Skip to comments.To Capture Senate, GOP Needs Southern "Home Cooking" with Baked Alaska for Dessert
Posted on 04/10/2014 7:41:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
n recent years, the Republican Party has increasingly been described as a shrinking entity dominated by angry white males and southerners. But the problem for the Democrats is that Southern states will likely determine control of the U.S. Senate in this year's elections.
Four of the seven seats listed as Senate "tossups" by the polling gurus at RealClearPolitics are in the South -- North Carolina, Louisiana, Kentucky and Arkansas. Republican wins in these four states would deliver the magic number required for the GOP to take majority control of the Senate.
In North Carolina, Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan is currently behind several potential Republican opponents in the polls. But she leads the most likely Republican nominee by a slim margin. Regardless, the state is trending Republican, and Hagan is in serious trouble.
Despite Louisiana's rather bizarre electoral system, and barring some unforeseen event, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu is likely to be defeated by a Republican opponent. She barely survived in her reelection bid in 2008 when she rode the wave of strong voter turnout for Barack Obama. That level of Democratic turnout won't be there for her this year.
And in Arkansas, things are looking tough for incumbent Democrat Mark Pryor. His GOP opponent enjoys a lead in most polls. And this state in recent years has been moving toward Republican dominance. Mitt Romney carried Arkansas by more than 20 points against Barack Obama. If the Republican National Committee and like organizations can pump enough money into Republican Tom Cotton's effort, he will likely win in November.
Ironically, perhaps the most drama among these four "Southern Special" elections is in Kentucky. The reelection effort of the GOP's own Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell -- "Ole Happy Face" -- is having one heck of a time getting him back to the Senate, where he might then become majority leader. For McConnell it's as much a matter of style, with his stodgy and dour demeanor, than it is his policies. While he is viewed by more conservative Republicans as too moderate, he at least seems headed to an easy win in his primary election.
It seems likely that of the four "southern tossup" states, the GOP can carry at least three in November. But if the South supplies only three tossup victories, Republicans will have to find another close race to win in another region.
One of those wins might be in Michigan, where polling shows a potentially tight battle. It is an open seat with no incumbent and, in the year of the female voter, it will have a woman as the GOP nominee. But Michigan seems more likely to go with the Democrat in November. That's because President Obama carried it by a 10-point margin in 2012 and its Democratic turnout machine is still alive and well.
But applying that same logic to Alaska, which went for Mitt Romney by double digits, it would seem reasonable to argue that the Democratic incumbent Mark Begich, who by most accounts is hanging on by the seat of his pants, could easily lose his first reelection bid. Particularly if Alaska Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell wins the GOP nomination.
Regardless, the Republican's most logical path to a majority in the Senate is to carry all four tossup southern states. That effort is made much easier by the increased unpopularity of Obamacare and President Obama in all four states. And these are four states where the Democrats' "income inequality" message isn't likely to inspire voters. The South has suffered from poverty and income inequality forever, and every politician since Reconstruction has promised to improve the situation. All have failed, including Obama. Neither refighting the War on Poverty nor igniting a war on women will likely decide the southern contests.
If Republicans want to win these four seats, they must make each Senate race a referendum on both the president and his health care initiative. If they do this and never let up, they can take the Senate by taking the South.
And if the GOP can't turn Mitch McConnell into the temporary political version of a "Happy Meal," they can always serve up some "Baked Alaska" for a taste of sweet victory.
i cannot make sense of this... somebody help me, please!
Thom Tillis, the choice of the GOP-e, is the only Repub contender who trails Hagan in polls... but he appears to be headed for the nomination.
The RINO Party needs enough Senate members to over ride any Vetoes that Obama will do of anything they pass. Because we all know if they vote to discontinue ObamaCare, he will Veto that bill. They have to have the votes to over ride his Veto. Without enough total votes, they are basically worthless.
Dimocrat low info voters information.
The GOP-e has their person picked already, and Hagan is ahead of that person in the polls. There are several GOP hopeful candidates that GOP voters like more than the GOP-e choice, but the GOP is not interested in what the voters want... particularly GOP voters, and even more particularly, conservative GOP voters.
How far behind are Bannon and the other contenders? I haven’t seen much polling data. I did see Lee endorse Bannon and some other good publicity for him from conservative media and organizations.
...Which is why I believe RINO behind-the-scenes treachery will doom any chances of taking over the Senate. The GOP-e would rather see an easy win for a conservative in the general election morph into a sour defeat, just for the momentary satisfaction of saying, "See? We told you only moderates can get elected now!"
We can only override any vetoes of that arrogant pos if we get the majority. Without it we don’t have a chance. I hope you realize that. If not, than you are the problem.
Isn't North Carolina alone putting that old canard to the lie? The GOPe choice is the only one trailing the incumbent RAT.
Get out the vote time!
Walk the streets — make it happen.
Suppose the GOP gets the majority and still doesn’t override any vetoes of that arrogant pos.
Who would be the problem then?
Suppose the GOP gets the majority, doesn’t override any vetoes of that arrogant pos, and passes amnesty, and that arrogant pos signs it into law.
Who would be the problem then?
People who continue to believe that the GOP is on their side
when it is clear, apparent and obvious that it is not are the problem.
I hope you realize that.
Oh, their comeback to that is "it's all in the messaging."
thank you for that explanation... btw--this is truly dumb... others are polling better than she is, but they cannot beat the one guy who is trailing her... ridiculous...
Why wouldn’t they want to override any vetoes? But then you know it takes two thirds to override vetoes. That means unless we get the super majority of 67 votes in the senate we can do it without the rats
What have they done up to this point that illustrates in any concrete manner that they are against Obama in any way at all?
Furthermore, not only do you need the rats to reach 67, you also need the rinos, so it isn’t going to happen.
The ONLY thing the GOP has stated solidly that it wants to do is pass Amnesty, and that is exactly what they will do, and Obama will sign it.
This country’s problems are not going to be solved via an election or elections.
That is all.
The South is very conservative. Yet, Tokyo Rove and the gOpE doesn't make any distinctions by state but sees all of these races like they are Minnesota, Wisconsin or Connecticut and choose to run/support the squishiest moderate possible, instead of the authentic conservative. FAIL.
And then he and his minions in the supposedly conservative press yell that the Tea Party is splintering the gOp because they object to having Rove's RINOs crammed down their throats?!!!
North Carolina is a great example (LA and AR not as good of an example since there is little disagreement over the GOP candidate), as are the states where Rove is backing gentrified incumbent fossils rather than great new candidates - Tennessee, Mississippi, South Carolina, Kentucky ....
Yes! And these 'winners' put the old canard to the lie as well ....
Connie Mack IV (FL); Rehberg (MT); Berg (ND); Smith (PA); Allen (VA); Raese (WV); Thompson (WI) ...
I hope you realize that a simple majority can control the money and nothing works without it. The House alone can cut the funding, but Boehner refused to even consider that option.
It is the Money that makes it all go, and the House alone can stop it!
Cut off the money and you will see if we want freedom or slavery.
Apparently your too stupid to read my comment. I said the had to have a majority to override other wise they are wasting their time. They can cut funding and he and he can veto that also.
A majority doesn’t over-ride ANY vetos.
It takes 67 senate votes and 290 house votes.
It’s nearly statistically impossible for the Republicans to have 67 senate votes in the next session, or 290 in the House.
67 Senate votes and 290 House votes are 2/3 in each House