Nate: "It's time to acknowledge that the Democrats COULD lose 60 or 70 House seats."

[jefferson_dem]

:scared:

It's time to acknowledge that the Democrats COULD lose 60 or 70 House seats. Not super likely, but eminently possible.

fivethirtyeight
Nate Silver

http://twitter.com/fivethirtyeight/statuses/11876279081

[opihimoimoi]

1. Far more likely the Dems will gain 8 to 15 House seats and 4 to 7 Senate slots The GOP is Fucked

[tritsofme]

2. The Nile aint just a river in Egypt.

What districts do these 8-15 pickups come from? Republican incumbents that survived the waves of 2006 and 2008 aren't going anywhere.

It would be considered a great success if Republican gains were limited to 8-15 in the House and 4-7 in the Senate.

[opihimoimoi]

27. Past trends are trumped by new trends...GOPism is OLD .. Obamaism is IN...

[greencharlie]

32. no

hatred is the new fad...

[tritsofme]

41. So you don't have the districts? nt

[opihimoimoi]

48. The districts you ask for are those of citizens tired of Republican't s LIES and Negativity

The losses will come from Red States that undergo a major shift becoming more BLUE

The GOP has doomed itself by being moral hypocritters....They even let 2 crazy women get the main podium

and worse...They couldn't keep Newt on the ranch....

[tritsofme]

52. Between 2006 and 2008 Democrats netted 52 seats in the House.

We have all those districts. What's left are the gerrymandered safe Republican districts that idolize those two crazy women at the podium.

Kirk in IL, Castle in DE, and Cao in LA are the only Republican districts that have a good chance of a Democratic win. Lots of Democratic incumbents face voters that supported McCain/Palin in 2008 and Bush in 2004.

Like I said, you are not being realistic.

[opihimoimoi]

54. Us Optimists are never Realistic

[greencharlie]

31. lol...

from your keyboard to...

[WI_DEM]

39. Whatever your smoking I'd like some. The Dems will lose seats in both the house and senate

it traditionally happens in midterms to party in power. I just hope that they don't lose enough to lose control of both houses.

[opihimoimoi]

46. This year is DIFFERENT...this year the GOP is into losing elections.

[Beacool]

76. Well, at least you're an optimist.

:D

[Ter]

77. It's good to be confident

But over-confidence is a weakness too. I mean, in 1984, holding out hope for Mondale was silly. Vote for him and hope for the best, but thinking he was gonna win was mind-boggling. Same situation here with talk of picking up 4-7 Senate seats in an off year, come on.

[mgcgulfcoast]

79. you and nate are worng

we will lose 10 house seats and 3 senate seats. that is all we will lose.

[jefferson_dem]

3. Generic Ballot Points Toward Possible 50+ Seat Loss for Democrats

Generic Ballot Points Toward Possible 50+ Seat Loss for Democrats
by Nate Silver @ 8:11 AM

A couple of weeks ago, we examined the potential upside case for Democrats in November's midterms. If the party were able to limit their losses to about 20 House seats and 3-4 Senate seats, it might not have as deleterious an effect on their policy agenda as you might think.

But that is the upside case for Democrats. It is not the base case, and it is certainly not the worst case -- both of which look as grim as ever. Although I think people may somewhat underestimate the probability of a shift in momentum back toward the Democrats, they may simultaneously be underestimating the magnitude of losses that might occur if momentum fails to change, or moves in the other direction.

For starters, let's look at the state of the generic congressional ballot. The Real Clear Politics average now shows Republicans with a 2.3 point lead. How does that translate in terms of a potential loss of seats for the Democrats?

Let's suppose for a moment that, in November, the Democrats lose the national house popular vote by a margin of 2.3 points. It is actually not safe to assume that a 2.3-point deficit in generic ballot polls translates to a 2.3-point loss in the House popular vote -- but we'll get to that ambiguity in a moment.

<SNIP>

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/generic-ballot-points-toward-possible.html

[ccinamon]

4. If more Dems act like Grayson, they would GAIN seats...

the voters want someone who stands up for what they believe, the Dems spend more time cowering than standing up and telling the truth. Call the repubs out like Grayson does and like Obama did with Palin over the nuclear strategy....then you will see the voters swing to the Dems.

