Race for the Senate

Brian?

With the matter of the Presidential election pretty settled , anyone got any predictions for the senate races?

There are 21 Senate seats up for grabs:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map.html

Only 5 of which are current GOP seats, that's a lot of pressure on the Dems.

My predictions on the Toss up seats, not very scientifically arrived at:

Az (open): Jeff Flake (R), this state is turning pink but is still too Republican to not ellect Flake. If anyone thinks the Presidential attack adds are nasty, the ones I've been subjected to in this race were filthy.

Ct (open): Chris Murphy (D), 5-6 points ahead in all major polls

In (open): Joe Donnelly (D), in hope more than expectation. His oppenent Mourdock is now famous for the opinion that a child resulting from rape is part of Gods plan. Tis a very close race though.

Ma (Scott Brown R): Elizabeth Warren (D), she's ahead in most polls and well it is Ma after all. The negative campaigning by Brown looks like costing him big.

Mo (Claire McCaskill D): Claire McCaskill (D), she's running against Mr. Legitimate rape.

Mt (Jon Tester D): Denny Rehberg (R), a pure guess.

I'm going to leave it there for now, I need to do some more reading.

Ozymandius2011

Let's assume it's free and fair:

- FL - Ben Nelson (D) will hold on. He leads in all the polls but in Mason-Dixon its close. However while a quality pollster Nate Silver on Fivethirtyeight.com says it has a GOP-lean. Most polls give him a solid enough lead of around 8%.

- MO - McCaskill the slight favourite because of Todd Akin's remarks about a woman'sabody supposedly shutting down a pregnancy resulting from rape. I say slught because it has suddenly tightened up to about a 3% margin. The SoS here is a Dem so the GOP so it;s unlikely skullduggery will rob her of the seat but it's possible in this deeply conservative state hat Akin will bounce back as a surprising number may agree with him.

- MT - Too close to call. I saw a poll today where incument Jon Tester (D) has a better favourability rating than Denny Rehberg (R) but the fundamentals of the state are solidly conservative (though it was a 3% Presidential race in 2008). Montana has a Dem Governor though and the mountain west has a tendency to ticket-split.

- ND - I'm giving this one to Berg (R) despite a feisty performance by Heidi Heitkamp. It's a Dem seat and ND had 2 Dem Senators for decades until recently but in a Presidential year, and with the loss of Conrad's personal vote I think on balance the GOP are favourites here. But for a while it looked like she was in with a shot. I think the anti-Obama sentiment is going to drown out her chances here but she is one to watch for the future.

- NM - Heinrich (D) leads Wilson (R) in all the polls around 8-10%. The huge Hispanic population means this is now hostile territory for the GOP (though it has a GOP Governor she is Hispanic unlike Wilson) which is increasingly hardline on immigration.

- NV - GOP to take this seat. Heller pulling away after at times a competitive race.

- AZ - Carmona blew his chances with what some perceived as a sexist gaffe. The attack ads featuring a former female Bush officia (I think a former Undersecretary) claiming he banged on her door may have alienated the female vote too. This one goes to Flake (R).

- MA - Definitely goes to Warren in part because of Obama's coat-tails, and Brown's silly concentration on the Fox talking points of her (or the absence of) Native American heritage. His approval ratings are still good and I wouldn't write him off completely but after months of deadock Warren is now pulling way on a fairly consistent basis in the polls.

- MI - Dem hold. Stabenow has had a strong lead over Hoekstra for months. I think that ad featuring the Chinese-sounding woman may have backfired for reasons of cultural insensitivity and possibly offended moderates in the State.

-

Amerika

With one day to go, looks like Brown has pulled ahead of Warren in MA, and Smith has tied Casey Jr. in big bad blue PA.

More gains in the House for the GOP, possibly taking the of the Senate and the Presidency. Not bad for a party all but proclaimed dead after the 2008 election.

cristoir

Amerika wrote: »

With one day to go, looks like Brown has pulled ahead of Warren in MA, and Smith has tied Casey Jr. in big bad blue PA.

More gains in the House for the GOP, possibly taking the of the Senate and the Presidency. Not bad for a party all but proclaimed dead after the 2008 election.

That's one way of looking at it. But should Obama win and the Dems hold the senate and make gains in the house (which is considered most likely) another question should be asked.

How the hell is a party in opposition amidst near 8 percent unemployment losing?

Amerika

cristoir wrote: »

How the hell is a party in opposition amidst near 8 percent unemployment losing?

Simple… A media that fails to do their job, an electorate with a high percentage of the clueless, prevarication as the rule from the administration, and of course all that’s bad with the country is Bush’s fault.

