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?