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. The voters want someone who stands up for what they believe...

....but what a lot of them believe is that Democrats are going to take their guns and force them to pay for gay-married abortions, or in the worst case, get them.

And they'll vote. Crawling over broken glass if necessary.

We'll all sit home complaining about the lack of a floor vote on single-payer health care, and get buried in the landslide.

We'll be right, of course... but that won't stop the war in Iran.

[Jennicut]

8. You nailed it. If we sit on the sidelines and don't vote then

we won't get merely conservadems that we don't like. We will end up with Rethugs controlling Congress. The enthusiasm gap has closed somewhat since health care reform passed. I do get it is a two way street. Dem leaders need to work for us too. But staying home will only result in punishing ourselves with something worse.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Amen. I just posted this on another thread...

The very idea that there is a "center" marginalizes progressives, and sees them as extremists, when they simply share fundamental American values. The term "center" suggests there is a "mainstream" where most people are and that there is a single set of views held by that mainstream. That is false.

The fallacy matters in terms of Democratic electoral strategy. The Democratic base consists of people who are mostly or totally progressive, just as the Republican base consists of people who are mostly or totally conservative. How does the Democratic Party as a whole, and how do Democratic candidates in particular, speak to those who are biconceptual?

I am a cognitive scientist and believe that people's brains play a significant role in elections. From the perspective of brain science, the answer is a no-brainer. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) You speak to biconceptuals the same way you speak to your base: you discuss progressive values, and if you are talking to folks with both progressive and conservative values, you mainly talk about the issues where they share progressive values. What that does is evoke and strengthen the progressive values already there in the minds of biconceptuals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[grantcart]

29. Interesting theory. BTW Grayson's seat is considered endangered.

I love Grayson but to suggest that his approach will work in every district is a stretch. It wouldn't work in mine.

[tritsofme]

53. Grayson is on my list of reps

who I won't be surprised to wake up in the morning to find he has been defeated in November.

We will see how this theory pans out.

[depakid]

72. That's exactly right- all the public pandering to the corporate right cost the Democrats dearly

Like Nate, I wouldn't be surprised with a loss of 60 seats.

[Imajika]

81. Why would you think Grayson is so safe?

Isn't he in a slightly right of center leaning district? From everything I've seen the race is listed as a toss up right now.

The combativeness Grayson shows may be very popular in some places, but in others it just won't sell as well.

If there is a GOP wave in November, Grayson is one of those congresspeople likely to lose his seat.

[NJmaverick]

6. The threat is real and we all need to do what we can to make sure it doesn't happen

[tabbycat31]

60. agree 100%

I've already made plans to work on 2 campaigns for 2 good Democratic reps that need to keep their jobs. The GOP badly wants both seats.

[ClassWarrior]

9. We need to work in this campaign like this is going to happen FOR SURE.

Take NOTHING for granted.

NGU.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Oh goody, Nate makes a belated stab at relevance

The time to acknowledge that was a ways back... back when Nate was demonstrating his misunderstanding of the difference between a presidential race (massive specific polling data) and an off-year election (almost no specific polling data) as well as his ignorance of how non political attitudes shape off-year elections.

But welcome to reality.

[ClassWarrior]

12. Wow, it must be the day for keyboard warriors to delude themselves that they're smarter than...

...the experts.

Yes, Kurt, let's tell ourselves that it's all in the bag and do nothing. That's a brilliant strategy.

:eyes:

NGU.

[PBS Poll-435]

36. ?

:wtf:


Really,


:wtf:

[Divine Discontent]

45. agreed, heavily. I said we'd lose dozens months ago, but that's the normal trend anyhow, and, with

all the vitriol about health care being given to the working poor, it's not rocket science to say it'll be 4 dozen or so seats.

[Dr Morbius]

11. I have to wonder how you define "eminence."

Somewhere between losing 60-70 seats and actually gaining some is where the real answer lies. It is quite likely that if disgruntled Democrats stay home, the GOP will gain the House - but not THAT many seats. And turnout this year from the left will be disappointing, I am sure. But I suspect that a lot of the angry posts we see here aren't actually being written by folks who have any intention of voting for a Democrat, if you follow my meaning. I wonder if real Democrats are as mad as it seems, or if it is being made to seem as though they're mad... because people will choose folly if the whole group is being foolish.

The disorganization and the continued extremism of the GOP is an important factor, too. If the GOP had their act together right now, I might agree that we need to panic. But they don't. As usual, we Democrats need to work to retain control of the Congress. This is how it has always been, either work to take it back or work to keep it. This won't change.

[Kdillard]

13. Well hopefully this will motivate people to get out there and vote.

[Citizen Kang]

64. Yeah

Because that awesome Romney/Nixonian, old-school republican health care "reform" sham and public option capitulation really makes me want to go out and fight for what passes as Democrats today....

[KingFlorez]

14. I think that's far too high an expectation

The Democrats didn't lose that many seats in 1994 and the climate isn't anywhere close to being the same as it was then. When it comes to generic ballots, they can't gauge how individual seats will go. 10 or 15 seats is more like what the GOP will pickup.

[greencharlie]

34. wrongo...

the climate is worse than 94 because the economy is a wreck PLUS the right has unpacked the white hoods, guns and Bibles....

[KingFlorez]

38. Uh, no

This is nothing like 1994, back then, Clinton failed on health care and took on the gun lobby. Plus, the Republicans picked up a lot of retiring Democrat's seats in southern states, they don't have that many opportunities this time. Thanks for the concern, though.

[harkadog]

74. Uh, yes

You don't know how generic ballot polls work, do you? They have been very accurate over the last 20 years. Democrats need about a 6-8% advantage in the poll to just break even nationally. A Republican advantage points to heavy losses. Thanks for being unconcerned, though. I wonder what excuses you will be posting the day after the election.

[KingFlorez]

75. Whatever you want to believe

I know how generic ballot polls work, thank you very much. This many months out, the campaigns still have to be run and things can change. It's silly to concede the election because of what polls say.

[Ter]

78. But Oliie North still lost

In VA. :)

[dbmk]

73. Then its good its not an expectation. n/t

[Hosnon]

91. +1. nt

[Hosnon]

90. It's not an expectation. It's an outcome that Nate thinks has entered

the set of possible outcomes.

[impik]

15. People gets what they deserve. The American people are stupid

[tekisui]

16. It is a sign of candidate and party weakness to blame the voters.

[impik]

17. Yea, sure. We'll meet in 2012 when Palin become president

[tekisui]

18. That's not going to happen.

It is still a sign of weakness to blame the voter.

It is the candidate and the party's responsibility to form a winning coalition. If they fail to do so, the blame falls squarely on their ineffectiveness.

[impik]

19. No, the problem is that we, the "base"

don't recognize what we've got and totally forgot what we had only 16 months back. It makes us the stupid ones.

[tekisui]

20. You are wrong.

IF, and this is a big IF, the party suffers losses, it is the fault of the party.

I highly doubt Obama will lose in 2012. I don't think the Dem losses in 2010 will be enough to lose the majority.

But, if either happens, it is the fault of the party, not stupid voters or the stupid base.

If the party was actually representing the base, there would be no risk of defections. If the party is successfully enacting legislation that should make the base energized, and the base doesn't see it, it is the fault of the party for poor communication.

It is lazy, stupid and weak to blame the voters.

[treestar]

69. So the voters are helpless?

No, if they are stupid, they vote for repukes. If they get repukes, it's what they deserve. Sure, we can blame the voters for example for the results in 2004. This is self government, we are responsible for the result.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

