The "Republican Wave" Looks Like A Washout

Unfortunately, generic ballot polling has been sparse so far this cycle. Last week, however, there were three national polls, by Fox News, CNN and Pew Research, asking the generic ballot question. None showed an anti-Democrat wave, like the one that brought Republicans back to power in 2010. In fact, none of the three polls showed Republicans with a lead among registered voters at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/upshot/new-generic-ballot-surveys-dont...

No votes yet

Looks like Dems have nothing to worry then, let's talk about something else and let the Dems believe the polls.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

The problem is you're making several assumptions.

First, especially among registered voters Dems always maintain an advantage by about 2 to 3 points in non-wave years. If the spread is 1.9 in the Dems favor then that favors the GOP by about 0-1 points. I'm sure when you factor that against Likely voters the spread moves more in the GOP's favor.

Second, I have no doubt across the country that the spread is just that. Dems may pick up a House seat as well as a few governorships. However, that doesn't mean it can't be a wave year for the GOP, why? The Senate. The GOP needs to win 6 seats in the Senate. SD, WV, MT all right now appear to be solidly red. So of the remaining states the GOP needs to only pick up three more. Since this is an off-cycle year the electorate will most likely lean more Republican.

Third, most of the states up for grabs in the Senate are already red states. Meaning that Dems even with good candidates will have to run almost perfect to avoid losing the Senate. States such as AK, AR, LA, NC, and IA now have very competitive races. There are other races on the precipice of being competitive as well CO and MI are examples.

So, I'm quite comfortable with the GOP's stance at this point in the race. If the race were today I'd guess LA, IA, and AR go red with NC and CO too close to call.

MikeyA

Nice try on "unskewing" the poll, but this is all within the margin of error, which is pretty good at this point. Mind you, the more we hear "IMPEACH!" out of the wingnuts like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, etc. the more stirred up the left will become as well as a certain segment of the middle. So, those of you who can't help but badmouth Obama and call him lawless and call for impeachment etc., PLEASE KEEP FORNICATING THAT CHICKEN!

I hereby declare No Impeachment proceedings will happen!

Impeachment begins in the House. The Speaker already said it's not an option. Good luck nationalizing the elections on Palin and Bachman, neither of whom are holding any sway in the party right now.

On the flip side the GOP can nationalize the election by tying Dems to the policies of the President. Notice how those who voted for Obamacare are already running from it. The more the President talks about executive order amnesty the more it's going to play into the GOP's hands in states like LA, AR, and NC.

In fact, Ed Schultz came out against EO amnesty already. So Dems aren't even united on that front. Please Please write the president and tell him to issue the EO. I would love for him to sew this thing up for us before November.

MikeyA

Citation needed on Boehner saying impeachment is off the table. In fact, the new Majority Whip REFUSED to take it off the table:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/27/gops-new-house-whip-leaves-obamas-...

"“But impeachment is off the table?” Wallace pressed.

“Well, the White House wants to talk about impeachment,” Scalise replied, dodging the question. “Ironically, they’re going out and trying to fundraise off of that too.”

“I’m asking you, sir,” Wallace asked again.

“Look, the White House will do anything they can to change the topic away from the president’s failed agenda,” the Louisiana Republican insisted. “People are paying a higher cost for food, for health care, for gas at the pump. And the president isn’t solving those problems. So, he wants to try to change the subject.”"

Now, Mikey, do you want the List Of Republicans Who Have Called For Impeachment?

Mind you, the President isn't calling for executive order amnesty either, that's a GOP talking point, and also one the Dems are secretly using to get the Tea Party riled up to keep up the impeachment talk... and you fell for it LOL!

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) insisted Tuesday there were “no plans” for impeachment, calling talk of the subject a “scam” designed by Democrats to raise money
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-boehner-impeach...
My gosh but you're stupid.
House Republican leaders are attempting distance to themselves from calls to impeach President Obama, calling the idea of impeachment a Democratic fundraising "scam."

"Let me be very clear, this is not and never was on the table," Oregon Rep. Greg Walden, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, told Fox News.

Walden described rumors of a GOP attempt to impeach Obama as a "White House and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraising scam."
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/house_gop_leaders_call_to...

