Skip to comments.How Likely Are Dems to Lose the Senate?
Posted on 02/20/2014 5:24:45 AM PST by thackney
A few weeks ago, I produced two Senate analyses. One focused on the relationship between the presidents job approval, the fate of Senate Democrats during the 2010 and 2012 elections, and what that would mean if this relationship continues through 2014. The second looked at Republican vulnerability in 2016 using a similar standard.
The first piece concluded that, based on President Obamas job approval rating, Democrats have substantial vulnerability in 2014. This vulnerability is deeper than many analysts are willing to consider right now. Over the past two cycles, the presidents job approval has explained 58 percent of the variance in competitive Senate races in any given state. Given Obamas current weak numbers, this seemingly bodes poorly for Democrats. Remember, the midterm map is the reddest Senate map Democrats have had to defend while Obama has been president. Their overexposure makes it something of a perfect storm scenario if things do not improve. This doesnt mean that the problems are insuperable for Democrats. It simply means that the playing field is stacked heavily against them.
The second piece took a somewhat different tack. Instead of just looking at the playing field for 2016, it used that playing field as the basis for a simulation run in a neutral year to help better quantify Republican exposure. It concluded that unless 2016 turned out to be a good Republican year overall, that Republicans would probably have to win 53 or 54 seats in 2014 to feel good about their chances of holding the Senate two years later.
The present article takes the technique used in the second piece and applies it to the playing field described in the first. In other words, this is a Monte Carlo simulation to try to better quantify the amount of exposure Democrats are under this time...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
I messed up the first thread and have requested it to be deleted.
This is the replacement.
I swear, after the past 5 years....I believe that the Party of RATs should be outlawed. Take a page from how Egypt has been dealing with the Muzzie Bro’hood.
....just start calling the RATS office and ask them whe
ither or not they support ODUNGO’S attack on they first amendment
and the thuggish approach to the news outlets. When they say no..tell them they haven’t been seen standing up for the constitution lately and when will they call a press conference?
The quisling Republican leadership will say they don't have a veto proof majority, and as a token of "friendship" will recind the nuclear option Komrade Reid put in place last year.
The will then say they are powerless to anything without the Presidency, while savagely attacking all tea party Republicans, and protecting the Clinton's and Obama at every opportunity.
Lose the Senate? The United Socialists of America (USA) should lose their assets if not their heads for looting the republic.
Who relegated us, our children and grandchildren (as far as generations can conceive) to debt slavery?
Socialism Is Legal Plunder
But, first things first I suppose...
-—what with the media propaganda machines completely in left-wing control, the ability of the Demotraitors to steal elections in major states , the apathy of the voters and the incompetence of the Republidum “leadership”, I don’t think there is any possibility of “recapturing” the Senate or even holding the House—
50-50 in my opinion, the sleazy tactics, voter fraud, entitlement voters, a Democratic controlled media, academia, and entertainment industry have made it next to impossible for Republicans even under the most ideal conditions.
Even if Republicans manage to squeak out a slim majority they still have to deal with a President that will veto everything they send his way, the chance someone will switch parties again, and the total lack of a spine by the establishment GOP.
“The quisling Republican leadership will say they don’t have a veto proof majority, and as a token of “friendship” will recind the nuclear option Komrade Reid put in place last year.
The will then say they are powerless to anything without the Presidency, while savagely attacking all tea party Republicans, and protecting the Clinton’s and Obama at every opportunity.”
You really think this will happen if Majority Leader Cruz or Lee is at the helm?
Dems give a crumb to assuage each of their voting blocs---
asserting that under a Republican majority, O/Care would:
<><> cause life-saving prescription prices to rise,
<><> empower greedy insurance companies that once covered them w/ affordable plans,
<><> engender domestic violence, chronic depression, impotency, and acne,
<><> increase union dues, and,
<><> exacerbate foreign policy w/ threats of nuclear war, Mideast violence and a two-state solution.
Everybody knows Obama's botched October healthcare rollout was giving Democrats so much agita, they could hardly keep track of their vast offshore holdings. Millions could have been lost into the pockets of snarky investment counselors "aggregating the numbers," but Democrats were so besieged by falling poll numbers, they would never even know it.
So what happened was the compassionate White House graciously sent its chief of staff Denis McDonough to hold an unpublicized meeting with Sen. Michael Bennet (DIM-Colo), chairman of the Senate Democrats campaign arm.
Alas, it was not pretty---Denis was met w/ Democrats' anger and anxiety that O/Cares costly train wreck rollout could actually cost their party its majority at midterms.
Denis and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) Chair Bennet discussed what the helpful White House could possibly do for vulnerable Senate Democrats.
Talk revolved around Democrats developing a "stronger relationship" with the White House. But this cockamamie idea was quickly discarded. After all, Democrats reasoned, who would believe a ditzy story like that...other than the brain dead MSM.
Democrats whined that Obama was not sympathetic enough to their plight. After the Republican-led government shutdown, Dems had been super-confident they would retain the Senate, maybe even regain the House......but, that optimism vanished as O/Care problems kept mounting and multiplying.
Speaker wannabe Nancy Pelosi pursed her lips and disconsolately went back to sucking-up everything in sight.
COS Denis valiantly tried to calm ballistic Senators, saying off-the-record: I know these guys are nervous as hell. I mean, all of their jobs are on the line, because Obamacare is the only thing making the biggest political waves. Its a nightmare.
WATTA RELIEF--DEMOCRATS COME UP WITH THE ONLY WORKABLE SOLUTION Obama recently announced the White House's 2014 Senate strategy: "Keep Obama away." The extensive midterm campaign strategy is built around one unavoidable fact: Hardly any candidates in the most competitive states want President Barack Obama anywhere near them on the campaign trail.
Poster cackles---hums theme from "Jaws."
Chances are, we can safely make the funeral arrangements for vote-crazed Sen. Mark Udall (Dem-Colo)
Facing a tough reelection this year, Udall was nailed on tape echoing the "keep your plan" Big Lie, b/c some 330,000 Coloradans received cancelation notices....cancellations sap-happy Udall promised they wouldnt.
Udalls crazed response was to lean on state insurance regulators to change their numbers by changing their vocabulary. He argued plans shouldnt be counted as canceled if a person was eligible to buy a pricier ACA compliant plan.
The insurance regulator resisted Udalls psychotic arguments.
Then things got interesting. CompleteColorado.com obtained and reported on internal state emails of insurance official, Jo Donlin, stating the deranged Udall wanted to trash the states numbers....
Fearing he'd lose his seat, vote-crazed Udall contacted her repeatedly, and when she refused to bend, she received a very hostile call from Udalls chief of staff (maybe more like a "threat"?).
Udalls obsessed interference prompted demands for more information and for an investigation into his twisted conduct.
Almost instantly, Colorados Department of Regulatory Affairs, which oversees the Division of Insurance, issued a statement claiming a "neutral and objective panel" investigated the matter and determined "Udalls office did nothing improper and there was no intimidation."
(waiting for hysterical laughter to die down)
NOW FOR THE GOOD NEWS Absolving deranged Senator Udall of culpability is the exact same MO used right before NJ Sen Torricelli was forced out of office.
It doesn’t matter, because the new boss is the same as the old boss. F@$# all of them.
To summarize, IF the President’s job approval rating remains in the low 40s, Democrats will lose 10 to 14 seats. This will not only mean the Republicans will win control of the Senate, it means they will be in good shape to retain the Senate in 2016.
Even if the President’s job approval rating rises to the upper 40s, the Republicans will win 6 to 12 seats and control of the Senate. The Senate might then be up for grabs in 2016.
Translation: The Democrats are in bad shape. Even if the President’s job approval rating improves, they will probably lose three open seats in Red States (MT, SD and WV). Their incumbents may also lose in four other Red States (AK, AR, LA and NC).
If the President’s job approval rating doesn’t improve, Democrats may also lose seats in four Purple States (CO, IA, MI and NH). That could be a loss of eleven seats.
As to how the Republicans might pick up fourteen seats, think MN, OR and VA. Incumbents in these state might lose in spite of their supposed strengths (Warner in VA) and/or supposed weaknesses of the Republicans (MN and OR).
These prognostications are not mere academic exercises. The Democrats and Republicans are, right now, thinking about where they will put their resources. Most importantly, do the Democrats simply write-off their incumbents in Red States and focus their resources on their incumbents in Purple States? You can be sure that each Red State Democratic Senator is going to argue that they can win in what looks to be a bad year because of unique circumstances in their state.
From our perspective, the dope is this: we will win races from city alderman and county commissioner to U.S. Senator that we would not normally expect to be competitive. We have to impress onto voters that our flat-lined economy and the uber disaster that is Obamacare have to be addressed right now. This is why we need large majorities in every level of government. Yes, our country is at stake. But, this stuff is real.
The solvency of Social Security and Medicare, the prospects for our adult children who have been postponing family formation for lack of good full-time jobs with benefits, our working families that haven’t had a real pay raise in more than a decade now, and the collapse of our health care system as far as tens of millions of people are concerned, who have lost their insurance policies, their doctors and even, in a growing number of places, their hospitals. These all hang in the balance.
Oh, check it out, the economy has slowed from Slurpy speed to molasses speed. The President’s job approval rating is not going up any time soon.
What difference does it make? Most politicians are corrupt, incompetent, greedy, self-serving, ignorant, un-American and to hell with us.
So you agree that not all are? Isn't that where we need to make a difference?
Do you vote?
I remember those same big expectations of a GOP takeover in 2012, because the dems were defending nearly three times as many seats... Didn’t work out too well... the dems actually gained two.
If all goes relatively smoothly for the GOP and its nominees don’t implode their candidacies with asinine comments about subject matter of which they have no understanding (read: Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock), they should be able to pull out a gain of +3 or (at the outside) +4. I’d be very surprised if they were to get to the 50 level.
Hate to say it but with mutts like Rove ,Boehner, Cantor, Priebus, McCain, et al. so prevalent in GOP politics, the pubbies will blow it. Until the realize that the vast majority of their base is fed up with their “can’t we all get along” attitude nothing will change. The spineless, gutless GOP is afraid of Obama, the RATS and their own shadow.
Oh, you’ve seen this story too, huh? Sad, ain’t it?
“How Likely Are Dems to Lose the Senate?”
Does it make a difference? I don’t think it does or will.
In theory it should be fairly easy for the Republicans to regain the Senate, but the Democrats could survive using some of their usual tricks—demonizing the Republican nominee (worked pretty well in 2012 and in earlier years) or getting a third-party candidate to split the Republican vote. Al Franken won his seat not only because of fraudulent ballots but also because it was a three-way race...and without that there would be no ObamaCare.
Of course not, but I don't see Bohner or Cantor going anywhere in the house, and the McConnel won't step down so he would have to be primaried out, along with Cornyn.
1 P.S. I am doing my part to send Cornyn off to retirement !
Until enough voters can make the connection about what party they vote for and the results of new laws and regulations that hurt them, I don’t see much change. Combine that with a media conspiracy to promote Leftwing, liberal politics and diversity over all things, I can’t see a swarm of new votes for Republicans.
Republicans have to focus on getting out their vote. The best we can do is discourage democrats voters while making sure EVERY GOP voter goes the polls.
It’s that simple.
Close races almost by definition will be affected by poor candidates, by in-fighting among Republicans, and by third-party candidates.
MT, SD and WV won’t be close (so Pressler running as an independent in SD will be of no consequence)
AK, AR, LA and NC may be close. In-fighting could help Begich in AK. LA, with its jungle primary, might require a run-off (which we should win, so this possibility is probably of no consequence). So, Republican pick-up prospects look robust in three of these states with respect to such factors as poor candidates, in-fighting and third-party candidates; and, we’ll have to see what happens in AK.
CO, IA, MI and NH - Recent few elections tell us anything can happen in CO. The Republican field is not yet settled in IA. As a result, the IA race is difficult to handicap at this time. NH has some unique uncertainty with the probable Republican nominee being a former U.S. Senator from MA. So, of these, only MI looks straight-up.
MN, OR and VA - The Republican field is not settled in either MN or OR. The Libertarians look to nominate Sarvis for the U.S. Senate and it is probable the Democrats will again help him to get on the ballot. This would make it even less likely that Warner could be upset. Nevertheless, the Republicans fetched a credible challenger in Gillespie.
The very title is misleading, assuming that elections are fair and not cheated to conclusions pre=selected.
An important fact to keep in mind for CO is that the Dem controlled legislature imposed a new, all inclusive, true motor-voter law.
Voters can travel to anywhere in the state they are needed, declare that they intend to move there, and immediately vote in the polling place they have targeted.
Large fleets of buses are being lined up as we speak.
