Ballgazing

All the polls seem to indicate substantial wins for the Democrats in a couple of weeks but, to be honest, I just can't bring myself to believe it'll happen. Republicans, for those few cycles when I've really been paying attention, have always won. What's more, I feel like things have always looked good for the Democrats in October. Do I have any real basis for this pessimism? Well, no, on some level I don't. But I do keep coming back to the money gap. The turnout models that are used for midterm elections -- especially for House races -- involve an awful lot of imprecision and guesswork. This years' GOP ground game is, by all accounts, the superior of the two. And when you combine that with boatloads of cash that can be deployed during the final weeks, well, let's just say it continues to make me unconfident.

Be all that as it may, there's a clear psychological advantage to pessimism. If Democrats beat my expectations and do win, then I'll be very happy with that. If they lose, however, that's something I've already resigned myself to and at least I'll be able to get some "I told ya so"s in.

Comments

i have no idea why you think "things" have "always" looked good for dems in october. the last october i can remember "things" looking good for dems was '96 (although the dems did well in '98, i can't say that in the face of anti-clinton hysteria, "things" looked good).

that said, yes, i'd say pessimism is warranted because the money gap is real. i'm thinking there's a 50-50 chance to win the house and next to no chance to win the senate....

Posted by howard | October 17, 2006 12:43 AM

Ah, but Americans hate pessimism, which is why your side keeps losing.

Posted by Pithlord | October 17, 2006 12:47 AM

Speaking of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, how about those Cardinals?

Posted by StJoe | October 17, 2006 12:54 AM

"All the polls seem to indicate substantial wins for the Democrats in a couple of weeks but, to be honest, I just can't bring myself to believe it'll happen."

Sadly, I have to agree.

I think the biggest impediment to a clean Democratic victory (as in taking back one or both houses of Congress) is turnout. Those Democratic bumps in party ID are to a significant degree among people who don't come out for midterm elections, namely Independents. In some cases the problem in cluelessness (most notably on the issue of immigration), and in others it is spinelessness (especially on economic issues, and the insecurity of middle and working class people). And in any number of other cases it's simply third-rate candidates.

I think Ford wins, and Webb loses (which is more or less what I have thought for the start). I think Tester wins, and I'm surprised to see Brown pulling ahead (Ohio really is a swing state, isn't it?). I don't follow individual House races too closely, but my sense is that there may some Democratic pickups and not enough to recapture it.

Posted by Linus | October 17, 2006 1:21 AM

PS I'm firing my editor.

Posted by Linus | October 17, 2006 1:23 AM

I feel exactly the same way, although for me it's just an extension of my own case of the Charlie Browns. Things just don't go my way. It's like the song "Grandma's Cootie" by Radon, "Ain't that the way it is? When you get your head above water...someone pisses on your head, and kicks you back under".

Started with sports: Chargers, Padres, Kings, and has now has taken over my political life.

I have a sinking feeling I will wake up to election results and have to say "I got a rock." This is only based on my personal bad luck, so I apologize to everyone in advance for losing the election.

Posted by xjerryx | October 17, 2006 1:27 AM

"Ah, but Americans hate pessimism, which is why your side keeps losing."

Yeah, if only Republicans didn't subscribe to that uplifting and eternally optimistic Straussian nihilist cynicism! The hope! The can-do spirit! Woe is us. The bitter pill of progressive pessimism will never taste so sweet.

Posted by DMonteith | October 17, 2006 1:27 AM

The GOP did in fact steal the presidency, twice, and the GOP is in fact right now actively working to steal the 2006 Elections. A "do everything" Republican assault on democracy used intimidation, fraud, vote theft, computer rigging, machine distribution manipulation, a fake Homeland security alert, trashing of provisional ballots, denial of a recount and dozens more "dirty tricks" to produce a 118,775 "official" margin for Bush that was an utter fiction. Exit polls in nine swing states showed Kerry a clear winner as late as 12:21 am on election night. Nationwide exit polls showed him with a 1.5 million vote margin in the popular vote. But somehow, against all statistical probability, Bush wound up with a popular vote victory of nearly 3.5 million. And somehow, against all statistical probability, he carried Ohio and three other states (Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico) where he had been the clear loser in the exit polls. Ohio alone was sufficient to give him a second term, just as Florida had been in 2000. Such an outcome is beyond implausible - unless you saw how the Rove-Blackwell machine stole the vote. The tactics the GOP perfected in Ohio 2004 are now being used in 2006 and honed for re-use in 2008. Neither the Mainstream Media or the core of the Democratic Party has been willing to face the reality that unless our entire election system immediately gets a total top-to-bottom revamp by an informed public willing to deal with the systematic poisoning of American democracy, there will be no honest elections in the US in 2006 or in 2008.

