Skip to comments.Dems insist candidates will retain control of Senate; Republicans not buying ‘spin’
Posted on 06/09/2014 8:51:57 AM PDT by Kenny
Democratic Party officials increasingly say they are convinced that their candidates will beat this years tough election cycle, retain the partys majority in the U.S. Senate and maybe even flip some GOP strongholds from red to blue.
Its a tall order that would require Democrats to overcome a lopsided 2014 electoral map, the drag of their partys unpopular president and an almost daily uproar over White House blunders.
But the partys strategists said theyve devised a winning formula of keeping Democratic campaigns focused on local issues and not President Obama while demonizing Republican challengers as right-wing extremists or puppets of billionaire activists David and Charles Koch.
Thats why House Democrats are expanding their map of targeted GOP districts and Senate Democrats are eyeing pickups in deep red Kentucky, Georgia and possibly Mississippi.
In each competitive Senate race right now there is a clear contrast between a Democratic candidate who is focused on creating opportunities for the middle class and is willing to disagree with their own party leadership and a Republican candidate that is beholden to the tea party and Koch brothers, said Justin Barasky, national press secretary for Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Thats what Republican Senate candidates embody up and down the map, he said.
Democrats dismiss the notion that they are tainted by Mr. Obamas low approval ratings or the steady stream of bad news and controversies flowing out of the White House. In just the last week, Democrats had to contend with the administration announcing unpopular new environmental rules for power plants, more horror stories from dysfunctional Veterans Affairs hospitals and blowback from Mr. Obamas prisoner swap of five top Taliban terrorists for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I recall two weeks before the 2010 mid terms, Nancy Pelosi was guaranteeing there was “no doubt” the dems would hold onto their House majority.
Wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
I’ve talked to enough people to know most are Clueless about the damage being done by the Democrats and their Dear Leader.
Ok wait so when the democrats ACT like they will go against their party leadership (but never do) that's a good thing. But Republicans who go against their party leadership it's a bad thing.
hmmmmm....I smell a rat.
The media only uses their outrage gear when the GOP is in power. Usually they cruise along in second, barely reporting anything against the Dems, and shifting to fourth against violations of political correctness.
I hate to admit this, but I’ll help the democrats all I can regarding McConnel.
It brings up the interesting argument regarding why Obama won a second term. Imagine he’s the republican candidate and he’s running against a democrat, Hillary. Would you vote for the Democrat?
Many democrats voted for Obama in 2012 in the common US tradition: They were not voting for their guy. They were voting against the party they cannot bring themselves to ever cast a vote for.
yeah, let’s talk local pot holes and so on, and pretend that all this national disaster is not going on ..how did that work out for the Dems in 94, 2010?
They might. But this is a tough cycle for the dems. Other than 2008, when 8 senators were swept into office in the Obama wave (including several very close elections), this class of senators generally favors republicans.
This is the class where we took back the senate after Jim Jeffords’ betrayal and also the one where we GAINED two seats in the 1996 presidential election year.
On top of that, there are 11 freshmen senators and 5 retirements that the dems have to deal with. AND it’s the 6th year of a presidency with Obama dropping like a stone.
Add to this some good republican candidates and I think it likely that the republicans will retake the senate.
There are opportunities in AK, AR, LA, OR, CO, VA, NC, IA, MI, WV, SD, MN, NH and MT. Even half of these is seven seats!
The party with the most people disagreeing with the leadership is the better party, don'tcha know.
white flag on 0bamacare
amnesty for illegals by august
no charges after giving 5 top leaders back to AQ (but if done again would be treason...)
IRS blocking TEA party groups
fast & furious
flooding the country wi more illegals
outing the top spy in Kabul (if you do it again,it’d be treason... again)
and that’s just off the top of my head in the last 18-24 months
why should the GOP “leaders” retain their post again??
Look, folks......No emotion here....whatsoever. There is only one way the Democrat Party is going to keep control of the Senate, and, that simply is, they march down to the White House and force Obama to resign or impeach him. Anything less then that brings political devastation on them, come November, 2014!!! The clock is ticking very quickly...with the election less then five months away!!!
My prediction is, assuming the Democrats continue to embrace Obama...whic the will do, they will lose 14-20 seats in the House and they will lose 8-12 Senate seats!!! With each passing day, with Obama is command, the Democrats are finding themselves in races they never, ever considered competitive!!!
And the Dems have enough plants on boards, twitter, and facebook to talk Republicans out of voting or that a Democrat is better than their current Republican.
Yeah, they may very well keep the Senate and take over the country outright.
If the Democrats are moderately successful at turning out their base voters - non-whites and single white women - Republicans have no chance to win a Senate majority.
The two races I have watched most closely - Virginia and Iowa - do not look promising for Republicans.
In Virginia, Gillespie will need to get about 65% of the white vote against a “moderate” Democrat.
