Why the 2014 Senate Races Matter So Much

Real Clear Politics ^ | January 23, 2014 | Sean Trende

[centurion316]

Yesterday I laid out some scenarios for the 2014 Senate races. At President Obama's current job approval rating, Democrats would likely suffer substantial losses in the upper chamber. On the other hand, if the president were to improve his standing, and if Republican candidates implode in some races, the GOP could break even or even lose a seat or two.

But aside from bragging rights, 2014 is a sideshow for the following two years. Obama is a lame duck, and the GOP already has blocking power with the House. A Republican majority in the Senate could provide added leverage by forcing Obama to use his veto, and it could force vulnerable Democrats to cast tough votes. But where it really matters -- where it could make a huge difference -- is in the next round of Senate elections.

Given the playing field that year, Republican losses are at the very least probable in 2016. In fact, they are likely. So if the GOP blows it this year, and if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2016, he or she could have a sizable -- perhaps even filibuster-proof -- majority. Moreover, if the GOP doesn’t win a decent-size majority this year, it stands a good chance of losing it in 2016 if Democrats have a good year.

[CARTOUCHE]

Perhaps you’re not as old as I to remember the days of the Reagan Revolution and the brief period when all of the branches were in Republican control. If you were you’d recall the Hyde Amendment and the Mexico City Protocol, both efforts to control and eliminate abortion.
Overturn Roe Vs Wade? Not as long as you vote for Dems like Grimes. Wouldn’t that make you complicit in killing babies?
That alone makes your argument irrational and irresponsible.

Good Day.

[Din Maker]

Perhaps you’re not as old as I to remember the days of the Reagan Revolution and the brief period when all of the branches were in Republican control. If you were you’d recall the Hyde Amendment and the Mexico City Protocol, both efforts to control and eliminate abortion.

Oh yes; I remember the Reagan Revolution. The earliest Presidential Election I remember was 1952; Ike and Adalai. In my comments, I was referring to the George W. Bush years. And, we still have Abortion.

[cotton1706]

“In looking at your Senate rating post here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3158681/posts

Cornyn’s conservative rating is 88% and McConnell’s is 83% - both better than a lot of the others and better than I thought they would be.”

I would just caution you that these two in particular vote conservatively to fool their constituents, and work to undermine conservatism behind the scenes. In observing their actions, there is plenty of evidence of this. When Cornyn was head of the NRSC, he endorsed Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist and Lincoln Chafee, all of which became democrats. He also endorsed or funded the more moderate candidate-liberal candidate in EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. Mitch McConnell has undermined conservatives in both the House and the Senate with his various deals and schemes. And his minions are at the NRSC, who working with Cornyn and now Jerry Moran, have funded and supported moderates over conservatives.

My ratings are raw voting numbers, because in reality we can’t look at anything else to compare senators. But they don’t tell the whole story, especially about the senate leadership. I’ve been watching what they do for a long time.