21. Nate seems to be pretty good

but I'm not quite convinced that it is very likely that we will lose 60 or 70 seats and face the prospect of a 1994-esque GOP sweep, at least not with how things have been playing out in the last month or two- with passage of health care reform (something that we tried but failed to pass in 1993-1994 but succeeded this time), RNC sex scandals and its tortured (but comically amusing) chairman, the deepening lunacy/extremism of the "teabaggers" and their primary challenges to some GOP "establishment" (i.e. likely to win) candidates like McCain.
I remember (unfortunately) what it was like politically for the Democrats in 1994 but this just doesn't feel like 1994. It's hard for me to exactly place my finger on why yet but that it just doesn't. :shrug:
I have no doubt that we will lose some seats but, whereas *most* of the Republican leaders back in 1993-1994 were semi-respectable/credible, most of the current crop of GOP *leaders* (a term I use VERY loosely) are nowhere near as well-known let alone respected by most people. IMHO if the Republicans win big in November, it will pretty much be because Democrats didn't GOTV and if most people don't come out to vote this time, then any massive Republican "party" will last only until the next election in 2012 where they will find that most Americans definitely have NOT renewed their "love affair" with the Republican Party (just that the Republicans and Fox News continue to do a bang up job propagandizing to to the ignorant, underinformed, and misinformed people out there who get out to vote because they believe Sarah Palin's "death panels" are real and that Obama is a Socialist tyrant dedicated to their enslavement and destruction of the country- although why anybody would want to govern a country he/she runs into the ground I have no idea but there you go :eyes:).
That most people still believe that Bush (and by extension Republicans for supporting and enabling his policies) was responsible for the state of the economy at the time that he left office is a reassuring sign that most people, despite Fox News and other corporate mediawhores aren't completely lost.

[Cosmocat]

24. I agree ...

been my position all along that the Ds will lose seats, but not near what the MSM wants to gin it up to be ...

I agree, everyone WANTS it to be 94, but outside of it being a D president and the Rs acting like first class jagoffs, there are not a lot of other similarites ...

They one thing ... the media leaned slightly rightward then, but now has lost any pretense of journalism, and just unabashedly spews whatever crape the right wing throws out ...

A poll here in Pa had Toomey ahead in conjuction with overall negative opinions of the HCR bill ... I really thought that once it got passed it would lose more of the stigma the right put on it, and that the MSM would ease up on it ... But, they did such an over the top job of piling on it, and have not really let up now that it finally passed, that it still SOMEHOW is a negative ...

HEALTH CARE REFORM ...

THAT is how in the bag the media is with the right wing, something SO desperately needed and at worst FRIGGEN BENIGN, and they have is spun into a bill that takes people's first born ...

I don't know ... If the MSM just LEANS right, it should be OK, but if it continues to just act as a volumnizer for every single piece of over the top right wing hysteria ...

[Rage Inc.]

22. Silver loses Gold!

Utter nonsense!

[Arkana]

23. I think Nate's describing an absolute worst-case scenario.

That said, this is unlikely to happen.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. That WOULD be an absolute WORST-CASE scenario!!!

but I agree with you that it's rather unlikely unless the GOP picks themselves up and are able to figure out a stream of new and terrifying "talking points" to frighten people into voting for them in November. I think that the passage of HCR has, at least temporarily knocked some of the wind out of their sails and they are in "fumbling" mode right now trying to figure out what to do now that President Obama and the Democrats delivered a devastating TKO with their unilateral passage of HCR. Their "Repeal and Replace" mantra has already started fading with many acknowledging that neither is likely to happen soon (if at all) and most legal experts believe that the anti-HCR lawsuits probably won't be successful (and even if they do successfully challenge the individual mandate, they will be forced to come up with alternative solutions that they might like even less in order to maintain the provisions that they claim to support and most people definitely support).

[Arkana]

30. We'd need to see an organized '94-level GOP to do this.

They'd need to be unified under ONE leader (in 94 it was Newt, now it's ???).

They'd need a concrete platform with actual, tangible ideas besides NO NO NO NO NO NO (see: Contract on America).

