four to five in the Senate. I'm seeing softening for Democrats in key Senate races, such as Virginia. Anti -incumbency, despondency among Democratic voters and a galvanization of GOP voters are the overarching trends. Democrats are disillusioned with Clinton; Republicans hate him and will turn out in droves. The GOP vote is coming home and it's hardening earlier than usual."
Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of the Rothenberg Report, a political newsletter:
"The Democrats will lose 24-26 seats in the House; three to five in the Senate. They're vulnerable in the South and in traditionally Republican districts in the North that they've been able to hold in the past by splitting the Republicans. However, President Clinton's unpopularity is uniting the GOP. This isn't a particularly ideological election, though. It's just insiders versus outsiders, and Democrats are the insiders right now. Voters remain skeptical about the role of government, another negative for Democrats. Clinton has tried to alter this widespread mistrust of governmental activism, but he hasn't succeeded."
Larry Sabato, professor of government at the University of Virginia:
"My slogan has always been: 'He who lives by the Crystal Ball ends up eating ground glass.' Nevertheless, it looks like Democrats will be lucky to lose only 24-25 seats in the House and four in the Senate. Much of it hinges on President Clinton's popularity. Many of these elections are turning into a referendum on Bill Clinton, as is usually the case with mid-term elections and the President in power. About a half dozen Senate races will be decided with less than two percent of the vote. So last-minute trends will matter.
Clinton could bounce back, as he's done in the past, and that could reduce Democratic losses. I don't think his approval rating will sink any lower than about 35 percent; that's his floor and he's close to it now. If anything, I think his popularity might rise a little bit between now and election day. When all is said and done, there's only one thing we know for sure: the Democrats will lose a lot of seats in both Houses."
The other analysts' predictions cited in the piece were 25 House seats (Jack Germond), 20-25 seats (Gloria Borger), 25 seats (Cokie Roberts), and 25 seats (William Schneider). Notice a pattern? Of course that's not what happened—instead Republicans ended up shocking the world with a 54-seat gain and their first House majority in 40 years.
The reason I bring this up is that the current pundit predictions, although a rough estimate, are almost as uniform as they were then in predicting GOP gains of 50-60 seats. New York Times election guru Nate Silver has a detailed piece today explaining the unusual amount of uncertainty in this election and it truly is a must-read. As many of the analysts themselves acknowledge, just because the consensus number is about 55 seats, doesn't mean that much larger or smaller gains aren't possible for Republicans. There could still be some major factor in the races that the pollsters have so far failed to detect.
The reason I bring this up is that the current pundit predictions, although a rough estimate, are almost as uniform as they were then in predicting GOP gains of 50-60 seats. New York Times election guru Nate Silver has a detailed piece today explaining the unusual amount of uncertainty in this election and it truly is a must-read. As many of the analysts themselves acknowledge, just because the consensus number is about 55 seats, doesn't mean that much larger or smaller gains aren't possible for Republicans. There could still be some major factor in the races that the pollsters have so far failed to detect.
Agreed. SIlver published two separate pieces showing why Republican gains could be much larger or much smaller than predicted.
Pollster's final prediction - 48 house seat gain for the GOP and an 86% chance that the Democrats retain the Senate (they have it at 48-46 with 4 undecided).
Pollster's final prediction - 48 house seat gain for the GOP and an 86% chance that the Democrats retain the Senate (they have it at 48-46 with 4 undecided).
My Prediction:
70 plus House Seats go GOP.
10 Senate Seats go GOP.
See you after its over. Enjoy watching our country find its voice at last.
Blame the tea party for promoting whack jobs. The Republicans should have won the Senate tonight save not for Buck, O'Donnell, Angle, and Miller.
'Blame'?
You've lost your mind, I'm happy as hell the Tea Party is active. They now have an undeniable good track record overall, and have changed the GOP for the better. What this grassroots effort have acheived is amazing.
My view is the GOP is better off not controlling the Senate, tactically. I would have rather taken it, obviously. But by just 'coming close' it means gridlock on the insanity of this Administration as it relates to cap and tax. It also means Owe-bama gets his first truly difficult political decision in January, does he dare veto extending the 'Bush' tax cuts?
In elective office, I'd rather have a Democrat than a so called 'moderate' GO. Moderates are simply rank self absorbed opportunists. No thanks. I'd rather have a politician with 'known principals' so as to plan accordingly. Basically, better off without the Mike Castle's of the world IMHO.
Under the radar today...the stunning gains at the Governor's level. Owe-bama won't have a chance in hell here in Ohio in 2012, especially after redistricting.
You don't win Presidential election cycles without Ohio. We both know it.
All in all, a big night for the GOP, a big night for the Tea Party.
And Nancy Pelosi's 'House' has now received its foreclosure notice (laughing)
That's true, and yet Bill Clinton won Ohio in 1996 despite a Republican Governor.
With a booming economy, and a pathetic opponent in Bob 'Its my turn, damnit!' Dole, and a third party candidate. He barely won as we both know, not breaking the 50% mark in total votes, which is unusual as hell in POTUS politics, as we both know.
That weird 'perfect storm' won't happen in 2012. And Owe-bama won't win Ohio anyway. He blew it.
With a booming economy, and a pathetic opponent in Bob 'Its my turn, damnit!' Dole, and a third party candidate. He barely won as we both know, not breaking the 50% mark in total votes, which is unusual as hell in POTUS politics, as we both know.
Exactly my point - you don't know who is going to win Ohio until you know who is running. And as far as the 50% mark, you do remember that Perot ran that year, right?
That weird 'perfect storm' won't happen in 2012. And Owe-bama won't win Ohio anyway. He blew it.
We both agree that things are going to get worse next year, maybe a lot worse. The GOP just took control of the House and state governments in a "tsunami"
Are you telling me they won't get blamed when things get worse "AFTER" they take office?
We both agree that things are going to get worse next year, maybe a lot worse. The GOP just took control of the House and state governments in a "tsunami"
Are you telling me they won't get blamed when things get worse "AFTER" they take office?
Yep, thats EXACTLY what I'm telling you.
POTUS is held accountable for the economy. It doesn't make any sense, but it is how it works with voters. They get credit (Presidents) they don't deserve intellectually when its good, they get blamed when its bad.
Trying to blame the House if your POTUS for economic conditions simply won't get traction with the voters, especially the Independents. How'd that 'party of No' stuff work last night?
