The Republicans’ strength is built on sand. It’s almost wholly rooted in Democratic apathy rather than any kind of genuine support from swing-voters. People still hate the Republicans and trust Democrats more on the issues. That’s why Pat Toomey’s lead has completely evaporated (.pdf) in Pennsylvania. He may be paying me for advertising through Google AdSense, but people aren’t buying his Wall Street agenda.
The race for Senate in Pennsylvania has seen dramatic movement over the last two months and Joe Sestak has now taken the slightest lead over Pat Toomey, 46-45. On PPP’s previous survey of the state, in mid-August, Toomey led by a 45-36 margin…
…In that August survey Toomey held a commanding lead with independents, 50-23. Sestak has picked up the support of virtually all of the undecided independents and has pulled into a virtual tie with Toomey with that voting group, trailing now only 49-48…
…Finally, as PPP is seeing across the country, the closer to the election we get the more Democratic voters are tuning in. In August those planning to vote in Pennsylvania this fall reported having voted for John McCain by a 1 point margin in 2008. Now the likely voter poll for this year supported Barack Obama by 4 points. That still suggests a large drop in Democratic turnout from 2008, but it may not be quite as dramatic as it appeared over the summer.
“This has become a toss up race,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “No one would have expected that a month ago but just as he did in the primary Joe Sestak is closing strong. Whether he continues that momentum right on through election day or Pat Toomey can turn things back in his favor will be the ultimate determiner of who wins this race.”
Imagine what the polls would look like if Democrats weren’t wasting time talking about the neighboring Senate race in Delaware and, instead, shined a bright light on Toomey’s radical agenda. But don’t think all that energy is wasted. In the Philly suburbs, there is no question that O’Donnell’s antics, and the antics of loony Republican candidates across the country, are mobilizing Democrats. Pennsylvania is not an early-voting state, which is probably a good thing since Sestak is such a good closer. In Ohio, we’re fortunate that we have weeks of early-voting to help us find and turn-out our base for underperforming candidates, but here in Pennsylvania we may benefit from having the vote all on one day.
The race for Senate in Pennsylvania is now a dead heat, and that should be galvanizing for our organizers, and may help us save some House seats, as well.
Boo:
I have a question. What happens if we only lose about 20 seats in the House(and end up with anything more than 52 in the Senate)? Wouldn’t that be a disaster of epic proportions for the Pukes?
Not necessarily. Their worst outcome is winning power in the House and then behaving horribly in the lead-up to 2012. If they can stay in the minority they will be able to blame the Democrats for everything, but if they are in power, then Obama will be able to point to their obstruction and lunacy.
Of course, Senate seats are so valuable that they take any gains they can get, but they really shouldn’t want the House. They’d rather fall just short.
Disagree.
Besides, if that’s the case, why wouldn’t you want the GOP to win a House majority?
Because I think Obama will win reelection anyway, and I don’t want to deal with Darrell Issa’s subpoenas or Dan Burton’s watermelons.
So you’re saying the best outcome for the president?
I think the best outcome in every scenario is knocking every Republican running for office in the teeth, beating back the Conventional Wisdom, and making the Villagers cry. They seriously won’t know what to do if the Democrats only lose 20 seats in the House and break even in the Senate, both of which are very possible.
Let’s face reality. It’s infinitely more important that Obama wins reelection than it is that any single other thing happen in Congress.
If we merely hold the WH for the next six years and conduct a saner form of foreign policy and regulatory oversight, we’ll be better off even if we can’t pass anything through Congress.
We can’t let the Republicans get even a sniff of the Oval Office for the foreseeable future. Everything else completely pales in comparison.
That doesn’t mean we don’t want majorities and we don’t want progress, it just means that Obama trumps everything else.
I agree that winning is better than losing, but the GOP has a better shot at the WH is they are completely shut out of power over the next two years. This is particularly true if they can continue to successfully obstruct.
But, because I believe we can have our cake and eat it too, I am not hoping for big losses. And on the Senate side, every seat is precious.
