No, just pointing out that my “awful political analysis” turned out to be accurate. Once nominations were secured and as we get closer to election day, the challengers have gained.
Oh, and those who think 2016 will be great for the Democrats? Let’s look at the Republican freshmen running for reelection:
John Boozman- Arkansas. Red state.
Marco Rubio-Florida. Purple state.
Mark Kirk-Illinois. Blue state
Dan Coats-Indiana. Red state
Jerry Moran-Kansas. Red state
Rand Paul-Kentucky. Red state
Roy Blunt-Missouri. Purple state
Kelly Ayotte-New Hampshire. Blue state
John Hoeven-North Dakota. Red state
Rob Portman-Ohio. Purple state.
Pat Toomey-Pennsylvania. Blue state.
Mike Lee-Utah. Red state.
Ron Johnson-Wisconsin. Blue state
If the election goes as it is trending today, the Democrats will need two seats to win the Senate back. There are four GOP Senators occupying blue seats: Mark Kirk, Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, and Kelly Ayotte. In addition, Portman, Rubio, and Blunt occupy seats in states that are competitive for Democrats. So sure, it’s quite doable. But when I look at that list, I see a big problem. Incumbents are always hard to beat absent a wave election. The only guy who has been far to the right of his voters is Ron Johnson. If we also assume that things remain the same two years from now, the Democrats will be defending the Big Seat, an open seat, trying to succeed a guy with a 41% approval rating. Ain’t gonna be no Democratic wave.
So at best, the Democrats can win the Senate by a seat in 2016, win the Presidency, and the GOP will still control the House. THen in 2018, all those Democrats who won in 2012 are up for reelection, like in North Dakota, and the GOP just takes the Senate back again.
Boy, adaher’s optimism for future GOP prospects just makes my day 
National Journal explores how much of this is Harry Reid’s fault:
From the link
[QUOTE=Politifact]
Public records show Perdue didn’t vote in a general election primary until this year, when he’s a candidate for U.S. Senate.
But those same records show Perdue voted Republican in the presidential primaries in 2008 and 2012.
[/QUOTE]
To be fair, I did not know the whole story, but having not voted in any general primary and only in the presidential primary the previous two election cycles is not a great record.
He further points out that the only recent poll makes Alaska, one of the 5 races that supposed to be up in the air (and which the democrats need to win 3 out of 5 of to maintain control), not so much up in the air and in the D bucket. If so then the odds become 50/50 … +/- 20% of course. As he concludes:
It is kinda funny that it might be a Republican other than Mitch McConnell though.
Are you aware that Democrats changed the rules (see “nuclear option”) and that the minority party cannot filibuster Supreme Court nominations anymore?
In the case of Alaska, it’s the same thing I talked about a month or two ago: Yes, the incumbent is ahead. Problem is, he’s polling under 45% and the GOP hasn’t even selected their nominee yet. Here’s the current polling against Sullivan:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ak/alaska_senate_sullivan_vs_begich-3658.html
Sullivan is down by 2.8. And as has been the case in three other races, Sullivan will take the lead after he wins the nomination.
Then it will be GOP +8.
Actually, I think they can(SCOTUS appointments were an exception because Democrats are more likely to filibuster than Republicans), but the GOP won’t unless it’s an extreme nominee. They’ve had opportunities to do it twice and declined.
Ah you’re right. My bad.
In any case, I hope when GOP grabs the senate they use their majority to reverse that “nuclear option” decision.
Eh, I don’t really like the idea of filibustering nominees, even SCOTUS nominees. Laws, yes.
I do. Having laws pass or nominees approved by 51% votes is a recipe for discontent. The “in your face” politics that this generates are not good for the country.
There’s a difference between a nominee not getting the votes and a nominee not getting a vote because it’s blocked by a handful of people.
40 senators is a lot more than a “handful”.
This assumes that the minority party is actually putting the country first and not just voting in a partisan manner to deny the other team an appointment. You have to admit, there isn’t much political liability to being obstructionist in the this regard.
Actually, there is, if what they are blocking is sufficiently popular and the President has the ability to communicate with the public well. Obama’s abilities in this regard have always been overrated. While he’s been very good at getting himself elected, he’s been no help to Congressional Democrats. The only reason Democrats control the Senate today is because Republicans beat themselves.
Democrats knew better than to try to obstruct Reagan. And Republicans paid the price when they went too far with Clinton. Obama’s just not as effective a communicator as those two.
Obama is just as talented a communicator as Reagan or Clinton. But there are larger segments of the population and of the political opposition who refuse to listen to anything Obama says, no matter how he says it, and no matter what he’s saying.
So his challenge in communicating is greater than both, despite his equally impressive talents.
He’s just as good a “speaker”. Being an effective communicator is a level above that. Reagan and Clinton knew how to reach an audience, explain to them how what they were talking about mattered to them. Obama’s awesome as a speaker, but in a professorial way. Plus he’s overly political, which is why such a large portion of the public tunes him out. When you attack Republicans so overtly and so consistently, of COURSE anyone who identifies as a Republican or even likes some things about the Republicans is going to stop listening. Because at that point it’s just another political speech.
In any case, we can disagree on why Obama can’t make the Republicans pay for obstructing him the way a Reagan or Clinton could, but the fact is, there’s never been a political price for opposing him. Even Bush was more effective at scaring Democrats into giving him what he wanted, at least when he had the political capital. Obviously at this point in his Presidency, nearly six years in, everyone was tuning him out.