Posted by HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS | October 17, 2006 1:53 AM

I'm feeling good about this one. I look at Chuck Todd's list of the top 60 races, and after looking at the polls I'm pretty confident that Democrats will win the top 10. Then they just need 5 more, which shouldn't be an especially tall order. You have to get to 31 before you find a Democratic seat in play.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | October 17, 2006 3:27 AM

but, to be honest, I just can't bring myself to believe it'll happen.

Good plan. It seems like the D's have been patting themselves on the back since January (at least) for winning the election of 2006. Always a bad sign.

Republicans, for those few cycles when I've really been paying attention, have always won. What's more, I feel like things have always looked good for the Democrats in October.

I agree with this. 2004, at the beginning of October, Kerry was moving ahead. 2002 the D's were convinced they could with by ignoring security and emphasizing the economy; the polls said so! Al Gore was gonna win! (And who can forget the shock of losing in 1994?)

Do I have any real basis for this pessimism? Well, no, on some level I don't. But I do keep coming back to the money gap. The turnout models that are used for midterm elections -- especially for House races -- involve an awful lot of imprecision and guesswork.

That's another way of saying 'often wrong'.

This years' GOP ground game is, by all accounts, the superior of the two. And when you combine that with boatloads of cash that can be deployed during the final weeks, well, let's just say it continues to make me unconfident.

Again, rightly so. D's are the challengers, they're behind in money and on the ground. And the R's are about to deploy two issues: Iran and immigration. In the former case, they sent a carrier and are hoping the Iranians will be provoked into saying something stupid. In the latter case, neither party commanded public, but the R's have (apparently) shifted to the side of public opinion while the D's remain opposed to it. (Immigration has an effect like crime did in the 70's and 80's. It's just Not Popular. The D solution in both cases was Do Nothing, which leaves a big hole for the R's.)

The real problem is, is that on the issue that can really move people, the one where the R's are on the wrong side of public opinion, Iraq, the D establishment's slogan is: 'We can fuck it up better! It won't be as bad!' In fact, that's the security policy as well, as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, the D's are trying to work torture, which doesn't play well for various reasons, not least of which is hypocrisy.

Be all that as it may, there's a clear psychological advantage to pessimism. If Democrats beat my expectations and do win, then I'll be very happy with that. If they lose, however, that's something I've already resigned myself to and at least I'll be able to get some "I told ya so"s in.

The real advantage to pessimism in this situation is to provides an incentive to work your ass off. 'We can maybe win if we work really really hard and hope and pray.' Also, it's an excellent mechanism for discipline. Unfortunately, those are long gone out the window.

But I'm still on the table where I was on Drum's blog last January: D's pick up 2 Senate seats, lose five house seats. (Last January, remember, not last month.)

They might go five positive in the house. Whoopie. 1986, 1978.

max
['If I'm correct, would this go into the History's Greatest Tanks Book?']

Posted by max | October 17, 2006 4:59 AM

I agree with your sentiments. Early in the day on the last two Presidential elections, I believed we would win.

I also thought Howard Dean was inevitable...

Posted by theCoach | October 17, 2006 5:34 AM

I would settle for strong gains just short of control. We are set for two disastrous and humiliating years in Iraq, Iran, probably North Korea. The Republicans should take 100% of the blame.

Posted by bob h | October 17, 2006 7:04 AM

I'm confident of Democratic gains in this election; whether they'll gain control is the issue, of course, and that's the part about which I'm biting nails. On the plus side, the Iowa Electronic Markets are now betting overwhelmingly for the Dems to take the House, after seesawing between that and a Republican hold since June; they're still down on the Senate, but those prospects are improving for us, too.

Posted by David | October 17, 2006 8:12 AM

Republicans=Chicago Bears
Democrats=Arizona Cardinals
October 16th>November 7th=4th quarter '06 midterms

Posted by steve duncan | October 17, 2006 8:15 AM

Eh, I think the Republicans right now sound like Jerome Armstrong in 2002 and 2004. "You're undersampling Republicans! We're going to beat them on turnout!" So I'm with Neil, I think the Democrats pick up in both houses, the question is it is enough to tip the balance. Losing seats looks damn near impossible.

The worry is a November surprise; will executing Saddam the day before the election make everyone feel good about Iraq? Will ramping up against Iran do it? Will Osama come through one last time? But now that the Republicans look like losers, the media may be less likely to relay their story line, and that would be an important part of any late shenanigans.