I guess I see the political wisdom of this argument, but I’m still skeptical. If Dems keep the House and Senate, and then some kind of change is effected to the filibuster that makes the Senate a functioning body again, then don’t we at least have the possibility of passing additional progressive legislation in the next Congress? Maybe not cap-and-trade or CIR, but other good stuff. It just seems willfully masochistic for Dems to actually want to lose the House.
We’re not going to change the filibuster. That’s filibluster.
The old-timers like Inouye will never go for it.
We might tinker to make it easier to confirm nominees, but that’s all I can see happening.
I was playing devil’s advocate a bit, but I basically agree, unfortunately. I’ll be more optimistic about the 2013 session though if Dems can at least get some minor changes through in the next one. Filibluster indeed!
This has been my thinking as well but I’m surprised to see you embrace it. Haven’t you been saying that the republicans are likely to get creamed in ’12 anyway because it’s a presidential election?
Then again, I should be skeptical about republicans taking responsibility for anything at all. So what if they control both houses. They’ll still blame everything on Obama. Yes they had a wee problem in 2008 with the implosion of the bush administration, but here we are two years later and the bush administration didn’t even happen and history began in January 2009.
Why would Obama be able to point to their obstruction and lunacy in 2012 but not, you know, right now?
I guess you’ve forgotten the 1990’s. That Newt Gingrich guy was a wee bit better known than John Boehner. And he actually got to determine what Congress offered in the Budget. People remember oppositional Speakers, like Tip O’neill and Newt, quite a bit better than they remember the Denny Hasterts of the world.
All we keep hearing, including from the TradMed, is that the Democrats are f-cked. How Orange Julius is already measuring drapes for the Speaker’s office. Considering the amount of money Turdblossom and Co. have thrown at the election, anything less than total victory for them should be considered a failure. Not only that, but Versailles is ready with their “Voters rebuked Obama for overreaching” narrative. That’s really not an option if Democrats only lose 15 or 20 seats net. What’s their narrative going to be then?
They’ll call it the biggest election upset in American history, that no one, anywhere, ever, could have possibly anticipated, nor did for that matter. Then they’ll talk about how less-then-expected victories for Republicans are bad news for Obama’s re-election chances in 2012. Even I’m as cynical about the media as you, Calvin. 🙂
You might be ignoring the coming civil war within the GOP if they don’t take the House, though. The GOP is already ripping at the seams, and the potential of “why we didn’t take back the House/Senate” has the potential of tearing them apart. Keep in mind that even if the GOP doesn’t retake the House/Senate, there will likely be an even larger group of hard-rightwingers that make up the GOP caucus. This means the blame game could be even more vicious that we’ve seen in the previews (special elections and primaries).
These are battles we are going to see play out in the coming years anyways. However, the failure of the GOP to take control in this political climate will make those battles even more bloody.
I’m glad to see this. I’ve been incredulous that we could lose in PA to such an obviously flawed candidate like Toomey.
My prediction is that we lose Nevada, Kentucky, and Wisconsin but win PA, Illinois, Washington and California. Colorado is still up in the air.
I don’t think we’ll lose in Nevada. We have early voting there and that gives us the opportunity to address the enthusiasm gap and run down our lists. Early voting really helps in races where our candidate is badly flawed.
Why so glum on Kentucky?
Also – and I suppose I’m thread-jacking at this point, so apologies – did anyone read the fascinating New Yorker article this week on Harry Reid? He’s such a weird guy and bad politician (although an effective Senator), and yet I can’t help feeling a consistent warmth towards him. Especially when I read stuff like this:
prediction: we lose 40 seats in the house, senate is 53-47.
If you haven’t already, now is the time to get out there and canvass, phonebank, and donate for Sestak, who is a proud progressive who fights for our values.
http://www.winningprogressive.org/joe-sestak-an-admiral-who-will-fight-for-progressive-values-in-the
-u-s-senate
it’s on now!!!
yes yes yes