The Race for our Senate

[Edena_of_Neith]

Starting now, I am going to give my assessment on the senate races for this autumn's midterm elections.
Feel free to debate all you want on this contentious issue. Polls are just polls, and about as fallable as it gets.

As of Early February, 2010:

-

In Favor of the Republican Party:

Massachusetts: Election completed, Republican win (Republican takeover)

North Dakota: Solid Republican (Republican takeover)

Delaware: Strong Republican (Republican takeover)

Nevada: Moderate Republican (Republican takeover)
Arkansas: Moderate Republican (Republican takeover)

Colorado: Leans Republican (Republican takeover)
Illinois: Leans Republican (Republican takeover)
Pennsylvania: Leans Republican (Republican takeover)

-

In Favor of the Democratic Party:

Ohio: Too close to call (takeover if Democrats win)

-

Defended by the Republicans:

Missouri: (leans Republican)
Kentucky: (leans Republican)

New Hampshire (moderate Republican)

Arizona: (strong Republican)
Louisiana (strong Republican)
North Carolina: (strong Republican)
Florida: (strong Republican)

Alaska: (solid Republican)
Idaho: (solid Republican)
Utah: (solid Republican)
South Dakota: (solid Republican)
Kansas: (solid Republican)
Oklahoma: (solid Republican)
Iowa: (solid Republican)
Alabama: (solid Republican)
Georgia: (solid Republican)
South Carolina: (solid Republican)


-

Defended by the Democrats:

California: (leans Democrat)

Washington State: (moderate Democrat)

New York State 2: (strong Democrat)

Hawaii: (solid Democrat)
Oregon: (solid Democrat)
Wisconsin: (solid Democrat)
Maryland: (solid Democrat)
New York State 1 - Schumer: (solid Democrat)
Connecticut: (solid Democrat)
Vermont: (solid Democrat)

-

Current Lean: 1 + 7 - (0 to 1) = 7 to 8 Seat Gain by the Republican Party in the Senate.

Results of Current Lean if Election Were Today:

Democrats and Allied Independents: 51 to 53 Seats
Republicans: 47 to 48 Seats.

The Democratic Party maintains control of the Senate.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Of course, the election is not today, but in November. A lot can change between now and then.

[Limper]

The Democrats are getting what they asked for. had they actually done change and listened to the people at the same time they wouldn't be on the ropes.

[Name Lips]

They had a supermajority. They did exactly squat with it.

Nothing rivals the infighting of the Democrats... For some reason the Republicans are fairly quickly and easily convinced to vote as a bloc. Democrats argue until it's a moot point.

[Limper]

They had a supermajority. They did exactly squat with it.

Nothing rivals the infighting of the Democrats... For some reason the Republicans are fairly quickly and easily convinced to vote as a bloc. Democrats argue until it's a moot point.

That might be inherent to conservative and liberal personalities and ideologies.

[tleilaxu]

That might be inherent to conservative and liberal personalities and ideologies.

communism for the counter-example

[Limper]

communism for the counter-example

Communism and Facism have more in common with each other than they do with the stuff inbetween.

The political spectrum is probably best represented with a wheel.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

I see solid Republican gains in both the House and the Senate. Whether or not the President learns from it, like Clinton did in 1994, will be the question. My personal opinion is that Obama is too narcissistic to view it as a personal rebuke, and will still try to ram things through that will explode the deficit and turn off moderate voters. If that happens then 2012 will be a lot closer than anyone probably thinks (provided the Republicans field a strong candidate).

[Name Lips]

I see solid Republican gains in both the House and the Senate.

This is quite likely.

Frankly I think more will actually get done once the Republicans resume debating with each other, instead of defining themselves as "the anti-democrats." A good bill should have both democrats and republicans both for and against, with nobody quite happy with the final compromise. This partisan voting pisses me off.

[Limper]

This is quite likely.

Frankly I think more will actually get done once the Republicans resume debating with each other, instead of defining themselves as "the anti-democrats." A good bill should have both democrats and republicans both for and against, with nobody quite happy with the final compromise. This partisan voting pisses me off.

I agree with what you said... whoa.

[Edena_of_Neith]

I factored in some things besides the pollsters in my numbers above.