Posted by Matt Weiner | October 17, 2006 8:15 AM

I have to agree, Matthew. Anyone with a conscience and the ability to be objective can see how the Republicans have ruined America on their watch. Those same people who can see these realities also know and have witnessed the machinations of the Republicans with respect to voting fraud and disinformation, and the resulting losses for Democrats and others. The Republicans are stealing America with each vote, and will stop at nothing to keep their arms elbow-deep in the cookie jar of America's greatness, wealth, and power. Power is what it's all about for them.

Posted by Terraformer | October 17, 2006 9:16 AM

American elections have been going on for two centuries. We've seen machines that would put Karl Rove to shame in Texas, New York, Illinois, etc. If it was possible to reliably win national elections despite massive unpopularity, we would have heard about it by now.

Do not confuse Republican spirit-raising propoganda with actual analysis. Politicians are generally as groping in the dark or information about election outcomes as we are.

Lastly, I agree that it would be POLITICALLY better for the Democrats if they fell just short of taking both chambers in terms of 2008 prospects, I also feel it would mean 2 more years of serious damage to the country. I feel no need to cut off my party's nose to spite my country's face.

PS: Iowa Electronic Markets are bull and in their history have done nothing but reflect the conventional wisdom of the day. The only thing they are useful for is if you had access to a David Broder column a day early you should buy all the shares he recommends.

Posted by Tony v | October 17, 2006 9:26 AM

Dear Matt: As an admirer of your work, it saddens me to say that your post and most of the comments above mine reflect the number one reason why it's tough to be a Democrat.
There's no polite way to say this: It's hard to play on a team when so many of your mates are a bunch of f@*&!ing p*&$@#ies. Oh, we're going to lose. Oh, that Karl Rove is so smart and mean. Oh, the Republicans have more money than we do (a fact that was just as true when the Democrats won almost every election from 1932-68O). Oh, Diebold. Oh, boo hoo hoo. Better not get my hopes up, because after all, not experiencing disappointment is what politics is all about.
Win or lose, that's a disgusting attirude. It's also one that insures you'll lose many more times than you win. Many folks in the blogosphere rightly condemn Democratic officeholders in Washington for excessive timidity in the face of the Republicans. Then they go out and express the very same sentiment. Unbelievable.

Posted by JMG | October 17, 2006 9:40 AM

The Democrats are trying to steal this election!!! Yesterday I drove past the polling place and saw armed Progressives with signs that read "Democratic Voters Only!" I know I am being disenfranchised but I am scared to call the police or FBI. I called the major news outlets but they informed me that they only respond to Democratic charges of voter intimidation. THen I tried to call Karl Rove but members of the elite Hollywood left cut my phone lines before I could. Now Progressives in colorful knit caps are leaving threatening cups of organic half/caff mochaccinos on my front door step! Where is Barry Goldwater when we need him the most?

Posted by The Disenfranchised Right | October 17, 2006 9:53 AM

I actually agree with Matt, though from the opposite side. In spite of the polls, I still kinda feel (yes, I know, 'feel') that the Republicans will do ok. Primarily because I don' trust the polls, I know that the MSM overpolls democrats by an enormous amount (often 10%, when the two parties are about split 40-40-, with around 20 independent), and the MSM is so grossly biased that they will spin anything to encourage a Democratic victory.
The polls are like the movie reviews for Amistad-Amistad was so clearly the 'right' movie to be a masterpiece, when the critics claimed it was merely ok, or good but flawed, I assumed (correctly) that it was crap-no movie reviewer would be honest about Amistad.
Similarly with the elections. MSM is so clearly desperate for Democratic wins, when they predict close races, or a near split in the house, or a 'tough struggle for the Senate,' I know I can relax. The Republicans will pull it out. Thanks be to Jesus!

Sk

Posted by Sk | October 17, 2006 10:04 AM

JMG -- I'm with you. What the hell is it with all these people expect us to lose without any real evidence of such a thing? It's no better than those who expected us to win in 2004 with very little evidence that that could happen. I mean really, how many deconstructions of the poor methodology of polls did we suffer through from bloggers in 2004? Far too many to count. Even Josh Marshall got into the game. We were losing then and we are winning now. Get used to it. Perhaps I can chalk all this up to a form of post-traumatic stress, remembering all the painful losses in recent years. But there are THREE WEEKS left and I wish people, esp those like Yglesias, would snap out of it.

Posted by cms | October 17, 2006 10:13 AM

Me: I think the Republicans right now sound like Jerome Armstrong in 2002 and 2004. "You're undersampling Republicans! We're going to beat them on turnout!"

