I wish every pollster and statistician in the public eye were this honest:
Sometimes, however, a thorough and objective analysis of the data leads one to the opposite conclusion: that the competition is too sure of itself. Our model figures there is a very wide range of potential outcomes because that is the only responsible forecast. We’re not being meek or wishy-wishy: instead, we are firmly, boldly, affirmatively and happily embracing the uncertainty. This is not because of any intrinsic property of our forecasting model; rather, it is because of the particular set of circumstances on the ground this year.
If anything, I worry that our model implies too little uncertainty. Generally speaking, forecasting models based on past data tend to overrate their accuracy when applied to out-of-sample data, although I design my models with this principle in mind to try to minimize such effects.
So, if you force it to pick an number, our model projects a Republican gain of about 48 seats (that projection could change, of course, by Election Day). But because of the high amount of uncertainty intrinsic to the forecast, I couldn’t really take any great dispute with a model that made a “best guess” of 56 seats, or 37 seats, instead.
Obviously, the GOP will pick up seats. But this may not be a bloodbath after all.
Moses2317
I hate to sound like a broken record, but the way we make sure that uncertainty breaks in our favor is for us all to get out there and canvass, phonebank, write letters to newspaper editors, and talk to our friends, family, and neighbors about how Democrats have fought for them and Republicans want to fight for billionaires and corporate interests.
Let’s get out there and keep our Democratic majorities.
Winning Progressive
Menzies
That is the greatest gift Nate Silver has given us – a look into exactly how pollsters do their business and an admission that polls aren’t the be-all and end-all.
I still get annoyed, because his forecast looks horrifying for my (current) side, but he’s quite honest about what he does. Hard not to appreciate that.
His commentariat, on the other hand . . .
sherifffruitfly
Less scoreboard-staring, more nitty-gritty work getting out the vote, touting accomplishments, etc.
El Cid
I’m crossing my fingers, but if Democrats do happen to keep both houses, I promise to torture some right wingers I know and on the radio.
Martin
I’ll keep repeating this:
Generic ballots disfavor the incumbent. Their name recognition and actual accomplishments are lost in that kind of ballot. Since Democrats have so many incumbents, they’re going to be disfavored in House polling.
Named ballots favor the incumbent for the same reasons. Democrats should be underperforming the Senate polls (not good) and overperforming the House poll.
The other polling trend, which we might have seen briefly but then it vanished, is that Democrats are favored by people that come late to the game on elections. Democrats should get somewhat stronger in these remaining weeks. How much is hard to say, though.
gbear
The polling is in: I can, without reservation, state that the outcome in my household shall be no votes for republican affiliated candidates, and one vote for every democratic affiliated candidate. Bar death, hospitalization or incarceration, I will guarantee this outcome.
The Dangerman
CA absentee completed yesterday; voted against Whitman and for Cannabis. Then had a drink. Good day.
ruemara
If we gotv, we win. It’s pretty damn simple. Conservatives win because the American Electorate DOES. NOT. VOTE. They are clueless, ignorant, lazy and won’t vote. When they get even a 10th of the facts and hike their butts to the booths, we get more progressive policies. Pollsters look at numbers of likely voters, these skew conservative and older. If younger voters get out there and people who tend not to vote in midterms, we win. I think I’m lucky, I don’t know any unmotivated young people, but I know they’re out there.
Corner Stone
@El Cid: I’ve got a lunch bet with one of my wingnut friends that D’s hold the House.
I told him it will be a cheap date because I’d provide the sweet trash talking dessert for free.
We freakin better hold. Crazy ass crazy town.
quaint irene
Two little words. Absentee ballot.
Only local elections here in New Jersey, but I still sent away for the form….just in case.
General Stuck
The “get government out of my medicare” fractured fairy tales election. I have no clue what will happen E day.
gbear
@quaint irene:
I like going to vote in person. I enjoy running into my neighbors there so it’s a fun thing to do. We still use paper ballots here so there’s no concerns about the machinery. MN really does have it’s shit together when it comes to elections.
bk
Big tits. Another SASQ installment.
bk
@bk:
Wrong thread!