They do not have either. Currently they are engaged in trying to rein in their own party chairman as well as that crazy broad who shoots and eats moose with her bare hands.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

35. Exactly my point

They are not nearly as geared up and/or organized as they need to be to exact a 1994-esque electoral "pasting". Too many loose cannons (i.e. Palin, "teabaggers"), no discernible leadership, no platform. IMHO If they win big like what Nate Silver is suggesting COULD happen, it will only be because the Dems failed to show up to the polls and GOTV. Prior to the passage of HCR, I was much less optimistic about our chances in November. Now that it has passed, it is the right-wing that is stumbling around and, hopefully, more demoralized. Hopefully, that single MAJOR victory- despite what people might think about the substance of HCR personally- should help energize our base somewhat, particularly since the Republicans have embarked on their quixotic crusade to "Repeal and Replace" HCR. Hopefully, Dems will take on the fight against the Republican-hand delivered "Repeal and Replace" crusade for November.

[shotten99]

82. That's what gives me a relative amount of hope

I don't see the Republicans not losing seats this year, too.
This isn't a pro-GOP years, but an anti-incumbent year.

[Uzybone]

26. More Silver

"If Democrats were to lose 50, 60, 70 or even more House seats, it would not totally shock me. Nor would it shock me if they merely lost 15, or 20. But their downside case could be very far down."

Its called hedging your bets.

[Teaser]

28. The standard deviation on this prediction is huge

and therefore almost meaningless in terms of resolution.

[Raine1967]

33. And they won't if we make sure it doesn't happen. WE ARE THE MAJORITY!

I am quite serious about this.

People need to get mobilized and GOTV.

You know, they said that Barack Obama would never be able to capture the nomination either - much less win the office.

[AuntPatsy]

37. Is this sarcasm?

[old mark]

40. Absolute bullshit. The only we will lose ANY seats is if too many of us stay home.

The GOP is spending as much money and effort fighting itself as it is fighting us, maybe more.

They are losing ground every day, and will lose even more rapidly as Obama's policies take hold and the economy improves and people realise the "tax increase" myth was a myth.

Even stupid, scared people hate being lied to and they are finding that we are NOT the ones lying to them.

The GOP will be lucky to gain ANY seats at all.

mark

[Dr Morbius]

42. But that's just it.

Angry voters turn out. What will bring the Democrats to the polls in November?

Now President Obama is being falsely accused of assassinating Americans by the left and the right. There's good reason to be concerned, in my opinion.

[old mark]

63. If Democrats allow the GOP to gain more power despite their abysmal

actions over the last year, we are hopeless.

I don't want to believe Democrats are so stupid as to not vote.


mark

[FrenchieCat]

43. Thank Goodness I'm actively working against whatever Nate states,

instead of buying into the prediction 7 months into a vote. Thank goodness...otherwise, we might as well slit our throats and call it a day.

[deerheadgal]

44. Well, then...let's all sit in the corner and cry...

If you are so concerned, then do something! All this gnashing of teeth is going to get us nowhere.

[Aramchek]

47. not if the economy continues to improve

[murdoch]

83. yes, sort of

The stock market is up, but unemployment is still high. Unemployment has to start going down.

[Fire1]

49. Wrong. Nice try, though. n/t

[Yavin4]

50. The Republicans Are Going to Win Big This Nov. Because Our Corporate Overlords Wants Them To

In 2000, our corporate overlords gambled that George Bush would become popular enough to establish a 50-year permanent Republican majority, similar to the FDR New Deal coalition in the 20th century. Bush was going to be the moderate that would hold onto White voters and attract minority voters, in particular the Latino vote.

What killed their plans was the unrestrained greed that congressional Republicans demanded from lobbyists. In 2005, George Bush's spectacular incompetence in the aftermath of Katrina and his handling of post-war Iraq did more to elect Dems in 2006 than the Dems did themselves. Add in the economic collapse of 2008, the awful campaign of McCain, and the incredible stupidity of Palin, and you had the makings of a Dem landslide built more along the lines of Republican failures than an actual, real Dem agenda.

Our corporate overlords have been sweating profusively ever since Jan 2009. They were literally shaking in fear that a true progressive agenda would be enacted into legislation. They leaned heavy and hard on conservative Dems to stall real progressive items so that the Republicans could re-group. Throw in massive media attention given to the Tea party movement, and what you've got is a two year window closing without any true progressive reforms being enacted.

Now, the Republicans have all of the momentum on their side, and we're headed toward a divided government. If the Republicans gain control over one chamber of the congress, you will see more hearings on Obama's birth certificate than you will about financial reform, the environment or the economy.

In the end, it does not really matter what we do or don't do in any given election cycle. Our generation is too racist and politically polarized to effect a true progressive agenda. What we need to do is to prepare the next generation to take control. We need to develop our young to be leaders. We need to educate and inspire them to be leaders. I'm 45, and real change aint gonna happen in my lifetime.

[backscatter712]

51. My gut of truthiness says...

House Dems lose 25-35 seats, Senate Dems lose 5-7 seats. Enough to be decently painful, but not enough to lose control of Congress.

Barring some sort of catastrophe that switches the momentum away from us, I don't think we're gonna lose either house of Congress. We're gonna take some losses, sure, but it's not gonna be '94, given my current reading of the trends.

My reading suggests that even though the teabaggers and GOP are fired up right now, some (but not a heck of a lot) of their enthusiasm will dampen in the time between now and November, and at the same time, the Dems are starting to get fired up again.

Of course, if we get another terrorist attack, or the economy double-dips and sends the Dow into the toilet and unemployment up several more points, all bets are off. OTOH, If we get a McVeigh style domestic terrorist attack, that could really fuck up the GOP's chances.

Overall, I'd say it's still up in the air.

[DuaneBidoux]

55. I think the fact that anyone is considering any Republican shows how badly Dems have done.

I think we have governed like shit. And I think that the thought of people purposely voting for a party that has become as loony as the Teaparty/Republicans shows how poorly Dems have done at communicating, staying in charge of the message, etc.

Nate's track record is superb.

[ChiciB1]

57. He HAS Been Quite "Spot On" In The Past On Many, Many Issues!!

And what you said... I AGREE! Our own have let us down and sold us out much more so than we ever thought possible!

At least that's how I see it! And I have been an activist for a very long time!!

[wisteria]

56. I refuse to accept any polls as fact at this point. November is a long way off. n/t

[depakid]

59. Wish I had a buck for every time I heard almost that exact statement in 1994

When you've got an administration (and also a Senate) that seems keen to badmouth and backstab its constituencies- you're not in much of a position to generate enthusiasm.

Best thing the Dems have going for them now is the teabaggers and imbeciles running on the Republican ticket.

[Maraya1969]

58. New message

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/supremes-get-ready-for-encore.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

In general, I'd tend to tamp down expectations surrounding the potential political fallout from Barack Obama's nomination of another Supreme Court justice later this year, which he'll have to do in the wake of Justice Stevens' retirement. As important as the Supreme Court is, Congressional hearings are still Congressional hearings, and are for the most part an inside-the-beltway affairs that won't penetrate into the zeitgeist in a year where most voters have things like the economy on their minds.

[Awsi Dooger]

61. Well, it's going to be significantly worse than the current consensus

Nate is correct to warn about that, even if 60-70 is at the extreme.

Consider the situational factors in play all summer and leading toward November: Unemployment rates stagnant near 10%, and gas prices soaring to the $3.50-$4.00 range. Sorry, but in the real world that equates to Obama's approval rating dipping to 40% area, or perhaps lower, which is disastrous toward November.

I was called overly complacent in 2008 because every situational variable boosted our side. This time it is reversed, and the troubling aspect is tight races tend to fall toward the party with momentum, particularly in the senate.

I still think Obama is fine toward 2012 since incumbents with their party in power only one term are nearly unbeatable. But the unemployment rate needs to dip to normal territory or that advantage could be nullified.

[Grown2Hate]

62. I think this is a WARNING, and a GOOD one. It should motivate us to work

our ASSES off for progressive candidates. I don't think the losses will be NEARLY that, especially if the job market keeps on the uptick and people start seeing the positive effects of HIR (however flawed). I hope he's lighting a FIRE up under our asses.

[LiberalFighter]

65. I disagree Nate. We are not dealing anywheres near a full deck in the Republican Party.

They are in disarray. They are not flush with cash. They do not have a leader. What they see as their leaders are crazies that that will not be able to forge together as one. Teabaggers, Militia, you name it they have become the major players in the GOP. They have usurp the religious right as the power.

