2014 battle for control of the US Senate

[HenryBHough]

It IS kinda fun!

 

[Statistikhengst]

It IS kinda fun!

I see you are easily amused, Kemosabe.

Most simpletons are.

 

[Nyvin]

CLUELESS obama has doomed liberal dems. Reps will take both house of congress. and pres. in 2016 ====Get over it!

Doomed them how?

 

[Statistikhengst]

lol...

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well, the Labor Day weekend has come and gone and as is a big tradition in US-American politics, mid-term election season is underway and we now go into 5th gear.

In exactly 9 weeks from today, voters across the country will go to the polls to elect local, state and national representatives. We know that all 435 seats in the US HOR will be officially up for election (although some will be completely non-competitive) and roughly 1/3 of all Senate seats will be up for grabs.

Also, 36 governors' seats are up for election.

We should have about 240,000,000 US-Americans who would be eligible to vote and maybe, if we are lucky, about 170,000,000 of them will register. Voter turnout in mid-term elections has historically been much lower than for presidential elections. Wait and see. In one month, I will be putting out a massive thread with all of the voter registration statistics throughout the Union.

I also want to once again point to the hard facts about mid-terms, especially mid-terms that occur within the second term of a 2-term presidency:

Congressional Elections compared to Presidential Terms 1855-present US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Grab yourself a cup of coffee and take time to really read that thread and let the numbers sink in. They tell an important story that is incontrovertible.

In mid-terms elections, going all the way back to 1854, the first year that the then-fledgling GOP was on the national ballot for such, the opposition party has traditionally made gains, usually, substantial gains, in congress. Way back in January, I wrote that the GOP had the better cards in it's hand, and now, 8 months later, that prognosis has not changed. The GOP still has the better cards in it's hand.

Most believe that mid-terms are a referendum on the sitting POTUS and his administration. I wouldn't dispute that argument. Absent a possibility to "vote the bum out" or vote vigorously to keep him, many voters express their displeasure with the POTUS by voting in the mid-term for the opposition party.

The GOP already has control of the HOR and I fully expect that they will ever so slightly expand their lead. I am suspecting that they might pick up a net 11 seats, maybe less, but this is just a shot in the dark as many HOR races will never be polled and sometimes, the whackiest of surprises can happen. But if the generic aggregate is our guide, about 11 would be right.

However, it's the Senate that all eyes appear to be fixed upon and Republicans know that the magic number is right around SIX, depending on whether or not the DEMS pick up one or two seats in the Senate themselves. All of the reasoning for this has already been laid out in the OP, no need to rehash.

But as of this point in time, we go into the "hot" period of the election cycle.

Already, some things are worth noting:

RCP had West Virginia as "leans GOP" when I wrote the OP - and now, WV been moved to "likely GOP", just as I surmised would happen when I wrote the OP.

At the same time, the Senate seat in Ruby-Red Kansas, which was listed as "likely GOP", has now been moved to "lean GOP". Now, were this a presidential election with an immensely popular Democratic candidate on the ballot for Prez, I could surmize that the DEMS could pull-out a surprise in Kansas, but in a mid-term with so much acrimony across the nation, I am pretty darned sure that this seat stays red.

This means that the GOP really does have 3 of the six seats it needs to get over the finish line in November: MT, SD and WV. It only needs three more, assuming that the DEMS cannot pick-up a seat or two. Wait and see.

The one other factor worth noting is the generic polling. At this time 4 years ago, the Democratic party started to take a massive dive in the aggregate generic polling. That is not happening this time, at least not yet.

Here is a chart going back to 2002. I think it's pretty self-explanatory:

That graphic was put out at KOS, which conservatives will not like, but the math dudes at KOS crunch the numbers just the same as the math dudes at RCP. In fact, the KOS math geeks used RCP's numbers.

Thus far, in generic polling, the Democratic party is not taking the dive it took four years ago, but that could still happen. Wait and see. Even if the end generic shows an absolute tie, it would still be advantage GOP, as many statisticians believe that the DEMS would need about a +7 in AGGREGATE polling just to overcome the effects of Republican Gerrymandering since 2011, and that is not going to happen. Now, I'm not the biggest fan of generic polling, but the aggregate usually does provide some useable information. Just remember: Gallup was off on it's final 2010 generic by 9.3 points. It predicted GOP +15 in 2010. The GOP won on election night 2014 by +5.7. That's a pretty dismal performance on the part of Gallup.

All in all, it looks pretty much like the mid-terms are headed for the results I generally predicted in January.

1.) The GOP retains the HOR.

2.) The GOP captures the Senate, but not with a filibuster-proof majority. This means that the HOR can pass as many Articles of Impeachment or Obamacare revocations it wants, and those things will simply die in the Senate.