That is probably impossible, so the only way to win there is if Democrat voters stay home like they did in 2010.
In Iowa, in 2012, Obama won the white vote 51%-47%.
For the Republican Senate candidate to win in Iowa, she will have to flip that number around, and a lot of the non-white voters will have to stay home.
The entire Democrat Party is focused on voter turn out for 2014.
Will they succeed?
I don't know.
But, if they are moderately successful, Republicans have no chance to win the Senate.
Not trying to get in a fight with anyone but to be realistic, you also have to factor in the Tea Party. I think it’s a high number of conservatives who either won’t vote or will cross over to the Dems because they don’t like the candidate.
I think that’s going to be a surprise factor in 2014. I actually think it was a big factor in 2012 but not recognized for what it was.
Before anyone tries to rip my skin off, I’m a Tea Party supporter.
It really will come down to who is counting the votes and democrats should have some confidence there. They have had some remarkable vote counts, and some recounts that are almost like magic.
They must have a crystal ball, they can see the future and make those predictions.
If it is any comfort to you, In 2012 the Democrats perfected the art of election stealing.
Even if they are the minority party they will control the Senate and set the agenda. We have seen the GOPe in inaction so often, we know the drill.
Like you, I support almost all the Tea Party candidates.
However, in 2012, the “Conventional Wisdom” that millions of Conservatives stayed home is not correct.
In 2012, about 4 million white voters stayed home compared to 2008.
However, Romney got 4 million more white votes than McCain!
Obama lost 6 million white votes in 2012 compared to 2008.
Most of the 4 million white voters who stayed home in 2012 voted for Obama in 2008.
The people I talk to aren’t ‘clueless’... maybe you need to hang with a better group.
I agree that voter fraud is a very serious problem for Conservatives.
However, nationally, Democrats actually have a 5% advantage with all eligible voters.
They may cheat, but in most states, they don’t need to cheat.
If they can get their base voters to the polls, they can win elections fair and square against most Conservatives.
The only advantage Conservatives still have is that we have the highest voter turn out in America.
Which is why I'm praying Cochran, Graham, and Cantor lose the primary's. It would be a very strong message.
Speaking of predictions...isn’t it about time for Nancy Pelosi to declare that the Dems will retake the House, and once again make her Speaker..IIRC, she promised it in 2010 and again 2012..
Given the GOP “leadership” has already broadcast their intent to hand back the fillibuster to the Dems, they are correct.
We have a bunch of wimps and idiots, pretending they’d rather pander to the street fighting libs, than do battle on their own terms.
>”The people I talk to arent clueless... maybe you need to hang with a better group”<
I don’t live in a bubble. I wasn’t referring to People I hang around, just people I run into doing my normal daily activities. Only talking to people who agree with you does nothing to educate those that don’t.
Remember, THEY LIVE, and we’re the only ones wearing the Sunglasses.
I think I can, I think I can....NOPE, you need to actually get the votes.
They’re sort of right. If McConnell and Cochran and Graham are all re-elected then if the GOP took control of the Senate how would we know?
I see Iowa as a sure R pickup.
vote democrat, vote islamist.
That’s not why the Democrats lost in 2010 - and they are focused on 2014 turn out because they have NO issues.
It will not work, unless there is a black swan event twixt now and election day.
You are probably correct. If things get tough the Rats will call on their principal advisors Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. They will move right out to piss off their Republican base, pass amnesty, war on the Tea Party and make sure that the country is flooded with Rat dependents and angry conservatives who are demotivated to vote for Quisling leadership.
I think the Republican candidate is quite engaging, so it's possible.
However, 18 months ago, Barack Obama won the state 52%-46%.
5% of his voters were non-white.
If those voters turn out in 2014, the Republican Senate candidate must get 55% of the white vote just to tie.
That will be very hard to do.
So, it all comes down to voter turn out.
You think non-whites and single white women will stay at home in 2014.
I think the Democrats will get those core groups to the polls, and the Republican will lose a close election.
Sorry, that's not correct.
The vote total in 2010 went down 50 million votes from the total in 2008.
NBC used to have all the 2010 exit polls posted, but that link has gone dead, so I can't get the exact ethnic data for you.
However, one thing was perfectly clear in 2010:
In terms of relative percentage, white voters went up, and all other voters went down, compared to 2008.
Since white voters go about 60% Republican, and non-white voters go 80% Democrat, that made a decisive difference.
Nationally, Democrats have a 5% advantage with all ELIGIBLE voters.
If the Democrats turn out at close to the same rate as Republicans in 2010, there is no way we can win the Senate.
Re: “Democrats are focused on 2014 turn out because they have NO issues.”
In case you haven't noticed, Republicans have NO issues, either.
you can’t compare a prez election year turn out to an off year turn out, and yet you did. You need to learn a little more about how these things work.