Moses2317
Also, too, while I liked the recent video about how if we don’t vote, everyone loses, I think a more compelling theme for us in these final weeks of the elections is “When Progressives Vote, Everyone Wins.”
gbear
@bk:
Actually, it was an acceptable response to every thread on BJ.
Corner Stone
@gbear: Co-sign?
Ross Hershberger
Been saying it all along. Reading polls for this race is like reading the newspaper from a satellite. Too little resolution to get any usable data.
JPL
hahaha.. I just got a call from the Rep hall of fame wondering who I would support in 2012… For Huckabee press 1, Gingrich, Pence, Romney, and Obama. After pressing the appropriate code for Obama they gave me a number to call to remove me from their list. I’m sure they did this for all the answers, yeah right.
What no Sarah?
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
Ahem. I’ve been calling “no bloodbath” for some time now.
But does anyone listen to ellaesther? Nooooo….
Oliver
“…this may not be a bloodbath after all.”
Guess again.
D0n Camillo
@The Dangerman:
You done already? I’m still googling all the state and city (SF) propositions. I love living in a state that allows mail in ballots no questions asked. That’s one thing California does right.
demkat620
Well, I have everything crossed. Especially here in PA07. Would love to see Lentz hold Sestak’s seat.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
It’s not that it’s honesty, it’s science. What the people who didn’t pay attention in junior high science class don’t understand is that most science is not “mix quantity A of chemical B with quantity C of chemical D under condition E and get predictable reaction F.” They simply weren’t paying attention the day the teacher told them about probability, which is what Nate Silver is of necessity dealing with. The same problem exists with climate science, of course; climatologists aren’t predicting that horrible things will happen to our planet, but their models don’t rule it out either.
I blame television. There are now a hundred forensic crime shows on the tube and in every one of them the heroes figure out with complete certainty the meaning of sparse and ambiguous data. So stop watching TV.
aimai
Doesn’t anything more than 37 mean a loss of the house? Not a blood bath, but a serious blood letting?
aimai
The Thin Black Duke
Unlikely as it sounds, there are people with a conscience in this country who define themselves as “moderate Republicans” and these poor wretched misbegotten souls are going to find it damned hard to vote for Batshit Fucking Crazy. In this less than perfect world, I’ll take whatever tainted victories I can get.
demkat620
Well I hope you all ate before now.
Isn’t this just completely the pattern they have shown over the years.
Karl Rove has a pearl clutching moment.
The Dangerman
You done already? I’m still googling all the state and city (SF) propositions.
Yup; luckily, in my city, there was only one local proposition and it was an easy one. As for State propositions, I googled the SofS’s voter pamphlet; except for Cannabis, almost everything else was some sort of horseshit nonsense (my favorite was 23; it’s backers should be amongst the first against the wall during the revolution). I think there was only 1 other yes (perhaps 2; I forget now – I may have started drinking right after voting against Whitman).
demkat620
@aimai: The GOP needs a net of 39 nseats to take the house.
There are at least four pick up opportunities for the Dems so the real number is 43.
weichi
Sure, maybe it won’t be a bloodbath.
But it could also go better for the Republicans than even a Karl Rove fever dream could hope for.
Triassic Sands
Then again, it may be a bloodbath. Or not. Or…
That’s what uncertainty is all about…uncertainty. There are any number of prominent seats that I wouldn’t bet on under any circumstances (assuming the bet mattered in some tangible way). Tossing a coin would reflect a greater sense of certainty than I could ever muster.
For example, I have absolutely no idea what is going to happen in Nevada. I spoke on the phone at length yesterday with a friend in Las Vegas. He began by practically screaming his outrage that someone as stupid and bizarre as Angle could be a major party nominee. Then, he switched to Reid, and if I hadn’t heard what he said about Angle, I would have had to conclude that nothing could get him to vote for Reid. He despises Reid and went on at length about all the incredibly stupid things Reid has done and what a spineless POS he is. He actually spent more time criticizing Reid than he did slamming Angle. And that makes sense to me. A candidate like Reid offends me in a way that a candidate like Angle doesn’t — since he’s a Democrat, he at least offers the pretense of representing my interests and beliefs. But the gulf is so huge that voting for him is a sickening thought. In the case of Angle, nothing could ever entice me to vote for her. Even though I strongly oppose failing to vote, if somehow Angle were running against an opponent even worse than she is (I know, that idea makes one’s head really, really hurt), I wouldn’t vote for her. I would abstain entirely. Reid is bad enough that he raises the thought of abstention, but reality can’t support the idea of not voting against Angle.