The big one was the Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to donate to political campaigns. In my opinion, this gives a crucial advantage to Republicans (just my opinion here.)

Another is the health care bill. Obama is going ahead with it (he said so yesterday.)
I am among those who feel the health care bill uproar helped lead to the Republican victory in Massachusetts. Now, the Republicans will gleefully capitalize on it, yet more. And more. And more. (and more, and more, and more ...)

The economy. The debt. Unemployment. Those were big in Massachusetts also, according to the polls. And among those who made those their top priorities, Scott won.

Our president is not even going to close Guantanamo Bay (sp?)
For 6 years, they debated against that place, and now they will not close it?
And, if what I have read is to be believed, the WH chief of staff just called Liberals 'a bunch of retards' ?

One year ago, and I am quoting *republicans* here, the Republican Brand was as popular and desired 'as Soviet nuclear waste.'
Now, it seems - this from not only Republicans, but a lot of Independents out there - the Republicans are practically looking to the Second Coming late this year and in 2012.

The 'Theoretical Best Case Scenario' for the Democrats is they 'only' lose 2 to 4 seats in the Senate this autumn (on top of the loss in Massachusetts, for a total loss of 3 to 5 seats.)
The 'Theoretical Best Case Scenario' for the Republicans? They win every single contest in the Senate. Every one. That would be, like, a gain of nearly 20 seats (followed by an equally crushing victory in 2012, given this 'best case' scenario for them.)

[Edena_of_Neith]

We have a number of Democrats on this messageboard.

Democrats, what went wrong? How did it all go wrong like this? You explain it, for I am an Independent voter, and I want to hear your take.

I mean, one year ago, the Republicans could not win in Virginia.
A year later, the Democrats could not win in Massachusetts.

What happened??

[Limper]

Dems scared Joe Public more than the Repubs pissed them off?

[tleilaxu]

the republican strategy has a kind of vile beauty to it: when in power, trash the budget; when not in power claim the democrats can't have what they want because the budget is trashed. rinse, repeat.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(blinks)

The Republicans, have a strategy? They are capable of creating a strategy? LOL.
The only Republican strategy I ever saw was Bush's, and his strategies were: How angry can we make everyone, here and abroad, at us? How utterly and totally can we break all our promises? How high into the stratosphere can we jack gas prices?

(goes back to listening to the Democrats on the board speak)

[Hatter]

The big one was the Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to donate to political campaigns. In my opinion, this gives a crucial advantage to Republicans (just my opinion here.)

This applies to unions too, which offers some advantage to Democrats (along with their own corporate interests).

[Droid101]

This applies to unions too, which offers some advantage to Democrats (along with their own corporate interests).

Zuh? I thought I was a democrat, but I hate Unions.

I don't even know what I am anymore.

[tleilaxu]

I don't even know what I am anymore.

when in doubt, reach between your legs and check.

[Droid101]

when in doubt, reach between your legs and check.

Well. Technically, I'm officially registered as the "Bull Moose" party. So I'll just stick with that.

[cyphersmith]

Dems scared Joe Public more than the Repubs pissed them off?

No, I think the Dems pissed off the public more recently than the Repubs did. Plus, Mass was lost because the Dems nominated someone who decided to stop campaigning after the primary, under the assumption that winning the primary meant that she had won the election. That seat will return to the Dems in 2012, more than likely.

I think the public is pissed at the Dems because the Dems weren't doing anything. They have a supermajority, and still they couldn't get shit done. Of course, the reason for this is because the Dems are, and always have been, more fractured than the Repubs.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

That seat will return to the Dems in 2012, more than likely...

I don't mind predictions, even bold ones, but seriously? You're banking on the fact that the senators have always been Democrats, but keep in mind MA tends to also hold onto their senators for a long time, too.

Much too early for that prediction I'm afraid.

[Droid101]

You're banking on the fact that the senators have always been Democrats, but keep in mind MA tends to also hold onto their senators for a long time, too.

Seems like a 50/50 proposition to me; an immovable object meeting that unstoppable force. Why is that bold to predict?

[Edena_of_Neith]

Note that I'm only giving predictions for this autumn's elections, the midterm 2010 elections.