3.) The State gubernatorial races will be pretty evenly split, with a couple of pretty deep losses on each side looming, for instance, in Pennsylvania, Kansas and in Illinois. However, there are more (R) gubernatorial seats in the toss-up column than (D) races. The Democrats could make some surprising gains here.

Starting next week, one week after Labor Day, I will be posting the 9 critical battleground state (Senate) aggregates and looking pretty deeply into a number of polls. I am also expecting the "war of the pollsters" to begin shortly. That's always fun to watch. Already, Rasmussen has upped the number of polls.

One final thing: in every mid-term in my memory (since 1974), there have been unexpected surprises. Some candidate may jump the shark or get caught having sex with someone other than his/her wife/husband. Plagarism scandals are become quite popular these days. A nice drug scandal could pop up. And of course, unsavory hot-mic comments can be quite damaging (see: 47%). So, somewhere along the way, a race that was probably not even on anyone's radar could suddenly pop-up.

The GOP might decide to revoke the filibuster entirely if it has 51 seats. I strongly suspect that will be the case so as to turn up the heat on Obama and force him to veto their bills ahead of the 2016 elections.

 

[Nyvin]

The GOP might decide to revoke the filibuster entirely if it has 51 seats. I strongly suspect that will be the case so as to turn up the heat on Obama and force him to veto their bills ahead of the 2016 elections.

I really doubt it. That's an extremely bold move when 2016 is right around the corner. Not saying they know they'll lose, just they wouldn't want to take the chance. Reid getting rid of the filibuster for nominations was already pretty bold...getting rid of it for legislation would be one of the biggest changes to the national government in recent history.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the far right creepies did not have the blue button, stat, they would freak.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The GOP might decide to revoke the filibuster entirely if it has 51 seats. I strongly suspect that will be the case so as to turn up the heat on Obama and force him to veto their bills ahead of the 2016 elections.

I really doubt it. That's an extremely bold move when 2016 is right around the corner. Not saying they know they'll lose, just they wouldn't want to take the chance.

We are not talking about the sane reasonable choice here. The HoR is now run by the extremists. If the Senate has a Republican majority it will be Ted Cruz who will be calling the shots in my opinion.

 

[Nyvin]

Taylor (D) just withdrew from the Kansas Senate race....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't think Cruz has much power at all within the Senate.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Don't think Cruz has much power at all within the Senate.

Not at present but we are talking about 2015 which might be a whole different ball game with a different roster of players.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cruz, does not have the respect of the old line in the Senate.

But anything is possible. Joe McCarthy had a run before his own party pulled him down as too dangerous to American liberties.

 

[LoneLaugher]

@statistikhengst

What just happened in Kansas senate race?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Taylor dropped out, I don't know why. That will make things a bit easier for the GOP to capture the Senate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Democrat Chad Taylor drops out of U.S. Senate race against Pat Roberts Greg Orman The Wichita Eagle

The independent, who attracts voters from right to left, is tn points ahead of the Pub candidate.

If Orman wins, the Senate will get its first Independent from KS. He will caucus with the majority party.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Taylor dropped out, I don't know why. That will make things a bit easier for the GOP to capture the Senate.

That's not what I am hearing. I heard that the Independent guy has a real shot at beating Roberts. Taylor dropping out is not good for Taylor as it stands today.

 

[Nyvin]

Taylor dropped out, I don't know why. That will make things a bit easier for the GOP to capture the Senate.

No, if anything it makes it much harder. Orman is much better funded. Also before Taylor dropped out the liberal/moderate vote would've been divided between the two, now it's going to be united to 1 candidate. Also there is still a libertarian in the race which will draw a few votes from Roberts.

It's important to note that Orman was actually left of center while Taylor was right of center politically.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I expect that there will be some loud cries of "foul!!!" coming from from certain radio hosts tomorrow.

 

[BreezeWood]

Candidates In Alaska Governor s Race Join Forces To Unseat The Incumbent

Candidates In Alaska Governor's Race Join Forces To Unseat The Incumbent

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — The independent and Democratic candidates for Alaska governor said Tuesday that they are merging their campaigns to give them a better shot at unseating Republican incumbent Gov. Sean Parnell.

the same horse trading by the democrats recently happened in the Alaska Governors race as well - helping Begich by no coincident either ... demos are not going down without a fight.


* large fonts not mine ...

.

 

[HenryBHough]

Rank and file Democrats, however, are up in arms. Central committee leadership may find itself replaced. Feeling seems to be that a lot of people got off their asses to vote in a primary and then got the finger for their having done so.

Not as pretty as you might think.