Conrad to Retire

[Brittain33]

That's R+2 in the Senate at the moment assuming that Nelson(D-NE) is gone ether way.

I'm putting Ben Nelson at 90% gone until there's some fresh polling showing him in Blanche Lincoln or Chris Dodd territory, at which point he's 99.9% gone.

[Brittain33]

If Obama wins reelection, we're going to see exactly how broken our judicial nomination system really is.

[Brittain33]

If Obama wins reelection, we're going to see exactly how broken our judicial nomination system really is.

We've already seen it the last 2 years.

Because Obama got both his Supreme Court nominees confirmed, with Republican votes?

He got fewer lower court appointees approved with a Democratic Senate than Bush did in his first two years in a Senate that flipped from GOP to Democratic. He got fewer nominees appointed in two years than any president since Nixon. Now, imagine if Republicans faced pressures from their base to not allow any presidential nominee to get a vote other than the most moderate or some tokens. It's going to be ugly.

[Brittain33]

earl pomeroy is the only one who could make the race competitive... and he'd probably lose anyways...

He was recently quoted saying he wouldn't run for office again. Maybe he'll change his mind, but not likely.

[Brittain33]

Before Republicans start counting chickens, let's at least see how the race shapes up. This things can turn out surprising. If Heidi Heitkamp gets in, she can actually make it a race.

I agree, this is not a good thing for the Dems but it's too early to say the seat is gone. Likely is, though.

[Brittain33]

Assuming Obama is going to win reelection... Was there any instance in U.S. history when one party won a presidential election and lost a control over the Senate at one time?

2000 comes very close, although the unfortunate circumstances of that election are why we ended up with that scenario. The Democrats picking up 5 seats in the Senate to bring it to a tie were consistent with Bush getting the narrowest win (legally) possible and losing the popular vote.

[Brittain33]

If you said in January 1983 that Reagan would hit 60% next year, then you would be escorted by a couple of friendly men in white to a large mansion with high bars.

Just because something unlikely happened once doesn't mean it'll happen twice.

No, but if you look at the polling available for Obama vs. all the Republicans running and the abysmal poll ratings of Republicans in Congress, you can see how a pattern is taking shape, which doesn't likely lead to Obama winning 49 states but does make reelection more likely than not.

What is "unlikely" by historical standards is a president being denied reelection in a growing economy...

[Brittain33]

They have to rate the race a toss-up until they have an idea who is actually running. No one has announced yet beyond a low-level state official. More will step up to the plate.

[Brittain33]

They have to rate the race a toss-up until they have an idea who is actually running. No one has announced yet beyond a low-level state official. More will step up to the plate.

I really don't think Cook uses this standard. For instance, DE-Sen was "Solid Dem" in early 2009 when it was open and no-one had announced. Besides, it seems like a stupid standard anyway. By that logic, NY-16 would be a toss-up if Serrano retired and no other Democrat had yet announced, because "we have no idea who is actually running". Surely it makes sense to take into account partisan leanings and the fact that with a deep bench strong candidates will inevitably arise.

I frankly think Cook isn't ranking this higher because of an irrational aversion to big shifts in ratings/big shifts against the incumbent party. That is, I strongly suspect that if a "Safe R" Republican was retiring instead, he would probably rank the race "Lean R" or "Likely R".

Ok.