Democrats aren't in trouble in 2014

By Frank Moraes

Should we be worried about the Democrats' chances in the 2014 elections? Charlie Cook thinks we should. He has been looking at the polling from NBC News/Wall Street Journal. And he is right that it isn't a slam dunk for the Democrats regardless. But I think he's overstating the problems.

Most of his article presents relatively good news to the Democrats. In generic polling, Democrats have a 45-42 advantage over Republicans. But these generic polls tend to overstate the Democratic advantage by 2 percentage points. Thus, right now, it looks like the Democrats have a 1 percentage point advantage in 2014. This is not great. In 2012, the advantage was 47-42. According to Cook's 2-point rule, that gave the Democrats a 3 percentage point advantage, which is about right (the Democrats did better than that in the White House and Senate, but worse in the House). In 2010, the disadvantage was 43-45, or a 4 percentage point advantage for the Republicans. So the Democrats are looking a lot better for 2014 than they looked for 2010.

Read more »

Game, set, match?

By Richard K. Barry

Charlie Cook is one of those well respected voices in the business of political prognostication. He doesn't speak as a partisan. He speaks as someone who is most interested in getting things right.

Here's a rather stark comment by Cook appearing in a National Journal story yesterday:

Leading Democratic and Republican pollsters and strategists privately say that the Obama lead is around 4 or 5 points and is neither widening nor narrowing. The convention bounces have dissipated, but Romney's negatives remain quite high and are not diminishing. In the Gallup three-week super-samples -- almost 10,000 interviews -- the percentage of Democrats saying that they will definitely vote has moved up to the point that it is now virtually tied with Republicans.

A lot of people, me among them, thought the race would remain tight until election day, well within the margin of error with all of us biting our nails waiting for John King to move his silly electoral map around on the big day to tell us what's going on. But it doesn't look like that's happening, at least not at the moment.

With all the caveats, with all the "this thing could change" disclaimers, the race has broken in Obama's favour and it's hard to see how Romney can change that. There has never really been any dynamism in his campaign. One could say that it's always possible he reaches down deep and pulls something out, but what would that something be?

As simple as this sounds, the fact that Romney is not likeable and is perceived by much of the electorate as unlikable has been his achilles heal. We're only human beings. We don't choose to be around people we don't like. We certainly don't choose to have them lead us.

Funny thing is that Romney was right about one thing. This race has always been about the economy. It's been about people understanding that they are living through difficult times. They want someone they like and trust to be in White House, and Mitt Romney doesn't fit that description.

The only potentially redefining moments remaining are the debates. Is it possible that Mitt Romney will present himself to the American public in new way, in a way that changes how they feel about him? Unlikely.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

It's hard to win when you let your opponent define you

By Richard K. Barry

Elections guru Charlie Cook had a short and very smart piece today at National Journal assessing Mitt Romney's chances of pulling off a victory in November.

 He begins with this:

It is becoming clear that if President Obama is reelected, it will be despite the economy and because of his campaign; if Mitt Romney wins, it will be because of the economy and despite his campaign.

He makes this key argument:

While there are talented and hardworking staffers and consultants working on the Romney campaign, this column since July has been highly critical of Romney advertising and messaging. The decision to defer any biographical ads until August—ads that would have sought to define Romney on a personal level beyond being just rich, as someone worthy of trust, and as someone whom swing voters might be comfortable having in the White House—is inexplicable. The Obama campaign and allies ripped Romney apart in swing-state advertising, and with no Teflon coating to protect their candidate, it stuck like Velcro. While Romney allies say that such positive ads did not “move numbers” when dial-tested, my view is that these kinds of ads are essential to making their candidate acceptable. No matter how unhappy voters are, if they are uncomfortable with the alternative, the incumbent survives.

And ends with this:

This is a very close race and one that still could go either way. But the odds of Romney capitalizing on this economy, and the opportunity it affords, seem lower than they were before the conventions. If Republicans and Romney supporters are growing nervous, they should be.

Mr. Cook makes what I think has to be the most basic point about this election: As uncomfortable as some people may be with Barack Obama, they like Mitt Romney even less as an electoral option because they don't like him as a person.