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

A president can only be impeached over "high crimes and misdemeanors". Not as a result of being inept.

The constitutional convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well.[citation needed] Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery.Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

"Now, Mikey, do you want the List Of Republicans Who Have Called For Impeachment?" It doesn't matter. If the Speaker of the House doesn't allow it to be brought to the floor then it's not happening.

"Mind you, the President isn't calling for executive order amnesty either, that's a GOP talking point, and also one the Dems are secretly using to get the Tea Party riled up to keep up the impeachment talk... and you fell for it LOL!" I'm saying go ahead and do it. Or just keep riling up the Tea Party, the primaries are mainly done with and we're moving into general elections. The more enthused the Tea Party is the higher turnout we will get.

MikeyA

You miss the point of riling up the Tea Party. They start calling and emailing and otherwise bothering their representatives and if they don't see their representatives doing what they want enough, there's always the option of voting third party or write-in or staying home, all of which could be just enough to swing some elections, plus the fallout from the GOP appearing spineless and unwilling to pursue impeachment will either a) cause the Tea Party to get pissed off and run and/or vote some even more radical right-wing people in the next election, b) cause the Tea Party to get pissed off and go on a shooting rampage or armed demonstration or some other whacked-out shit sure to give the GOP/right wing extremely bad PR, c) cause the Tea Party to be disillusioned with the process and stay home instead of pulling the lever for ANY (R), or d) actually fully schism the GOP when the Tea Party figuratively nails up the 95 Theses of Derp and Potato on the door of GOP headquarters and decides to become its own fully-fledged political party.

Any of these Republicans who go against the Tea Party demands are trying to figure out how to dance on the razor's edge between not pissing off the Tea Party segment of the voting population who helped to vote them in, and the rest of the voters who voted them in, plus or minus an unknown range of independents who might make all the difference.

It's not about Tea Party enthusiasm, it's about moronic Republicans like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, and so on who talk about impeachment (and are probably pissing Boehner and Reince Priebus off to no end by doing so) causing GOP leadership to be confronted on the subject and either having to state unequivocally that impeachment will not happen (thus giving Dems the happy talking point that the GOP is chock full of extremist hyper-partisan nuts that the party can't control and also pissing off said extremist hyper-partisan nuts when they get told to STFD and STFU by GOP leadership), or leaving impeachment on the table for the Dems to use as a basis for fund-raising and pointing out how the Republican Party of No Compromises, No Action, and No Ideas is out to impeach Obama for Presidenting While Black and Democrat, since they can't even get him for lying about getting a BJ in the Oval Office.

Please do continue to try to shove the impeachment genie back in the bottle. It's amusing to watch.

"there's always the option of voting third party or write-in or staying home, all of which could be just enough to swing some elections," I think you're putting too much stock into that strategy. While many third party candidates surge at about this time in GEs as it gets closer to decision day most people vote on electability. Generally if a 3rd party candidate doesn't have at least 10% support by this point they will have little or no impact.

The only Senate race I can think of that has a 3rd party candidate at this point is NC. There the Libertarian candidate gets 8% and from some of the internals I didn't see that as a number that's rising.

As for the rest of your post as I see the current slate it looks like that opportunity was missed. There may be a race here or there that could be affected as you say but the GOP thus far appears to have recruited quality candidates and as said before not much in the way of third party or internal challenges. I think the Dems missed their best opportunities for that strategy when Mitch McConnell won his primary and Tancredo chose not to compete Gardner.

On the flip side the Dem candidates seem to be struggling as yet. Two early blue hopefuls Walsh and Davis both of their campaigns are essentially over. Braley and Peters can't seem to get any forward movement. Udall is sliding. Best bet for the Dems keeping the Senate I see right now is if by some miracle Landrieu can keep Cassidy from reaching 50% and then turning it around in a runoff but most likely Mannes support would go to Cassidy in the run off. I won't lie though Landrieu is probably the most effective campaigner of all the Dems running this year and she has worked the LA voting system well in the past.

MikeyA

Apparently Ed Schultz isn't alone. Chalk up Sens Hagan and Pryor on the list too.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/213757-vulnerables-balk-at-obama-action

I wonder why?

MikeyA

Because the voting public knows the democrats OWN illegal immigration?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.