2014 US Senate predictions

[WelfareQueen]

I want immigration reform. I think most Americans do. The question: Do folks trust Obama with enforcement. Would you?

HOw can it be worse than what we are doing now?

The reason why Simpson Mazolli was such an epic fail is that it relied on the very employers who were hiring illegal labor to be the ones to enforce workplace eligibility.

When I was interviewing in 2001, there was this one place I interviewed where the guy said in no uncertain terms, "Well, as long as they got something that looks good, that's okay with me.'

The warehouse crew were all immigrants, most of them didn't speak English, and I doubt he was paying them that much.

Sounds like we're in agreement. We need immigration reform. I think any Sovereign Nation needs secure borders. In my mind...truly secure the border and put the folks here on a path to citizenship. I think that is fair and reasonable.

 

[Nyvin]

One election with a minority candidate. Hispanics voted much more heavily for Bush. They can be swayed. Ditto young voters. Blacks seem to be the only voting blocs that are totally locked in.

It's still debated if Bush really got 44% in 2004. The historical norm is in the mid thirties to high twenties

The 2004 election is an exception...not a norm.

 

[Nyvin]

I want immigration reform. I think most Americans do. The question: Do folks trust Obama with enforcement. Would you?

Obama already offered to have the reform be enacted after 2016....

 

[JoeB131]

I want immigration reform. I think most Americans do. The question: Do folks trust Obama with enforcement. Would you?

HOw can it be worse than what we are doing now?

The reason why Simpson Mazolli was such an epic fail is that it relied on the very employers who were hiring illegal labor to be the ones to enforce workplace eligibility.

When I was interviewing in 2001, there was this one place I interviewed where the guy said in no uncertain terms, "Well, as long as they got something that looks good, that's okay with me.'

The warehouse crew were all immigrants, most of them didn't speak English, and I doubt he was paying them that much.

Sounds like we're in agreement. We need immigration reform. I think any Sovereign Nation needs secure borders. In my mind...truly secure the border and put the folks here on a path to citizenship. I think that is fair and reasonable.

Well, securing the border is a fallacy. They WILL find a way around any fence you put up.

There will always be that hole in the fence or that corrupt border guard who looks the other way.

You see, Immigration is one of those issues that really highlights the fact that the GOP is made up of Rubes who are manipulated by the Rich.

The Rich WANT illegal immigration. They want poor people who will work for shit wages and not complain about bad working conditions.

The Rubes, however, are just smart enough to see why that's a bad deal for them. And a lot of them tend to be racist and are horrified at the thought of a Mexican deflowering their daughters.

So the rich are pushing for this, and man, Boenher really wants to say, "What is they bidding, my Master", but they are all afraid the rubes will turn on them and nominate a bunch of crazy teabaggers.

 

[candycorn]

At this stage there is absolutely nothing suggesting a blowout year.

What?

Off year elections almost always favor the party not occupying the white house.
The seats the DEMS are defending in the Senate are almost all competitive
Obamacare represents change and it hasn't been accepted yet

If the GOP can't wrest control from the DEMS this year, they should disband.

Winning back the senate isn't a blowout year, especially with a map as favorable as 2014. I fully expect 52 GOP seats in the Senate to be the max.

I think the Dems will see it as a "shellacking" ala 2010

 

[JoeB131]

One election with a minority candidate. Hispanics voted much more heavily for Bush. They can be swayed. Ditto young voters. Blacks seem to be the only voting blocs that are totally locked in.

It's still debated if Bush really got 44% in 2004. The historical norm is in the mid thirties to high twenties

The 2004 election is an exception...not a norm.

Good point, and I'll go one further.

for those Republicans who think that an Amnesty bill is going to make it all better need to look at 1988. Reagan passed an Amnesty bill. But G.H. Bush actually did WORSE with Hispanics in 1988 than Reagan did in 1984.

 

[Nyvin]

What?

Off year elections almost always favor the party not occupying the white house.
The seats the DEMS are defending in the Senate are almost all competitive
Obamacare represents change and it hasn't been accepted yet

If the GOP can't wrest control from the DEMS this year, they should disband.

Winning back the senate isn't a blowout year, especially with a map as favorable as 2014. I fully expect 52 GOP seats in the Senate to be the max.

I think the Dems will see it as a "shellacking" ala 2010

Borderline impossible.

