Could Democrats Gain Senate Seats This Fall?

It's a virtual article of faith among election analysts that Republicans will gain Senate seats in the 2014 midterms. I tend to agree with that assessment, and strongly so. In fact, like other forecasters such as Alan Abramowitz and Nate Silver, I think Republicans have the edge in the battle to take control of the upper chamber this November.

But there is one place where I part company with most forecasters. I’m not 100 percent confident that Republicans will gain seats. In fact, when I analyzed the Senate races in February, my simulation created a few scenarios where Republicans did, in fact, lose seats. (It’s also worth remembering that while a seven-to-nine seat Republican gain was the most likely scenario, in about 60 percent of the scenarios, Republicans gained some number other than seven, eight, or nine.)

Don’t get me wrong: For Democrats to gain seats this cycle would be the equivalent of drawing a straight flush. With that said, straight flushes do occur, so it’s worth examining how it might occur here.

The first thing that would have to happen is that the playing field would have to improve for Democrats. Of the 11 Democratic seats that RCP currently rates as leans Democratic or worse, Democrats are probably at least slightly favored in Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, and perhaps Colorado. If the political dynamic were to shift toward the party, these seats would probably be out of the GOP’s reach on Election Day.

The way this could occur is fairly straightforward: The Affordable Care Act improves; there’s no massive rate shock for premiums in September or October; and the economy slowly gains ground. This should propel President Obama’s job approval upward, lifting the collective Democratic boat.

As you know there are a lot of people on this forum (who have no knowledge of MA or NH politics) who would rather have people like Elizabeth Warren, Jeanne Shaheen or Barry Obama elected than vote for someone like Scott Brown or Romney.

Yes,I'm fully aware of that....all *too* aware of it.They're the ones who,IMO,check their ammunition supplies daily as well as their three year supplies of MRE's.And you're correct in your *vitally* important observation that they don't have the first friggin clue to what depths of depravity New England has sunk and that,as a result,the very best that can be expected from New England is someone like Olympia Snowe who,I'll bet only gets a rating of 40% from Americans For Democratic Action as opposed to Jean Shaheen's or Bernie Sanders' rating of 95%.Americans For Democratic Action is,as you probably know,a Maoist organization that adores the likes of Bernie Sanders and Dirty Harry and wants the likes of Scott Brown hung from the nearest oak tree.

While I am generally on your side of this argument about electing republicans in liberal states, I think some understanding for harder line conservatives is in order.

People like Scott Brown, whatever the realities of Mass. or NH politics, are just wrong on the issues. And there is a deeper problem because the GOP establishment probably is closer to a Scott Brown cave in, than to a Ted Cruz stand up for what’s right.

However, I would still try to get Brown elected in NH so Harry Reid is not Senate majority leader and so that Ted Cruz can be part of the majority party. I see the Obama/ Reid/ Pelosi threat to America as that serious.

Romney would be a God send versus the destruction we are seeing. This world is heading for a conflagration and some things trump even conservative principles - I am talking about if we are all dead or dying in a radioactive wasteland. That is where I firmly believe Obama and his ilk are taking us.

Or at least we are on the doorstep of one party corrupt rule and Third Worldism.

People like Scott Brown, whatever the realities of Mass. or NH politics, are just wrong on the issues.

OK,let's do a quick review.I don't know where you're from,so I'll make it general in nature.

"Americans For Democratic Action" is a large,well known and "respected" (by the usual suspects) Maoist organization.One of the things they do,every year,is rate every member of Congress regarding their votes on what they see as important issues.Here's a rundown of their findings on New England's 12 Senators for 2012 (the most recent year that they've rated).Remember,a score of 100% means "perfect" for them...meaning a perfect Maoist and 0% means,to them,"filthy knuckle dragging racist who should have been aborted".

