Sean Trende; Senate Races: What September Polling Trends Tell Us

[Torie]

Sean Trende theorizes that in the close Senate races the Dem candidates might be hemmed in by Obama's low approval ratings, and find at the end of the day that it will be very hard to get folks to vote for them who don't approve of Obama's act. One interesting bit is the hypothesis that the Dem uptick in NC recently had more to do with Hagen being the only Dem candidate in the tight races whose poll numbers were running behind the Dem "fundamentals" rating which has to do with Obama's popularity in a state - so she, and she alone, of the Dem candidates had room for her numbers to go up, which they did.

[Lief 🗽]

Sounds suspiciously like the thoroughly discredited "incumbent under 50%" theory where all the undecideds go to the challenger. I think President Romney would have something to say about that. Looking into the crosstabs on undecideds is a fools errand. Most of these people aren't going to vote, and those who do are going to split pretty evenly, give or take 10% here and there.

[eric82oslo]

Almost all of the undecided/not tuned in yet potential voters at this point are even Democrats or independents, which likely voter screens pretty much all seem to indicate. If you look at the likely voter crosstabs, you will soon realize that minority voters are heavily underrepresented compared to 2010 (with about 5-6% which is pretty astonishing as this is a fast-growing voting group and they hardly showed up at all in 2010) and that older voters are heavily overrepresented. Also, there are some evidence that some Democratic incumbents are currently overperforming their 2008 numbers with older voters, in particular Hagan, who is running 8% stronger with voters beyond 65 compared to her 2008 numbers (when her entire winning margin was made up by voters younger than 30).

These numbers comes from an article released by the Washington Post this week.

[Torie]

Be that as it may, it's tied to Obama's popularity is the theory. If Obama had higher favorables, then the undecideds if the Dem were in lower territory, would be predicted to break the Dem's way. So who the undecided's break to, is situational, as opposed to a theory that they tend to break against the incumbent.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Isn't he the guy that predicted doom and gloom for Obamacare?
'Nuff said.

[eric82oslo]

Isn't he the guy that predicted doom and gloom for Obamacare?
'Nuff said.

He also said just a few weeks after the 2012 election, when even the most die hard Tea Partiers (and I'm not just talking Karl Rove and the like, but even guys like Ted Cruz or thereabouts) had realized they had to adopt a less hateful attitude towards Hispanics in order to survive as a party, that GOP could continue surfing on its current path and that it wouldn't even have any slight problems what so ever with winning any future presidential elections because white voters would continue to represent the übervast majority for decades and decades and decades and more decades to comes. Of the electorate that is. No need to adjust path anytime soon, cause minorities will keep being minorities and thus can/will/shall/might/must be suppressed.

Obviously the guy is completely lunatic. A psychologist would probably even find Dick Cheney to be semi-sane if only compared to this moron.

[Never]

Isn't he the guy that predicted doom and gloom for Obamacare?
'Nuff said.

He also said just a few weeks after the 2012 election, when even the most die hard Tea Partiers (and I'm not just talking Karl Rove and the like, but even guys like Ted Cruz or thereabouts) had realized they had to adopt a less hateful attitude towards Hispanics in order to survive as a party, that GOP could continue surfing on its current path and that it wouldn't even have any slight problems what so ever with winning any future presidential elections because white voters would continue to represent the übervast majority for decades and decades and decades and more decades to comes. Of the electorate that is. No need to adjust path anytime soon, cause minorities will keep being minorities and thus can/will/shall/might/must be suppressed.

Obviously the guy is completely lunatic. A psychologist would probably even find Dick Cheney to be semi-sane if only compared to this moron.

Hyperbole much?
 
Anyhow, I don't think that Trende is being unrealistic. He even admitted in his new article that he wouldn't be surprised to wake up the day after this election and see Republicans only pick up two or three Senate seats. All in all, it seemed like Trende had a reasonable explanation for his theory that this year's Senate races could shift to Republicans.

[eric82oslo]

Isn't he the guy that predicted doom and gloom for Obamacare?
'Nuff said.

He also said just a few weeks after the 2012 election, when even the most die hard Tea Partiers (and I'm not just talking Karl Rove and the like, but even guys like Ted Cruz or thereabouts) had realized they had to adopt a less hateful attitude towards Hispanics in order to survive as a party, that GOP could continue surfing on its current path and that it wouldn't even have any slight problems what so ever with winning any future presidential elections because white voters would continue to represent the übervast majority for decades and decades and decades and more decades to comes. Of the electorate that is. No need to adjust path anytime soon, cause minorities will keep being minorities and thus can/will/shall/might/must be suppressed.

Obviously the guy is completely lunatic. A psychologist would probably even find Dick Cheney to be semi-sane if only compared to this moron.

Hyperbole much?
 