 

[BreezeWood]

Independent Sen. Angus King says he might switch sides and caucus with the*GOP


Now King is saying, much as he did throughout 2012 when he was running for the Senate, that he might caucus with the GOP come 2015.

the Demo's need to hold the Senate by (2) not just one - the party switcher is just waiting for his opportunity.

Well, well, well. After a surprisingly quiet 15 months, Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine has decided to make a stink. First came his vote Wednesday against cloture for the Paycheck Fairness Act, claiming it would hurt businesses and making him the only non-Republican to oppose the legislation. (Yes, even Joe Manchin voted in favor.) The bill failed.

won't hear much from party switching King though if the Democrats do hold the Senate - till his committee reassignment ....

.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Winning back the senate isn't a blowout year, especially with a map as favorable as 2014. I fully expect 52 GOP seats in the Senate to be the max.

I think the Dems will see it as a "shellacking" ala 2010

Borderline impossible.

Not really Nyvin. It's not likely, but it's possible.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - 2010 Generic Congressional Vote

The generic ballot in June 2010 looks very similar to how it does now (locked neck-in-neck between the two parties).

I could easily (about 25-30% chance IMO) see the GOP break away and curbstomp those big-government liberal Democrats who support bigger government and less economic freedom.

 

[rightwinger]

I think the Dems will see it as a "shellacking" ala 2010

Borderline impossible.

Not really Nyvin. It's not likely, but it's possible.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - 2010 Generic Congressional Vote

The generic ballot in June 2010 looks very similar to how it does now (locked neck-in-neck between the two parties).

I could easily (about 25-30% chance IMO) see the GOP break away and curbstomp those big-government liberal Democrats who support bigger government and less economic freedom.

Looks close


RealClearPolitics - 2014 Election Maps - Battle for the Senate

46-46 with 8 Tossups. Hardly a "Curbstomp"

 

[Nyvin]

I think the Dems will see it as a "shellacking" ala 2010

Borderline impossible.

Not really Nyvin. It's not likely, but it's possible.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - 2010 Generic Congressional Vote

The generic ballot in June 2010 looks very similar to how it does now (locked neck-in-neck between the two parties).

I could easily (about 25-30% chance IMO) see the GOP break away and curbstomp those big-government liberal Democrats who support bigger government and less economic freedom.

In 2010 the GOP only won 6 seats, and that was considered a "blowout". Six seats is the bare minimum to take the majority in 2014. They still didn't take the majority in 2010.

In 2010 the GOP beat three incumbent democrats (the other three pickups were open seats). That was in a blowout year mind you, in 2014 you're expecting to beat three just to take the majority with 51 seats (not including John Walsh in this)...to go further then that you have to win in harder states that Obama won in 2012.

In 2014 there is nowhere near as much momentum behind them and the polling shows close races for all the incumbents in competitive seats. Also this time there is the chance of pickups in Kentucky and Georgia.

A blowout year "bigger" than 2010 (which is what's needed) is borderline impossible.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Borderline impossible.

Not really Nyvin. It's not likely, but it's possible.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - 2010 Generic Congressional Vote

The generic ballot in June 2010 looks very similar to how it does now (locked neck-in-neck between the two parties).

I could easily (about 25-30% chance IMO) see the GOP break away and curbstomp those big-government liberal Democrats who support bigger government and less economic freedom.

In 2010 the GOP only won 6 seats, and that was considered a "blowout". Six seats is the bare minimum to take the majority in 2014. They still didn't take the majority in 2010.

In 2010 the GOP beat three incumbent democrats (the other three pickups were open seats). That was in a blowout year mind you, in 2014 you're expecting to beat three just to take the majority with 51 seats (not including John Walsh in this)...to go further then that you have to win in harder states that Obama won in 2012.

In 2014 there is nowhere near as much momentum behind them and the polling shows close races for all the incumbents in competitive seats. Also this time there is the chance of pickups in Kentucky and Georgia.

A blowout year "bigger" than 2010 (which is what's needed) is borderline impossible.

Keep repeating it like a mantra. Whatever helps.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dems hold Senate 51-49
Dems pick up 8 seats in the House
Dems pick up two Governorships

Things stay the same

Put down the crack pipe, comrade....

 

[WelfareQueen]

No offense, but only idiots would vote for the party of the bumbling clusterfuck that is Obama and his Administration. Even his defenders can't defend this level of stupidity and incompetence.

Other than morons who always vote Democrat, even as their cities and ghettos crumble...this election cycle will go strongly to the Republicans. How could it not?

