NY Times is So Scared it is Trying to Redefine "Wave"

One of the things I have learned in my time in Washington, DC is that the New York Times is a reliable propaganda arm for the DNC.  So when the New York Times’ Nate Cohn wrote this week “Goodbye to the Republican Wave?” I knew they were writing to get the Democrat “spin” out the election on two matters. 

The first one is obvious.  Republicans aren’t going to do as well as they think, buck up Democrats. 

The anti-Democratic wave might still arrive. But with three and a half months to go until November’s elections, the promised Republican momentum has yet to materialize.

The race for the Senate, at least right now, is stable.

This is funny as well; if the Republicans win, it is “Anti-Democrat” (in other words failures of the Democrats to be liberal enough).  And since when is “stable” a loss of multiple Senate seats and control? 

Fortunately, another non-propaganda source explains what is happening in a more honest way in a National Journal Article entitled “The Odds of a GOP Wave are Increasing”:

There's plenty of race-by-race evidence to suggest that most contests are trending in a Republican direction. Over the past several months, the Iowa and Colorado Senate races have turned from long shots to promising Republican pickup opportunities. In Iowa, Republican nominee Joni Ernst is running evenly with Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley in the Real Clear Politics polling average, a marked shift over the last two months. And in Colorado, Democratic Sen. Mark Udall only holds a 1-point average lead over GOP Rep. Cory Gardner, according to RCP, in a race that's shaping up to be a barn burner.

And there isn't much evidence that red-state Democrats have gained ground in recent months, either. In Arkansas, reliable public polling has been sparse, but GOP Rep. Tom Cotton has led Sen. Mark Pryor (D) in three straight public polls, along with the GOP campaign's last two internals. Pryor didn't release any polling of his own to counter. An April NYT/Upshot survey showing a double-digit Pryor lead, which shaped public perception of the race, is now looking more like an outlier.

In Louisiana, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) has never hit 50 percent in any of the all-party primary surveys, with most polls showing her well short of the mark.

But there is another second more insidious reason for the article.  The New York Times is trying to frame a Republican victory as “not a wave.”  A “wave” election gives momentum to the winning party going forward for its agenda and the next election.  The New York Times can’t let the GOP have legislative momentum.  Fortunately National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar explains the fallacy of this :

Cohn argues that if Republicans merely sweep red-state Democratic seats and perhaps pick off a stray swing seat, it's not a wave election—even if Republicans net seven seats on their way to the majority. To accomplish that feat, Republicans would need to oust four sitting Democratic senators. Over the last decade, Republicans have defeated only three sitting senators (Tom Daschle in South Dakota, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, and Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas). Surely, a red-state sweep would signify the conclusion of a political shake-up in the South, where voters are so disgusted with the national Democratic Party that they're willing to throw out senators who had previously relied on split-ticket voters to win. If a Republican takeover by picking up seven Senate seats isn't a wave, it's awfully close.

Democrats and their propaganda allies the New York Times are scared of this fall’s elections; so scared they are even trying to redefine “wave.”