Listening to his take on Reid, one would be tempted to think that here was the worst candidate in the history of candidates, but in November my friend is going to vote for Reid (against Angle really) and he’ll do so without a second thought. I’m grateful I don’t have to choose between the likes of Angle and Reid, not because it isn’t easy to identify Reid as being better, or more accurately, nowhere near as bad as Angle is, but because the idea of voting for Reid is as distasteful as any voting choice I’ve ever faced. Still, given the choice, I’d consider it my duty to vote against Angle, and by default, therefore, in favor of Reid.
What a mess we’ve gotten ourselves into.
NobodySpecial
I dislike that whole ‘generic’ thing as well. If there’s one thing that people uniformly say when asked about it, it’s that Congress is corrupt….but THEIR guy is ok. There’s a reason incumbents win at a 90%+ rate besides the gerrymandering.
Delia
So Nate has become the Heisenberg of pollsters. Well, a lot of people never came round to his views, either.
Ross Hershberger
I was reading physicist Lisa Randall’s book Warped Passages last night. It’s about particle physics, hidden dimensions, etc.
Great quote:
“Florida is sort of a quantum state, where repeated measurements yield different results”.
I love her for that.
Dennis SGMM
Mid terms don’t usually go well for the party of the sitting president. According to Wikipedia, in the last seventeen mid-terms the president’s party lost an average of 28 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate.
The Republicans don’t need to take many more seats than the historical average to get back into the majority.
James E. Powell
In many important ways, the Republicans already won this cycle because they went from being a totally discredited brand to a plausible, if not probably, majority in the house.
They managed to do it by exploiting their continued control of the corporate press/media and by working as a solid team to prevent Obama and the Democrats from accomplishing anything worthy of being an election-winning issue.
The Democrats had their chances. They ought to have demonized the Republicans and their policies from Day One. They ought to have pushed harder to the left on health care. They should have put a jobs bill up for vote, and forced a very loud and very public filibuster. They should have put the tax cut extensions up for a vote. But they didn’t, and they are going to lose because they didn’t.
There don’t seem to be very many prominent Democrats who care about keeping their majority. Despite their frustrations with Obama and the Democratic leadership, the professional left is far more interested in a Democratic majority than the Democratic leadership.
DaveInOz
I wouldn’t underestimate Obama’s GOTV campaign, ‘Organising for America’. This sort of operation hasn’t existed before and its effects will be flying under the radar of predictions based on prior behaviour.
andy
If the Dems hold the House it is ESSENTIAL that they find a way to kill the filibuster in the Senate next session.
Origuy
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.): One thing that my high school science teachers drilled into me was error analysis. It’s not enough to make the measurement, you have to figure out the “plus or minus” value too.
Lack of understanding of science by the members of our media doesn’t just show up in reporting on the sciences.
Dennis SGMM
@James E. Powell:
The import of your first sentence just continues to astonish me. The Republicans did everything but impregnate the dog and scatter trash all over the yard yet here they are, contenders.
I would add to your list of possible reasons for this the Dems’ choice to forgo investigations of any aspect of Republican misrule. If the Republicans do retake the House you can bet that a couple of dozen investigative committees will be convened to look into every aspect of Obama’s time in office. Apparently the Democrats have already forgotten how Clinton was treated after the 1994 mid-terms. Either that or they just don’t have the stomach for governance.
Suck It Up!
@The Thin Black Duke:
let’s hope they aren’t Collins and Snowe type moderates.
debbie
I just find it really hard to believe that the majority of voters will vote for the party who wants to go back to the way it was before November 2008.
This talk of an enthusiasm gap is irrelevant. I never skipped an election during the 20 years there was a Reagan or Bush in the White House. Not even being unenthusiastic about any of the Democratic candidates kept me away from the polls. You hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.