Black Swan

I still hold with the earlier prediction that the GOP will continue with a clear majority in the US House, the GOP gains control of the US Senate by one or two seats, and Obama wins by a sight margin; i.e., similar to Clinton's 2nd term, but with some differences. The slowly recovering (but painful) economy and associated unemployment will affect the US Senate races.

nagilum2

Amerika wrote: »

With one day to go, looks like Brown has pulled ahead of Warren in MA, and Smith has tied Casey Jr. in big bad blue PA.

More gains in the House for the GOP, possibly taking the of the Senate and the Presidency. Not bad for a party all but proclaimed dead after the 2008 election.

Now this, I'll file under I'll believe it when I see it.

I can't believe that a democrat senate candidate that doesn't drool all over themselves could possibly lose in MA in a general election. If that really happens, then there's no way Obama gets reelected because the base is not turning out.

Amerika

nagilum2 wrote: »

Now this, I'll file under I'll believe it when I see it.

I can't believe that a democrat senate candidate that doesn't drool all over themselves could possibly lose in MA in a general election. If that really happens, then there's no way Obama gets reelected because the base is not turning out.

And if it does happen the aftermath will be quite interesting. Now we all know it won’t be blamed on high unemployment, a weak economy, the boondoggle called ObamaCare, the Benghazi travesty, EPA takeover of our underground energy resources, or other failed administration policies. I’m guessing the loss will be blamed by the left and the media... on one, or a combination of all: Racism, the Koch brothers, corruption, disenfranchisement, voting irregularities, a bought election, campaign laws, or dumb Americans.

Black Swan

Once again, I suspect that the GOP will win a slight majority by a seat or two in the US Senate, while keeping control of the US House, thereby ruling the US Congress. One of the worst things that can happen in the US political system is one party rule in both houses of Congress and the Executive (e.g., also winning the Presidency), followed by a stacking of the US Supreme Court by that one controlling party overtime. One party rule removes major checks-and-balances in the US political system between branches of government, and leaves room for extraordinary abuses by the controlling party, no matter if they be Republicans or Democrats in control.

nagilum2

Black Swan wrote: »

Once again, I suspect that the GOP will win a slight majority by a seat or two in the US Senate, while keeping control of the US House, thereby ruling the US Congress. One of the worst things that can happen in the US political system is one party rule in both houses of Congress and the Executive (e.g., also winning the Presidency), followed by a stacking of the US Supreme Court by that one controlling party overtime. One party rule removes major checks-and-balances in the US political system between branches of government, and leaves room for extraordinary abuses by the controlling party, no matter if they be Republicans or Democrats in control.

I agree that one party rule is the worst possible outcome. But I just don't see the republicans taking the senate. I think more deadlock is the most likely outcome.

1. I just can't see a republican winning in MA in a general election. Too implausible. CT is also too big a bridge to cross for the republicans I think.

2. Regarding Akin and Mourdock...the voters regret to inform the GOP that your candidates are toast because they were stupid.

So with all that, I don't see the GOP getting the Senate.

Fr Tod Umptious

nagilum2 wrote: »

Now this, I'll file under I'll believe it when I see it.

I can't believe that a democrat senate candidate that doesn't drool all over themselves could possibly lose in MA in a general election. If that really happens, then there's no way Obama gets reelected because the base is not turning out.

Scott Brown has already defeated a Dem for the MA senate seat, he whipped Martha Coakley's ass back in Jan 2010 in the special election for the vacant seat.

This time round the Dems have put up a equally weak candidate against him in Warren, who have been plagued all summer about her Native American 'heritage' and recently her roll as a layer for a corporate giant in a asbestos class action law suit.

I can see Brown winning this one again, he is seen as a everyman type of guy, whereas Warren is coming across a an aloof academic, which she actual is.

Amerika

I somewhat agree with Black Swan on total control of the government, but I never heard those type of sentiments when the Democrats had total control for two years as a result of the 2008 election.

An aside…Interesting how the term "Black Swan" is also a political term. If the GOP does take control... could we see another constitutional congress, a dissolvent of government agencies like the EPA, etc?

nagilum2

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Scott Brown has already defeated a Dem for the MA senate seat, he whipped Martha Coakley's ass back in Jan 2010 in the special election for the vacant seat.

This time round the Dems have put up a equally weak candidate against him in Warren, who have been plagued all summer about her Native American 'heritage' and recently her roll as a layer for a corporate giant in a asbestos class action law suit.

