What will a Democratic “victory” look like in November?
That’s a question I’ve been finding myself pondering lately, and as Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight notes, “victory” for Democrats could be defined using any number of criteria:
Obviously, there are some overly literal ways to interpret this question. One could say that so long as the Democrats lost any seats at all, it would still be a “loss”. Or, one could say that so long as they preserve their majorities by one seat, it would still be a “win”.
A better way to interpret this question might be: how many seats can the Democrats lose while still having the chance to advance the key components of their agenda? In the Senate, I have argued, the number is probably about 3, as a 56-seat Democratic majority would allow them to formulate a 60-seat Democratic + RINO coalition with Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Delaware’s Mike Castle. (If the Democrats become more willing to use the reconciliation procedure after their victory on health care, of course, the math become somewhat fuzzier.)
In the House, Silver has projected a net loss of seats for Democrats somewhere in a range of 15-55 seats, and he sees a 20-23 seat loss for Democrats as being a “victory:”
If the Democrats do not want their agenda to be substantially injured, then, they probably have an implicit goal of not losing more than about 20-23 House seats, and not more than about 3-4 Senate seats.
I’d have to agree with Nate Silver’s assessment that the Democrats can lose 20-23 seats in the House and 3-4 Senate seats and still consider the November midterm election a “victory,” but as I’ve noted in a previous entry, health care reform could end up being one of the key variables of the 2010 election cycle, along with the economy. If the economy continues to show signs of improvement and the health care reform legislation ends up being viewed by voters as a positive thing, Democrats could certainly see their losses in November lessened.
60 votes in some form shouldn’t be necessary for a “victory.” I assume a few Dem seats will be lost but Republicans insist on obstructing everything of any importance when there should be a little majority-rules-democracy.
I don’t blame them for using some tactics but I think things have gone too far.
You do realize it is Dem/Lib/Socialist policies since 2007 that are directly responsible for your chronic underemployment?
Unless you want to keep selling bathroom supplies the rest of your life, I suggest you rethink your political support.
I sling the occasional box of TP but mostly deal in hardware…interesting comment Mid Ground…
I’m allergic to trolls.
I forgot to ask, who signed those socialist policies into law in 2007 and 2008? What was that guys name again…
I’d consider a one-vote majority in both houses a victory. Plus, from the perspective of a politics watcher, and for purely entertainment purposes, it would be a kick to see how the blue dogs and rinos would be played with razor thin margins.
Jim, you raise a good point….it’d be great political theater to see Democrats try to do anything with a razor-thin majority.
Kind of sounds like the lowering of expectations has begun. However, given the trend is usually to lose seats and the current mood of things (bad economy, etc.), I would say it’s not a loss if for the most part they hold their own, meaning losing a few seats without it making a huge difference in the dynamic and makeup of the Congress. But if it ends up razor thing and GOP can swing enough conservative Dems their way now and again, I think that would lean toward a GOP victory.
I guess we’ll have to wait for the spinmeisters to tell us who was victorious. 🙂
As best as I can recall from when I studied these things, the HUGE factor in midterm elections is the state of the economy 6 months prior to the election. I can’t remember if this is actual or perceived, personal or national, but we’re still a month or two out from making the best prediction.
By the way, how do I get an avatar here?
gravatar