Linda Featheringill
@DaveInOz:
GOTV:
Absolutely.
I don’t know how many supporters we would have to get to the polls in order to shift the balance by about 5 points but I’ll bet somebody does. And I believe that OFA is going after those voters.
WereBear
I don’t believe the past is a reliable predictor in this case; and that is what a lot of the analysis is based on.
The Republicans haven’t screwed up this badly since the Great Depression; we’ve never had an opposition party this mired in Looneyville, ever; and the last election was a record breaker in terms of Democratic registration and voting.
I think a lot of this crap is the usual MSM wanting suspense where there isn’t any. Any time I see the Republican Usual Suspects on teevee rolling their eyes and sweating into their silk ties, I have my suspicions confirmed. They are whistling past the graveyard; and it’s their graveyard.
Mnemosyne
@debbie:
Here’s the thing, though — the Bush economy didn’t really take a nosedive until close to the election. People have a perception that things were better under Bush because the bubble was still being inflated and the house of cards hadn’t crumbled yet.
People still desperately want to believe that this is just a minor glitch and we can get back to the way things used to be. The Democrats probably should have made it much more clear to people that there is no turning back and the economy is a total shambles based on worthless pieces of paper, but I don’t know that that would have saved them, either.
People want to believe this is all a short-term problem and everything will normal tomorrow, and they do not want to hear otherwise. Voting for Republicans is the equivalent of shoving their fingers in their ears and shouting, “LALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”
Montysano
@James E. Powell:
Well said. You go on to say that “the Dems had their chance”, and to a point they did. But to try big moves like you advise (force filibusters, etc.) is risky; the media will not report the story; they’ll pick a narrative that draws eyeballs and run with it. In fact, the “Dem bloodbath” narrative is much more a media creation than a popular uprising. The Tea Party makes good teevee, so it’s Tea Party 24/7.
Based on absolutely nothing but my gut, I remain optimistic. However, if the GOP wins big, then we’ll know for certain Where We’re At As A Country.
Montysano
@Mnemosyne:
Funny that, eh?
JoyfulA
Nobody seems to be mentioning cell phones. Are pollsters reaching cell phone-only voters? My under-30 relatives don’t have landline phones, and under-30s are supposedly a bastion of the left.
So it’s altogether possible that pollsters aren’t calling a large subset of likely D voters.
Yes, I will nag my younger relatives to vote.
Mnemosyne
@Montysano:
Oh, they tried to keep the Jenga game going until after the election, but contrary to what Rove tried to claim, there is such a thing as reality and it will bite you in the ass eventually.
jon
The Democrats won a lot of districts they probably had no business winning in the 2008 election. Keeping those seats was never going to be easy, while winning more seats is almost an absurd thought. Will 2010 be a bloodbath? Probably not, but I have had lowered expectations ever since the Summer of 2008 when I looked at the economy and said that this is likely to be a one-term presidency and fixing the economy was going to make for incredible unpopularity while shoving bad news under the rug was going to be less and less possible.
I’m just Mr. Fucking Sunshine and Everything, and I’ve yet to see any reason to change.
FlipYrWhig
@James E. Powell:
@Dennis SGMM:
I think you both underestimate how much hue and cry there would have been from the cable news and the “respectable” media like the NYT and WaPo if that had happened. The story would immediately have been, “Obama promised a new era but now he’s presiding over an incredible polarization.” Then when Republicans didn’t cooperate, they would have been off the hook, because, you see, Obama would have started it with his demonization and polarization and partisan witch hunts, and whatever happened to common sense and working together, and everyone would repeat it and repeat it until it was _the_ reason why the stimulus was down to the wire, the health care bill was down to the wire, Wall Street reform was down to the wire, etc. And then when the Republicans stood to gain seats in this election — because that’s what happens, especially after the Democrats have been practically running the table since ’06 — that would be the reason, and a message would have been sent, which was that The American People were sick of toxic levels of partisanship, and what Obama really needs to do in the next two years is reach out more to the other side.
And that’s where we are anyway.
