Larry J. Sabato is a political scientist with a long history of accurately predicting the outcomes of elections. He hasn’t done such a good job during the last two election cycles, so of course, now he’s writing for Politico. He just published, Republicans Really Could Win it All This Year. That’s a pretty stupid title when you consider a few things. First, they obviously can’t win the presidency. Second, they already have the House of Representatives, and no one really expects them to lose it. And third, everyone knows that that the Republicans might take control of the Senate. That’s why I recently argued in Don’t Cry for the Democrats that even if they lose the Senate in 2014, they will almost certainly get it back in 2016. What Sabato should have titled his article is, “Republicans Really Could Win the Senate This Year.” It would have been a boring title, but it would have the advantage of being accurate and just as boring as the article itself.

Sabato claims that there are three things that really matter for the 2014 elections. First, is presidential approval. His argument is that presidential approval often hurts congressional candidates of his party. But not always. He also makes the totally unsubstantiated claim that it is just as likely that Obama’s approval rating will fall as that it will climb. I don’t see that at all. Obama is not Bush the Younger. I think he’s gotten about as unpopular as he can possibly get. What’s more, his current unpopularity is mostly due to the bad Obamacare roll-out, and that is definitely on the mend. Now, I don’t see Obama’s approval rating going way up, but I do expect it to get somewhat better over the next ten months.

The second important issue is the economy. File this one under “Sherlock, No Shit.” Still, he spends only two paragraphs on the subject. Mostly, he uses it to make an incoherent argument that a bad economy will be good for the Republicans but a good economy will not help the Democrats. He concludes with a perfect example of statement that says nothing but appears to, “So even if the economy continues to improve, Obama and the Democrats might not reap an electoral benefit.” That’s right, if the economy is booming, it might not help the Democrats. Alternately, if the economy is booming, it might help the Democrats. In other words: Sabato has nothing to say on the subject.

The final issue can also be filed under “Sherlock, No Shit”: the electoral playing field. This is what everyone is talking about and is the basis of, Don’t Cry for the Democrats: there are a lot more Democrats up for re-election than there are Republicans. There are 21 Democrats up and only 14 Republicans. But in 2012, there were 23 Democrats versus 10 Republicans and the Democrats managed to gain two seats. What’s more, the Democrats can lose 5 seats and still maintain control of the Senate.

Sabato ends his column with nothing more than a bunch of speculation, stated as though it is proof:

Basically, all he’s got here is that the 2014 election will be a wash in the House and the Republicans have a decent chance of taking over the Senate with a slim majority. This is exactly what I’ve been saying for at least the last year. But let me put a positive spin on what Sabato wrote:

In other words: Larry Sabato has added nothing of value to the discussion of the 2014 election.

Afterword

I want to be very clear here. My point is that Sabato is adding nothing to the discussion and that he seems to be cheer leading for the GOP. His conclusions are pretty much the same as mine in, The Next Three Election Cycles. That conclusion is that the Republicans will do slightly better than the Democrats but that mostly it will be a wash. But the way that Sabato puts it, it is that it is going to be a great year for the Republicans. It could be, just as it could be a great year for the Democrats. But the information he provides points to a wash. He seems to be pushing back against a groundswell of pundits saying that the Democrats are going to do well in 2014. No one is saying that.

The Senate managed to overcome a filibuster because a whole six Republicans voted to allow formal debate on a bill that would provide extended unemployment benefits for another three months. Wow. What an amazing show of empathy and compassion from the party that hugs the Bible so close to its chest. Only 37 Republicans (Just 86%!) of those present voted not to allow debate about extend unemployment insurance. This is what we call a triumph of bipartisanship!

Of course, it basically means nothing. The Senate has passed a lot of stuff in the past that hasn’t gone anywhere. John Harwood laid out the current situation:

I know he’s serious because Harwood is not a jokester. To me, it would have been clear enough to tweet, “Boehner aide: despite Senate procedural vote, unemployment benefits extension likely to go to the House of Representatives.” Under the control the modern Republican Party, that is nowhere. You know the old song:

For some reason, Jonathan Chait is sounding very optimistic this morning, How Democrats Can Force Republicans to Help the Unemployed. His basic idea is to tell the Republicans that unless they pass the unemployment extension, they will scuttle the Farm Bill. I don’t think that will work, but Chait is certainly right when he says, “Agriculture subsidies are a huge, bloated entitlement that shouldn’t exist at all on the merits, but Republicans like them because they benefit rich white people.” Again: wow. I didn’t think Chait was willing to come right out and speak the truth on that matter.

He also brought up an issue that is very aggravating to us liberals:

This is all quite true, but it is also the kind of thing that liberals tell each other. Conservatives tell themselves something different, “Well, the deficit wasn’t so bad back then. Anyway, we’ve learned our lesson!” This is total crap, but I think it is important for liberals to understand that this is what conservatives are thinking. It can be easily destroyed with a little history. When Reagan was running for president, one of his biggest complaints was our out of control spending. Once he was in office, he ballooned the deficit in unprecedented ways. Once Clinton was in office, the budget again became a big deal. But then once it was actually balanced, the Republicans claimed that that was a bad thing. Still, deficits mattered, but surpluses were no good. So Bush got rid of the surpluses and then some and then some more. It was, after all, under Bush that we got our first trillion dollar deficit. Under Obama, that deficit has nearly been cut in half. But today, all the Republicans claim that Bush was wrong. Again, while a Democrat is in the White House, the Republicans have learned their lesson: budget deficits are bad. So any claim by Republicans that this time is different and that they aren’t like old Republicans is just bunk.

Of course, Chait is only talking about the past. If the Democrats offered up a huge tax cut for the rich, the Republicans would not be concerned about adding “to the deficit in an irresponsible way.” If it was an unnecessary war with Iran, there would be no budgetary concerns. In fact, it wouldn’t matter what the money was spent on, as long as it ultimately went to the rich. This is why Republicans continue to push the totally refuted claim that “tax cuts pay for themselves.”

The reason that Republicans scream “class warfare” every time income inequality is brought up by liberals is that the Republican Party really is engaged in a class war. This is why last year at this time they had no problem getting rid of the highly progressive payroll tax holiday, but fought to the end to stop taxes going up a couple of percentage points on the rich. The problem with hopeful articles like Chait’s is that liberals tend to underestimate just how much the Republicans hate the poor. Sure, they want to give money to rich white farmers. But they don’t want to do it as much as they want to take money away from the poor, who I assume they always image as black.

But Chait could be right. I hope that he is. But recent history has shown that you can’t “triangulate” Republicans. They are determined to hurt the poor and (just as important) stop Obama from getting anything he wants.