The Republican Brand is as popular as 'Soviet radioactive waste', to use the words of the Republicans.
Now, it seems, the Democratic Brand is as popular as 'Soviet radioactive waste.'

Which means ... we have Business As Usual, in America. Everyone hates everyone, and especially everyone hates Washington D.C.. and the politicians therein.
Business as Usual. :)

[Ergeheilalt]

They had a supermajority. They did exactly squat with it.

Nothing rivals the infighting of the Democrats... For some reason the Republicans are fairly quickly and easily convinced to vote as a bloc. Democrats argue until it's a moot point.

Big tent politics vs. little tent politics. It's just what being a democrat gets you.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Note that I'm only giving predictions for this autumn's elections, the midterm 2010 elections.

The Republican Brand is as popular as 'Soviet radioactive waste', to use the words of the Republicans.
Now, it seems, the Democratic Brand is as popular as 'Soviet radioactive waste.'

Which means ... we have Business As Usual, in America. Everyone hates everyone, and especially everyone hates Washington D.C.. and the politicians therein.
Business as Usual. :)

Well, you have to look at it cyclically. I always chuckle when someone declares either party dead. So long as the other party exists, they can always be an alternative when the party in power screws things up. And that will happen regularly. Even the era of Reagan's goodwill lasted probably from 1983-1991 and then it was gone. Clinton from 1995-2000 but it couldn't even get his VP elected.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Dems scared Joe Public more than the Repubs pissed them off?

(muses)

A year ago ...

A year ago, half the Republicans were so ashamed of their own party, they were ready to go and hide in their closets.
The other half were so angry, they vowed Electoral Armaggedon against those they felt had betrayed them.

Independent voters? As said, the Republican Brand was Soviet nuclear waste. Scared? More like: terrified. The Other Candidate, was better, period.

The Democrats? United, ready, and willing.

Now? ...

Now, the white house chief of staff is saying that 'Liberals are a bunch of morons'.
Don't ask me why he did that. I don't know.

But I think it's unfortunate.
I'd have expected Rush Limbaugh to call Liberals 'a bunch of morons.'
I would not have expected the white house chief of staff to do that.

Are they trying to throw the 12th level spell Super Resurrection (works even when Divine Intervention will not work) on the Republican Party?

How do you scare John Q. Public more than Bush and the Republicans did?
I would not have thought this possible.

[Edena_of_Neith]

I *am* a Liberal.

Without the Liberals, we'd have no Social Security or Medicare.
In which case, both my parents would have died long ago.

[Aloysius]

I wonder what would happen if Bin Laden is shredded to bits by a predator (or reaper) drone ? Those strikes in Pakistan have been more and more deadly since one year, and it seems that Obama and the US military are decided to boost this aerial offensive. For now, the high profile hits are mostly Talibans, but Al-Queda members can as well be hit, one day or another.

[Aloysius]

I wonder what would happen if Bin Laden is shredded to bits by a predator (or reaper) drone ? Those strikes in Pakistan have been more and more deadly since one year, and it seems that Obama and the US military are decided to boost this aerial offensive. For now, the high profile hits are mostly Talibans, but Al-Queda members can as well be hit, one day or another.

This was a serious question : things are happening right now in Pakistan and I somewhat have the feeling that there are more events in motion now than in the past 8 years. Could turn ugly, or not, there is no way IMHO to predict the future right now. But statu quo won't last.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=a5q1yaNWoHGk
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/world/asia/09pstan.html

[Edena_of_Neith]

A 30% cut in reimbursements to doctors, for Medicare?

That, not from Red Blogs (or Blue Blogs) or any news outlet: THAT from the secretaries of the doctors I go to, the people I have to pony up the money to.
And that, from the doctors themselves.

There were trillions available, for Wall Street, for Banks, for Big Business, for General Motors, for the Rich.
But my parents must see their medicare turned into garbage not worth the paper it's printed on - because no doctor will take medicare after the 30% cut - because there is not money for it?

I would have expected this, out of the Republicans.
All my life, I have feared the Republicans would get in, and do this kind of thing. (After all, they themselves said they would do this kind of thing.)
And all my life, the Democratic Party has been there, to protect the elderly and champion LBJ's Great Society - medicare.