And that’s the best-case scenario. Because it’s also possible that that terrible, horrible “partisanship” and “polarization” would have led all the Nelsons and Liebermans and Lincolns and Landrieus and Mike Rosses and Heath Shulers and Michael Arcuris to act WORSE.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
Chill the fuck out.
I got this.
.
.
Dennis SGMM
@FlipYrWhig:
I disagree. What’s the effective difference between a pearl-clutching hue and cry and a steady undermining? Did Obama’s conciliation get him one Republican vote in the House? Did it prevent the neutering of HCA or the financial reform bills? All it did was make him look like someone shouting “Marquis of Queensbury Rules!” in a saloon fight.
Raenelle
This is completely anecdotal, but I’m pretty sure, based on it being like this 100% of the time in my 63 years, that it’s going to be worse than we expect.
Dennis SGMM
@Raenelle:
I’m thinking 1994 mid-terms – and Clinton was white.
Alice Blue
About the whole “generic” thing . . . the primaries are over and everyone knows who the candidates are. I don’t understand why “generic ballot” polls are still being taken.
Micheline
Raenelle,
Where do you live?
Nick
@James E. Powell:
They DID do this
Nick
@Dennis SGMM:
How did that work out for the Republicans?
uloborus
@Dennis SGMM:
It got us HCR and financial reform, both of which contained the most important provisions they needed to, whether or not they contained anyone’s particular favorite provision. It got them in a political climate that roughly resembles Thunderdome. And in the case of HCR it was passed even though no president for the last hundred years was able to do it. So, you know, I actually think his strategy must have been pretty damn awesome. Obama walked into a bar fight yelling ‘Marquis of Queensbury rules!’ and then *won the fight*.
Nick
@Dennis SGMM:
Rep. Joseph Cao (R-Louisiana) on the first healthcare bill.
Cao, Rep. Mike Castle (R-Delaware) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) on FinReg.
Dennis SGMM
@Nick:
Well, other than NAFTA, DOMA. DADT, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, twelve years of Congressional majorities and two terms of George W. Bush, not so well.
NR
Axelrod says he’s hoping for more bipartisanship after the election.
If this is going to be the position the White House takes, get ready for a Republican president in 2013.
NR
@James E. Powell: Spot on. The worst thing about these last two years is what a lost opportunity they were. Obama could have destroyed the Republican party; when he was elected, the voters absolutely hated the Republicans and were desperate for strong leadership in a new direction. Instead, Obama made the resurrection of the GOP his mission in life, co-opting and endorsing their policies at the expense of what large majorities of the country wanted. And so the results of the upcoming election will not be a surprise to anyone.
Nick
@NR:
This fucking bullshit is never going to die, is it?
Nick
@Dennis SGMM: Yeah, cause all that happened because they were assholes to Clinton.
1.) Investigations
2.) ????
3.) VICTORY!
uloborus
@Dennis SGMM:
Sigh. Okay. NAFTA, signed by Clinton in 1992. DOMA 1996. DADT 1994. Gramm-Leach-Bliley is the only one passed after the Republicans were utterly humiliated in their attempt to impeach a wildly popular president, who got more popular as they tried to impeach him.
Clinton’s problem was his attempt to pass health care reform – which, incidentally, failed because he was very aggressive about it and laid out a clear path of what he wanted passed. This resulted in his own party whining and deserting him. That demoralizing defeat let Newt take control.
You’re rearranging history to create a narrative to match your private belief that clapping harder passes legislation.
Dennis SGMM
@Nick:
You asked how that worked out for the Republicans. I told you. You’re the one ascribing the cause. On the other hand, it could be that the Democrats seem to be chronically incapable of gaining control of the narrative and couldn’t do so even if someone delivered it to them stunned in a crate.
Dennis SGMM
@uloborus:
Rearranging history? You mean that those bills weren’t signed into law?
Nick
@Dennis SGMM:
Yes, half of them BEFORE Republicans even had Congress.
uloborus
@Dennis SGMM:
They were signed into law BEFORE the event you’re saying let them be signed into law happened. They have absolutely nothing to do with the Republicans’ impeachment attempts being useful. Indeed, the 1998 midterm elections saw them losing seats despite the regular rule of midterm elections going against the sitting president.
