NV: Rasmussen: Obama clinging to 50% in Nevada

[Vosem]

The actual plague is the horrible meme that Nevada is swinging to the Democrats due to former Californians with no evidence to even back it up. Why, then, is Arizona not swinging to the Democrats either, if enough Californians are moving in droves to these states to actually swing them?

The demographic trends hurt Republicans in Arizona. Sure, the GOP is going crazy with a polarizing agenda, but the ethnic animus against Mexican-Americans in Arizona is weak.

The Republican Party has gone as far as it can with its Southern Strategy of trying to pit poor whites against poor blacks. There just are no more gains. Maybe two Senate seats in 2014 (AR, LA).... but that is it.

What would you say if I told you PPP (which tilts Democratic) found Republicans leading in the 2014 Oregon Senate race? Considering Obama will probably be reelected in 2012 and that because of Europe+the drought there will be a second dip in 2013, 2014 seems likely to be a very good year for the Republicans, perhaps comparable to 2010.    

As for the Tea Party -- it peaked in 2010.

Haha, I remember you saying 2008 was the death knell for the Republicans and now they would spend 10 years in the wilderness and they would go left and make it back by 2020. Instead they went right and took a House of Congress. Saying the Tea Party peaked in 2010 is wishful thinking -- they're certainly going to pick up seats in the Senate in 2012 and they'll probably tread water in the House. The movement is set to be very influential on American politics but it is still in its infancy.

[Vosem]

It's not Californians moving in changing Nevada's political leaning, although growth is a reason for it, Republicans have also moved too far right for many moderates in Nevada. Yet, Republicans don't seem to get that and want to blame candidates not being conservative enough as they reason they lose seats.

Let's keep in mind Republican experiences since the 1970s (including recent ones; note how the jump right after Obama's election correlated with better election results) are a pretty persuasive argument saying moving right will fix all their problems. (And I support abortion and gay rights and s**t; I'm not exactly on the right of the party).

[Vosem]

Let's keep in mind Republican experiences since the 1970s (including recent ones; note how the jump right after Obama's election correlated with better election results) are a pretty persuasive argument saying moving right will fix all their problems. (And I support abortion and gay rights and s**t; I'm not exactly on the right of the party).

No. A poor economy helped them win some seats, going far to the right lost them senate seats. Colorado, Delaware and Nevada all stayed Democratic because of candidates that were too far right. Very conservative candidates just can't win some states.

The Tea Party motivated voters in places around the country, winning the GOP tens of House seats. Yes, I won't deny it lost the GOP Colorado and Delaware (Nevada is more debatable because the 'establishment' candidate Sue Lowden was just as bad if not worse). But its net impact was positive. Look at Wisconsin and Arkansas and Kentucky. The poor economy helped too, but ultimately their have been worse economies where the incumbent parties did much better.

[Vosem]

What would you say if I told you PPP (which tilts Democratic) found Republicans leading in the 2014 Oregon Senate race? Considering Obama will probably be reelected in 2012 and that because of Europe+the drought there will be a second dip in 2013, 2014 seems likely to be a very good year for the Republicans, perhaps comparable to 2010.    

I'm inclined to agree with this. 2014 will likely be a net negative for the Ds, but I doubt it will match 2010.

In the House it certainly won't, but in the Senate it can far outstrip it. The only real opportunities Democrats have are Maine (if Collins retires) and Kentucky, but both are doubtful. Republicans are probably favored in Alaska (Begich barely won in 2008 against an opponent believed to be corrupt), Montana (everyone hates Baucus nowadays), South Dakota (popular ex-Governor Mike Rounds is believed to be running, he'll have a Hoeven effect if he does), Oregon (U.S. Rep. Greg Walden already leads Merkley, who is for some reason stuck in the low 40s in PPP polling), and Louisiana (Landrieu is talented but LA is becoming redder by the day, and Republicans have a strong bench). That's five pickups right there. Republicans will also certainly compete in West Virginia (Rockefeller is set to retire; if Capito runs, Democrats are screwed), Iowa (polling shows Harkin leading but under 50), Colorado (Jane Norton is apparently planning to run again; polling shows her down ten points, but Udall is below 50), North Carolina (Tillis is running; PPP shows him behind, but Hagan is, again, under 50), Arkansas (Pryor is popular, but this state is going the wrong way fast) and New Hampshire (Shaheen has been fundraising very badly and the Republican bench in NH is deep). That's six more. And I haven't even mentioned things like VA and NJ and MA and IL that depend on candidates.

Even if Romney wins and the economy dips in 2013, Republicans will probably still pick up Senate seats in 2014 because the map is just so good for them.