Romney Rescues GOP Battle for the Senate

American Thinker ^ | 10/23/2012 | By Jim O'Sullivan

[SeekAndFind]

The political landscape has dramatically changed in just thirty days. Barack Obama had the momentum. His attacks on Mitt Romney were clearly taking a toll, and the president was also outspending Romney to drive the negative messages home. The assaults suggested that Romney was both unqualified and unfit to be the president, a disconnected, "rich" elitist who could not relate to the average American nor cared about them. The Obama smear campaign was working; Romney's support was waning.

The advantages enjoyed by Republican Senate candidates in a number of critical contests began to suffer. The movement against Romney transferred into many Senate contests. Senate races that appeared headed for victory lost steam; Wisconsin, Connecticut, Montana, and Nevada all suffered dwindling ratings in the polls. Then everything changed. On October 3, during the first presidential debate, Romney routed Obama in a startling and decisive manner. Against this backdrop, the climate within key Senate races also changed -- i.e. the declines in the fortunes of Republican candidates were halted, and the battle for Senate control again tightened.

Initially, pundits and analysts of every stripe believed that Republicans held a significant advantage over Democrats. Democrats have to defend 21 seats while Republicans are exposed in just 10, and independents 2. Experts believed that control would be decided in fourteen states and at most in seventeen. Nevertheless, the predictions preceded both the Romney decline and the subsequent resurgence triggered by his debate performance. Thus, a reassessment seems warranted.

Republicans need three seats to gain a tie with Democrats and achieve Senate control only if Romney becomes our next president...since Paul Ryan, as vice president, would break tie votes. The importance of a four-seat gain is imperative to the Republicans' ability to counter Barack Obama should he be re-elected.

[ConservativeDude]

I see even McMahon is within one today.

CT in play for Romney? Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

[Vigilanteman]

I believe Tom Smith still has a real shot at unseating Bob Casey, Jr. in Pennsylvania. Casey has only two strengths: his famous father's last name and the likability, congeniality factor.

However, my favorite Wendy's in the area employs a mentally challenged young lady who is also likable and congenial. She has one additional advantage over Bob Casey, Jr.: She actually does her job well.

[Perdogg]

Maybe Heller and Smith can drag Romney across the finish line in Nevada and Pennsylvania.

[plsjr]

Here’s hoping it pulls Mack over the line for Florida.

[Buckeye McFrog]

I think a poster on another thread had it right.

The Dems are quickly reaching the tipping point where they will choose to pull the plug on Obummer and redeploy those resources into winnable Senate races.

[Vigilanteman]

Great point. I'm still willing to bet that, win or lose, Tom Smith will get more votes than Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania.

I don't know Nevada politics as well, but it could work the same way there.

[Vigilanteman]

Good logic Buckeye. But remember that the Democrat establishment doesn't always think logically. There is no way they can abandon "The One" without really p*ssing off their base. I'm not saying it won't happen, but if it does it will have to be in an under the radar low key sort of way.

[The Hound Passer]

One other “bonus,” if the GOP could win the Prez & Senate: MSNBC would be hilarious entertainment for the evening. (Although I’d have to keep the volume down low so Andrea Mitchell’s shrieking doesn’t crack my TV screen).

[Oldpuppymax]

But what good would a tie in the Senate do when lib Republicans like Graham, McCain and others often vote with Democrats on key issues? We need a 10 seat advantage just to overcome the weasels in the Party!!

[Buckeye McFrog]

Personally I think the base has largely turned on Obama.

They had a long and ambitious wish list when he took office.

-Single payer “free” health care
-European style paid vacations and paid time off
-A massive government jobs program
-Free college
-Free housing
-Government paid daycare
-Everybody into a union with endless streams of goodies
-A Carbon Tax and other assorted Green pipe dreams

etc. etc. etc. etc.

I think the fact he failed to deliver on that despite having a supermajority in Congress has got them feeling mighty depressed.

[antonico]

Romney saved nothing. The polling data up to now has had flawed data to begin with. It made presumptions that the 2008 turnout was going to repeat itself and make these races close. It's all BS and has been. Many of the Senate candidates are TEA Party backed people that won hotly contested primaries that Romney had nothing to do with. Ted Cruz, Richard Mourdock, Deb Fischer, Josh Mandel all won out over much more Romney type candidates. Add in George Allen, Tom Smith, Jeff Flake, and even the once cast-aside Todd Akin and you have people that were backed by COMMITTED Republican voters. Mitt Romney - to date - hasn't endorsed or actively campaigned with these people. He's been staying away from these dyed in the wool Conservatives running for the Senate. They Senate candidates are doing it on their own. They haven't needed Romney up to now, and the won't need him either way. The 2010 Mid Terms are what inspired voters to nominate these Senate candidates - not Mitt Romney. If anything, Romney has been supremely silent on the 2010 Mid Term destruction of Democrats and the TEA Party as a whole.

[Pilsner]

Some years one party wins all, or almost all, of the close Senate races. And this Senate "class" has been particularly likely to reflect the national vote, with the majority going down in each of the last three elections.

R to D in the Democrat blowout of 2006.
R to Even in 2000, when Gore had a narrow plurality.
D to R in the Republican blowout of 1994.

Plus, no defeated incumbent President, whose party held the Senate, has ever not taken that Senate majority down with him. That holds true from Adams to Carter, before and after the 17th Amendment.

Past performance is no guaranty, and all that. But if Romney wins big, there is very little likely hood of the Democrats keeping the Senate, whatever the individual polls say today.

[SC_Pete]

And McMahon is more conservative than Romney!

[okie01]

The Dems are quickly reaching the tipping point where they will choose to pull the plug on Obummer and redeploy those resources into winnable Senate races.

Except for one thing: The party is short of funds and is actually borrowing money to maintain what spending they are doing. Most of the campaign money is in Obama's account or his PACs. And how likely is he to share...???

[ELS]

And how likely is he to share...???

He's looking to collect the left over funds after the election for his post-presidency, living large lifestyle.

[MrChips]

Who is the current NEvada senator. Is this a Republican pickup? Or a status quo?

[Vigilanteman]

Plus, no defeated incumbent President, whose party held the Senate, has ever not taken that Senate majority down with him.

Very interesting fact you have there. Even in the 1980 election, the Republicans were in a huge hole in the U.S. Senate with a 43-57 minority going in and a 53-47 majority going out.

There were some awfully close elections that year, all of which broke for the Republicans. One of the closest races was in Florida where Paula Hawkins was narrowly elected. Does anybody remember her?