Have been trying to make a difference for years. And where are we? ‘Most’ are in control and the ‘few’ are demonized and hated. We are on our way down to a very dirty cesspool, thanks to the ‘most’. A ‘few’ have tried to change the path to destruction. Results, zero. Huge out of control government, excessive spending, excessive control, excessive payroll, a debt that will not and cannot be repaid, a voting public that loves goodies and freebies and cares little about the affairs of our nation. Not enough people want to tighten their belts and face the music. Do you think a change in the Senate from Dems to Pubs will make a difference? Or a change in the White House? Hope I am wrong and you can make that difference. Good luck.
Dem voters are getting more and more deflated (55% wish they had NOT voted for Obama). I don't see ANY enthusiasm on their side right now. That is change.
There is a 0% chance rats win the House this year. Learn something about history.
Apparently good enough that this jerk Trende is already assessing his rat party’s odds of retaking the chamber in 2016.
A preliminary glance for 2016 Senate races shows that CO (Bennet) & NV (Reid) are likely to be GOP gains. Perhaps only WA State (Murray) may be competitive beyond that.
The Dems have a shot at FL (Rubio), IL (Kirk), PA (Toomey) & WI (Johnson), though I see nothing beyond that for them. Frankly, if Kirk were defeated, it would be no loss at all for us.
I’m more concerned about replacing the raft of old RINOs and establishment types that are in that class:
AL-Shelby (82 years old and 38 years total in Congress)
AK-Murkowski (59, ‘nuff said)
AZ-McCain (80, 34 years in Congress)
FL-Rubio (sold out in the first year)
ID-Crapo (65, 24 years in Congress)
IL-Kirk (57, ‘nuff said)
IN-Coats (73, you got your comeback, Dan, now it’s time for some new blood)
IA-Grassley (83, 42 years in Congress — though I have concerns with an open seat, especially if Vilsack decides to run)
KS-Moran (62, 20 years in Congress)
KY-Paul (who has concerned me from the start)
LA-Vitter (unless he gets elected Governor, this will probably go to Jindal - though I’d rather keep Vitter)
MO-Blunt (66, 20 years in Congress, epitome of the establishment leadership)
NH-Ayotte (a true disappointment, but I see no viable replacements)
NC-Burr (61, 22 years in Congress)
OH-Portman (61, 18+ combined years, went nuts on gay marriage, needs to be dumped)
OK-TBD (either Lankford or Shannon)
PA-Toomey (55, no longer the star we thought him to be, places second in level of disappointment to Rubio)
SC-Scott (51, no particular complaints, though I’d like him to step up more to support Cruz)
SD-Thune (55, a hero when he defeated Daschle, has barely registered a blip since, 18 years in Congress, time for Kristi Noem to replace him)
UT-Lee (no problems, though the establishment wants his scalp as much as we want most of the rest of the Senate)
WI-Johnson (61, has also been moving towards the “disappointment” side)
McCain I suspect will retire. If he doesn’t I hope he’s primaried out but I wouldn’t be optimistic after the last try.
Grassley, no matter how old he is I’d be happy if he ran again rather than created an open seat in Iowa in a POTUS year.
Shelby, I’d compare to Cochran. I hope he retires, if he doesn’t he should be challenged. I never liked that former rat. It’s a shame he edged Admiral Denton in 1986.
Isakson might quit, wasn’t he sick or something?
I’d love to see Thune get a serious challenge, something tells me the freepers calling for Roberts head will probably be none to eager too go after a more legitimate target.
Portman, puke. That will be an acid test for GOP toleration for fagatronics.
Murkowski of course will be public enemy #1 in terms of RINOs who should be primaried. It will take someone better than Joe Miller to beat her (presumably twice, just like last time).
I wonder how Kirk can survive. It’ll be a presidential year, where no Republican presidential candidate has won IL since 1988, and really no one has come close, so Kirk will have to fight negative coattails. Plus Kirk swept all but four counties and still only got 48 percent of the vote.
Of course, I shed no tears for him if he does lose.
If Vitter gets elected governor, he’ll be able to appoint his replacement. I have never heard of him possibly considering Jindal (the two men aren’t especially close), although I would gladly take Jindal over the other GOP statewide officeholders. I figured Vitter might go for Rep. John Fleming.
Coats helped scare Bayh into retirement (who ironically scared Coats into retirement in 1998). I wonder if Coats really will go in 2016 or if he ends up being a lifer. Lugar would have been if Mourdock hadn’t taken him out.
Well written and insightful.