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Borderline impossible.

Not really Nyvin. It's not likely, but it's possible.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - 2010 Generic Congressional Vote

The generic ballot in June 2010 looks very similar to how it does now (locked neck-in-neck between the two parties).

I could easily (about 25-30% chance IMO) see the GOP break away and curbstomp those big-government liberal Democrats who support bigger government and less economic freedom.

In 2010 the GOP only won 6 seats, and that was considered a "blowout". Six seats is the bare minimum to take the majority in 2014. They still didn't take the majority in 2010.

In 2010 the GOP beat three incumbent democrats (the other three pickups were open seats). That was in a blowout year mind you, in 2014 you're expecting to beat three just to take the majority with 51 seats (not including John Walsh in this)...to go further then that you have to win in harder states that Obama won in 2012.

In 2014 there is nowhere near as much momentum behind them and the polling shows close races for all the incumbents in competitive seats. Also this time there is the chance of pickups in Kentucky and Georgia.

A blowout year "bigger" than 2010 (which is what's needed) is borderline impossible.

You're failing to take account the difference in Senate classes.

In 2010 the Senators who got elected in 2004 were put up for reelection. 2004 was a fairly Republican year, so there weren't that many pickup opportunities available.

In 2014, the Senators who got elected in 2008 will be put up for reelection. 2008 was a Democratic landslide year. Therefore, it will be easier for the GOP to gain seats in 2014 than 2010. Therefore, a blowout need not be "bigger" than 2010; a smaller "blowout" would be sufficient to get 6 seats.

Bottom-line is that Georgia will almost certainly go GOP due to:
1) the fact that both GOP candidates are quite electable(Kingston/Perdue)
2) Nunn has not yet been attacked(explaining her high poll numbers)
3) the run-off (so Nunn must go over 50%)

Kentucky will go GOP due to the immense partisan lean of the state. More importantly, the Democrats have never won KY without a strong coal country backing, and Alison Grimes' quote saying "I do support the national Democratic agenda" is going to kill her in those areas on the KY-WV border that Dems need to win. McConnell also now leads in the HuffPollster average.

I think we both agree that MT/WV/SD are easy GOP pickups, more or less.

That gets us to GOP + 3.

Next up:
Louisiana- While I used to think Landrieu was quite formidable and thought she would win, she's slipped a lot in polling and even NYTimes Upshot(which is bearish on GOP Senate chances) has Landrieu as a clear underdog.
Arkansas-Pryor appeared to be rebounding, but a Crossroads poll has Cotton + 3 and Rasmussen has Cotton +4. While both of these polling firms lean GOP(though Rasmussen is suspect, which I'll explain later), Arkansas undecideds are overwhelmingly anti-Obama and anti-Obamacare. I'd like to see another PPP poll(which previously had Pryor +1 or Pryor + 2, I believe) or Quinnipiac/SUSA one to get a better feel on the race. But I think the momentum is back in Cotton's direction and he should pull it off.
North Carolina-Hagan's been trailing recently. She was down 5 in a Civitas poll and down 1 in Rasmussen (note that Rasmussen is no longer run by Scott Rasmussen, so while it's tilted R in the past, it might not be any longer. Rasmussen consistently gives Obama higher approvals than other polling firms, so it might not be a biased pollster anymore).
Tillis is likely in the lead here.
Alaska-Like in North Carolina, the Republican (Dan Sullivan) leads in Huffington Post Pollster average, though barely. Alaska is weird because polls there underestimate incumbent strength and overestimate Democratic strength. This one's hard to call.

Bottom line is that in the 4 races above in red states, the GOP will almost certainly win at least 2 of them, quite likely 3, or possibly 4. The GOP leads in HuffPollster polling average in Louisiana, Alaska, and North Carolina, and barely trails in Arkansas(but Cotton looks like he's rebounding there).

This gives the GOP a +5 to +7 seat gain.