However, I don't think we have any Republican Favorite Sons running in the so called “competitive” Senate races.
And I don't know about any unique state issues that will swing the needle one way or the other.
Gender and ethnic background are the best predictors of how people will vote.
And, except for the outlier elections in 1994 and 2010, non-whites and single white women have slowly, but steadily, increased their voter participation for the last 20 years.
The rest of the demographic news from 2012-2014 is also very discouraging for Conservatives.
1.5 million new USA citizens.
Most of them won't vote, but those who do will vote 80% for Democrats.
The Death-Birth rate is against us.
Almost 90% of the voters who died were white.
Almost 45% of the new 18-19 year old voters are non-white.
Finally, the voter eligibility rate increased for Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians by 1%-2%.
A year ago I predicted we would win 4 Senate seats in 2014.
I'll stand by that.
No matter what Obama does, the MSM and the Democrat Party have his back.
Ted Cruz is the only Senator who has called for the repeal of ObamaCare.
And, while thousands of Hispanic children run wild at the border, Cantor, Ryan, and Boehner are still quietly negotiating for Amnesty.
Republicans stand for nothing.
Next to nothing is what we will gain in 2014.
You are right about a lot of the demographics, but still not a peep in your posts about the differences between Prez elex and mid term elex.
Ideally, I would compare ethnic and gender distribution between 2006 and 2010.
Since I no longer have that data for either year, I chose to use 2008.
I used 2008 because of the glaring disparity in ethnic and gender distribution between 2008 and 2010.
I claimed that Republicans did very well in 2010 because many non-whites and single white women stayed home.
You said, “No.”
Since my 2010 data source disappeared, from memory:
Relative Percentage, from 2008 to 2010:
White voters - Up 4%
Non-white voters - Down 4%
Female voters - Down 1%
I think that ethnic distribution dovetails nicely with the Democrat share of the popular vote in those two elections:
2008 - 52.9%
2010 - 44.9%
You and I do not speak the same language. I didn’t say what you said was wrong, I said, very correctly, that your comparisons were flawed and misdirected and not relevant.
Because, well, they’re not! Just because you have some correct factoids doesn’t necessarily mean you have constructed a coherent case, and you haven’t.
Let's check the archive.
Here's the ENTIRE statement I made that you disagreed with:
“The Democrats lost in 2010 because they had very poor voter turn out from non-whites and single white women.”
There is nothing in that post about 2008.
Here is your response:
“Thats not why the Democrats lost in 2010...”
For the last four posts, I've tried to persuade you my statement was correct.
I used data from 2008 ONLY because I no longer have gender and ethnic data from 2006 and 2010.
Now you say:
“I didnt say what you said was wrong...”
I want to ask you a serious question? Are you an idiot?
YOU WERE WRONG on why the Dems lost .but you were correct about their turn out ..but you contrasted it to 2008 which is also wrong. So yes, you had a fact right, but you had your analysis wrong.
Go away. I can’t deal with 65 IQ
Who ever did the polling that tells the Democrats they have a chance to retain the senate is probably the same outfit that told Cantor he was up by 35 points.
Exactly! Brat should counsel GOP on strategy. He was saying last night on Fox that historically, centralized, top-down government has never worked and that is what we have with Democrats.
I see your point but you’re missing the big picture. No one, and I mean no one is anywhere near as bad as Obama and his minions.
And if the Dems keep control in 2014, Obama has more muscle to finish us off with.
Why did the Dems lose in 2010?
Five posts from you, and not one word on that subject.
The Dems lost for the same reason they lost in 1994: there was a huge back lash against Hillary Care in 93-94 and Obama Care in 09-10. At the same time, there was a huge grass roots uprising in 94 (Contract w America) and in 2010 (Tea Party).
The turn out issue was a result of these factors - both high intensity on the right and depressed intensity on the left .and both were mid term elections so both were about ideas and not people.
Please send your tuition check via pay pal.
So, 2010 was a huge backlash to ObamaCare?
Yet, 24 months later, in 2012, Obama was easily reelected, campaigning FOR ObamaCare.
Now, 40 months after our historic 2010 victory, Ted Cruz and a couple dozen Congressmen I've never heard of are the ONLY Republicans campaigning against ObamaCare.
Boehner, Cantor, and Ryan actually voted to fully fund two years of ObamaCare, including funding for insurance company bailouts!
Edmund, in case you haven't noticed, poor people and the lower middle class, about 47% of voters, love ObamaCare.
Corporate America also loves ObamaCare, since they plan to dump ALL their employees into it.
AGAIN .YOU DON”T UNDERSTAND THE DIFF BETWEEN MID TERMS AND GENERAL ELECTIONS.
Until you get that lesson down, do not bother the professor ever again. You are being THICK THICK THICK HEADED.