Ya know, I'm no expert on the horse-race side of politics. But this here is just as plain as day. How can I explain the axiomatic? Here goes:
Voters are fed up with the current crop of numb-skulls in Congress. That means that a lot of numb-skulls are fixing to get voted out. Since most of those numb-skulls are Democratic numb-skulls, that means a number of Democrats will be replaced. And if a Democratic numb-skull loses his seat, who is likely to be the winner? That's right, a Republican numb-skull.
Is any of that unclear?
You assume that voters will place all of the blame on the Democrats. 70% of Republicans are dissatisfied with their own party (if this poll is accurate and still accurate at election time), I presume they won't consider third party or democratic candidates as viable alternatives. Some here also assume that everyone has already forgotten their grievances with the Republicans, from when they had control of both houses and the POTUS.
From my perspective, you are ignoring the possibility of not voting for either party, or not voting at all.
I am suggesting that these dissatisfied republicans will simply not vote in the next election; I have no plans to vote in the next election. I like to think of it as the McCain effect. Many conservatives I know either voted third party, or didn't vote in the last election.
The republicans have made their position clear on many issues, and have indicated they refuse to back down from them. The only logical conclusions I can form (based on the party's past actions) is that the republican party platform now stands for a large authoritative government, and an interventionist foreign policy to name a few. Does it really matter who we vote for?
I think different D's is more likely than replacing D's with R's.
I agree.
