First… that’s not even a saying…. Second, there isn’t anything I posted in this thread that is trending off. Republican morons shouted about a red wave. BEST case scenario is a tiny majority in both houses. Tiny. That’s no red wave and that’s the best case scenario. More likely they lose the senate by a hair and. Slightly win house.
hahahahahahahahahahaha TOO FUNNY!!!
What do you consider to be "tiny majority"? What do you consider to be a "red wave"??
In the Senate, RCP currently shows a 48-45 R lead with 7 toss up seats available for grabs. R's winning 3 of those 7 seats would be slightly less than half (and NOT a "red wave") and R's winning 4 of those 7 seats would be slightly more than half (arguably a "red wave"). R's winning 5 of those 7 seats would undoubtedly be a "red wave"... and guess what, R's are very well poised atm to win 5 of those 7 seats (WI, PA, NV, GA, AZ) and they might even win NH and WA as well... Smells like a "red wave" to me.
In the House, RCP currently shows a 228-174 R lead with 33 toss up seats available for grabs. Unlike the Senate races, I doubt that all of the "leans D" or "leans R" seats are going to go to their respective parties, which will move the 228-174 numbers somewhat, but the same applies as above. R's winning 16 of those toss up seats would be slightly less than half (and NOT a "red wave") and R's winning 17 of those toss up seats would be slightly more than half (maybe not exactly a "red wave" either), but R's winning 19 of them would arguably be a "red wave", and R's winning 23 of them would definitely be a "red wave" (using comparable percentages to the margin of toss up senate seats won).
So, either define your terms or stuff it... Obviously you use generalized terminology in order to leave room to backtrack after you are wrong.
Republicans will win both Houses... Senate by roughly 53-47 and House by roughly 245/190 or possibly even 250/185.