What are the chances of the Senate flipping in 2016?

[FA_Q2]

Well 24 republicans up for reelection vs. 10 Democrats up for reelection. And 9 of those 10 Democrat seats are pretty much locked up.

So I'd say chances are pretty good

So if Democrats win:

Florida with Rubio running for President
Wisconsin and PA and IL Blue States with Red Senators, but beating incumbents is difficult even in cross party States like this
and hold battleground Nevada with Reid retiring

That would be everything breaking your way, and you still don't take the Senate. How do you figure that Democrats as having it "locked up"

Republicans have a disadvantage with the electoral college, and they have over twice as many seats up for grabs as Democrats.

Beating incumbents is difficult, but not too difficult. Look at 2014

A disadvantage is one thing but the question is not that weather they are at a disadvantage but weather or not the democrats can swing 5 seats or not to take the senate.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well 24 republicans up for reelection vs. 10 Democrats up for reelection. And 9 of those 10 Democrat seats are pretty much locked up.

So I'd say chances are pretty good

So if Democrats win:

Florida with Rubio running for President
Wisconsin and PA and IL Blue States with Red Senators, but beating incumbents is difficult even in cross party States like this
and hold battleground Nevada with Reid retiring

That would be everything breaking your way, and you still don't take the Senate. How do you figure that Democrats as having it "locked up"

Republicans have a disadvantage with the electoral college, and they have over twice as many seats up for grabs as Democrats.

Beating incumbents is difficult, but not too difficult. Look at 2014

A disadvantage is one thing but the question is not that weather they are at a disadvantage but weather or not the democrats can swing 5 seats or not to take the senate.

5 out of 24 possible seats? And in a general election that is far more representative of America than any midterm?

I don't think it'll be a problem.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[nat4900]

Gee, Beagle still, STILL thinks that we have the most corrupt election system on the planet (well, maybe just a bit better than Tanzania)...and YET, right wingers make the claim that the 2010 elections were an "outstanding" delaration that conservatives deserved the seats.....
Go figure!!!

 

[eagle1462010]

Gee, Beagle still, STILL thinks that we have the most corrupt election system on the planet (well, maybe just a bit better than Tanzania)...and YET, right wingers make the claim that the 2010 elections were an "outstanding" delaration that conservatives deserved the seats.....
Go figure!!!

Just remembering the Florida elections with 150% turn out....................

Rotten Acorn.....................but of course you'll ignore the data anyway...............

Or shall we get back into putting up the video's with Dems bragging about voting mulitple times........or illegals....................

Which is why your side wants no Voter I.D.

Truth the Vote is the org.........that the IRS targeted under Obama................They have had many many court battles FORCING VOTER ROLLS TO BE UPDATED.............

Winning all over the country.............where the voter registration hasn't been updated in over decades.

 

[nat4900]

Gee, Beagle still, STILL thinks that we have the most corrupt election system on the planet (well, maybe just a bit better than Tanzania)...and YET, right wingers make the claim that the 2010 elections were an "outstanding" delaration that conservatives deserved the seats.....
Go figure!!!

Just remembering the Florida elections with 150% turn out....................

Rotten Acorn.....................but of course you'll ignore the data anyway...............

Or shall we get back into putting up the video's with Dems bragging about voting mulitple times........or illegals....................

Which is why your side wants no Voter I.D.

Truth the Vote is the org.........that the IRS targeted under Obama................They have had many many court battles FORCING VOTER ROLLS TO BE UPDATED.............

Winning all over the country.............where the voter registration hasn't been updated in over decades.

So, HOW did your side win in 2010??? Did democrats fall asleep at the wheel? LOL (give it up, discernable voter fraud is nonsense.)

 

[eagle1462010]

Gee, Beagle still, STILL thinks that we have the most corrupt election system on the planet (well, maybe just a bit better than Tanzania)...and YET, right wingers make the claim that the 2010 elections were an "outstanding" delaration that conservatives deserved the seats.....
Go figure!!!

Just remembering the Florida elections with 150% turn out....................

Rotten Acorn.....................but of course you'll ignore the data anyway...............

Or shall we get back into putting up the video's with Dems bragging about voting mulitple times........or illegals....................

Which is why your side wants no Voter I.D.

Truth the Vote is the org.........that the IRS targeted under Obama................They have had many many court battles FORCING VOTER ROLLS TO BE UPDATED.............