Anyhow, I don't think that Trende is being unrealistic. He even admitted in his new article that he wouldn't be surprised to wake up the day after this election and see Republicans only pick up two or three Senate seats. All in all, it seemed like Trende had a reasonable explanation for his theory that this year's Senate races could shift to Republicans.

No, not as long as the Republican party could have been a grown up party by now, in line with a long range of sister parties in Europe and elsewhere. Instead, Trende's claim that the only thing GOP needed was even more white voters, made the second Tea Party revolution with all of its denial happen. We could have had a semi-serious Republican party by now, which every single serious Republican official wanted (from Karl Rove to the chairman himself). Instead we have anarchy. And the only and sole reason for that is named Sean Trende. It's not hyperbole.

[Vosem]

The random hate for Sean Trende, as though he has any influence over the Republican party, or isn't a perfectly reasonable pundit, no better or worse than any of the others, is bizarre. (In fact, I just tried to find some of Trende's own views and came up with nothing; people have reached the conclusion that he is a Republican in order to be able to throw his analysis away).

Isn't he the guy that predicted doom and gloom for Obamacare?
'Nuff said.

He also said just a few weeks after the 2012 election, when even the most die hard Tea Partiers (and I'm not just talking Karl Rove and the like, but even guys like Ted Cruz or thereabouts) had realized they had to adopt a less hateful attitude towards Hispanics in order to survive as a party, that GOP could continue surfing on its current path and that it wouldn't even have any slight problems what so ever with winning any future presidential elections because white voters would continue to represent the übervast majority for decades and decades and decades and more decades to comes. Of the electorate that is. No need to adjust path anytime soon, cause minorities will keep being minorities and thus can/will/shall/might/must be suppressed.

Obviously the guy is completely lunatic. A psychologist would probably even find Dick Cheney to be semi-sane if only compared to this moron.

Hyperbole much?
 
Anyhow, I don't think that Trende is being unrealistic. He even admitted in his new article that he wouldn't be surprised to wake up the day after this election and see Republicans only pick up two or three Senate seats. All in all, it seemed like Trende had a reasonable explanation for his theory that this year's Senate races could shift to Republicans.

No, not as long as the Republican party could have been a grown up party by now, in line with a long range of sister parties in Europe and elsewhere. Instead, Trende's claim that the only thing GOP needed was even more white voters, made the second Tea Party revolution with all of its denial happen. We could have had a semi-serious Republican party by now, which every single serious Republican official wanted (from Karl Rove to the chairman himself). Instead we have anarchy. And the only and sole reason for that is named Sean Trende. It's not hyperbole.

I seriously challenge you to read the article and disprove Trende's points rather than his overarching conclusion (which is that, while probably significantly more difficult than appealing to minorities, a path of appealing to more Midwestern and western white voters to win elections does exist).

[eric82oslo]

I seriously challenge you to read the article and disprove Trende's points rather than his overarching conclusion (which is that, while probably significantly more difficult than appealing to minorities, a path of appealing to more Midwestern and western white voters to win elections does exist).

This is what now has doomed the US and its political effectiveness for a generation, including, most prominently, no sign to agree on immigration reform for the forseeable future. If you agree with that path of destruction, then please salute your god Trende as you please. I will take no part in it, as I'm absolutely disgusted.

[ElectionsGuy]

Isn't he the guy that predicted doom and gloom for Obamacare?
'Nuff said.

He also said just a few weeks after the 2012 election, when even the most die hard Tea Partiers (and I'm not just talking Karl Rove and the like, but even guys like Ted Cruz or thereabouts) had realized they had to adopt a less hateful attitude towards Hispanics in order to survive as a party, that GOP could continue surfing on its current path and that it wouldn't even have any slight problems what so ever with winning any future presidential elections because white voters would continue to represent the übervast majority for decades and decades and decades and more decades to comes. Of the electorate that is. No need to adjust path anytime soon, cause minorities will keep being minorities and thus can/will/shall/might/must be suppressed.

Obviously the guy is completely lunatic. A psychologist would probably even find Dick Cheney to be semi-sane if only compared to this moron.

These two things don't belong near each other.

[Vosem]

I seriously challenge you to read the article and disprove Trende's points rather than his overarching conclusion (which is that, while probably significantly more difficult than appealing to minorities, a path of appealing to more Midwestern and western white voters to win elections does exist).

This is what now has doomed the US and its political effectiveness for a generation, including, most prominently, no sign to agree on immigration reform for the forseeable future.

A hypothetical path to victory the GOP has never actually utilized?

If you agree with that path of destruction, then please salute your god Trende as you please. I will take no part in it, as I'm absolutely disgusted.

Man, I hate to break it to you, but Trende has zero influence. He's a pundit, not a politician, and he's not in the employ (or even commonly associated with) any political party.