 Sometimes it's that simple.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Predictions and prognostications: Can the Democrats possibly do better than expected?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'll offer my own predictions later, at the start of my live-blogging post that should go up around 7 pm and then be frequently updated over the course of the evening. (Stop by and check it out.)

For what it's worth, though, here's a taste of where things stand:

-- Prognosticator (sometimes extraordinaire) Charlie Cook is predicting "a Democratic net loss of 50 to 60 seats, with higher losses possible," far more than the 39 needed to take control. In the Senate, Republicans will pick up 6-8 seats, with Democrats now doing better in California (Boxer), Washington (Murray), and West Virginia (Manchin). Republicans will also pick up 6-8 "seats" in gubernatorial elections, given them the edge nationwide.

-- National Review's Jim Geraghty is predicting a 70-seat gain for Republicans in the House.

-- At The Weekly Standard, Jay Cost, looking at the 15-point Republican advantage in the final Gallup "generic ballot" poll of likely voters, suggests that GOP gains in the House could far exceed his "previous estimate of 61." Perhaps 76? Unlikely, but possible.

-- All-around numbers wiz Nate Silver thinks the GOP could "achieve the largest gain made by either party in a Congressional election since World War II." For the House, his forecasting model "now predicts an average Republican gain of 54 seats (up one from 53 seats in last night’s forecast), and a median Republican gain of 55 seats. These figures would exceed the 52 seats that Republicans won from Democrats in the 1994 midterms." What's even worse is that given the exceptionally large number of seats in play, the Republicans' gains could be significantly higher; they have better than a one-in-three chance of winning at least 60 seats, a one-in-six chance of winning at least 70 seats, and have some realistic chance of a gain exceeding 80 seats, according to the model."

-- House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.): "If you were to believe what the polls are saying about those who are likely to vote, then it's going to be something close to a bloodbath for Democrats. We'll lose the House and lose big." Ugh.

In other words, things look bleak. Very, very bleak.

And yet, Silver rightly notes that things could be different "if Democrats turn out in greater numbers than expected, or if the polling has underestimated the Democrats' standing." Possible, but not likely. What we've learned from recently elections is that the polling is usually right -- and it just doesn't appear that Democrats will turn out in significant enough numbers to overcome the Republicans "enthusiasm" advantage. (Besides, in some key races, independents are breaking heavily to the Republican candidate, as crazy as that is.)

Still, Silver gives "five reasons Democrats could outperform the polls and beat consensus expectations":

• The cellphone effect.
• The "robopoll" effect.
• Some likely voter models, particularly Gallup's, may "crowd out" Democratic voters.
• Democrats probably have better turnout operations.
• The consensus view of Democratic doom is not on such sound footing as it seems.

In other words, Democrats are being under-represented in the polls and Democratic turnout may be decent (if not strong). So 2010 could be like 1998, when "Democrats overperformed their polls by about four points in a great number of races around the country. What was supposed to be an echo to the Republican boom year of 1994 basically flopped, eventually costing Newt Gingrich his job as majority leader."

A scenario where Democrats keep the House is "not particularly likely, but possible." Sure, but, let's face it, it's not going to happen. The polls won't turn out to have been that wrong. And so it seems a certainty now that the Republicans will take the House, and somewhat less of a certainty that they will come up just short in the Senate. But what's far more realistic -- if all goes well for the Democrats -- is that they won't win 70 or 61 or even 55 but under 50. Which would still be a significant victory, just not the overwhelming one some are predicting.

That's sort of where I am now. Republicans will pick up between 47 and 52 seats in the House. While I'm tempted to predict a range of 42 to 47, I'm just not that optimistic. The economy is bad, fear, anger, and bitterness are driving huge segments of the electorate, anti-incumbent sentiment is strong, the party of the sitting president usually loses seats in that president's first midterms, and, well, it just seems like a Republican year, with the GOP/Tea Party base whipped up into a venomous frenzy.

It will not go well tonight for the Democrats, even if they do a little better than expected. And it could be really, really bad if the polls are right and Democrats don't turn out in large numbers.

So, if nothing else... VOTE!!!!!