Replies

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.

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).

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!!

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.

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.