Brown (R-MA) 50%**********Lieberman (Rat-CT) 80%

Ayotte (R-NH) 10%**********Leahy (Rat-VT) 100%

Collins(R-ME) 50%**********Shaheen (Rat-NH) 95%

Snowe (R-ME) 50%**********Sanders (Rat-VT) 100%

***************************Kerry (Rat-MA 95%

***************************Blumenthal (Rat-CT) 90%

***************************Reed (Rat-RI) 90%

***************************Whitehouse (Rat-RI) 90%

When forced to choose between 50% and 100% (or even 80%) I'll take 50%.Of course many here (including you,perhaps?) will take 100% in the same situation because,damn it,I WANT RONALD REAGAN...and if I can't have Reagan I'll settle for Obama (or Dirty Harry).

It’s unlikely they’ll retain control. It’s certain they’ll suffer a net loss. 3 seats are virtually certain to come to us (WV, SD, MT) and only 2 of ours are vulnerable (KY, GA).

Unlike 2012 most of our targets are GOP states and the only GOP seat in a rat state up is Maine which is safe RINO for Susie Collins. And just as importantly, this is a midterm of a President that’s not popular. Barry’s fan club showed up to reelect him but they skipped 2010. The majority of voters this election will have a negative opinion of Obama.

In addition to the 3 that I already mentioned we should take AR, AK, LA and NC. The rat is NOT favored in MI, slightly or otherwise, that’s a GOP edge. CO is a tossup at worse. IA, only a slight rat edge at worst. MN (Franken only narrowly leads nobody Republicans) and NH are lesser chances to keep an eye on. The party also has some hope in VA and OR but I don’t think those will be competitive. And Angus Baronet in Maine may flip his allegiance because all he cares about is his personal level of influence.

Whining about “rigged” elections is tiresome. How did they let us take the House and keep it if the outcome were “predetermined”? Fraudulent votes make up the margin of difference in a small number of very close races, they don’t turn GOP routs into the rats gaining seats. Fraud isn’t sorcery. The rats when they lost in 2002 and 2004 had a similar fantasy about “diebold election machines” being rigged. Excuses for losing are just that.

We lost in 2012 mostly due to shite candidates like WM Romney, Tommy “Grandpa” Thompson and Connie Mack the lesser. Any winnable race we don’t win this year will likewise be far more likely to be caused by our candidate being crummy than by fraud.

Fraud cost us only 1 Senate seat in 2012 (ND) and that was only possible because our guy did a horrible job. Libertarians cost us another (ME) and likewise our candidate wasn’t running a good campaign. Idiot candidates making short bus comments about rape cost us 2 more (MO, IN).

I didn’t think the rats could score a net gain of 2 in 2012 but THEY did and their polls that we dismissed unfortunately turned out to be accurate. They don’t think they’ll win this time.

This one writer writing this one SPECULATIVE article about how things could POSSIBLY turn around for the rats IF they get really lucky is not “the media” starting to “change the narrative” to fit a rat win. People who write regular columns need topics. You should see some stupid sports columns I’ve read, writer just had a deadline and needed to submit something.

History shows that for a President’s party to do well in a midterm, and by well I mean break even or gain slightly, he needs to be popular.

When Obama’s approval rating starts mirroring Bubba’s in 1998, then you can start talking seriously about slight rat gains being possible. And even if that occurs, is Obama gonna have positive approval in goddamn Arkansas or Alaska? Hell no. Obama getting more popular would hurt us in MI, CO and IA but the only way we don’t pick up those Senate seats in the so-called “red states” is if our candidates blow it.

The purist in the Republican party are going to make damn sure that Democrats stay in permanent power for the next 50 years.

The problem with these fools is that they all have a different view of what a PURE conservative candidate is and if someone differs from their world view only slightly then that candidate isn't worth voting for.

Thus we have the re-election of the likes of Obama. A corruption marred, dishonest, big government bureaucrat that has wreaked our health care system, economy, and world standing. A man who shouldn't have stood a chance were it not for the Republican voters that sat at home because the challenger wasn't pure enough to be worth voting for.

Whew....I'm sure glad we kept that awful Mitt Romney out of the White House. Things are so much better for it.

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.