Skip to main content

   I'll make this brief.   Nate Silver today:  Senate Control in 2014 Increasingly Looks Like a Tossup.

     This is via NYT - and seeing as how they have a paywall, I'll post a link, but here is the headline:   Senate Control in 2014 Increasingly Looks Like a Tossup

      http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Nate does say this is contingent on Republicans... (8+ / 0-)

    ...selecting sane candidates. Looks like we're gonna be okay.

  •  Wait, I thought polling indicated (0+ / 0-)

    that voters blamed Republicans more for gridlock and didn't like gridlock.  How is this consistent?  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:42:09 PM PDT

  •  It's all because of "those lefty Obama-haters" n/t (8+ / 0-)

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:45:26 PM PDT

  •  It is best for oracles to predict disasters. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, gfv6800

    Then, if they were wrong, their audience will be happy and, if they were right, they can bask in their wisdom.

    It is possible that the Senate and House would like to resemble a sports team, but the fact of the matter is that they are all hirelings and the electorate will make a choice. And, if we do our work well, the choices will be better informed than ever before.
    It isn't as important how many people vote as how well informed they are. While the Coms are busy thinning the herd, we have to be sure to get the information out.

    Speaking of which, Rachel Maddow had a segment the other day under the heading "thinning the heard."  Someone was well-intentioned, but spelling still needs some work. "Thinning the herd" is apparently a novel concept to our city-bred media folk. They probably don't know what "all hat; no cattle" means, either.
    Translators. We need translators.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:46:32 PM PDT

  •  There's many a slip (8+ / 0-)

    'twixt the cup and the lip.

    And there's a ton of time between now and 2014.  I don't put any weight on political prognostications done 15 months early, although it may be an early indication that working harder is a good idea.

    He's also qualified it as, right now, including a lot of generic candidates.  Once the actual candidates with actual warts come out of the woodwork, things change.

    We can always hope Christine O'Donnell runs again.  (Psst:  she's a witch)

    (-6.38, -7.03) Moderate left, moderate libertarian

    by Lonely Liberal in PA on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:48:30 PM PDT

  •  I'd say that he is right, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward, T100R, Sonnet

    but there is a long time between now and November 2014. The way we keep the Senate is to campaign as hard as we can -- and in this case, in the right places.

    Breathe in. Breathe out. Forget this, and attaining enlightenment will be the least of your problems.

    by rb137 on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:50:51 PM PDT

  •  Yes he's right - about his margin of error, too. (7+ / 0-)

    He's correct that the race stands where he says it does. He's also correct that we've yet to see the GOP primaries, and that they might well hand one or more seats they "should" win to the Democrats.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:51:24 PM PDT

  •  We should thank Nate Silver (10+ / 0-)

    And get to work on getting good candidates out there RIGHT NOW.

    complacency elects Republicans.

  •  I was reading Nate's piece today as well. I like (5+ / 0-)

    Silver and I think he's right that right now the Senate is in the toss up category.  But so were the 2010 and 2012 Senate rankings this early on.  Schweitzer choosing not to run may have been a bummer but or course I want to see what the GOP primaries have to offer, especially in South Dakota and North Carolina.  I don't doubt another candidate, hopefully of Schweitzer-caliber, will stand up to the plate but I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket.  Here's what I think.  I think Mark Pryor in Arkansas still has a shot at winning his race, as well as Kay Hagan in North Carolina and Mark Begich in Alaska.  All of them I would put in the toss up category because of where they're from but I believe they can all still win.  I think Mary Landrieu will win her race in Louisiana because conservatives aren't crazy about Bill Cassidy.  Newspapers are trying to get Bobby Jindal to run it won't work.  I think Georgia is our most likely pick up and I think we can take that seat, especially if and when Michelle Nunn announces her candidacy.  I am also not giving up on South Dakota just yet because I like Rick Weiland and the GOP primary is starting to get interesting.  Right now I would write off Montana and West Virginia but keep my eyes on Georgia, South Dakota, Kentucky and yes, even South Carolina.  I think Lindsey Graham will be the most likeliest Republican to lose to a Tea Party challenger because there's so much hatred for him.  The Texas Senate race I'd like to keep my eye on as well because Texas could finally go the way California did in the 1980s, where the GOP pissed off Latino voters so much that they made CA a blue state.  That could finally happen in Texas.  As for Maine, we would need to get really lucky there but we'll see.

    Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

    by poopdogcomedy on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:19:29 PM PDT

  •  Get ready for more debates on this site (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aspe4, edwardssl

    About whether primary fights are productive or just damage candidates so that it is easier for Republicans to beat them.

  •  Probably. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aspe4

    The list of people up for senate elections in 2014 is pretty favorable to Republicans.

    His prediction hasn't changed a great deal recently.

  •  No (0+ / 0-)

    Democrats have a small advantage at least while Landrieu, Hagan, Pryor and Begich continue to lead their respective races.

    "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

    by conspiracy on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:58:48 PM PDT

  •  ...currently there is a 70% chance... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward

    ...the GOP takes the Senate...

    Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences. -7.38; -3.44

    by paradise50 on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 02:18:11 PM PDT

    •  He did not say 70% (0+ / 0-)

      He said toss-up which is 50%. and that's now 2014 anything can and will happen

      a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.

      by Jamesleo on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:00:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  All the more reason (0+ / 0-)

    to remove the filibuster and get all the executive and judicial nominations approved pronto.

  •  There is good and bad in what he said (0+ / 0-)

    It could happen and it could not happen I am not sure about Montana. There are groups not being discussed. if the Republicans resume the "War on Women" agenda, we will be in good shape.
    Even if they tie up the Senate, it will be short lived
    If Hillary runs, there could be major down ticket shifts.

    a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.

    by Jamesleo on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:56:31 PM PDT

  •  It's not an easy call (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    METAL TREK

    but it's not looking like a Democratic 'wave' next November.  And Democrats overperformed in Senate elections in 2012.  So it's quite likely that the 2014 elections will be fairly close to even.  

    Democrats are trying to hold on to Senate seats in small, rural or resource extracting essentially Republican states, some of which have become more Republican in the past couple of years as older conservative Democrats flip or die out.

    In something of a consolation, Republicans are trying to hold on their excess of governorships in substantially urban Blue states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Nevada.

    I think Democrats should net gain a couple of seats in the U.S. House.  But state legislatures will probably come out pretty even- there are conservaDem-run chambers that will probably fall (like the West Virginia House of Delegates) while Democrats should pick up e.g. the Pennsylvania state House.  

    There are a few pickup possibilities, such as Susan Collins's seat in Maine.  But on the whole, it's better to think that 2016 should be a year of Democratic gains or rebound.  And 2014 is still fundamentally about the decline and loss of centrist/conservative Democrats in Red states.

  •  No, no, no, no, Dear God, please no. (0+ / 0-)

    Please let him not be correct, or let it not work out that way in the end.

    This just shows how badly this country needs term limits.  With the obscenity of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and the self-serving corporatism of the drones who comprise most of the politicians in both parties, we NEED term limits--a total of eight years for all senators, representatives, and judicial officials, just like you have for the president.  Political positions and judgeships are opportunities to serve the PEOPLE, not as lucrative careers in themselves, or positions you can leverage for the big bucks after you retire or when you use the revolving media/lobbying/politics door.

  •  No sitting back, we have to ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... maintain and/or decrease the number of Republicans in the Senate.

    We should worry, work, and put energy into the 2014 Senate race. The races are only an electoral inevitability if we don't do something to change the course.

    One way to look at, for example, the 2010 election that lost the House was to say, "well, it was inevitable, because of gerrymandering." I think 2010 was inevitable because

    1. Progressives lost interest, with the most hardcore progressives throwing in the towel because Obamacare wasn't single payer health care
    2. There wasn't an intensive get out the vote drive

    If the Senate goes back to the Republicans in 2014, that paves the way for a Republican in the White House in 2016. We have a House and Senate that have been putting pause on even a centrist agenda during the Obama years.

    They'll go off the pause button once a Republican is back in the White House; based on the agenda that the Republicans are pursuing, it doesn't look like a future I want to live in.

    It's easier to be in the opposition. But I'd rather work to see a progressive government. And that doesn't happen unless we do our part to win some elections.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site