Because Karl Rove is, well, Karl Rove, many of us have been waiting to hear his no-doubt positive spin on the Republicans’ disastrous midterm elections. Other than being teased publicly by the president, Rove has kept a relatively low profile since Tuesday, but thankfully, he sat down for a chat with Time’s Mike Allen, during which he had all manner of interesting things to say. None of it was persuasive, of course, but it was interesting nevertheless.
For example, Rove has already found some silver linings.
Rove took comfort in results of the Connecticut Senate race between the anti-war Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who ran as an independent after losing the Democratic primary over his support for the war. “Iraq mattered,” Rove says. “But it was more frustration than it was an explicit call for withdrawal. If this was a get-out-now call for withdrawal, then Lamont would not have been beaten by Lieberman.”
Rove takes solace in Lieberman’s win? I’ll be the first to admit that Lieberman has strayed too far for comfort, but if Rove is looking for key wins to spin the midterms, shouldn’t he look for actual Republicans? As Digby put it, “How pathetic is it that the great GOP magus is reduced to finding his silver lining in an Independent beating a Democrat in a blue state?”
Perhaps my favorite quote from the piece is when Rove told Allen, “My job is not to be a prognosticator.” No, of course not. His job is to suggest he’s found a secret math that gives him insights that mere mortals can’t comprehend.
From an NPR interview with NPR’s Robert Siegel shortly before the elections:
SIEGEL: We are in the home stretch though and many would consider you on the optimistic end of realism about…
ROVE: Not that you would exhibit a bias, you just making a comment.
SIEGEL: I’m looking at all the same polls that you are looking at.
ROVE: No, you are not. I’m looking at 68 polls a week for candidates for the US House and US Senate, and Governor and you may be looking at 4-5 public polls a week that talk attitudes nationally.
SIEGEL: I don’t want to have you to call races…
ROVE: I’m looking at all of these Robert and adding them up. I add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House. You may end up with a different math but you are entitled to your math and I’m entitled to THE math.
SIEGEL: I don’t know if we’re entitled to a different math but your…
ROVE: I said THE math.
Rove also bought into the historical-trend myth.
Rove is famous for his political statistics, and his team has come up with an array of figures to contend that the Republicans’ loss of 29 seats in the House and six in the Senate is not so out of whack with the historic norms. In all sixth year midterms, the President’s party has lost an average of 29 House seats and 3 Senate seats, according to these figures. In all sixth-year midterms since World War II, the loss was an average of 31 House and 6 Senate seats. And in all wartime midterms since 1860, the average loss was 32 House and 5 Senate seat.
Kevin debunked this before the elections even happened.
And, finally, Rove argued that the GOP was this close to winning the whole cycle.
A shift of 77,611 votes would have given Republicans control of the House, according to Bush’s political team. And a shift of 2,847 votes in Montana, or 7,217 votes in Virginia, or 41,537 votes in Missouri would have given a Republicans control of the Senate. In addition, the party has calculated that the winner received 51 percent or less in 35 contests, and that 23 races were decided by two percentage points or fewer, 18 races were decided by fewer than 5,000 votes, 15 races were decided by fewer than 4,000 votes, 10 races were decided by fewer than 3,000 votes, eight were decided by fewer than 2,000 votes and five races were decided by fewer than 1,000 votes.
Yes, and if 60,000 votes in Ohio switched, Kerry would be president. And if all the votes in Florida had been counted, Gore would have been president.
As Michael Crowley put it, “No moving the goalposts when the other team has the ball!”
