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 president’s 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 Obama’s 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 president’s job approval has explained 58 percent of the variance in competitive Senate races in any given state. Given Obama’s 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 doesn’t 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 ...
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.
Wow.
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)
AR-Boozman (66)
FL-Rubio (sold out in the first year)
GA-Isakson (72)
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)
ND-Hoeven (59)
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 concur.
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. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.