Senate Elections

[Recovering Republican]

All this concern about the presidential election, there's not a lot of discussion about the Senate Election.

Background- The Democrats did very well in 2000 and 2006, so they hold 23 of the 33 seats up this round. Nearly half their caucus is up this time. The Republicans are only defending 10 seats this time out, all but two of those are considered safe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...lections,_2012

Remember now, the Republicans only have to win four seats to gain control of the Senate.

Most people seem to think that they will pick up the vacancy in North Dakota.

Missouri, Montana, Virginia, Florida, Nebraska, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and West Virginia are in play for the Democrats, and Massachusetts and Nevada are in play for the Republicans.

Worst case scenario, Republicans pick up 9 seats. Best case, the Dems pick up one.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

All this concern about the presidential election, there's not a lot of discussion about the Senate Election.

Background- The Democrats did very well in 2000 and 2006, so they hold 23 of the 33 seats up this round. Nearly half their caucus is up this time. The Republicans are only defending 10 seats this time out, all but two of those are considered safe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...lections,_2012

Remember now, the Republicans only have to win four seats to gain control of the Senate.

Most people seem to think that they will pick up the vacancy in North Dakota.

Missouri, Montana, Virginia, Florida, Nebraska, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and West Virginia are in play for the Democrats, and Massachusetts and Nevada are in play for the Republicans.

Worst case scenario, Republicans pick up 9 seats. Best case, the Dems pick up one.

Yeah, that's pretty much the elephant in the room, isn't it? It'll be interesting to see how many of these seats will remain liquid and for how long they do as well. Same as the house. It's not impossible to see a scenario where the Dems lose the Senate, but gain back the House, regardless of the result for the presidential election.

[Recovering Republican]

Least- I don't know if the Democrats CAN retake the House. I read a story like this...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...utm_medium=mbt

Currently the North Carolina House delegation is made up of 6 Republicans and 7 Democrats. The redistricting plan creates 3 overwhelmingly Democratic districts (the 1st, 4th and 12th) and 10 districts in which Republican Senator Richard Burr received at least 59% of the vote in November 2010 and in which John McCain received at least 55% of the vote in November 2008. This puts in jeopardy the seats of the 7th district’s Mike McIntyre, the 8th district’s Larry Kissell, the 11th district’s Heath Shuler (who reportedly is weighing an offer to become athletic director at the University of Tennessee, where he was a football star) and the 13th district’s Brad Miller (who was on the redistricting committee 10 years ago). Republicans have the potential, but not the assurance, of gaining 4 seats.

Ouch.

[Chronos]

So in one particular state, the decadal redistricting process is giving Republicans the potential for gaining four seats. There's an awful lot of extrapolation between that and 50 states and 435 seats.

[enalzi]

Originally Posted by Chronos

So in one particular state, the decadal redistricting process is giving Republicans the potential for gaining four seats. There's an awful lot of extrapolation between that and 50 states and 435 seats.

Yep, it actually looks like overall, the Dems will make a very small gain. The Republicans are adding a few seats in all the states they control, but the Dems are adding more.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Massachusetts is pretty much locked up for Scott Brown-he's the most popular politician in the state.

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Massachusetts is pretty much locked up for Scott Brown-he's the most popular politician in the state.

Not from Massachusetts are you?

Right now the only thing Scott Brown has going for him is he doesn't have a challenger. At the point where people have another name to choose from his poll numbers will look quite different.

One of Brown's biggest issues is he has to make it through a Republican primary. The Tea Party has labeled him a traitor and promised to oust him. While I don't think they actually have the power to do so in MA, it's a season of negative campaign ads against him that will certainly be remembered come the general election.

[Chronos]

Does that mean that his popularity is above 50%, or just that everyone else's is even worse than his? A politician whose popularity rating is above 50% is almost always going to be re-elected, but below that, it depends a lot on who the opponent is, beyond "generic member of X party".

EDIT:

One of Brown's biggest issues is he has to make it through a Republican primary. The Tea Party has labeled him a traitor and promised to oust him.

Wait, really? Do conservatives really think they can do any better than Brown, in Massachusetts?

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Wait, really? Do conservatives really think they can do any better than Brown, in Massachusetts?

Their primary mission is to take out Scott. They feel he used the Tea Party to get himself the seat then betrayed them(by not joining every filibuster apparently). He's been labeled target number one to be primary'd out. I think it's cutting off their own noses but hey they can do whatever they want, makes getting a Democrat in all that much easier.

In order for him to win MA he'll need to step out of line with the Republican senators. Otherwise he'll just be another one of 'them' I expect it will be a a few votes just important enough to make news. It'd be good politics for Massachusetts but Republicans actively punish those that step out of line by denying campaign funds, he'll be running with a broken leg.

The Democrats weren't expecting his win untill it was too late to do anything about it, so they failed to throw enough national money into the election and Martha Coakley was a poor campaigner. Next election I'm sure there is going to be lots of money being shoveled in with a well groomed candidate to challenge Brown.

I predict Brown will make it through the primary and will go into a race where he can't match the funding of his challenger. As in the US money wins elections we'll see how it turns out.

[gonzomax]

Then Teabagger party has faded. I think less and less politicians will toe the bagline. They have become silly background noise that people don't take seriously. Who will listen to a group that backs Bachmann, Palin and other nutcases.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

Not from Massachusetts are you?

Right now the only thing Scott Brown has going for him is he doesn't have a challenger. At the point where people have another name to choose from his poll numbers will look quite different.

One of Brown's biggest issues is he has to make it through a Republican primary. The Tea Party has labeled him a traitor and promised to oust him. While I don't think they actually have the power to do so in MA, it's a season of negative campaign ads against him that will certainly be remembered come the general election.

Wait, what? Scott Brown doesn't have a challenger? Who's running the state party out there these days? Christ.

[waterj2]

There's rumors that Elizabeth Warren will run for Scott Brown's seat whenever Obama finally gives up on her CFPB nomination getting past a filibuster. I'm sure at least Mike Capuano is contemplating another go at it, but then he couldn't run for reelection, so he's unlikely to jump in unless he thinks he's got a good shot. The other representatives are probably waiting to see how redistricting turns out.

Massachusetts is a very Democratic state. No Republican in either house of Congress represents a bluer district. Presidential elections usually attract more Democratic voters than off-year and special elections. Given a decent challenger, he's definitely vulnerable.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by waterj2

There's rumors that Elizabeth Warren will run for Scott Brown's seat whenever Obama finally gives up on her CFPB nomination getting past a filibuster. I'm sure at least Mike Capuano is contemplating another go at it, but then he couldn't run for reelection, so he's unlikely to jump in unless he thinks he's got a good shot. The other representatives are probably waiting to see how redistricting turns out.

Massachusetts is a very Democratic state. No Republican in either house of Congress represents a bluer district. Presidential elections usually attract more Democratic voters than off-year and special elections. Given a decent challenger, he's definitely vulnerable.

I do think that Massachusetts is the one place where Dems can pick up a seat. Brown was elected to stop ObamaCare (Because RomneyCare was such a treat) and that didn't happen.

But there are about seven places the Republicans can pick up seats.

Kent Conrad is retiring in North Dakota and apparently turning out the lights on the Democratic Party on that state.

Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Virginia, New Mexico, Wisconsin Florida are all in the "Toss up" column.

Of course, if the economy gets worse, a lot more Democratic seats could end up in play.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

Wait, what? Scott Brown doesn't have a challenger? Who's running the state party out there these days? Christ.

It's still a year and a quarter until the elections. Plenty of time to settle on a candidate, especially for a statewide race. Besides, there are already five declared candidates, but I think only Tom Conroy and Bob Massie have a shot in terms of declared candidates.

[Captain Amazing]

Oh, forgot to add, I think you'll see Capuano run and win the Dem. primary in Mass. They're losing a House seat anyway, and it might as well be his.

I think the Democrats also have a chance to pick of Nevada, albeit not a great chance, especially if Rep. Berkley gets the nomination.

[Chronos]

Montana, it depends on the candidate. If Rehberg (our current lone Representative) runs, he could give Tester a serious challenge. But he's currently the only high-level Republican in the state: Nobody else has anywhere near the clout to pull it off. And by the same token, Rehberg running for Senate would open up his House seat, in which case there's a pretty good chance that'll flip D. Now, of course, a single House seat isn't worth nearly as much as a single Senate seat, but it's still a definite mitigating factor.

[Captain Amazing]

In Maine, Snowe's facing a primary challenge from a Tea Party candidate. It's not likely she'll be defeated in the primary, but if she is, the Democrats will have a chance.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

Their primary mission is to take out Scott. They feel he used the Tea Party to get himself the seat then betrayed them(by not joining every filibuster apparently). He's been labeled target number one to be primary'd out.

Does Scott actually have a primary challenger? I'm sure the Tea-Party doesn't like his moderation, but I haven't seen anything concrete that makes me think they'll actually try and unseat him.

That said, there are some races where otherwise sure thing GOP candidates have actual primary challengers that would make their seats up for grabs if the incumbant were to loose. Olympia Snowe in Maine has a primary challenger who would have a hard time winning the general election, while Snowe would easily defeat anyone in the same. Ditto Richard Lugar. So I guess those seats can be listed as safe GOP with a footnote.

(Orrin Hatch looks unlikely to win his primary as well, though even if he looses its pretty unlikely his seat will flip given Utah's very strong GOP leanings).

[waterj2]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Oh, forgot to add, I think you'll see Capuano run and win the Dem. primary in Mass. They're losing a House seat anyway, and it might as well be his.

I'm pretty sure they aren't going to eliminate Capuano's district. Scott Brown's suggestion for redistricting was to use the opportunity to create a majority-minority district centered on Suffolk County. Which is what the Eighth District already is. And it seems to be considered politically important to keep the city of Boston divided so that its residents are at least half the population of two different districts (Steven Lynch's Ninth District is the other). So I don't really see much change coming to the Eighth, whether or not Capuano sticks around.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

It's still a year and a quarter until the elections. Plenty of time to settle on a candidate, especially for a statewide race. Besides, there are already five declared candidates, but I think only Tom Conroy and Bob Massie have a shot in terms of declared candidates.

