Why DON’T these factors apply to Senate races?

vanity | October 28, 2010 | Kevin "Coach" Collins

[jmaroneps37]

Gallup is saying 57% of likely voters are calling themselves conservatives compared to just 21% saying they are liberals and the rest self identify as moderates. Independents are running away from Democrats and running toward conservative Republicans.

With the recent USAToday release that those intending to vote for conservative Republicans 26% more enthusiastic about voting, several major voting blocks that supported Obama in 2008 deserting Democrats, Catholics now planning to vote 25% more for Republicans, voter generic preferences running from 6% to 12% in favor of Republicans and Gallup Cook and Rasmussen predicting huge gains for Republicans, why should I believe that none of these factors will positively affect the electoral fortunes of Republican Senatorial candidates?

I believe we will see more straight ticket voting this year than we’ve seen in recent elections, because the ticket splitting “moderates and Independents” seem to have learned their lesson about dancing on the dark side to show how clever they are.

What am I missing? Where are the grounds for the predictions of losses in close Senate races?

[BenKenobi]

1918 is a bad analogy. The Republicans had control of the house and their control strengthened. They gained 7 seats to take over the Senate.

1916 was the retrench against Wilson, which denied him the house by a single seat. 1918 finished him.

So I guess you could say this election is like 1918, which is what we could hope for.

[HapaxLegamenon]

There are two Senate seats up in New York. Summer’s seat, and a special election to fill the unexpired term for the seat vacated by Hilary Clinton.

[fortheDeclaration]

I didn’t know that. Thank you.

[fortheDeclaration]

The 1917 election, (from 193 seats to 216) the House changed hands, the GOP took over the House but not the Senate.

http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/congress.htm

[fortheDeclaration]

In rechecking the chart, I do notice that there were 9 independents, (65th Congress) who may have voted with the Democrats, giving them control of the House.

In the next election (66th Congress) the House goes totally to the GOP and they gain the Senate as well.

So, that would mean that as far back as 1917 the House has NEVER changed hands without the Senate doing so as well.

[Kenny Bunk]

10PM. RAESE DEAD MEAT, MCMAHON DEAD MEAT, O’DONNELL BURIED. STOP. RECOMMEND KARL ROVE BE DUCT-TAPED TO MIKE STEELE, BOTH DROPPED 30 MILES OUT IN ATLANTIC. STOP.

[denydenydeny]

I strongly suspect shenanigans in some of these Senate races. Voter fraud is much harder to pull off in House races, but in Senate races Democrats can simply manufacture fraudulent votes in inner city areas as needed.