Now, our president, is doing this. A Democrat. A Democrat, is trying to destroy Medicare.
A Democrat, is trying to tear down the Great Society.
This isn't Socialism. This is Ultra-Republicanism. This is Out-Republicaning the Republicans.

Does he WANT to see a future where Sarah Palin is President, Tom Cobourn is Senate Majority Leader, and the Republicans have Supermajorities in both the Senate and the House, and where Elderly Voters ALWAYS vote Republican ... and the Republicans always win?

Because that's where we are going, if he continues with this endeavor.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Republican Zuckerman is considering challenging in the New York Senate special election (the second of two races in New York State, Schumer's seat being the first.)

If he does enter the race, based on the polls, this seat will go from Toss-Up to Lean Republican.

[Edena_of_Neith]

A major shift in Indiana.

Democratic Senator Evan Bayd is retiring, and he announced this only 5 days before the filing deadline in Indiana, giving the Democrats no time to find a replacement candidate (nobody expected him to retire, so everyone has been caught off guard.)

Bayd was considered a very strong incumbent, with a war chest of millions already on hand, and able to easily raise millions more. He has served in the United States Senate since 1986.

Indiana was Leaning Democrat.
Indiana is now Moderate Republican (Republican Takeover, if they win it)

This shifts the situation to a 10 to 13 Seat Gain by the Republicans, if current trends hold (the Republicans need a total of 11 seats, counting the one they won in Massachusetts, to take control of the Senate.)

(Still watching the situation in New York State, where Zuckerman is considering leaping in, to challenge the freshman Senator there.)

[Edena_of_Neith]

As of Mid February, 2010:

-

In Favor of the Republican Party:

Massachusetts: Election completed, Republican win (Republican takeover)

North Dakota: Solid Republican (Republican takeover)
Delaware: Solid Republican (Republican takeover)

Arkansas: Strong Republican (Republican takeover)

Nevada: Moderate Republican (Republican takeover)
Pennsylvania: Moderate Republican (Republican takeover)
Illinois: Moderate Republican (Republican takeover)
Indiana: Moderate Republican (Republican takeover)

Colorado: Leans Republican (Republican takeover)

California: Too close to call (takeover if Republicans win)

-

In Favor of the Democratic Party:

None.

-

Defended by the Republicans:

Ohio: (leans Republican)

Missouri: (moderate Republican)
Kentucky: (moderate Republican)

Arizona: (strong Republican)
New Hampshire: (strong Republican)
Florida: (strong Republican)

Alaska: (solid Republican)
Idaho: (solid Republican)
Utah: (solid Republican)
South Dakota: (solid Republican)
Kansas: (solid Republican)
Oklahoma: (solid Republican)
Iowa: (solid Republican)
Louisiana (solid Republican)
Alabama: (solid Republican)
Georgia: (solid Republican)
South Carolina: (solid Republican)
North Carolina: (solid Republican)

-

Defended by the Democrats:

Washington State: (leans Democrat)

New York State 2: (moderate Democrat)

Oregon: (strong Democrat)
Wisconsin: (strong Democrat)
Connecticut: (strong Democrat)

Hawaii: (solid Democrat)
Maryland: (solid Democrat)
New York State 1 - Schumer: (solid Democrat)
Vermont: (solid Democrat)

-

Current Lean: 1 + (9 to 10) = 10 to 11 Seat Gain by the Republican Party in the Senate.

Results of Current Lean if Election Were Today:

Democrats and Allied Independents: 49 to 50 Seats
Republicans: 50 to 51 Seats.

50/50 on who controls the next Senate, Republican Party or Democratic Party.

[Edena_of_Neith]

A ratings change in favor of the Democrats, although not a large change.

Delaware goes from Solid Republican (Republican takeover) to Strong Republican (Republican takeover)

This is because a mildly competitive candidate has jumped into the senate race in that state on the Democrat's side.

[Edena_of_Neith]

I must make a ratings change again, but the reason is not due to an election, but rather something very sad: stomach cancer.
Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey has stomach cancer.

(muses solemnly)

Obviously, since the governor is a Republican, this is a potential Republican takeover. Probably this year.

