Okay, so Stu Rothenberg just downgraded the Democrats’ chances of winning the 2014 Senate races in Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, West Virginia, and South Dakota. Why?
While national polls haven’t shown a shift in the public’s opinion of President Barack Obama’s performance, recent controversies have, in my view, significantly changed the political landscape.
Basically, he thinks that these scandals will dog the president from now until next November and they will whip the Republicans into a frothy frenzy.
I think there is something to what he’s arguing, but this is the kind of analysis that he uses to change the rating in six races? This far out, we don’t have much to go on other than challenger/recruit quality, past performance, and the red or blueness of the states. We only have a good idea who the Republican candidate will be in West Virginia and South Dakota, and that is assuming tea baggers don’t reject strong candidates in favor of witches and fans of rape babies.
I guess Rothenberg was basing his previous analysis on the kind of desultory hopelessness of the current Republican Party, so any sign of enthusiasm on their side warrants a reassessment of the whole political landscape. Still, when the immediate reaction of the public to these so-called scandals is to give the president a slight uptick in approval, I don’t think it’s safe to say that this bullshit is resonating even in red states.
And, as long we’re basing our analysis so heavily on our ability to predict the future mood of the country, what about the Dow Jones Index being at an all-time high, or the short-term deficit looking much better, or the likelihood that the Republicans will push these scandals past the breaking point of most moderates while refusing to honor our country’s debts and shutting down the national parks?
I mean if we are crystal ball watching now, Republican enthusiasm is only one piece of the puzzle, right?
I agree these scandals will dog Obama until election day 2014 – it’s extremely obviously that the Gullible Old Party financiers have decided to re-adopt the 1990s all-scandal-all-the-time strategy after their racist-based strategy failed in the 2012 elections. And it’s also obvious that the Washington media is eager and willing to play along.
What I’m not sure about is whether this will have any effect. The Gullible racists were already whipped into a froth – in fact they already believed much worst about Obama than these scandals. The question is whether the low info voter might be swayed one way or another. Hard to say, especially with mid-terms.
One thing I am happy to see is that Obama’s organization OFA seems to have learned from the mistake of 2009-2010 and has already been beating the drums of their huge email base in prep for 2014. I’m sure Rothenburg hasn’t even counted on that.
Oh … and the implication of Boo’s post is right on … Rothenburg, like Cook and most of the supposely non-partisan political watchers is basically rooting for the GOP.
Was it Stu, or Charlie, that was giving the GOP rat-fu-king advice last week?
Charlie.
Cheri Bustos makes the baby Jesus cry.
It’ll be interesting to see how the WH fights back. I think there’s a narrative to be made of how the Republicans are trying to distract from some economic progress that’s being made. Its not quite “morning in America” but I think there’s a limit to tolerance of the negativity and constant nay-saying that they have to offer.
The debt has basically been stabilized and yet the Republicans will threaten our standing through gamesmanship with the debt limit. It’s time to make them pay for their economic treason.
Good point on the economic front. Tons of anecdotal evidence is suggesting the economy is picking up at a decent pace despite the sequester. That will definitely affect the 2014 elections.
Last summer I was seeing that Silicon Valley, almost always a leading indicator, was showing all the signs of a pre-boom, and today we’re seeing even more of the same.
In the Colorado Springs area, which was hit worse than most places, all the local contractors are suddenly the busiest they’ve been since 2007. The Springs economy is/was driven by: 1) military spending, 2) housing boom, 3) religious conservative charities (well over 100 substantial such beasts, led by Focus) – then, way down the list, 4) tourism, 5) retirees, 6) what’s left of the high tech industry after the religious nuts scared most of it away, and 7) the olympics-related groups.
(1) stayed steady – and of course the sequester hasn’t really hit the overspending military as hard as they pretend, but (2) crashed severely – there’s a reason why I call them the Gullible Old Party and in this case the religious and military conservatives in the area fell for the teaser rate mortgages harder than most – mostly in undesirable cheap homes with long commutes leading us to one of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation, and (3) was hit really badly in the crash as charity contributions are the first things most people cut.
So, seeing the economy pick up in the Springs means that there must be general momentum from elsewhere spilling over, since none of the key drivers has been seeing any local improvement.
“Republican enthusiasm is only one piece of the puzzle, right?”
And the easiest one. These scandals, or ‘scandals’ will work just fine, but so would birtherism or saving-medicare-from-Democrats or finding bigfoot. A sudden eruption of wild-eyed Republican enthusiasm is the least surprising occurrence in politics.
This is the equivalent of predicting the next Super Bowl champion two weeks after the previous season’s end, before the draft, free agency, trades, injuries and coaching have had their effects.
Rothenberg’s desperate for attention. I don’t care. His predictions are completely irrelevant.
This is what this guy said about an election four days away, with mountains of data at his disposal. Why am I supposed to care about what he says about elections a year and a half away, with only bird entrails and a magic eight ball to guide him?
2012.
why won’t ‘scandals’ made from bullshyt and lies excite with rage – the Dem base?
The whole thing comes down to turnout in 2014 and the vulnerability of the left is that we fight each other instead of keeping focused on what matters.
We have Rep’s giving Obama great praise over the handling of this tornado, hurricane season to come and then 3 more years of those seasons. Each time the Rep praise comes, the understanding deepens that he is a president who gets the job done and the polls will show the trust steady. Hah! I’m stickin with my story Stu. Dems are the ones who get stuff done.
The equivalent of it is so because he says it’s so. Nonanalysis would be the term.
How’d that whole Whitewater thing work out?
What did Stu Rothenberg think about the 1998 midterms in the spring of ’97?
The assumption does seem to be that everyone else is fixated on the same things that Stu Rothenberg is. There are in fact other things going on in the universe besides these pseudo-scandals. There was, for instance, the total failure to do anything about gun control, and there’s no doubt which party is responsible for that. That’s kind of off the radar right now, but it’s depressingly likely that there will be at least one more shooting rampage before November 2014.
Midsummer or early fall is the earliest any outline about midterm elections over a year away begin to take shape and much can happen that interferes with that outline. Before then might as well Magic Eight ball.
“Republican enthusiasm” overlooks the GOP’s demographic problem. Their base is literally dying off while younger voters are increasingly more liberal. Someone said today’s GOP reminds them of a bunch of old white guys yelling collectively “Get off my lawn”.