Likely Voters and Unlikely Scenarios

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...scenarios.html

Likely Voters and Unlikely Scenarios
by Nate Silver @ 6:07 PM

As I've been telling people all week here in Pittsburgh, there's ample reason for Democrats to be worried -- perhaps deeply so -- about 2010. Without major intervening events like 9/11, the party that wins the White House almost always loses seats at the midterm elections -- since World War II, an average of 17 seats in the House after the White House changes parties. Democrats have substantially more seats to defend than Republicans, particularly in the House. They appear to face a significant enthusiasm gap after having dominated virtually all close elections in 2006 and 2008. And the economy and health care are contingencies that could work either way, but which probably present more downside risk to Democrats than upside over the next 12-18 months, particularly if some version of health care reform fails to pass. While the Democrats are not extraordinary likely to lose the House, such an outcome is certainly well within the realm of possibility (I'd put the chance at somewhere between 1-in-4 and 1-in-3). The Senate picture is a bit brighter for them, but they are probably more likely now to lose seats in the chamber than to add to their majority, in spite of the spate of Republican retirements in Ohio, Missouri and other states. In a wave-type election, a net loss of as many as 4-6 seats is conceivable.

With all that said, I would reserve some healthy skepticism for polls that apply aggressive "likely voter" models to elections like the midterms that won't occur for another 16 months. In Pennsylvania, for example, Rasmussen now finds Arlen Specter a 12-point underdog to Pat Toomey among what they define as likely voters. Toomey also leads a more "generic" Democrat, Specter's primary rival Joe Sestak, by 8 points in Rasmussen's polling. By contrast, Research 2000, which in its polling for Daily Kos also uses a likely voter model (but evidently a less aggressive one), puts Specter 5 points ahead of Toomey and Sestak one point ahead of the Republican. These numbers represent big downward shifts for the Democrats, particularly in Specter's case, since Research 2000 last polled the race in May. But obviously, there is a big difference between Specter's -12 number under Rasmussen's likely voter model and his +5 under Research 2000's.

We can learn a little bit about these likely voter models by evaluating other polls that these firms conduct. Rasmussen's likely voter universe, for instance, trusts Republicans more not just on hot-button issues like the economy and health care, but also on traditional Democratic strengths like Social Security (by 4 points) and education (by 3 points).

If the electorate that goes to the polls next November is in fact one which trusts Republicans more than Democrats on education and social security, then Democrats will lose the Senate seat in Pennsylvania and undoubtedly almost every other competitive race -- it will be really, really ugly for them. But I just have a little bit of trouble accepting that as a likely scenario. In 2004 exit polling, voters who listed education as their top priority went to John Kerry over George W. Bush by a 3:1 margin. As of pre-Katrina 2005, when Social Security was being polled frequently in what was not a particularly great time for the Democratic party, Democrats led Republicans by an average of about 15 points on the issue -- and that was long before the market collapse that would seem to have undermined Republicans' calls to partially privatize the system.

Is it possible that the electorate which is voting in November 2010 will be so down on the Democrats that they trust Republicans more on issues like these? Sure, it is possible -- if the enthusiasm gap is wide enough, if Obama's approval is low enough, if the health care debate has been bungled enough, and if the economy is still hemorrhaging jobs. But I'd consider it something of a worst-case scenario. That's probably the best way to regard these Rasmussen polls for the time being.

[Aratus]

BIDEN runs the risk of both the HOUSE and SENATE flipping. In places, things are very tight.
WHAT FLIPS OR DOESN'T FLIP IN 2022 COULD FLIP IN 2024 or 2026 or 2028. LAST HURRAH.
FRANK SKEFFINGTON. THE END OF AN ERA. https://www.nytimes.com/1958/10/26/a...go-into-a.html

[Aratus]

DONALD TRUMP and JOE BIDEN are not young men. Both major parties have politicians
in their 30s and 40s who will seek to position themselves in order to secure a consensus...

[Aratus]

https://www.nytimes.com/1958/10/24/a...john-ford.html

NOW that all key districts have been heard from, including Hollywood, it is safe to expect that Edwin O'Connor's highly touted political character, Skeffington, will repeat in an overwhelming landslide as the People's Choice this year.For John Ford and Spencer Tracy, who have engineered his campaign on the Coast with their motion-picture version of Mr. O'Connor's tub-thumping "The Last Hurrah," have delivered a smashing majority for the Irish-American political boss. And if this doesn't sweep him into office, there's no justice in a stuffed ballot box.Under Mr. Ford's fine direction of a script Frank Nugent prepared from Mr. O'Connor's novel (with an addition of some of his own bright Irish wit), the last political campaign of the old boy—and the last few weeks of his passage through this vale—are rendered robustly amusing and deeply touching. And Mr. Tracy is at his best in the leading role.Needless to say, in the light of the wide circulation of the book, there is nothing especially mystifying about this character Skeffington. He is a tough, sentimental politician of the old professional school who believes in the survival of the fittest—and let's not have any argument about who that is. He stands for good government (within reason) and bases his skill on "the deal"—or what, in more polite language, is known as "compromise."This is the fascinating fellow whom Mr. Tracy, and Mr. Ford, bring to full view in this picture, which opened at the Roxy yesterday.With an evident affection for his subject amounting to sheer idolatry, Mr. Ford has put together a pungent pageant that gives all the breaks to Skeffington. When his hero recruits his young nephew to watch him through a mayoralty campaign, he easily convinces the young fellow—and perhaps the audience—that it's all a big game. When he graciously rides herd on his henchmen in a smoke-filled room or at a wake, it appears, from his genial behavior, that he is nothing but noble and good. And when he browbeats a group of stuffy Brahmins in their highly exclusive club, it sounds as if everybody is out of step but himself, Skeffington.Indeed, Mr. Ford (and Mr. Nugent) are so kind to him in this film that one searches in vain for a reason why anyone should think him a rogue. Much more evil and villainous in their manners are the anti-Skeffingtons—Basil Rathbone as a big-city banker and John Carradine as an editor. And his opponent in the mayoralty campaign—a role played by Charles Fitzsimmons—is made such a farcical nitwit that one is shocked and bewildered when he wins. Why should the movie audience be so much more perceptive than the electorate?But these things, and also an unconscionably long-drawn and liturgical death-bed scene, are balanced by the sly charm of the hero and the ebullience of his pals. Edward Brophy as a dopey idolater, Pat O'Brien as a sane strategist, James Gleason as a fast finagler and Ricardo Cortez as the guardian of the "Jewish vote" make things as merry for the audience as they do for Skeffington. Jeffrey Hunter is wholesome as the nephew, Dianne Foster is bouncy as his wife and Donald Crisp is authoritarian as a Catholic cardinal, Wallace Ford, Frank McHugh, Jane Darwell and Anna Lee are good in Irish roles.Maybe this is a sentimental and one-sided picture of a political boss, but there are things worse than having an opportunity for a good cry into a figurative bucket of beer. And that's what you get from this picture—that and a lot of laughs.