In my opinion, cancer should have been beaten decades ago, but it is there, and it kills millions of Americans every year.
IMO, one of our greatest scientific failures, has been our inability to defeat cancer.
I think that Senator Lautenberg would agree with that, agree with me.

So, on that grim note, I must put New Jersey into the Solid Republican (Republican Takeover) column.

[Edena_of_Neith]

If I were a Partisan Democrat, I would be very dismayed by these numbers.
It appears the Republicans have a very real chance of retaking the House, and some chance of retaking the Senate, this autumn.

Due to the way our elections work, in 2012 a majority of those up for reelection in the Senate will be Democrats. If the current situation exists then, we could see a Republican Supermajority in the Senate.

For that to happen, the Republicans must take 19 seats in the Senate. A net gain of 19 would give them 60 seats, a filibuster proof majority.

At the moment, the 'best case' scenario for the Democrats is that they only lose 4 to 5 seats in the Senate.
The general consensus is 7 to 8 seats, on top of the Massachusetts loss.
Some think the Republicans could take as many as 14 seats in the Senate, just this autumn. Not to mention a possible repeat in 2012.

Imagine that: Sarah Palin as President, the Republicans with 60+ seats in the Senate, a massive Republican majority in the House (where the most conservative of all the Republicans are.)

I see the Democrats working towards satisfying their own base, but ... well, whatever they are doing, it isn't working with the Independent voters out there.
Currently, Independents are going Republican about 3 to 1, in the polls.
The Republicans are now solidly united and on fire (they were divided and in despair a year ago.)

I do not know what the Democrats are doing, exactly, to foster this unpopularity among Independents, or to so unite the Republicans, or to cause such rifts among their own voter base.
But there it is. In every single poll by every single pollster, regardless of lean or affiliation.

Do we want Sarah Palin as President, issuing executive decree after executive decree, with the gleeful support of a Republican Supermajority, while the Democrats are shut out of the process altogether?

If the Democrats cannot stop their slide in the polls, cannot stop the building discontent with them, this may be in our future.

I know the Republicans gleefully hope this happens (just ask Rush Limbaugh.) I would say to them: be careful what you ask for, for you might just get it.

I would say to the Democrats, who are pushing the healthcare bill again - think about what you are doing, and do things to make yourselves more popular again, before the unpopularity ends with us being One Nation, Under Sarah Palin, Indivisible, With Conservatism and Rush Limbaugh For All.

[Edena_of_Neith]

I'm not trying to be partisan.
If you want partisan, go to the appropriate blogs, such as DailyKos for the Democrats or Rush Limbaugh for the Republicans.

I'm just saying that, I don't want Tom Cobourn of Oklahoma ('All abortion doctors should be executed!') as the Senate Majority Leader of a Republican Supermajority under a Republican President with an even more ultra-conservative Republican House.

I doubt even our most devoutly partisan Republican posters on this messageboard, want to see that.
Yet, we are headed towards something just like that, if these poll numbers bear out, considering the demographics of the coming election and the one in 2012.

The Democrats need to stop their sliding popularity.

EDIT:

The Democrats may be in real trouble in California, Washington State, Wisconsin, and New York State in the Senate races there, as well as in the 8 races they are now widely expected to lose (in Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Pennslyvania, and Delaware, in addition to the 9th seat lost in Massachusetts.)

Boxer in California is barely ahead, Murray in Washington State is only pulling 47%, if Thompson runs he is outpolling Feingold in Wisconsin, and if Zuckerman runs he is outpolling Gillibrand in New York State.
And again, Lautenberg may be forced to retire in New Jersey, for medical reasons. The governor there would replace him with a Republican.

Even the seats in Oregon and Connecticut are no longer considered to be safe for the Democrats, in this particular election year.

Only in Hawaii, Oregon, New York 1 (Schumer), and Vermont are the races truly Solid, Safe Democrat.

Only in Ohio and Missouri are the Democrats considered to have any real chance of a takeover, and everyone agrees the chances are long and getting longer, as the Democrats continue to lose popularity.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Good news for the Democrats: A Rating Change in Illinois in their favor.

Illinois switches from Moderate Republican (Republican Takeover) to Lean Democrat (Democratic Hold.)