Pollster.com

I think that first sentence should read "are Democrats going to lose 60+ seats".

I once heard someone griping that statisticians could be replaced by a machine with a single button. You feed them some data, ask a question and press the button and the robot replies (every time) "Maybe".

Sub in pollsters for statisticians if you like. ;)

60 seats? I'm starting to read articles comparing this year's election to 1894 - not 1994. In 1894 the Republicans picked up 130 seats. Many analysts are now starting to assume that the Repuplicans will take the house and are speculating on close they could get to 100 seats.

You're right stj22. TY for the heads-up.

This polling is ridiculous. The Democrats have a lot of misinformation to counteract, but as you can see the Democrats were favored to likely win back the house in 2004 and that didn't happen. I predict that Democrats could lose 30 seats but no more. Since it is unclear who the candidates are and just how good or how bad the Democrats advertising strategy will be to break the lies and misinformation, it is still way too early to predict how many seats the GOP could lose.

Even though Dems may lose seats in the south and places like Southern Ohio, I actually believe Democrats may gain in some districts who have wacky Republicans like Michelle Bachman. I also think it is possible Democrats could win in a few Republican districts like NJ or CA where there has been a more Democratic trend.

^No one takes anything you say seriously.

Westwood, the same could be said about you too!

Westwood, the same could be said about you too!

Westwood, the same could be said about you too!

FL&P,

What misinformation is that? I would venture to say that the dems need to create more misinformation because it seems the more people realize and become informed as to what the Dems have been up to in the last 16 months, the less they like it.

NJ is a dem trending state? I dont think so. They just elected a GOP gov.

NJ is clearly a Democratic leaning state with some more conservative districts. States can elect a Republican governor, especially in NJ since there isn't that much turnout in an off year election. They haven't voted for a Republican president since Bush 1 or maybe even Reagan.

Hey Alaska elected a Democratic senator in 2008 when the GOP was in the doghouse. That doesn't mean Alaska is a Democratic state.

The Bottom line is that the GOP will not gain that many seats if they continue to be the party of no. They can't continue to be slow to denounce militia groups and individuals turning to violent retaliation against the government. They can't continue to be percieved as homophobic or embracing the confederacy, and expect it won't backfire on them.

Some of these policies may help them in the Southeast or some other places but it sure will scare moderate voters from electing new republicans in the northeast and west Coast.

^The GOp doesn't need advice from anyone named "farleftandproud". They can continue what they're doing, obviously it's working. Unlike the Democrats who spent several trillion dollars and becoming even more unpopular in the meanwhile.

@Gary Wagner: [citation needed].

"They can continue what they're doing, obviously it's working." Is it? Not much proof until November.

Here's what farleft said: "The Bottom line is that the GOP will not gain that many seats if they continue to be the party of no."

Now tell me if the following sounds like similar sentiment:

“The contract really mattered for a wide range of reasons. It said to every Republican candidate, you can be confident, you can be positive. If we had run a negative campaign, if we had run a hate-Clinton campaign, we would not have gotten control of the House.” - Newt Gingrich

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/weekinreview/24nagourney.html

It sounds to me like the architect of the 1994 republican takeover would disagree with you. There needs to be a positive vision as a credible alternative to the status quo that people are dissatisfied with.

NJ is trending away from the Democratic Party. It is not trending Republican strongly, but it is very strongly trending Independent especially in Blue Collar areas like Bergen, Union, and Passaic Counties are becoming competitive, while suburban counties like Middlesex Burlington and Atlantic Counties have switched sides.

@AySz88: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/14/how_bad_could_2010_really_get_for_democrats_105152.html

Here is a clip:

But there hasn't really been a midterm election like this one is shaping up to be in eighty years, either. Chart I below lists the "wave" midterm elections since the country began having regular midterm elections after the Civil War (before then, many states held their Congressional elections the year after and the year before the Presidential election, i.e. odd-numbered years, while other states followed the Presidential/midterm model). I've also marked whether the midterm election was marked by a poor economy, an overextended party, or a controversial agenda. The final column is the number of seats that the President's party lost on election night.

Year Bad Economy Previous Wave Controversial Agenda Seats Lost
2006 x 30
1994 x 52
1974 x x 45
1966 x x 48
1958 x 48
1946 x x 52
1938 x x x 79
1930 x x 49
1922 x x 77
1914 x x 61
1910 57
1894 x x x 125
1890 x x 93
1874 x x x 96

The data show that in elections where two of these factors are present, the party that controls the Presidency loses about 50 seats. But in this election, all three factors are present. To get an idea what this means, imagine what 1974 might have looked like if 1972 had produced a Congressional landslide to go with the Presidential landslide, and Republicans had entered the year with 232 seats instead of 192 seats. What if the economy had been in recession in 1966? What if Eisenhower had followed a more partisan agenda before 1958? What if Roosevelt had enjoyed his typical coattails in 1944, instead of receiving the fairly narrow 242 seat majority?

Those elections probably would have looked like 1938, 1894, or 1874. In those elections, the American people took their vengeance out on a party that was perceived as incompetent, and that was predisposed to fall due to the massive size of its majority. What we're seeing in the polls is a manifestation of something similar. While the power of incumbency has increased significantly since the 1950s, it's also true that both the Republicans and the Democrats are national parties now for the first time in our history. If Republicans can win in Massachusetts, they can win just about anywhere. And remember, Republicans don't need to win in Massachusetts for a landslide; they could pick up seventy seats without winning a single one in a Democratic-leaning district.

Pat Buchanan Compared 2010 to 1966, but at least gave Obama credit for accomplishing a landmark victory, even though Buchanan wasn't in favor of health reform.