All they have to do to secure a Senate takeover is to win 1-3+ of the following seats, which even gives the GOP breathing room if they screw up elsewhere:
Colorado-Mark Udall is only barely ahead, and Cory Gardner proved he could take out an incumbent Dem. Plus the new coal regulations could hurt Udall. I say Udall has slight edge but not much.
New Hampshire-Scott Brown isn't looking great here due to the carpet-bagger/energy bill problem, but 2010 proved that when the GOP wins in NH, they win big(Ayotte won the Senate election w/ 60%). Even a somewhat-weakened candidate like Brown can win if the environment is good enough in NH.
Iowa-Joni Ernst is a solid candidate against Bruce Braley. Probably the best GOP chance in this list.
Michigan-Terry Land's slipped in polls to Gary Peters, but she still has an outside chance if the environment turns from a gale on the Democrats to a tsunami.
Virginia/Oregon/Minnesota-Gillespie, Wehby, and McFadden are all decent candidates against solid incumbents in blue-ish states(except Gillespie, who is facing a very popular opponent in a true swing state). These are all serious long-shots, but expanding the map definitely hurts the Dems.

My guess would be GOP + 6 or +7.

 

[Nyvin]

My guess would be GOP + 6 or +7.

This is exactly what I've been saying...52 seats is probably the max, and that's a clean sweep of all (truly) competitive seats. People saying "blowout" as in getting 53-55+ seats really don't know what they're talking about.

I would guess that the GOP will pickup somewhere between 3 and 6 seats. +7 would be the GOP winning LA, AK, NC, and AR, which is remotely possible, but certainly not likely.

It's unlikely the GOP will only pickup 2 or less seats, since SD, MT, WV are all gimme's and it's not very like the Democrats will win GA "And" KY.

 

[Nyvin]

Next up:
Louisiana- While I used to think Landrieu was quite formidable and thought she would win, she's slipped a lot in polling and even NYTimes Upshot(which is bearish on GOP Senate chances) has Landrieu as a clear underdog.
Arkansas-Pryor appeared to be rebounding, but a Crossroads poll has Cotton + 3 and Rasmussen has Cotton +4. While both of these polling firms lean GOP(though Rasmussen is suspect, which I'll explain later), Arkansas undecideds are overwhelmingly anti-Obama and anti-Obamacare. I'd like to see another PPP poll(which previously had Pryor +1 or Pryor + 2, I believe) or Quinnipiac/SUSA one to get a better feel on the race. But I think the momentum is back in Cotton's direction and he should pull it off.
North Carolina-Hagan's been trailing recently. She was down 5 in a Civitas poll and down 1 in Rasmussen (note that Rasmussen is no longer run by Scott Rasmussen, so while it's tilted R in the past, it might not be any longer. Rasmussen consistently gives Obama higher approvals than other polling firms, so it might not be a biased pollster anymore).
Tillis is likely in the lead here.
Alaska-Like in North Carolina, the Republican (Dan Sullivan) leads in Huffington Post Pollster average, though barely. Alaska is weird because polls there underestimate incumbent strength and overestimate Democratic strength. This one's hard to call.

Of the four, the only one I'd say has any clear lead is Cassidy against Landrieu, it's not a crushing lead, but a lead. Pryor is also shown to have a small lead against Cotton, I think Cotton is a horrible candidate and he'll probably end up destroying himself, but just my opinion. The other two are clearly very competitive and it's next to impossible to say at this point who will win.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

My guess would be GOP + 6 or +7.

This is exactly what I've been saying...52 seats is probably the max, and that's a clean sweep of all (truly) competitive seats. People saying "blowout" as in getting 53-55+ seats really don't know what they're talking about.

I would guess that the GOP will pickup somewhere between 3 and 6 seats. +7 would be the GOP winning LA, AK, NC, and AR, which is remotely possible, but certainly not likely.

It's unlikely the GOP will only pickup 2 or less seats, since SD, MT, WV are all gimme's and it's not very like the Democrats will win GA "And" KY.

The difference is that you're asserting that the GOP's max is 7, while I'm saying that the GOP's mean is 6 or 7. There's a difference here. I'm not inclined to necessarily say what the "maximum" is right now, as so much could change between now and November. A GOP max of 7 means that you're giving the GOP virtually no chance of winning any states that Obama carried (+7 = GOP carries all Romney states) despite several competitive races occurring there. If Senate Majority PAC is spending money in Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Michigan, I think they view those seats as being threatened and potential GOP pickups.

I think a realistic GOP minimum is 4(maybe 3), where minimum means about 10th percentile(again, a 25% chance the political forces go moderately or fiercely in the D direction, and then all bets are off). The 90th percentile for the GOP is probably around 8-10 seats (All 7 Romney states + Iowa + /- Colorado; if the GOP is really lucky they could eke out at least 1 win in NH/MI/MN/VA/).
You say that 6 is the realistic maximum. I disagree and think it's closer to the median.