Sk: Primarily because I don' trust the polls, I know that the MSM overpolls democrats by an enormous amount (often 10%, when the two parties are about split 40-40-, with around 20 independent), and the MSM is so grossly biased that they will spin anything to encourage a Democratic victory.

I win.

Posted by Matt Weiner | October 17, 2006 10:35 AM

What's more, I feel like things have always looked good for the Democrats in October.

Maybe you should have tried to get out of the cocoon... You know, just because the NYTimes and WaPo and DKos and MyDD and John Zogby say everything is looking hunky-dory for Democrats don't mean it's necessarily so...

As to Matt Weiner's comment that it is now Republicans who are cocooning... HUH? Can you show me any Republican, other than Ken Mehlman, that thinks we are definately going to hold on to power??? If anything, Republicans are far more pessimistic about their chances than people like Matthew are. Hell, Reynolds is already doing a pre-mortem for the GOP's debacle!

Posted by Al | October 17, 2006 10:51 AM

Al, good point; I should have said "The Republicans who are arguing that they aren't going to lose sound like...." The point being, even what optimism there is seems pretty groundless. Though Joyner makes a good point (somewhere) that Republicans have more cash; OTOH it doesn't seem like GOP spending has helped much yet.

Posted by Matt Weiner | October 17, 2006 11:11 AM

It's funny how different people's expectations are. I almost always assume that the Democrats are going to win. That's based on my own political experience, where the Democrats won in 1986, 1990, 1992, 1996, 1998, and even in 2000 (where, besides doing better than the GOP in Congress, Gore almost pulled out a come-from-behind win over Bush). The set of elections that are good for Republicans, in my experience, were only 1988, 1994, 2002 and 2004.

Posted by Al | October 17, 2006 11:41 AM

Here is the problem facing the Democrats. While as a nation people are tired of the current Congress, approval ratings in the 30s and 20s in the local, individual elections, people are more than happy with the incumbent. 60% of people polled approve of their Congressman.

If you look at the New York Times map of the election, you will see that things are not as rosie for the Democrats as the media has been saying.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/2006ELECTIONGUIDE.html?currentDataSet=senANALYSIS

Democrats will for sure not take over the Senate and if they gain the House it will be by less than 10 seats. This will a complete disaster for both parties since neither party will have a clear majority to get any legislation through.

Posted by cj | October 17, 2006 12:36 PM

The biggest reason for pessimism is that the Democrats can't rely upon themselves to win ANYTHING. A win will come because of disenchanted Republicans and Independents.

Frankly, the Democratic party sucks big time. If this country didn't need an opposition with a prayer of making a difference, and at least SOME non-Democrats believe that, the Democrats would be doomed to at least another 2 years of wilderness. And deservedly so.

Jake

Posted by Jake - but not the one | October 17, 2006 12:52 PM

Count the Paper Ballots has a good point. Electoral fraud and voter intimidation have to be considered elemente in this contest, and recent history indicates they will favor the Republicans.

Posted by Kyle | October 17, 2006 1:00 PM

You know, I am sick and tired of Democrats and Liberals crying about election fraud. Democrats created it and have perfected election fraud.

Go to a city like Chicago were people are still being intimidated to vote Democrat. Where the day after election day, after votes have been counted, boxes of ballots that went for the Republicans are found in the basements of black churches. In cities like Chicago, Seattle, Detroit, San Fran, etc Democrats are so involved in politics that they vote from their graves.

Typical of Democrats and Liberals to blame Republicans of what they have done for over a century.

Posted by CJ | October 17, 2006 1:18 PM

Exit polls are famously inaccurate, so huge differences between their result (say, a Democratic blow out) and the the election result (a marginal Republican win) will be discounted.

Posted by MDtoMN | October 17, 2006 1:32 PM

Also, certainly 2004 showed the Democrats up at this point. That was a result of the debates. The Republicans were leading into September, and then after every debate (where the voters got to see the two candidates relatively unfiltered and substantively), the Democrats lead for about a week. And then that lead would disappear.

One nice thing - in Senate races, the candidates are often expected to debate up until the actual election. So, we might retain a lead (while the debate difference doesn't hold the way it did for Bush & Kerry, this years news will make debates difficult for Republicans).

Posted by MDtoMN | October 17, 2006 1:35 PM

If anything, Republicans are far more pessimistic about their chances than people like Matthew are. Hell, Reynolds is already doing a pre-mortem for the GOP's debacle!

But I thought Reynolds was a an independent libertarian, not some kind of Republican apologist. If only there'd been some way to know.