Remember that in IL the Combine fixes elections, especially statewide. Kirk “won” because it was the RINO wing’s turn at bat. Simultaneously, they fixed it in the same election so that Brady “lost” because he was anti-Combine. They may very well permit him to “win” another race.
I also doubt that Coats scared Bayh out of running again. Bayh could’ve survived 2010 with him as an opponent (remember, not since 1980 has the GOP defeated more than two Senate incumbents in a cycle). He’d have had more to fear from Mike Pence or Marlin Stutzman.
I more or less was trying to illustrate we badly need some young blood in that body. 30s and 40s, not ones who are a decade or less away from pushing up daisies.
Thank you. It’s a gift. ;-)
Yes, like having the ability to swim like a dolphin or move like a bullfighter.
South Dakota- a very likely pickup.
West Virginia not a sure thing, but definitely tilting our way.
Montana- tilting our way. No idea how the appointment will effect things.
Arkansas- leaning slightly in our direction. Alaksa- a tossup, perhaps very slightly towards us. North Carolina- We're not helped by a field of third-stringers, but Kay Hagan is damaged and her fear is showing. Louisiana- This could go either way. Demographics help us, but Mary Landrieu has a knack for winning and Republicans aren't united yet. Kentucky- A tossup. Mitch McConnell has overstayed his welcome, but so has Obama. Michigan- A surprise near toss-up. The GOP nominee has raised money and avoided mistakes, while the 'Rat is little known and Obamacare is surprisingly unpopular. Still, Terry Lynn Land's disastrous campaign for Governor in 2010 has most Republicans nervous and 'Rats confident she'll blow it again. Georgia- Democrats have a potentially appealing nominee with a great name and insider support, while Republicans are left scrambling with no clear front-runner. New Hampshire- will Scott Brown run? That may make or break the race, as Jeanne Shaheen's popularity has slipped. Colorado- an outlier state, but Mark Udall is slipping and charges that he tried to cover up Obamacare registration numbers in the state don't help him at all. Republicans have a field of little-knowns.
Damn, I couldn’t get the columns to break.
South Dakota- a very likely pickup.
West Virginia not a sure thing, but definitely tilting our way.
Montana- tilting our way. No idea how the appointment will effect things.
Arkansas- leaning slightly in our direction.
Alaksa- a tossup, perhaps very slightly towards us.
North Carolina- We’re not helped by a field of third-stringers, but Kay Hagan is damaged and her fear is showing.
Louisiana- This could go either way. Demographics help us, but Mary Landrieu has a knack for winning and Republicans aren’t united yet.
Kentucky- A tossup. Mitch McConnell has overstayed his welcome, but so has Obama.
Michigan- A surprise near toss-up. The GOP nominee has raised money and avoided mistakes, while the ‘Rat is little known and Obamacare is surprisingly unpopular. Still, Terry Lynn Land’s disastrous campaign for Governor in 2010 has most Republicans nervous and ‘Rats confident she’ll blow it again.
Georgia- Democrats have a potentially appealing nominee with a great name and insider support, while Republicans are left scrambling with no clear front-runner.
New Hampshire- will Scott Brown run? That may make or break the race, as Jeanne Shaheen’s popularity has slipped.
Colorado- an outlier state, but Mark Udall is slipping and charges that he tried to cover up Obamacare registration numbers in the state don’t help him at all. Republicans have a field of little-knowns.
Louisiana will be a different animal for sure. With the general being their primary
the democratic party can dump tons of money in it for her and ignore all the other
candidates and even some other states. Their State offices, gov. etc. are in 2015.
There was a poll released recently from WV. It’s not even close. Capito is leading by about 15% and Tennant, the Dem, is barely at 1/3rd of the vote.
As for Michigan, Republican Land has been leading consistently and Dem Peters just declared war on a lady battling leukemia. Stick a fork in him.
I was not surprised by Michigan, and it’s not a near toss up unless it’s in the “near” is in Land’s favor. 2-time statewide winning Republican versus a generic rat in what should be a good year, if we can’t win MI this year.....
I read unions will pour resources into WV, but I’m not worried, I think they’re wasting their money.
I wish Louisiana Republicans would get united so Cassidy can win in November without a runoff. Maness is going nowhere.
PPP poll in Iowa shows the Rat Braley with a 6 point lead against each of this three most serious challenger. I have no idea which we should go with.