Erick Erickson is Probably Right

White House photo.

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.


RedState’s Erick Erickson has a fairly convincing post on the similarities between the current media coverage of the Dems’ apparent “rebound” in the midterm polls and a similar Dem “surge” in 1994. As we know, that 1994 Dem recovery proved to be illusory, and the GOP won a convincing victory. Here’s the kicker from Erickson’s post:

On October 9, 1994, a month out from the November 8, 1994 election, the Washington Post’s Kevin Merida wrote, “One matchup pits William Frist (R), a wealthy heart-lung transplant surgeon from Nashville, against Sen. Jim Sasser (D), an 18-year veteran who chairs the Budget Committee and is making a strong bid to be the next Senate majority leader. Though some polls have showed the race tightening, several independent analysts doubt that Frist has enough to knock Sasser out. But he is trying.”

Bill Frist won the race 56% to 42%

At this point, it’s sort of hard to count House races, but polling guru Nate Silver’s contention that the GOP control is significantly more likely than not seems about right. Senate races are a bit easier. It’s hard to see how even the most optimistic Dem can project losing fewer than four Senate seats—North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, and Pennsylvania appear to be done deals. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) has made big comebacks before, but right now, he looks cooked too. Michael Bennet in Colorado doesn’t look much better. If you assume the GOP will win only those six races, you’re still betting that they’ll lose two contests—Nevada and Illinois—that Silver gives them a better-than-even shot of winning. And we haven’t even talked about Washington or California or Connecticut or West Virginia yet. 

It helps the media to play up the appearance of a Dem resurgence—a closer contest keeps people interested. Don’t believe the hype. Barack Obama’s party is still in serious trouble.

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate