Ruffini: GOP may be headed toward seat gains in the House of epic porportions

[Reaganfan]

GOP strategist Patrick Ruffini says Republicans "may be headed toward to a seat gain in the House of epic proportions -- somewhere over 50 seats and well above the historical high point for recent wave elections (the 50-55 seats we experienced in elections like 1946 and 1994)."

"All in all, I don't think a 70 seat gain is out of the question."

http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/why-2010-wont-be-like-1994-itll-be-bigger

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

lol ruffini

[Landslide Lyndon]

Ruffini must lay off the glue.

[Sam Spade]

70 seats is kinda 'out there'.  50-55 is certainly possible with a wave.

My personal suspicion is that both Houses end up relatively even after the 2010 election.  No specific number guesses, of course, yet...

[cinyc]

Well, if these numbers in Gallup's recent polling hold, Ruffini's probably right:





The first chart should be really worrisome for Democrats (and explains Obama's recent outreach to all voters but evil older white males). 

Increased conservative enthusiasm + More self-identified Republicans (should) = Republican wave.

But that's a very big IF.

[Smash255]

What a tool.  He says this at the exact moment the GOP is shooting themselves in the foot over and over again by blocking debate.

[Eraserhead]

Umm, no.

[cinyc]

What a tool.  He says this at the exact moment the GOP is shooting themselves in the foot over and over again by blocking debate.

There will be debate on the financial services regulation bill - sooner rather than later.  None of this will be remembered by election day.

[Psychic Octopus]

No, I think it will be pretty much even in both houses at the end of 2010, with the Democrats most likely holding narrow advantages in both.

[cinyc]

Umm, no.

Umm, yes.

I know the typical position on this forum is that there's no wave building and everything's going to be okay for the Democrats.  But all of the evidence I've seen, from analysis of the recent special elections (well, not FL-19, but the rest) to recent polling - especially the recent Gallup polling - suggests otherwise.  

Consider this graph:


The last time the percentage of registered voters who wanted to keep their Congressman fell below 50% was 1992 or 1993.  The last time the percentage of registered voters who wanted to turf their Congressman was above the 30s isn't even on the chart.  If the downward trend continues, it will really suck to be an incumbent this cycle.  The wave very well might pull McCain down with it.

And since there are more Democrat incumbents than Republican ones, it shouldn't be difficult to do the math.

Couple that with Gallup's recent findings that VERY enthusiastic voters prefer Republicans by 20 points, Republicans lead in the generic Congressional vote tally among every age group but 18-29s, and 18-29s are the least enthusiastic about voting in the midterm elections, and there's a real recipe for potential Democrat disaster.

It doesn't have to be that way, which is why Obama and the Democrats are trying to gin up enthusiasm among everyone but older white males.  But unless these numbers - especially the enthusiasm gap - close in between now and November, a big wave is not out of the realm of possibility.

[Brittain33]

I know the typical position on this forum is that there's no wave building and everything's going to be okay for the Democrats.

Who has been saying that?

[cinyc]

I know the typical position on this forum is that there's no wave building and everything's going to be okay for the Democrats.

Who has been saying that?

Even Sam Spade has been saying he doesn't see evidence of a wave building, as recently as just after the Massachusetts special election.  I've been on record that I see an anti-incumbent wave building for at least this year, if not earlier.

And by "everything's going to be okay for the Democrats", I mean that they will retain control of the House and (especially) Senate, not that they won't lose some seats.  You can see posters saying that even on this thread.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ruffini used to post on the old forum, I think.

[Brittain33]

And by "everything's going to be okay for the Democrats", I mean that they will retain control of the House and (especially) Senate, not that they won't lose some seats.  You can see posters saying that even on this thread.

I'm content with you making these revisions, because while I think Dems will almost certainly hold the Senate and have a good chance at holding the House if conditions change, I would never have characterized losing 6-8 Senate seats and 30-35 House seats as "everything's going to be okay for the Democrats." Not when a year ago I still believed we'd pick up a Senate seat and lose perhaps 10-12 House seats.

[Bo]

He's a little too optimistic about this.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

We'll gain seats, but not that many.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I know the typical position on this forum is that there's no wave building and everything's going to be okay for the Democrats.

Who has been saying that?

PBrower, though he doesn't really count.

Ruffini used to post on the old forum, I think.

When you break it down, Ruffini is just Naso with a more widespread readership.

[Sam Spade]

Ruffini used to post on the old forum, I think.

When you break it down, Ruffini is just Naso with a more widespread readership.

You make a good point.  I've always found it ironic that this forum tends to attract those types rather than level-headed thinkers.

[justW353]

I read the website name and I was like: