Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Live Digest: 11/8 (afternoon edition) (402 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  well two years out (6+ / 0-)

    Nobody considered ME or IN competitive.  They only became competitive due to a retirement and primary loss.

    •  Yeah, people keep saying this, too... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lordpet8, MichaelNY, jncca

      But look at what I wrote: IN was still more competitive than anything we have a shot at in '14 short of a Collins retirement, even though it was a long-shot!

      •  Collins may end up retiring rather than face (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lordpet8, MichaelNY

        a tea party primary challenge. We'll end up getting at least 1 GOP retirement by 2014 and we may even get 1 incumbent losing in a primary.

        President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

        by askew on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:58:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dems need to recruit credible challengers (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ChadmanFL, Woody, MichaelNY

          in KY, GA, SC, ME, TN, TX.

          Any one of those IMO are prime candidates to get teabagged.  They could well be the IN of 2014.  If Collins retires or gets teabagged then ME is a prime target.  The others would take a minor miracle but we got a few minor miracles this year and 3 last time out so you never know.  If they go uncontested then we are guaranteed to lose.

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:29:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  TX (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Zack from the SFV, jncca

            That race got "teabagged" this year, and look what happened? The Tea Party guy won. I wouldn't waste too much time or money on TX or TN, if there isn't enough of either to go around.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:21:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You never know (0+ / 0-)

              a 50 state strategy is what got us the majority in 2006 and 2008.  How the hell could one predict Mark Foley or Sharon Angle or Richard Mourdock.  You can't so you run in every race.  We were going to lose Texas anyway no matter whether or not a teabagger won or lost the primary.  BUt we were also supposed to lose Indiana no matter whether it was Lugar or Mourdock.  Didn't quite end up that way.    

              This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

              by DisNoir36 on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 08:44:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Nothing looked competitive this year (6+ / 0-)

        MA and NV were the only seats that looked competitive at the start of the year, and we lost NV anyway.

        And still we got two other pickups thanks to Snowe's surprise retirement and Lugar's surprise primary loss.

        I was on record the past couple months as predicting D+1 in the Senate, sweated it, and then was proven overly pessimistic by a seat.

        I'll go on record now as saying we will hold the Senate come 2015.  Our net losses will be 5 max, and I bet no more than 4.  I see only one seat, SD, that is a likely loss up front.

        44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

        by DCCyclone on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:18:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Way to early to make definitive predictions. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          but I think anything from -2 to -10ish is plausible.

        •  Is SD a loss because of a Johnson retirement (3+ / 0-)

          or because it's just too red?

          I said this to Chachy above, but it's worth repeating: instead of saying we don't have good candidates, let's find some and then give them the support necessary to win. It might sound pointless, but unless we work on competing in harder areas, we will always be fighting on their terms. We are willing to take candidates that aren't hardline liberals, unlike the Republicans who cost themselves very winnable seats in the name of ideological purity. The absolute worst thing that will happen to us is that we waste a lot of money and make little to no difference in the end, but if we get reasonably credible candidates who are willing to work at it, we will most likely help ourselves for future races. And given that we really don't have a lot of truly endangered incumbents, it's not as if trying to be aggressive will really make it a strict tradeoff.

          "The election of Mitt Romney and a supporting congress this November would be a...disaster for America. Think of the trainwreck that has been the Conservative government in Britain since 2010. And square it."--Brad DeLong

          by bjssp on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:19:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm betting we lose Arkansas, West Virginia, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, bumiputera

          South Dakota, and possibly Louisiana and Alaska, but I think the latter two will hold on.

          ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

          by James Allen on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:06:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (130)
  • Community (63)
  • Bernie Sanders (44)
  • Elections (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • Culture (28)
  • 2016 (27)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Science (23)
  • Environment (23)
  • Spam (21)
  • Law (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Media (18)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (15)
  • White House (14)
  • International (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site