[MadHound]

66. Meanwhile, in the Democratic party,

The party leaders have thrown teachers, unions, LGBT, anti-war, etc. etc. under the bus. You honestly think that these people will vote in strong numbers for Democrats after the beating they've gotten over the past couple of years?

[backscatter712]

67. BEAR IN MIND: This is a worst-case scenario, and Nate states that explicitly.

It's not the probable scenario, which is somewhere between the apocatlyptic 60-70 loss and the 15-20 loss if things go completely right for the Democrats.

The probable scenario is still somewhere in between, my bet is 35 seats, with a very high variance. A lot of it depends on how much the unemployment rate improves - if it stays where it is right now, we're screwed, but if it improves a bit, the populist anger will fade a little. It also depends on whether Obama and Democrats have a good strategy for election season, whether they pass some useful legislation such as Wall Street reform without it getting watered down too much, and whether Rethugs (like Michael Steele) shoot themselves in the foot.

I don't think we're gonna lose 60 seats. We're not gonna win seats either.

[activa8tr]

68. Some person writes a small statement on Twitter and we get a response like this on here?

I wonder who is more gullible.

Sure, we may lose a dozen seats in the house, 20 maybe, but we will keep a majority in House and Senate until 2012,so let's stop worrying and get back to how to ignore the big bad Republicans and actually get more done.

Kissing up to Republicans has been a failed strategy, I hope Obama is reading this.

The most popular guy in a Republican area is Alan Grayson, who just has guts to say what needs to be done!!!!

If we had 100 Grayson's in the House and Senate, we wouldn't be worried about November.

Tell your Congressmen and Senators to get some Grayson in their blood.

[BootinUp]

70. I COULD get hit by lightning too.

There is no way to accurately predict the turnout this far out. period.

[polichick]

71. "Not super likely" - okay, I'll go with that. nt

[shotten99]

80. I'd expect moderately heavy losses.

I'm not sure if he's counting two things into his computations, however:
1st: Democrats have gained enthusiasm recently
2nd: the RNC/state level GOP meltdowns as of late.

[agentS]

84. I suspect a lot of the losses will be in the Blue Dog categories

The blue dogs are gonna take the most hits because they're in the far more rethug-leaning districts and those voters are motivated.

[Recovered Repug]

85. They would be the most likely seats lost.

Most districts are designed to be "safe" for one party or the other. I remember reading something about the 2002 election (and I assume it's still roughly the same), that of the 435 seats open only about 80 were "in play".

[and-justice-for-all]

86. I do not see that happening...

that assumption would be based on the M$M, I find that there it is more like that they may lose a few seats, but not many but I think they will maintain a majority.

[ShortnFiery]

87. We are going full BORE right wing nut case crazy by 2012.

With the lack of REAL Jobs vs. McJobs, people are going to remain angry and want a change other than the milque toast centrist Democrats.

Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride. :scared:

[liberalpragmatist]

88. Lots of things *COULD* happen

Nate is simply trying to promote an article. But if you read the analysis, he gives a pretty broad range of the possible outcomes, ranging from very minor GOP gains to huge gains.

So yes, it *COULD* happen, and Dems need to be prepared. But the idea of panicking because something bad *may* happen - not "will" happen or even "probably" happen - is ridiculous.

[Hosnon]

89. I don't think the detractors on this thread realize what being a statistician entails.

When a statistician uses the term "could", it has a specific meaning (in much the same way that "theory" has a specific meaning when used by scientists). The everyday definition of "could" generally carries a higher probability of occurrence than the strict definition used here carries.

And for Christ's sake, he even explains in the tweet: "Not super likely, but eminently possible."

[Change Happens]

92. Ok, enough with this crap: I ONLY know and hang out with liberals, not a single

person I know, from family to neighbors to casual friends have said to me they will not vote for Democrats this year, not a single one.

I also speak/deal with many other people who I know are somewhat centrists, some even Bush voters who voted for Obama, who still say they are happy with the direction of the country...etc. People can see feel and sense that the country is back on track...etc.