Posted on 08/04/2014 11:09:42 AM PDT by shepardspie33
If Americans elected an entirely new set of senators every two years — as they elect members of the House of Representatives — this November’s Senate contest would look like a stalemate. President Obama remains unpopular; his approval ratings have ticked down a point or two over the past few months. But the Republican Party remains a poor alternative in the eyes of many voters, which means it may not be able to exploit Obama’s unpopularity as much as it otherwise might.
Generic Congressional ballot polls — probably the best indicator of the public’s overall mood toward the parties — suggest a relatively neutral partisan environment. Most of those polls show Democrats with a slight lead, but many of them are conducted among registered voters, meaning they can overstate Democrats’ standing as compared with polls of the people most likely to vote. Republicans usually have a turnout advantage, especially in midterm years, and their voters appear to be more enthusiastic about this November’s elections. Still, the gap is not as wide as it was in 2010.
The problem for Democrats is that this year’s Senate races aren’t being fought in neutral territory. Instead, the Class II senators on the ballot this year come from states that gave Obama an average of just 46 percent of the vote in 2012.1
(Excerpt) Read more at fivethirtyeight.com ...
They had a majority a decade ago and blew it. A Tea Party majority is now the goal for patriotic Americans.
“I think, however, that Joni Ernst in IA has at least a 50/50 shot at winning.”
I would give her 60/40 or 70/30 odds of winning.
Her ‘make em squeal’ ad was pure genius.
Slightly. That’s reassuring......
If GOP wins the Senate, it will be the GOP-e calling the shots in both houses for two whole years.
The GOPe will simply bed down with Obama, passing A LOT of “compromise” bills that quietly but quickly pass things that will make conservatives squeel in pain.
Everything globalists/statists want, just in a slightly watered-down form.
Because both House and Senate will have a few conservative Repubs who vote “NO”.
But they will EASILY work with Democrats to get enough votes to pass things.
Right now, the Senate is controlled by Democrats - and to save face with Democrat voters - they can NOT pass bi-partisan bills that “give in” on Democrat/liberal/leftist agendas. Democrat voters think - how dare you pass a “Republican” bill !
Harry Reid just DUMPS the House bills basically in the trash, unless they cover only the standard Washington insider spending, etc.
If the Senate was Repub, the GOPe would have plenty of seats to make their Senate leader a GOPe guy. Tea Party will be eating at the kids table, while the GOPe and Democrats sit down to feast at the government trough.
A GOPe Senate leader would not be embarassed at all to pass a bill that passed a Republican House. He’d smile and say “we are passing bi-partisan bills”! :)
As long as the House and Senate pass bi-partisan bills - Reggie Love’s boyfriend will sign them as fast as he can give two snaps of his finger !
Based on the big thread yesterday it seems like this would be bad news. If we win the Senate then the GOPe will not get their dearly needed lesson.
Personally, I’m willing to pass on the lesson in order to win the Senate. A few more conservative Senators along with (in all probability) our disgusting Senator from Mississippi, and the rest of the GOPe contingent still beats Harry Reid as Majority Leader.
But that just might be the minority position here in good old FreeperLand.
They had a majority a decade ago and blew it. A Tea Party majority is now the goal for patriotic Americans.
++++
Yes. And double yes. But that will take time and the Obsma led Demographic trends are not in our favor. Republican women: you need to start having more babies. At least 4.
Wasn't there supposed to be some news today from the McDaniel camp regarding fradulent votes and the possible next steps?
While we can do our part and vote, what good will it do? All the elected republicans will do is seek power and money for themselves. No one wants to represent us and save the republic.
You position is perhaps the majority opinion here on FR. That surprises me but it does seem to be the case.
Question for you: Are you hoping that the Dems retain control of the Senate?
Are you planning to vote in November?
Wasn’t there supposed to be some news today from the McDaniel camp regarding fradulent votes and the possible next steps?
++++
Yes. But I’m starting to wonder if is really is going to happen.
I would also give the GOP a better than 5% chance in MN where the current incumbent “won” his seat by way of a fraudulent recount.
Yes, that's probably an accurate call. It's a pity that there's no way for us to stop that sort of behavior, short of drenching the capital in blood.
The polls have Land ahead in MI too.
That could flip too.
One thing I have observed. Midterm elections are very different from presidential elections. Even in blue states like MN, IA, WI (and others) which usually vote Dem in presidential elections, often vote GOP in the midterm elections.
Generally speaking in midterm elections, the electorate is smaller, older, whiter, more conservative, more dedicated, and therefore more Republican than is the case in presidential elections.
Moreover midterm elections tend to benefit the Party out of power, and this tends to be even more pronounced in the sixth year of an administration.
The Demonicrats have rigged the system so that it is difficult for middle class families to have more than 2 kids. Many Republican families who want to live and have children at or above middle class level have to have both spouses working unless one spouse has an upper middle class job so they can live on one salary as an average middle class family (and send their kids to a decent college or university). Families with four or more kids are more likely to be the entitlement moms and their welfare-producing spawn.
I’m not holding my breath.
I’ll have to see how it looks like it’s shaking out before I decide. A young guy like Booker could be there for decades and hard to get out.
++++
Indeed. But isn’t that the essence of the problem with a strategy based on electing more Democrats to the Senate? You are creating more incumbant Dems whose vote is guaranteed to be against your best interests.
I understand that the same can be said of the dopey GOPe types but we can defeat them in the primaries if we have the will and the resources.
In any case this is going to be a fun election cycle. Maybe 2010 redux. Probably not. But maybe.
No, practically impossible to primary an incumbent.
And the establishment repubs vote against all my issues.
That’s why I’ll vote for Garrett in House, cuz he very often votes the way I would.
That’s why I’m leaning towards voting for Booker.
When Repubs finally get a real independent candidate for Senate, he can easily get elected; Jersey would love a REAL guy in the Senate.
We in NJ need to promote old-school values and show the evil of unions - elites connection. long term project.
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.