Nate Silver (538): there's ample reason for Democrats to be worried, perhaps deeply so about 2010

8.15.2009
Likely Voters and Unlikely Scenarios
by Nate Silver @ 6:07 PM

As I've been telling people all week here in Pittsburgh, there's ample reason for Democrats to be worried -- perhaps deeply so -- about 2010. Without major intervening events like 9/11, the party that wins the White House almost always loses seats at the midterm elections -- since World War II, an average of 17 seats in the House after the White House changes parties. Democrats have substantially more seats to defend than Republicans, particularly in the House. They appear to face a significant enthusiasm gap after having dominated virtually all close elections in 2006 and 2008. And the economy and health care are contingencies that could work either way, but which probably present more downside risk to Democrats than upside over the next 12-18 months, particularly if some version of health care reform fails to pass. While the Democrats are not extraordinary likely to lose the House, such an outcome is certainly well within the realm of possibility (I'd put the chance at somewhere between 1-in-4 and 1-in-3). The Senate picture is a bit brighter for them, but they are probably more likely now to lose seats in the chamber than to add to their majority, in spite of the spate of Republican retirements in Ohio, Missouri and other states. In a wave-type election, a net loss of as many as 4-6 seats is conceivable.

With all that said, I would reserve some healthy skepticism for polls that apply aggressive "likely voter" models to elections like the midterms that won't occur for another 16 months. In Pennsylvania, for example, Rasmussen now finds Arlen Specter a 12-point underdog to Pat Toomey among what they define as likely voters. Toomey also leads a more "generic" Democrat, Specter's primary rival Joe Sestak, by 8 points in Rasmussen's polling. By contrast, Research 2000, which in its polling for Daily Kos also uses a likely voter model (but evidently a less aggressive one), puts Specter 5 points ahead of Toomey and Sestak one point ahead of the Republican. These numbers represent big downward shifts for the Democrats, particularly in Specter's case, since Research 2000 last polled the race in May. But obviously, there is a big difference between Specter's -12 number under Rasmussen's likely voter model and his +5 under Research 2000's.

We can learn a little bit about these likely voter models by evaluating other polls that these firms conduct. Rasmussen's likely voter universe, for instance, trusts Republicans more not just on hot-button issues like the economy and health care, but also on traditional Democratic strengths like Social Security (by 4 points) and education (by 3 points).

If the electorate that goes to the polls next November is in fact one which trusts Republicans more than Democrats on education and social security, then Democrats will lose the Senate seat in Pennsylvania and undoubtedly almost every other competitive race -- it will be really, really ugly for them. But I just have a little bit of trouble accepting that as a likely scenario. In 2004 exit polling, voters who listed education as their top priority went to John Kerry over George W. Bush by a 3:1 margin. As of pre-Katrina 2005, when Social Security was being polled frequently in what was not a particularly great time for the Democratic party, Democrats led Republicans by an average of about 15 points on the issue -- and that was long before the market collapse that would seem to have undermined Republicans' calls to partially privatize the system.

-snip

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/likely-voters-and-unlikely-scenarios.html


"the economy and health care are contingencies that could work either way, but which probably present more downside risk to Democrats than upside over the next 12-18 months, particularly if some version of health care reform fails to pass" WONDER IF THIS IS WHY CARVILLE IS SAYING WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE (PROTECTING THE CORPORATE INTEREST!). SEEMS IT'S NOW OR NEVER!

COMMENT @ 538:

"The larger question is--do the Blue Dogs prefer a GOP Congress?
I'm think the answer is, maybe, yes"

He's waaaaaaaaaaaaay off base on this one. Dems lose the House??? A 25% or 33% chance? Uh, no. There is no set of statistics that bears that out, not even remotely.

Methinks Nate, who did a great job in 2008, is trying to stay relevant - - but he was a huge worry wart for Obama's chances as well, even ignoring what his model was telling him.

Polling this far in advance of a general election is an exercise in futility. Nate needs to take a six month hiatus and come back after the first of the year.

Love the guy, but at this point, he's just making guesses.

Quite a large hurdle indeed, but not outside the realm of possibilities.

The GOP gained 54 seats in 1994.

I would say a 25% chance seems reasonable.

Good analysis by Nate.

. . . thank goodness.

Clinton made a truckload of mistakes between January of 1993 and November of 1994. Obama hasn't come close. In addition, Clinton won by a plurality, not by a commanding majority as Obama did. And the Democratic congressional leadership (particularly in the House) was corrupt, stodgy, and mostly intractable in their do-nothingness. Along came the Newt with a coordinated message and a huge assist from the right-wing media, and presto . . . a 54-seat flip.

There is. No way. That is going to happen in 2010. There isn't a 33% chance of a 40-seat flip, there isn't a 25% chance, and there isn't a 2% chance. It's not going to happen.

Also, downthread: Dems down to 53 or 54 Senate seats??????? How the hell are they going to pull that off?? Impossible.

Worst case scenario, the Dems lose about 10-15 House seats, and come down to 57 Senate seats, mostly because of Chris Dodd being an idiot. That's about the most concerned that I can get.

Bad analysis by Nate. He does indeed need some time off.