Nope. There isn't "plenty of time". Fundraising and what not begins now. Granted, Massachusetts is a smaller state, but there are a lot of people and a lot of donors to talk to.

[BobLibDem]

I don't see Scott's reelection as a done deal, despite the wishful thinking of a few. The Teahadists feel betrayed by him and while they'd never vote for a Dem, aren't going to be anxious to vote for Scott, either.

Given the near universal disgust with the Republican thugs in Wisconsin, I don't see how the Democrats lose there.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

...That said, there are some races where otherwise sure thing GOP candidates have actual primary challengers that would make their seats up for grabs if the incumbant were to loose. Olympia Snowe in Maine has a primary challenger who would have a hard time winning the general election, while Snowe would easily defeat anyone in the same. Ditto Richard Lugar. So I guess those seats can be listed as safe GOP with a footnote...

If Snowe loses in the primary what are the odds she runs and an independent?

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

If Snowe loses in the primary what are the odds she runs and an independent?

Apparently, Maine laws allow her enough time to loose the primary and still get on the ballot as an independent, so thats probably the most likely probability. She looses the primary and then easily wins the Senate seat as an independent.

[jtgain]

I think that West Virginia is pretty safe for Manchin. He's very popular, Raese isn't running again, and no Republican can possibly raise enough money to challenge him.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

If Snowe loses in the primary what are the odds she runs and an independent?

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Apparently, Maine laws allow her enough time to loose the primary and still get on the ballot as an independent, so thats probably the most likely probability. She looses the primary and then easily wins the Senate seat as an independent.

If she does that do you think she will still Caucus with the GOP or will she jump ship?

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

I think you'll see Capuano run and win the Dem. primary in Mass. They're losing a House seat anyway, and it might as well be his.

Only if he's confident of beating Brown - it could get to that point, but not yet. He isn't nearly the most senior of the MA delegation, to be sure, but he's got enough years in to make giving them up a problem. But, he's one of the strongest and most popular, too, and not an obvious choice as you think. And, there are at least half a dozen declared Dem candidates in the race already - name rec is low for them all, but they're all plausible, including Alan Khazei, who won a lot of friends in the Senate campaign, if you'll recall. Setti Warren is less likely but still has more experience than many others who've actually won.

I would bet on Tierney being the one to get voted off the island, if it comes to that. He's easily the least accomplished, and ethically most vulnerable (via his wife), of the delegation. If the evidence of his rallies attempting to "keep the 6th intact" are any indication, he knows it, too.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by Jas09

If she does that do you think she will still Caucus with the GOP or will she jump ship?

I think she'll stay with the GOP if they gain control of the Senate; if the Democrats retain control it's an open question. Of course if the end result is 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, & 2 Independants (her & Bernie Sanders) she would the the deciding vote in organizing the Senate. Now it's a given that if she loses the primary and runs as an independant her colleages and the GOP will strip her of her committee assignments, drag her name through the mud, etc, but she would be expecting all that so it won't be much of a factor in her decision. As soon as the Election's over all will be forgoten.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

I would bet on Tierney being the one to get voted off the island, if it comes to that. He's easily the least accomplished, and ethically most vulnerable (via his wife), of the delegation. If the evidence of his rallies attempting to "keep the 6th intact" are any indication, he knows it, too.

That's a good point about Tierney. The thing about Capuano running, though, is he did almost get the nomination last time, so I don't know if he still has the Senate bug. Also, what's the over/under on Markey? He's flirted with the Senate before. Don't get me wrong. I think most of the people who are in the race already could win (not Herb Robinson or Marisa DeFranco), or at least have a serious shot, but I wouldn't rule out bigger candidates getting in yet.

[ElvisL1ves]

Markey has not yet publicly either shat or gotten off the pot, but if he's not yet in, then don't count on him. This is a good summary of the shape of the horse race.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

I don't see Scott's reelection as a done deal, despite the wishful thinking of a few. The Teahadists feel betrayed by him and while they'd never vote for a Dem, aren't going to be anxious to vote for Scott, either.

Given the near universal disgust with the Republican thugs in Wisconsin, I don't see how the Democrats lose there.

Sorry, man, I visit Wisconsin regularly... I don't see how a Republicans don't get a pickup there.

Even in fighting the "recall" elections, the unions aren't mentioning how they wuz done wrong by not being able to collectively bargain.

[Chronos]

They aren't mentioning it? Even way out here in Montana I'm hearing them mention it. How could anyone in Wisconsin itself possibly miss hearing them?

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

I don't see Scott's reelection as a done deal, despite the wishful thinking of a few. The Teahadists feel betrayed by him and while they'd never vote for a Dem, aren't going to be anxious to vote for Scott, either.

Given the near universal disgust with the Republican thugs in Wisconsin, I don't see how the Democrats lose there.

The states with crazy baggers for governors are able to redistrict themselves into a fighting chance. Then they are pushing voter ID laws that will keep Dems from voting. The Repubs have figured out how to subvert the system quite well.
They do not have financial problems.