Winning all over the country.............where the voter registration hasn't been updated in over decades.

So, HOW did your side win in 2010??? Did democrats fall asleep at the wheel? LOL (give it up, discernable voter fraud is nonsense.)

And yet every election there are convictions for voter fraud...........

And every election has some county somewhere with massive turn out when the registration on the books isn't even close.

 

[nat4900]

And yet every election there are convictions for voter fraud...........

And every election has some county somewhere with massive turn out when the registration on the books isn't even close.

...and yet, you refuse to address my question....HOW did your side then, manage to win in 2010? Voters' fraud there too?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's remarkable how clueless, delusional, and devoid of political acumen most conservatives are, how they blindly adhere to the myths of 2010 and 2014.

Republicans will be forced to defend 24 Senate seats come 2016, during a General Election with high voter turnout, a diverse voter turnout, where the likely democratic presidential nominee is extremely popular among democrats, resulting in a large number of democrats going to the polls, and voting a straight democratic ticket, including Senate races.

This in conjunction with republicans' continued pursuit of an agenda hostile to the privacy rights of women, hostile to gay Americans, hostile to minority voters, and hostile to Hispanic immigrants will further undermine the chances of republicans retaining control of the Senate.

 

[rightwinger]

Given the number of seats the Republicans must defend and a Presidential election.......90%

 

[kaz]

Well 24 republicans up for reelection vs. 10 Democrats up for reelection. And 9 of those 10 Democrat seats are pretty much locked up.

So I'd say chances are pretty good

So if Democrats win:

Florida with Rubio running for President
Wisconsin and PA and IL Blue States with Red Senators, but beating incumbents is difficult even in cross party States like this
and hold battleground Nevada with Reid retiring

That would be everything breaking your way, and you still don't take the Senate. How do you figure that Democrats as having it "locked up"

Republicans have a disadvantage with the electoral college, and they have over twice as many seats up for grabs as Democrats.

Beating incumbents is difficult, but not too difficult. Look at 2014

Most of the rest of the seats are Blue Senators in Blue States and Red Senators in Red States.

Hence my question, how is that a switch is "Locked up?" Everything has to break your way and you have to take over seats from Republican Senators in those Red States without losing them in Blue States. I didn't say that's impossible, but it doesn't pass probable much less "locked up." And the trend sure hasn't beet to the blue

 

[kaz]

Well 24 republicans up for reelection vs. 10 Democrats up for reelection. And 9 of those 10 Democrat seats are pretty much locked up.

So I'd say chances are pretty good

So if Democrats win:

Florida with Rubio running for President
Wisconsin and PA and IL Blue States with Red Senators, but beating incumbents is difficult even in cross party States like this
and hold battleground Nevada with Reid retiring

That would be everything breaking your way, and you still don't take the Senate. How do you figure that Democrats as having it "locked up"

Republicans have a disadvantage with the electoral college, and they have over twice as many seats up for grabs as Democrats.

Beating incumbents is difficult, but not too difficult. Look at 2014

A disadvantage is one thing but the question is not that weather they are at a disadvantage but weather or not the democrats can swing 5 seats or not to take the senate.

5 out of 24 possible seats? And in a general election that is far more representative of America than any midterm?

I don't think it'll be a problem.

Again, yes, Republicans have to win more, but they are fighting largely Republican incumbents in Red States. I know the left loves fly by analysis, but you actually have to analyze deeper than 24 States. Which specific seats are you assuming?

 

[kaz]

It's remarkable how clueless, delusional, and devoid of political acumen most conservatives are, how they blindly adhere to the myths of 2010 and 2014.

Republicans will be forced to defend 24 Senate seats come 2016, during a General Election with high voter turnout, a diverse voter turnout, where the likely democratic presidential nominee is extremely popular among democrats, resulting in a large number of democrats going to the polls, and voting a straight democratic ticket, including Senate races.

This in conjunction with republicans' continued pursuit of an agenda hostile to the privacy rights of women, hostile to gay Americans, hostile to minority voters, and hostile to Hispanic immigrants will further undermine the chances of republicans retaining control of the Senate.

I know you like to just be an arrogant, opinionated ass rather than get into content. But other than to superficial minds, one needs to look at the actual races. Most of the seats the Republicans are defending are again Republicans in Red States. Most of the sites are listing them as safe for Republicans. At the risk you need to do more than listen to your own voice, a labor of love to you, again, which seats do you consider likely you can take a Republican incumbent out of a Red State Senate seat?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well 24 republicans up for reelection vs. 10 Democrats up for reelection. And 9 of those 10 Democrat seats are pretty much locked up.