So did a ton of people. The writing had been on the wall for years. And it wasn't like Clinton won some mandate in 1992, either. Obama, by contrast, did. And this is a brand-new Dmocratic Congress, not the corruption and laziness-riddled one of 1993-1994.

We voted for change and we're seeing capitulation.

If Holder doesn't act, Troops remain in Iraq, elections remain tainted and HC doesn't get passed-I'm done!

kind of hell over other issues and use the Blue Dogs to help them stop any progress by Obama. Democrats are rolling over now and are being trampled by a minority.

groups of people losing their insurance and the only way
they can get insurance is an increase in Premiums.

A lot people will say throw them all out.

the economy recovers moderately and whatever they pass on healthcare has little impact before the election, because they will schedule it that way. If there is any bite to healthcare reform, something that remains to be seen, it will be implemented in December 2010, after the election, but early enough to be behind us by 2012.

Most economists now expect the economy to start adding jobs no later than Q1 2010. Debate remains over the expected pace of growth whether slow or moderate (very few see it as fast), but so far, the stimulus has exceeded the expectations of many.

My thoughts are that the economy is growing and healthcare will be resolved, behind us, and off the table. Something else will be the issue in November 2010. With any luck, Osama can make a return appearance, in a small ziplock bag.

Nate is correct, there are reasons at the moment to be concerned, but my prediction is that they will not exist by a year from November.

( ...or... It's The Torture Stupid!)

The rampant corporatism and DC dithering are just the usual sideshows (yes, even health care).

Obama's failure to abide by and enforce the laws and treaty obligations that our greater generations fought and died to forge is squandering the fleeting opportunity to relegate the neofascists to permanent minority status.

They'll be back. If not 2010, then soon enough.

---

I hope this is true. It seems as if the corporate Dems have read this and are stalling on any chance of real reform. I say strip them of their committees.

...that they really think that whatever level of reforminess they manage to cobble together is that important.

And that doing some damn thing to begin to Redeem Our National Soul http://talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">would be a "tit-for-tat...circus."

Orwellian.

----

--that will be a major campaign issue for Republicans. Another trillion dollars? And where's the affordable insurance?

Off term elections are hard (no national spotlight, no massive get out the vote effort due to lack of Presidential budgets being in play)

When you combine the traditional historical loss of seats with lack of enthusiasm and economy still sinking (GDP will turn + in Q4 but jobs likely will continue to be loss well into 2010) it isn't hard to easy 2010 will be very hard year for Democrats to hold the line at a few losses.

Then you have to look at the fact that Democrats hold a lot of Red districts people may have voted Democrat but those are conservative districts. A change in identity takes much longer than a single election cycle. Some of those seats will be lost no matter what.

The good news is 2010 could be a blip and 2012 look better. If we are out of Iraq and winding down Afghanistan, the economy has recovered and we are gaining 300K jobs a month, (real) health care reform is passed it will be implemented by 2012, Obama is popular and the Presidential race is a non-starter then he can spend time helping local candidates.

If the Republicans are still the party of No then likely any losses in 2010 can be overcome in 2012.

I don't think they will lose the house and senate but they could suffer significant losses.

We will probally suffer loses but not the massive ones some are prediting.

Some of the Blue Dogs that came from Districts Mccain won will be voted out.

The economy will dictate fates of Governors.

As for the senate remember we have shots at winning seats In Missouri and Ohio.NH Is also a possabilty.
NC could go eather way.Republicans will keep Florida and Kentuckey.Dodd will go down In CT.If Castle
runs In Delaware then Republicans may take that seat.If not Biden's seat remains In Democratic hands.
Bennedt could lose In Colorado.With Burris out we should keep the Illinois seat.Remember people This Is
Obama's state and seat.He Is not In the 93-94 Clinton shape or the 2005-2009 Bush Shape.They will elect
someone to his seat to vote against Obama.Democrats haven't won a senate seat In Texas since lloyd Benson.As for PA whoever wins the primary will then be able to remind voters on the true Toomey.He IS trying to BS people Into thinking he Is a moderate.Once the primary Is over the winner can beat him.
If Obama still has good popularty In 2010 that helps In the senate.

Reid could lose In Nevada If Republicans can ever find someone to actully run and the Ensign scandal
hasn't hurt Republicans too badly.Also remember there are a bunch of Hispanics In Nevada and that
could help Reid.And I think Lincoln In Arkansas could be a race that we lose and If Hutchinson goes through are resigns from the senate Republicans will likely keep that seat.

It Is not all doom for us.If Helath Care reform passes and the economy continues to Improve we are In
good shape.I expect some loses for us regardless.

Also remember even with Gingrich's unpopularty It took Democrats till 2006 to regain the House.

I do believe when you combine democratic apathy (because we have won now and the fact that many are frustrated that the dems aren't doing enough) combined with the energy and anger in the right wing, it might be possible.

However independent voters still hate the GOP far more than the dems. I don't see the public supporting the GOP anytime soon, if anything they may vote against the dems, but not for the GOP.

Nate was right in his predictions in the senate (he predicted 59 dem seats and predicted the right states) and his predictions in the electoral college (he knew what states mccain and Obama would win). So I am a bit worried if he thinks this is a risk. The dems need to pass EFCA before november 2010, it might be harder in the 112th congress.