Could Republicans lose the expectations game?

[Eraserhead]

I really don't think all of this "Bigger Than '94" talk is going to be very helpful toward their cause. I mean, what's a great Democratic night at this point? I'd imagine it would be just barely saving the House and Senate. Discuss.

[You kip if you want to...]

I really don't think all of this "Bigger Than '94" talk is going to be very helpful toward their cause. I mean, what's a great Democratic night at this point? I'd imagine it would be just barely saving the House and Senate. Discuss.

A good Democratic night is losing the house, barely. A bad one is holding it, barely. If the Dems have a single digits lead in seat, nothing will get done because of the Blue Dogs and the Dems will get the blame going into 2012. Whereas, if the GOP gain it with a single digit seat lead, not much will get done because of moderates (although, they could be scared of the Tea Party down the round, primary wise) and the GOP would get blamed.

[Torie]

I am doing my best to make it happen. 

[Eraserhead]

I really don't think all of this "Bigger Than '94" talk is going to be very helpful toward their cause. I mean, what's a great Democratic night at this point? I'd imagine it would be just barely saving the House and Senate. Discuss.

A good Democratic night is losing the house, barely. A bad one is holding it, barely. If the Dems have a single digits lead in seat, nothing will get done because of the Blue Dogs and the Dems will get the blame going into 2012. Whereas, if the GOP gain it with a single digit seat lead, not much will get done because of moderates (although, they could be scared of the Tea Party down the round, primary wise) and the GOP would get blamed.

I do think that it would be better for Obama (and perhaps other Democrats in the short-term) if they barely lost the House. He needs something to run against in the coming years. Of course, they don't want to dig themselves into too much of a hole...

[Fritz]

Regardless of which party has the "majority", in either house, it seems pretty clear that party membership in both houses will be almost an even split.  So yeah, expect nothing from the next Congress.

[J. J.]

Easily.  They could also exceed it.

In this election, if the Democrats only lose 35 seats in the House and 5 in the Senate, they can claim victory.

If the House goes, that is it, however.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Obama needs to lose Congress, and then run against it in 2012.  Of course, he's lacks the balls to do that, but that is what he needs to do.

[Vepres]

Obama needs to lose Congress, and then run against it in 2012.  Of course, he's lacks the balls to do that, but that is what he needs to do.

You seem to forget he won in 2008 by running against Bush.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Which would be the best possibly result.

[Meeker]

If the Republicans fail to take the House then the election will be deemed a failure for them.

[Linus Van Pelt]

This whole idea that the "winner" of an election is the party with the most pickups rather than the party with the most actual seats, as in elections in basically every other country* (or  presidential elections: nobody says Dukakis did well because he gained EC seats from Mondale) is pretty dumb. Sure, it's not a parliamentary system, but control of congress is way more important than just picking up seats in and of itself.



* yes, yes, in some circumstances the perception of the "winner" is based on who has the largest coalition, not the largest individual party. But that isn't the main point here.

[Stranger in a strange land]

the best possible result for Obama is losing the House but keeping control of the senate: that way he can run against the Republican Congress in 2012, but still have control of the more powerful chamber, and thus block the Republican agenda. If the Dems barely keep control of the House, nothing is going to get done anyway, and Obama won't be able to blame the Republicans.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This whole idea that the "winner" of an election is the party with the most pickups rather than the party with the most actual seats, as in elections in basically every other country* (or  presidential elections: nobody says Dukakis did well because he gained EC seats from Mondale) is pretty dumb. Sure, it's not a parliamentary system, but control of congress is way more important than just picking up seats in and of itself.



* yes, yes, in some circumstances the perception of the "winner" is based on who has the largest coalition, not the largest individual party. But that isn't the main point here.

Might be a relic of the time when the Democrats had an unbreakable hold on the House. Also because of the Senate.

That said I doubt there were many cheery Labour supporters after their election in 2005.

[Brittain33]

the best possible result for Obama is losing the House but keeping control of the senate: that way he can run against the Republican Congress in 2012, but still have control of the more powerful chamber, and thus block the Republican agenda. If the Dems barely keep control of the House, nothing is going to get done anyway, and Obama won't be able to blame the Republicans.

This is where I've arrived at. I'm almost eager to lose the House at this point.

[Torie]

the best possible result for Obama is losing the House but keeping control of the senate: that way he can run against the Republican Congress in 2012, but still have control of the more powerful chamber, and thus block the Republican agenda. If the Dems barely keep control of the House, nothing is going to get done anyway, and Obama won't be able to blame the Republicans.

This is where I've arrived at. I'm almost eager to lose the House at this point.

I always knew you were a smart guy Brittain33.

[Brittain33]

I always knew you were a smart guy Brittain33.

I'm almost a zealot for achieving closure. It's why I have no future in politics. Mitch McConnell, I am not.

[Vepres]

OTOH, there seems to be a tendency on this forum to be very conservative in how big they think the wave will be (if there is one at all). Both Cook and Rothenberg have both said that a Republican gain of 60 seats wouldn't be surprising.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama needs to lose Congress, and then run against it in 2012.  Of course, he's lacks the balls to do that, but that is what he needs to do.

Of course he can do that. Obama lacks no balls when it comes to screwing over his own party.

[Brittain33]

Obama needs to lose Congress, and then run against it in 2012.  Of course, he's lacks the balls to do that, but that is what he needs to do.

Of course he can do that. Obama lacks no balls when it comes to screwing over his own party.

In what way does this screw over his party? He'd be running against a Republican Congress in that scenario.

[Brittain33]

OTOH, there seems to be a tendency on this forum to be very conservative in how big they think the wave will be (if there is one at all). Both Cook and Rothenberg have both said that a Republican gain of 60 seats wouldn't be surprising.

There's a distinction between could be and will be. Rothenberg's and I believe Cook's predictions for now are both in the range of about 40 seats, I think. I'll take your word for it that they say it could be 60 seats, but I'm not sure I share your belief that people here should adhere to this upper bound as their standard prediction.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The expectation game is kinda running away from Republicans right now. A few months ago, few observers were willing to recognize the severity of Democrats' situation. Now, too many observers are talking about scenarios like a 60-plus-seat pickup that, while possible, is certainly unlikely.

In that sense, yes, Republicans can lose the expectations game. But you know what? It doesn't matter much to them so long as they regain power. Taking back the House, by whatever margin, is a long-term "win."

[minionofmidas]

Quite possibly.