Skip to main content

View Diary: Complete Analysis of the 2014 Senate Elections (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  2014 will be interesting... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    (with 20 Democrats and 13 Republicans elected in 2008) so I'm hoping the Democrats can hold on.

    But 2016 might be very, very interesting because in 2010 (the year of the tea party), there were only 10 Democrats elected to the Senate, but there were 24 Republicans. I think in 2016 a lot of the Republicans in the Senate will be vulnerable, especially if the Republicans pick a weak consensus candidate (who doesn't appeal to voters) or a strong ideologue (who also doesn't appeal to voters). If Democrats win the Presidency in 2016, we can maybe sweep a lot of those Republicans out of the Senate. We might even recapture the House, too.

    "Stupid just can't keep its mouth shut." -- SweetAuntFanny's grandmother.

    by Dbug on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:57:22 PM PST

    •  We could seriously end 2016 with 66 Democratic (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Senators... if we don't lose too many seats this election.

    •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RandomNonviolence, Dbug

      The 2016 class hasn't felt a Democratic wave since 1992. 2016 is shaping up to be a trouncing at the presidential level, and HRC will likely have coattails even in otherwise 'safe' districts with historical ties to Democrats. Furthermore, many of the Republican seats are in swing states that are going to be deluged with money. I see the following seats being potentially competitive, i.e. a greater than 10% chance of winning:

      UT (If and only if Matheson runs)
      AR (If McCain retires or is turfed out)
      AK (If Murkowski calls it quits)
      ND (depending on candidates)
      SD (depending on candidates)
      MO (especially if Jay Nixon runs)
      AR (depending on whether the Dem party there can rehabilitate itself. If Pryor survives and we take one or two House seats, I'll feel much better about including AR in this list.)

      LA (if Vitter runs for Gov, as expected)
      IA (if Grassley retires)
      IL (Kirk is toast. No way he survives this one.)
      WI (Johnson is also toast. He's not even trying to keep his seat at this point.)
      OH (Portman is strong, but it's doable, and OH will have a shitton of money going into it)
      PA (I doubt heavily that Toomey keeps his seat)

      NH (state is trending democrat, and Ayotte is also very far to the right of her state)
      NC (Burr's not a strong incumbent, but he's not a weak one either)
      FL (Rubio is going to be spanked badly in an election year)
      GA (if Isakson retires or if we field a very strong candidate)

      All told, that's seventeen seats that will be seriously in play. If 2016 builds into a Democratic wave, most of them will be thrown out. What's more, we can concentrate entirely on offense that cycle, as NV and CO are our only potentially vulnerable seats - both in swing states that will again have an epic shitton of money being dumped into them.

      2016 will be a bloodbath for Republicans even in a moderately Democratic environment, likely losing something on the order of five seats. In a wave... rtaylor's right, we could be looking at the kind of majority that could seriously pass constitutional amendments. That's the kind of election result that causes electoral realignments.

      TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D)

      by Le Champignon on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:23:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Overly optimistic (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alibguy, Dbug

        UT is quite unlikely, for example, and so is AR, with no Democratic incumbent. By the way, Arizona is AZ.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:09:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whoops, re: AZ (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, Dbug

          Yes, UT is highly unlikely, and the only reason I included it is because my threshold for "competitive" is "10% chance". That's about what I'd rate Matheson's chances in a Senate race against Mike Lee.

          AR is also borderline at best, but my reasoning is that HRC will likely be at the top of the ticket, and we'll have a much firmer understanding of the state of the AR Democratic Party after we see their performances in AR-02, AR-04, and AR-Sen. If we take one or both House seats, and Pryor keeps his job, I think we can add it to the target list. If Pryor loses, it's game over and it becomes as safe as Alabama.

          TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D)

          by Le Champignon on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:54:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  2016 will be a bloodbath for the GOP (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, MartyM, Dbug

      But this year we've got to make sure the Senate still has 50 or 51 dems

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site