I can see Brown winning this one again, he is seen as a everyman type of guy, whereas Warren is coming across a an aloof academic, which she actual is.

I agree but 2010 was a special election not a general election. In 2010 there was a 54% turnout and Obama's popularity was at its minimum. This time, turnout will be much higher and Obama is more popular, and I think she'll ride his coattails.

Warren isn't a great candidate and in almost any other place Brown would be favoured, but in MA, I just can't see her losing.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

If the GOP does take control... could we see another constitutional congress...

Doubtful. It didn't occur when the Republicans last controlled the US Senate, US House, and Executive for the first 6 years during the GW Bush Administration era.

There will be no landslide mandate for either party. If the GOP takes a slight majority in the US Senate in Tuesday's general election, it will be as the result of very close key state Senate races, similar to the close race between Obama and Romney for the presidency.

Fr Tod Umptious

nagilum2 wrote: »

I agree but 2010 was a special election not a general election. In 2010 there was a 54% turnout and Obama's popularity was at its minimum. This time, turnout will be much higher and Obama is more popular, and I think she'll ride his coattails.

Warren isn't a great candidate and in almost any other place Brown would be favoured, but in MA, I just can't see her losing.

When it comes to the EC then MA is certainly a blue state, but locally things are not as clear cut, it was not that long ago that they elected three GOP governors in a row in Weld, Cellucci and Romney.

And I think your assertion that Warren will come in on Obama's coat tails in a bit optimistic

Obama is not as popular as you make him out to be, if he was then then race would not be a tight as it currently is,
Brown could actually benefit from a backlash against Obama, there is no way the state would turn red for Romney but Brown is popular and is seen as bi-partisan and that could help him get a lot of the senate votes from people who many not be voting for Romney in the GE

Oh and by the way he is endorsed by form Mayor of Boston, Ray Flynn (Dem)

Brian?

Black Swan wrote: »

Doubtful. It didn't occur when the Republicans last controlled the US Senate, US House, and Executive for the first 6 years during the GW Bush Administration era.

There will be no landslide mandate for either party. If the GOP takes a slight majority in the US Senate in Tuesday's general election, it will be as the result of very close key state Senate races, similar to the close race between Obama and Romney for the presidency.

Do you have any seat by seat predictions on how the GOP will take the senate? I just can't see it.

Ozymandius2011

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

When it comes to the EC then MA is certainly a blue state, but locally things are not as clear cut, it was not that long ago that they elected three GOP governors in a row in Weld, Cellucci and Romney.

And I think your assertion that Warren will come in on Obama's coat tails in a bit optimistic

Obama is not as popular as you make him out to be, if he was then then race would not be a tight as it currently is,
Brown could actually benefit from a backlash against Obama, there is no way the state would turn red for Romney but Brown is popular and is seen as bi-partisan and that could help him get a lot of the senate votes from people who many not be voting for Romney in the GE

Oh and by the way he is endorsed by form Mayor of Boston, Ray Flynn (Dem)

Brown can hardly use Obamacare against him in MA given its based on Romneycare introduced in that state by the man he supports for President.

Fr Tod Umptious

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Romney can hardly use Obamacare against him in MA given its based on Romneycare introduced in that state.

What has Romney got to do with this ?

He is not going to win MA so what he does or say is irrelevant to Brown v Warren

Ozymandius2011

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What has Romney got to do with this ?

He is not going to win MA so what he does or say is irrelevant to Brown v Warren

Oops I mean Browne. Attacking the Presidential candidate is standard in Senate elections too when applicable.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

I somewhat agree with Black Swan on total control of the government, but I never heard those type of sentiments when the Democrats had total control for two years as a result of the 2008 election

Ah, yes, this tired old nonsense again. How many times does this myth have to be dismantled before blindly partisan people stop repeating it?

Dems held it for about 4 months.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4e5_1346191012

Brian?

Mjollnir wrote: »

Ah, yes, this tired old nonsense again. How many times does this myth have to be dismantled before blindly partisan people stop repeating it?

Dems held it for about 4 months.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4e5_1346191012

It's been repeated so often they've made it the truth.

Brian?

So, the Dems end up with an increased Senate majority. Who'd have thunk it eh?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/senate/

McCaskill really hammered Akin in the end, legitimately hammered him .

Fr Tod Umptious

Brown lost to Warren in MA

Which is sad really cos the last thing that MA need is another wishy washy, accademic, Cambridge residing, leftie liberal, that will do zilch for the ordinalry people of MA.

I never really liked Ted Kennedy but he was the Jackie Healy- Rae of US politics, getting things done on his own patch for his own people.