It appears that the following 3 races are points of contention:
Georgia/Kentucky: I don't think the Dems have greater than a 25% chance in either of these races. I assume you think close polling makes these states tossup/Tilt R, but the partisan gravity and fundamentals of a state must be taken into account.

I see a net gain of 0 for the Dems in these 2 races, while you think that it will most likely be a gain of 1(I think). Since you think the mean result is 4.5 (average of 3 and 6) and I think it's 6-7, this explains a good chunk of the gap.

Arkansas: I think Arkansas is the other source of the gap, and I concede that my optimistic analysis depends on the last 2 polls showing Cotton momentum. A new poll or 2 will show us more where we're at with that race.

Those 3 races explain our forecast differences.

Sorry for my long block posts(they're my style), but I hope you get my perspective now.

 

[Nyvin]

My guess would be GOP + 6 or +7.

This is exactly what I've been saying...52 seats is probably the max, and that's a clean sweep of all (truly) competitive seats. People saying "blowout" as in getting 53-55+ seats really don't know what they're talking about.

I would guess that the GOP will pickup somewhere between 3 and 6 seats. +7 would be the GOP winning LA, AK, NC, and AR, which is remotely possible, but certainly not likely.

It's unlikely the GOP will only pickup 2 or less seats, since SD, MT, WV are all gimme's and it's not very like the Democrats will win GA "And" KY.

The difference is that you're asserting that the GOP's max is 7, while I'm saying that the GOP's mean is 6 or 7. There's a difference here. I'm not inclined to necessarily say what the "maximum" is right now, as so much could change between now and November. A GOP max of 7 means that you're giving the GOP virtually no chance of winning any states that Obama carried (+7 = GOP carries all Romney states) despite several competitive races occurring there. If Senate Majority PAC is spending money in Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Michigan, I think they view those seats as being threatened and potential GOP pickups.

I think a realistic GOP minimum is 4(maybe 3), where minimum means about 10th percentile(again, a 25% chance the political forces go moderately or fiercely in the D direction, and then all bets are off). The 90th percentile for the GOP is probably around 8-10 seats (All 7 Romney states + Iowa + /- Colorado; if the GOP is really lucky they could eke out at least 1 win in NH/MI/MN/VA/).
You say that 6 is the realistic maximum. I disagree and think it's closer to the median.

It appears that the following 3 races are points of contention:
Georgia/Kentucky: I don't think the Dems have greater than a 25% chance in either of these races. I assume you think close polling makes these states tossup/Tilt R, but the partisan gravity and fundamentals of a state must be taken into account.

I see a net gain of 0 for the Dems in these 2 races, while you think that it will most likely be a gain of 1(I think). Since you think the mean result is 4.5 (average of 3 and 6) and I think it's 6-7, this explains a good chunk of the gap.

Arkansas: I think Arkansas is the other source of the gap, and I concede that my optimistic analysis depends on the last 2 polls showing Cotton momentum. A new poll or 2 will show us more where we're at with that race.

Those 3 races explain our forecast differences.

Sorry for my long block posts(they're my style), but I hope you get my perspective now.

Well, Iowa is an open seat, but it's a state that has a democratic lean and Obama's approval isn't as low there. Plus Bruce Baley is well liked in the state. Colorado would be a long shot with the incumbent, especially if the Republicans don't act on immigration reform with all the hispanics there.

To take history into account...other then the 3 recent tidal wave elections of 1994, 2008, and 2010...neither party has had more then 5 pick ups, and most of the time at least half the pick ups are in open seats. That means in an average election you're only going to beat 2-3 incumbents.

To win 6 seats the GOP needs to beat 3 incumbents (not including Walsh). To win anymore they'd either have to win in Michigan or Iowa, or beat even more incumbents. Unless the election suddenly has a large surge toward the GOP (which nothing is as of yet showing it will) then I really do stand by my words that 6 seats is the realistic max, with a possible, but unlikely 7.

 

[Nyvin]

To be honest I won't be surprised at all to see the Democrats lose the Senate. After all, no President has held a favorable Senate for 8 years since FDR, so it's not like it's out of the norm. Of course I'm sure that TONS of conservatives out there are going to label it as some confirmation of "Obama's failings" or some political rhetoric.

I would be more surprised to see the GOP pick up enough seats to where it can reasonably hold the Majority after the 2016 election, where Democrats will be heavily favored to win for a variety of reasons.