Eric is right. If this is a wave, you're going to lose everything from now on. Many of these were very close, and if it took a wave to win them, you'll lose them all next time.
Close? Let’s look at the Senate races: Alaska: Sullivan by 3.61% (at this time) – outside margin of error- , PPP polled this 46%-45%. Not as close as expected. Arkansas: Cotton by 17% (!). NBC/Marist polled this 45%-43%. Very not close. Colorado: Gardner by 3.31%. Quinnipiac polled at 45%-43%. Fairly accurate here (the exception). Georgia: Perdue by 7.79%. PPP had it 46%-45%. Not close. I seem to recall everyone talking run-off. Iowa: Ernst by 8.5%. PPP had it 48%-45%. More than doubled the spread. Kansas: Roberts by 11%. PPP had it 47%-46% Orman! Only 12 points off. North Carolina: Tillis by 1.7%. Fox News Poll had it 43%-42% Hagan. Politico had it lean D (not tossup). Close, but significant. Virginia: Warner by 0.73%. Polls ranged widely (Warner + 13, 10, 7, 13) but all pointed to comfortable Warner win. Politico Likely D. I’m still waiting to see about military ballots and perhaps a recount. Another Libertarian inflicted loss if things hold. Kentucky: McConnell by 15.5%. PPP had it R+8. Doubling up.
Some individual races were close, but either not the way they were expected to be, or flipped, and many were anything but close. Looking at the whole election, I don’t know how you say it was close. Perhaps specific congressional districts, but there are many variables there. R’s still built on a majority in the house.
Now, that’s not to say I don’t share your concerns about what comes after a wave election. I certainly do.
Disagree. Too many close races; they just all broke our way. A wave would have been large wins everywhere, no close races.
ReplyDeleteIt's an important step, though. Now it's two years in which to demonstrate a conservative agenda and to shape the '16 elections.
Eric Hines
Eric is right. If this is a wave, you're going to lose everything from now on. Many of these were very close, and if it took a wave to win them, you'll lose them all next time.
ReplyDeleteThis is a chance. Maybe a last chance.
Close? Let’s look at the Senate races:
ReplyDeleteAlaska: Sullivan by 3.61% (at this time) – outside margin of error- , PPP polled this 46%-45%.
Not as close as expected.
Arkansas: Cotton by 17% (!). NBC/Marist polled this 45%-43%. Very not close.
Colorado: Gardner by 3.31%. Quinnipiac polled at 45%-43%. Fairly accurate here (the exception).
Georgia: Perdue by 7.79%. PPP had it 46%-45%. Not close.
I seem to recall everyone talking run-off.
Iowa: Ernst by 8.5%. PPP had it 48%-45%. More than doubled the spread.
Kansas: Roberts by 11%. PPP had it 47%-46% Orman! Only 12 points off.
North Carolina: Tillis by 1.7%. Fox News Poll had it 43%-42% Hagan.
Politico had it lean D (not tossup). Close, but significant.
Virginia: Warner by 0.73%. Polls ranged widely (Warner + 13, 10, 7, 13)
but all pointed to comfortable Warner win. Politico Likely D.
I’m still waiting to see about military ballots and perhaps a recount.
Another Libertarian inflicted loss if things hold.
Kentucky: McConnell by 15.5%. PPP had it R+8. Doubling up.
Some individual races were close, but either not the way they were expected to be, or flipped, and many were anything but close. Looking at the whole election, I don’t know how you say it was close. Perhaps specific congressional districts, but there are many variables there. R’s still built on a majority in the house.
Now, that’s not to say I don’t share your concerns about what comes after a wave election. I certainly do.