“But the shock was mainly caused because, purely and simply, the polls were wrong across the board. They overestimated Democratic turnout by almost twice as much as they underestimated it in 2012. (Midterm elections are notoriously hard to poll.) In fact the turnout this year—just 36.6 percent of eligible voters—was the lowest since 1942, when many Americans went off to war. David Wasserman of The Cook Political Report termed it an “epic turnout collapse.” The Democrats’ much-vaunted turnout operation worked extremely well in 2008 and 2012, when there was an appealing, to millions even exciting, candidate at the head of the ticket. An unpopular president cannot work the same magic.”

Inappropriate comparison between presidential year and midterm, and getting Obama’s popularity rating wrong. His was average low for year six.

What is different this year is Congress’ rating, lower than any congress ever for the last few years. Not sure if that accounts for the turnout, but it is real, as opposed to shit people make up to account for it.

This however is very true and I think the main problem:

“Nor did the Democrats have a persuasive message to sell. They had no message at all. They feared any association with Obama, which included mentioning his achievements, and they worried that any boasting about the improvement in the economy since he took office would make them appear out of touch, since the recovery’s positive effects have done little to improve the situation of much of the middle class. The unwillingness to tout the benefits of the Affordable Care Act despite its clear success was a major missed opportunity: exit polls showed that people listed health care as the second reason they voted for a Democratic candidate.”

The point, though, is that a loss for both houses is totally predictable based on the available information. There is an important difference, though, between predictable and inevitable.

This is not a self fulfilling prophecy. It is simply a statement about how these things work, what the conditions are out of the starting gate. This is the stream up which one must swim.

The reason for discussing this now is to counter the incorrect statements being made in the press that the losses were unprecedented and huge. If they are pretty much as expected then they can be neither.

Also, it can’t be a self fulfilling prophecy if it is being made after the fact!

“… the stupefying timidity on the part of Dem candidates…” That is exactly the problem. And, some voter apathy issues. And the funding problem. But yes, this is it.

Nothing I’ve said in either post is unknown to Democratic strategists, by the way, so your point is very valid; they took an expected loss with a duck and cover rather than a fight. And that is very annoying, unless there is an argument that I’m missing.

I disagree with the notion that the loss could have been predicted…unless one factors in the “I give up” status of nearly every Dem comment on the subject. They were bracing to lose this time and, for the House, last time out. I don’t understand the value of publicizing a self-fulfilling negative prophesy. The masses tend to want to “win with a winner” and the best way to do that is to tell them in advance who that winner ought to be. Voila!

Add to that the stupefying timidity on the part of Dem candidates and you have what we’ll have. Casey Stengel (or was it a Cubs fan) who said said it…”Wait ’til next year!”

Unless you’re a large media organization trying to maximize the horserace aspect of elections. And/Or someone with a hand in the $3.67B election spending pie.