Clinton was popular as Hell after the impeachment. It was a fiasco for the Republicans.
Dennis SGMM
My point, such as it was, was that the Republicans got pretty much everything that they really wanted from Clinton then they still jammed him at the first opportunity and took Congress and the White House.
Nick
@Dennis SGMM:
Yes they did, what does this have to do with anything?
Nick
@Dennis SGMM:
Yes they are, because the corporate Republican-owned media DOES…NOT…ALLOW…THEM.
Do you know how the media is spinning Carl Paladino’s “no one should be proud of being dysfunctional homosexuals and we shouldn’t teach our kids this” comments today?
“controversial” not “wrong” not “hateful” not “mean-spirited”, “controversial,” as if to say, there’s logic to them.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@Nick:
This fucking bullshit is never going to die, is it?
uloborus
@Dennis SGMM:
Except that the jamming came LATER. They swept into power because Clinton acted exactly the way you’re suggesting Obama should and fought loudly and publicly and threw his all into passing health care reform. Which failed. Disastrously.
The impeachments were a humiliating loss for the Republicans. As such, prosecuting Bush & Co held very high odds of absolutely scuttling the Dems’ ability to get anything done since they took power. I’d love to have Cheney in prison. I’d rather have gotten HCR.
Nick
@Uncle Clarence Thomas: I’m sorry, the next time you link my name with a blockquote, it better damn well be something I actually fucking said you twerp.
Yutsano
@Nick: Bad troll! No doughnut!
Nick
@Dennis SGMM: Here’s how CNN is spinning Paladino’s comments
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/10/carl-paladino-targets-gays/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rss/cnn_politicalticker+(Blog:+Political+Ticker)
He “targeted” them, “criticizing” them for, existing apparently. This is CNN…CN-fucking-N!
And oh, I just found out, Elisabeth Hasslebeck, the right wing princess of The View is bringing her “unique viewpoints” to Good Morning America starting tomorrow. This is, of course, because Obama didn’t use the bully pulpit, right?
When the media decides it only wants to report news, or spin it in a way, that reinforced a right wing narrative, how are Democrats to counter that?
If your plan is a torch-wielding mob using lamppost as battering rams in the front doors of major news networks, then count me in.
NR
@Nick:
The truth tends to stick around, no matter how inconvenient it might be for some people.
NR
@uloborus:
I would too. Too bad we didn’t.
Nick
@NR:
No, bucko, apparently it doesn’t. But professional left fantasies do.
Sentient Puddle
When Nate was saying that he was putting together a House forecast model, I was wondering how the hell he would actually do it seeing as there’s so much less data to go off of. Individual polling of districts is scarce, the generic ballot has obvious flaws, the Cook report feels like it’s totally out to lunch this cycle (they seriously have CT-Sen a toss-up, which makes no goddamned sense). Looks like the answer he’s come up with is “It’s hard.”
I’d still put my money on 20-30 seat loss.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@Dick:
You didn’t say “This fucking bullshit is never going to die, is it”?
Is every balloonbagger a fucking lying twerp, or just you?
debbie
@Mnemosyne:
But none of the promises he made about what his tax cuts would bring came true. Job growth was stagnant, median income fell, and the rapid growth of income was limited to the upper tiers.
Looking back, Republican economic policies proved to be nothing more than a sham. Why aren’t the Democrats pointing this out?
Nick
@debbie:
They are, every damn day.
Why do some of you insist on criticizing them for not doing things they’re actually doing?
Nick
@debbie:
They are, every damn day.
Why do some of you insist on criticizing them for not doing things they’re actually doing?
debbie
Nick, if all Democrats were doing this effectively, there wouldn’t be talk of some sweeping Republican victory. This message isn’t getting through on the local level. Obama may be speaking more specifically, but each race is its own entity, and it is those Democrats who need to be speaking just as directly.
Nick
@debbie:
Just take a look at Swing State Project and at the ads Democrats are running. Take a look at the ads run by Debbie Halvorson on SS (Rachel Maddow highlighted it as the best of the cycle), Tarryl Clark, Paul Hodes, Russ Feingold, Jack Conway, etc. A lot of candidates are losing while doing the same thing Obama is doing.