So I'd say chances are pretty good

So if Democrats win:

Florida with Rubio running for President
Wisconsin and PA and IL Blue States with Red Senators, but beating incumbents is difficult even in cross party States like this
and hold battleground Nevada with Reid retiring

That would be everything breaking your way, and you still don't take the Senate. How do you figure that Democrats as having it "locked up"

Republicans have a disadvantage with the electoral college, and they have over twice as many seats up for grabs as Democrats.

Beating incumbents is difficult, but not too difficult. Look at 2014

A disadvantage is one thing but the question is not that weather they are at a disadvantage but weather or not the democrats can swing 5 seats or not to take the senate.

5 out of 24 possible seats? And in a general election that is far more representative of America than any midterm?

I don't think it'll be a problem.

Again, yes, Republicans have to win more, but they are fighting largely Republican incumbents in Red States. I know the left loves fly by analysis, but you actually have to analyze deeper than 24 States. Which specific seats are you assuming?

When did I say it was "locked up?" The chances look really good though. Especially because it's a general, and not midterm, election.

I'm not assuming ANY seats btw. But 5 of 24? I like those odds.

 

[nat4900]

Again, yes, Republicans have to win more, but they are fighting largely Republican incumbents in Red States. I know the left loves fly by analysis, but you actually have to analyze deeper than 24 States. Which specific seats are you assuming?

Just to name a few that GOPers are going to have to fight real hard to defend:

Republicans must defend seven incumbents that represent states carried by President Obama in 2008 and 2012: Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Rob Portman of Ohio, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/senate-elections-2016-115674.html#ixzz3XKKpjaFK

 

[nat4900]

When did I say it was "locked up?" The chances look really good though. Especially because it's a general, and not midterm, election.

I'm not assuming ANY seats btw. But 5 of 24? I like those odds.

Although it may be too optimistic, the following 5 states look promising for a switch: WI, IL, NH, OH, PA.

 

[FA_Q2]

So if Democrats win:

Florida with Rubio running for President
Wisconsin and PA and IL Blue States with Red Senators, but beating incumbents is difficult even in cross party States like this
and hold battleground Nevada with Reid retiring

That would be everything breaking your way, and you still don't take the Senate. How do you figure that Democrats as having it "locked up"

Republicans have a disadvantage with the electoral college, and they have over twice as many seats up for grabs as Democrats.

Beating incumbents is difficult, but not too difficult. Look at 2014

A disadvantage is one thing but the question is not that weather they are at a disadvantage but weather or not the democrats can swing 5 seats or not to take the senate.

5 out of 24 possible seats? And in a general election that is far more representative of America than any midterm?

I don't think it'll be a problem.

Again, yes, Republicans have to win more, but they are fighting largely Republican incumbents in Red States. I know the left loves fly by analysis, but you actually have to analyze deeper than 24 States. Which specific seats are you assuming?

When did I say it was "locked up?" The chances look really good though. Especially because it's a general, and not midterm, election.

I'm not assuming ANY seats btw. But 5 of 24? I like those odds.

I thiink that the point was that it is NOT 5 of 24 - not even close. Most of those seats are not in contention. COnsidering that 90 percent of incumbents seem to get reelected the chances are not nearly as rosy as 'good.'

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, yes, Republicans have to win more, but they are fighting largely Republican incumbents in Red States. I know the left loves fly by analysis, but you actually have to analyze deeper than 24 States. Which specific seats are you assuming?

Just to name a few that GOPers are going to have to fight real hard to defend:

Republicans must defend seven incumbents that represent states carried by President Obama in 2008 and 2012: Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Rob Portman of Ohio, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/senate-elections-2016-115674.html#ixzz3XKKpjaFK

LOL!
Ayotte is a multi term senator. Grassly is a fixture in the Senate and Iowa. Johnson I know nothing about, Kirk is an unknown. Portman is a fixture in Ohio. Rubio isnt running for re-election, and Toomey is wildly popular. It would be like saying Schumer's seat is up for grabs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The chances are excellent. The states that have Senate elections in 2016 are bluer than the ones from 2014,

and Democrats get a better turnout in a presidential year.