Were Democrats this optimistic in 2010 at this point?

[morgieb]

Like some were in 2014....but that wave did genuinely break late and caught many of us by surprise. And I think the majority of Atlas Democrats knew that they would lose the Senate by this point. But many Republicans don't believe there'll be a blue wave at all and have Republicans holding the House.

Did many Democrats think this by late October in 2010, or did they think the House would flip?

[RI]

Pretty sure a Republican wave was expected:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=127229.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=126846.0

[MT Treasurer]

I think both Democrats and Republicans would do well to lower their expectations, honestly.

[jamestroll]

I think both Democrats and Republicans would do well to lower their expectations, honestly.

Yes, the headwinds in the suburbs and rural areas are just too strong for either party to be confident now. The question is who will win out?

Democrats have the house already. Will Chicagoland Indiana suburbs and improvements in the Indianapolis ring save Donnelly?

Can McCaskill win Jefferson County MO? Can she clear 45% in St Charles County? Can she win Clay County by 10 points minimimum?

Will Manchin and Tester be swept up under the undeniable trends of rural areas?

We shall see.

[MT Treasurer]

Democrats have the house already.

I agree that they’re favored to take the House, but I wouldn’t quite rate it Safe D.

[Politician]

The thing is, I don't think 2018 will be as large a wave as 2010. Substantially bigger then 2014, and slightly bigger then 2006.

[Pericles]

The thing is, I don't think 2018 will be as large a wave as 2010. Substantially bigger then 2014, and slightly bigger then 2006.

The thing is Republicans were starting from fewer seats in 2010, so a 63-seat gain was more gettable then than it is now. However, while unlikely, Democrats could get around 242 seats or slightly more if the polls turn out to be underrating them rather than the GOP and the wave breaks late for them.

[ON Progressive]

The thing is, I don't think 2018 will be as large a wave as 2010. Substantially bigger then 2014, and slightly bigger then 2006.

The thing is Republicans were starting from fewer seats in 2010, so a 63-seat gain was more gettable then than it is now. However, while unlikely, Democrats could get around 242 seats or slightly more if the polls turn out to be underrating them rather than the GOP and the wave breaks late for them.

Also, Republicans had a lot more low hanging fruit than Dems do this cycle.

[smoltchanov]

Democrats have the house already.

I agree that they’re favored to take the House, but I wouldn’t quite rate it Safe D.

Me too. And, concerning 2010, IIRC - at THIS time almost all (except diehard partisans) were confident in Republican wave. But - many expected "smaller wave": about 35-40 seats loss in House for example, not 63.

[USO2019PB]

I think both Democrats and Republicans would do well to lower their expectations, honestly.

[Xing]

I think most Democrats (those that were paying attention) were resigned to how bad of a year it would be for them by October 2010. There were definitely Democrats denying that 2014 would be a red wave, but I don't think anyone argued that it would be a blue wave year, simply that it would be a neutral year. That's the key difference, that some Republicans this year not only argue that it won't be a blue wave year, but that there will be a red wave. The denialism gets stronger every year.

[DC Al Fine]

The thing is, I don't think 2018 will be as large a wave as 2010. Substantially bigger then 2014, and slightly bigger then 2006.

The thing is Republicans were starting from fewer seats in 2010, so a 63-seat gain was more gettable then than it is now. However, while unlikely, Democrats could get around 242 seats or slightly more if the polls turn out to be underrating them rather than the GOP and the wave breaks late for them.

Also, Republicans had a lot more low hanging fruit than Dems do this cycle.

That's a good point. When you look at the 2010 GOP gains, the main thing that sticks out is how many conservative seats the Dems even managed to get in the first place. Western Idaho, white rural Tennessee, Appalachian seats in NC and VA etc. There are some equivalents for the Democrats this year, but not nearly to the same extent.

I think most Democrats (those that were paying attention) were resigned to how bad of a year it would be for them by October 2010. There were definitely Democrats denying that 2014 would be a red wave, but I don't think anyone argued that it would be a blue wave year, simply that it would be a neutral year. That's the key difference, that some Republicans this year not only argue that it won't be a blue wave year, but that there will be a red wave. The denialism gets stronger every year.

Have to disagree with you there.

Wave might be too strong a word, but I remember having several arguments with posters in 2014 who thought that the GOP was so obviously awful, that the Dems would make double digit gains in the House despite holding the presidency. Keep in mind that the post 9/11 GOP or even freaking FDR in 1934 didn't post midterm gains that good.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

IIRC I was holding out some hope that maybe it wouldn't be sooo bad. I am pretty sure I was skeptical of the polls that had larger GOP leads - those were coming from Gallup (which seemed pretty junky, but got lots of attention because it was Gallup), Rasmussen, and FOX. So IIRC I thought Dems would probably lose the House, but hoped the losses wouldn't be too high and hoped that various people who deserved to survive (Perriello, for example) would win.

But as the night wore on, I embraced the carnage.