No, because the MEDIA is the filter it can’t get through.
debbie
@Nick:
Aren’t you doing the same sort of thing that you’ve criticized me for doing?
The bottom line, regardless of whose fault it is: The Democrats aren’t communicating their message well enough. I don’t care who you choose to blame for this, if they’re not communicating, they’ve failed. If we all know the media’s against them, why hasn’t the Democrats adjusted their message? When something doesn’t work, you fix it. You don’t just sit there, doing the same thing and bemoaning its continuing ineffectiveness.
I live in Ohio, which I think is a swing state, and I’ve seen all kinds of political ads. Democrats are pushing the same old generalized kind of thing they’ve usually done over the past two years, like Wall Street and NAFTA. I’ve yet to hear a single ad where they say what they will do.
And it’s not like they haven’t had opportunities. For instance, Rob Portman (running against Fischer for Senate) brags in every ad that he has a plan to bring jobs to Ohio on his Web site. When you go there, all you see are 6 skimpy bullet points with absolutely no detail. They’re as generic and empty as vanilla foam. Why aren’t the Democrats calling Portman out on this?
And more generally, why aren’t the Democrats calling out the Republicans for lack of specifics? The public knows what the Democrats would do — it’s what they’ve been trying to enact for the past two years — but does anyone know what the Republicans would do? No, they don’t, because the only thing they get specific about is coming up with new ways to say “No.” How cohesive a policy is that? What is it they intend to do when the time comes for them to say “Yes”?
The Democrats aren’t fighting hard enough for what they say they want.
Nick
@debbie:
How are the Democrats supposed to adjust their message for outlets that don’t want to broadcast their message?
The media doesn’t want to broadcast ANY message from the Democrats. Why is this THEIR fault?
I mean I guess they can, you know, become Republicans. That seems to get them on TV.
Fisher has no money, because no corporate interests are sponsoring him, so all he has is his Twitter, where he has been relentlessly blasting Portman or months.
Do you listen to the President, the VP? Candidates all across the country have been doing this, Swing State Project has a running list showing Democratic ads. You’re just not seeing them, because THE MEDIA WON’T SHOW THEM TO YOU!
I mean you’re getting into “why do you let your husband beat you” territory.
debbie
Your wife-beating analogy is bullshit and totally bogus. Whether or not I’m seeing every ad is irrelevant; what I’m seeing is enough to see Democrats are behaving as if they’ve got nothing or have lost whatever knowledge they ever had of strategy.
One example of what I’m talking about: I’ve gotten close to 10 mailing pieces from the Ohio Democratic Party against Matt Carle, who’s running for the state Senate. They all look the same (dark and gloomy); they all have the exact same tone. I’ve also gotten several for a few other races, but I have to ask: Why is there such an out-sized campaign against this Carle guy? Does he really warrant that much attention? Couldn’t the money have been spent better? Plus, every single piece from the Democratic Party is negative; surely there could have been just one, listing the good that the Democrats have done.
Another, on a more local level: The Republican running for city auditor (Jewish) implied in an ad that the incumbent (Black) was a Moslem and had bestowed a job on a fellow mosque member. The incumbent is a Christian and has always been one. Now, where was the outrage from the local party over this? The ad continued to run for several weeks, and only recently has that bit been taken out of the ad. Meanwhile, the Republican’s campaign says they “stand by” what they said. The Democrats should be all over this.
Lovely that Fischer’s on Twitter, but what’s the percentage of older voters (those most likely to vote) that use that platform?
It just seems to me that there isn’t a well-rounded, far-reaching campaign going on. Great that they adapt to the new media, but they can’t leave the “old ways” behind, either.
And speaking of Fischer, I caught a response from him during the recent debate where he laid out exactly how he was, in fact, creating jobs for Ohio. There’s nothing of this in his TV ads. It’s all Kasich and Wall Street. Well, I think even the stupidest Buckeye’s picked up on this connection. Isn’t it time to pivot to accomplishments and saying what it is the Democrats will do for people?