• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Looking at the 2014 Senate races

Yep. bfk, why not post this on the ongoing midterms thread?
 
GOP will get 52 seats. South Dakota is a wildcard still and obviously so is Kansas. The democrats are getting to the point now where they would have to swing multiple races and I don't think that's going to happen. I'm fine with the GOP taking over for two years because it is going to be hilarious
 
If the GOP gains control of the senate, we all know that's not a reflection of the national mood because of all the noxious gerrymandering that goes on in states controlled by republicans.
 
Junebug said:
If the GOP gains control of the senate, we all know that's not a reflection of the national mood because of all the noxious gerrymandering that goes on in states controlled by republicans.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be a reflection of either. It would be a reflection of democrats losing seats in traditionally red states that they won during the 2008 election. Iowa and Colorado are the only states that are fully red that are predicted to go to pubs this cycle.

Pubs have their own problems come 2016 with similar issues coming out of the 2010 election.

But continue to flail away as you see fit.
 
bobknightfan said:
My apologies. Didn't see it. This is the first time I have logged on since October 7th. The mods can move it & delete this thread if they so choose.

ETA (for numbers): I agree with both of your sentiments. 52 is the most likely number, and taking control of the Senate...with their predictable outrageous actions as a result...will further kill any chance the GOP has of winning the presidency in 2016.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on what a GOP controlled Senate might do between now and 2016? Just curious what the implications would be, thanks
 
Junebug said:
If the GOP gains control of the senate, we all know that's not a reflection of the national mood because of all the noxious gerrymandering that goes on in states controlled by republicans.
Click to expand...

I know this is tongue-in-cheek (and maybe this is the joke, but there is no gerrymandering in senate elections) but really I think it's just a pretty typical result of a second-term president's second midterm elections plus utter gridlock. I guess people want to switch it up.
 
What's also interesting is what's happening in governor's races. Three of the most stunning winners in 2010 from the GOP seem to be on their way out- Corbett (PA), Scott (FL) and LaPage (ME). Scott Walker is too close to call in WI.

I can't wait to hear the GOP cry if they take control of the Senate and Reid does to them what McConnell has done for the past six years.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I know this is tongue-in-cheek (and maybe this is the joke, but there is no gerrymandering in senate elections) but really I think it's just a pretty typical result of a second-term president's second midterm elections plus utter gridlock. I guess people want to switch it up.
Click to expand...

Smaller red states get the same number of senators as larger blue states.

Pissed off people are more likely to vote in midterms. Simple as that.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I know this is tongue-in-cheek (and maybe this is the joke, but there is no gerrymandering in senate elections) but really I think it's just a pretty typical result of a second-term president's second midterm elections plus utter gridlock. I guess people want to switch it up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was the joke. You guys are always whining that the House is only red because of gerrymandering. I recognize that the president's party typically loses seats at the midterms, but I view what is going on as a reflection of national mood, even if a hazy one, based on the failures of the administration.

Sig, even if all that is going on is traditionally red states flipping back from blue, that would still be a reflection of national mood.
 
Junebug said:
Yeah, that was the joke. You guys are always whining that the House is only red because of gerrymandering. I recognize that the president's party typically loses seats at the midterms, but I view what is going on as a reflection of national mood, even if a hazy one, based on the failures of the administration.

Sig, even if all that is going on is traditionally red states flipping back from blue, that would still be a reflection of national mood.
Click to expand...

What about the statehouses that are changing from red to blue?

Also if there was a presidential election this year a Dem would win.

What these elections are mostly showing is the disgust with the political class.
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/how-independents-could-seize-control-of-the-senate/381815/?google_editors_picks=true

"...What if King and Orman align, and perhaps bring in one or more other senators—Joe Manchin of West Virginia is an obvious one—to form a Centrist Caucus. They go to both party leaders and offer to provide the votes for majority status in return for commitments on a list of policy and process priorities. But there is a twist: If the party that makes the commitments fails to deliver, the Centrist Caucus members will switch to the other side, changing the majority, including all the committee ratios, committee chairs, and so on. And if the other party fails to deliver, they might switch back. I am not sure what would be on their list; it might include Manchin's bipartisan background-check bill, an infrastructure package, corporate or broader tax reform, some spending priorities, maybe immigration. In my wildest dreams, it would include a demand of McConnell that to become majority leader, he would have to bring up meaningful campaign-finance reform, an issue King has championed."
 