Posted by MattT | October 17, 2006 1:43 PM

Matt, Regardless of whether the Dems win or lose, this is just very naive psychology: "If they lose, however, that's something I've already resigned myself to and at least I'll be able to get some "I told ya so"s in."

If resignation were so easy, the human being would be a much happier creature. But, alas, confronting an event you are resigned to before it happens often shows -- that you weren't resigned to it at all. In fact, surprisingly enough, you are bitterly disappointed.

If this is the case -- if you haven't mastered the seven degrees of intense yogic concentration -- then I'd give up on the faux resignation and make yourself vulnerable to bitter disappointment. Yeah team and all that.

Posted by roger | October 17, 2006 2:45 PM

And if you are truly resigned -- if you make the movement of infinite resignation -- then you won't be able to take any solace in the victories when they do happen. You will have already abandoned renounced Democratic majorities in the real world for the idea of democratic majorities. Hardest of all is to at once make the movement of infinite resignation and the movement of faith, who has renounced the Democratic majority but who also claims the Democratic majority on the strength of the absurd. Of course, it is impossible to tell him from any other blogger.

Posted by Matt Weiner | October 17, 2006 3:29 PM

Do you think Kirkegaard would have voted Democratic? Or would he have been all exercised about the whole gay marriage thing?

Posted by MQ | October 17, 2006 6:24 PM

Your perception of the 2002 and 2004 elections isn't correct, Matt. The Democrats had a small advantage on things like the generic ballot at certain points (like 46 to 44) and I think there was polling that suggested they would win a Colorado Senate seat they lost. Most of the Senate seats they lost were not surprising - although polling suggested things could have gone either way. Carnaghan was frequently behind in Missouri, as was Cleland in Georgia. After Wellstone died in MN, Mondale trailed Coleman. Also, Bush - approvals in the 60s - was much more popular then - a GOP plus. 9/11 was much fresher in the memory. Iraq hadn't happened.

In 2004, John Kerry was trailing Bush by 7 to 10 points in September. He caught up to Bush in October but was still very rarely ahead. Right before the election, polls had Bush ahead like 48 to 46. He typically trailed in polls like WaPo/ABC tracker, Gallup throughout the ENTIRE campaign. I don't remember much about the generic ballot, but I think it was something like in 2002 with sometimes small Democratic leads and sometimes small Republican leads. Along the lines of 48 to 46 or 47 to 44 one way or the other. Bush's approval was in a range between about 46 to 53% approve. As to specific races, the Democrats trailed throughout the campaign in seats that were thought potentially competitive like Oklahoma, Pennsylvania (Specter vs Hoeffel), South Carolina (Fritz Hollins, D, retiring). Georgia was never competitive (Z Miller, quasi D, retiring). Florida was neck and neck (Bob Graham, D, retiring). Dems had a lead in N Carolina (Edwards's seat) that they lost, although I don't remember if this was apparent before the actual election. Finally, the Dems had hopes to hold Louisiana (although GOP candidate John (?) led through the whole race - the only thing that was surprising was that he won without a run-off). In Colorado, Dem Salazar won retiring GOP senator Nighthorse Campbell's seat. I remember there was some hope for Tony Knowles in Alaska, and he was competitive, although he ended up losing.

I think your perception is shaped more by over-optimistic spinning at the time but then by the actual reality as it existed. While the GOP essentially "won" both elections on aggregate, this outcome looked quite probable before hand. Even if Dems also could look at pre-election data and conceivably argue that things would break their way too - they just didn't.

Posted by Ben P | October 17, 2006 6:41 PM

Actually, having just checked, the Democratic candidate for NC senate Erskine Bowles was actually trailing by about 5% right before the 2004 election.

Funny, the pollsters had Florida neck and neck at the Presidential level (Bush won 52 to 47), but Bush up by like 5% in Ohio (he only won 51 to 49).

The upshot is basically any poll that showed a close race with a GOP lead went GOP (at least in '02 and '04) and anything where the poll results were mixed - ie about half showing a GOP lead, half showing a Democratic lead went GOP. That was how I remembered it - wherever the polling showed doubt, things broke the GOP direction. Otherwise, results reflected polls before hand and people were spinning - on the Dem side - small GOP leads as potential Dem victories and (more plausibly) expecting/hoping the 50/50 seats would break disproportionately to the Dems (they didn't - in fact the opposite).

Posted by Ben P | October 17, 2006 7:00 PM

Do you think Kirkegaard would have voted Democratic?

As best as I can tell, Johannes de Silentio was a Nader voter.

Posted by Matt Weiner | October 17, 2006 9:33 PM