Junebug said:
Yeah, that was the joke. You guys are always whining that the House is only red because of gerrymandering. I recognize that the president's party typically loses seats at the midterms, but I view what is going on as a reflection of national mood, even if a hazy one, based on the failures of the administration.

Sig, even if all that is going on is traditionally red states flipping back from blue, that would still be a reflection of national mood.
Click to expand...

Even thought it happens within states and with relatively low voter turnout and most of the races aren't closely contested.

Any mood reflected would be neutral or disgust with Washington (both parties) at the most.
 
WFU71 said:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/how-independents-could-seize-control-of-the-senate/381815/?google_editors_picks=true

"...What if King and Orman align, and perhaps bring in one or more other senators—Joe Manchin of West Virginia is an obvious one—to form a Centrist Caucus. They go to both party leaders and offer to provide the votes for majority status in return for commitments on a list of policy and process priorities. But there is a twist: If the party that makes the commitments fails to deliver, the Centrist Caucus members will switch to the other side, changing the majority, including all the committee ratios, committee chairs, and so on. And if the other party fails to deliver, they might switch back. I am not sure what would be on their list; it might include Manchin's bipartisan background-check bill, an infrastructure package, corporate or broader tax reform, some spending priorities, maybe immigration. In my wildest dreams, it would include a demand of McConnell that to become majority leader, he would have to bring up meaningful campaign-finance reform, an issue King has championed."
Click to expand...

Even since the AOL boards, I've stated the best way for our government to work would be to have a group of independents in the middle with enough power to make the parties act responsibly.

The problem with the set-up at this time is that there are no Republican leaning centrists in the group. At this point, this group only weakens Dems. It would have the desired impact if three or four Republicans (like Collins, Corker and someone else) joined the Dem leaning independents.
 
Someone alluded to this earlier, but in 2016 aren't the Republicans going to be on the defensive in Senate races? How many seats do the Repubs have to defend in a presidential election year?
 
meandmyuncleDeac said:
Someone alluded to this earlier, but in 2016 aren't the Republicans going to be on the defensive in Senate races? How many seats do the Repubs have to defend in a presidential election year?
Click to expand...

Here's the list for 2016:

DEMOCRATS

Michael Bennet (Colorado)
Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut)
Barbara Boxer (California)
Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
Joe Manchin (West Virginia)
Barbara Mikulski (Maryland)
Patty Murray (Washington)
Harry Reid (Nevada)
Charles Schumer (New York)
Ron Wyden (Oregon)

REPUBLICANS

Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire)
Roy Blunt (Missouri)
John Boozman (Arkansas)
Richard Burr (North Carolina)
Dan Coats (Indiana)
Tom Coburn (Oklahoma) – Retiring in 2014. Seat TBD in 2014 special election.
Mike Crapo (Idaho)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
John Hoeven (North Dakota)
Johnny Isakson (Georgia)
Ron Johnson (Wisconsin)
Mark Kirk (Illinois)
Mike Lee (Utah)
John McCain (Arizona)
Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Rand Paul (Kentucky)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Marco Rubio (Florida)
Richard Shelby (Alabama)
John Thune (South Dakota)
Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania)
David Vitter (Louisiana)

The Dems have mostly locks. Only CO could be close. Several of the GOP seats are very contentious. Ayotte, Kirk, Johnson and Toomey can all be beat. Others could be in trouble.
 
Yes. Republicans will be on the defensive and probably won't have a strong Republican Presidential candidate to run with. Senate will likely switch back to the Democrats anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top