Senate ranking thread : looking ahead at 2012

[Nichlemn]

Man, this is about impossible to do without knowing anything about who's retiring and who isn't.

Still ... ummm ... I'll say the Dems gain 1, net.

I sense sarcasm here.  If it's not sarcasm, you must be anticipating a reversion to nothing less than a 2008 environment.

If the environment is enough for Obama to get reelected, it could very well be a 2008 environment. 

The environment in "popular incumbent President" cycles seem to be different than "unpopular incumbent President" cycles (for the non-incumbent party).

[Nichlemn]

The Republicans will take 2-4 seats, depending on whether Obama gets re-elected. Given the huge amount of seats that the Democrats need to defend (23, compared to just 10 for the Republicans), the Democrats are almost certainly going to suffer a net loss even if Obama gets re-elected.

And how well did similar math work out for Democrats in 2010?

What? I don't know if you're being a hack, but the Democrats had more seats to defend, just like in 2012. (In 2010, the Democrats as 19 seats, and the Republicans only 18.)

I guess it's worth noting that the seat count can change with special elections. Republicans initially had a 19-15 edge before the Specter switch. Granted, most of those special elections arose from appointments, but a number of unfortunate Republican deaths for instance could change the symmetry.

Also, the number of seats up is not a surefire indicator of vulnerability. There's the incumbent advantage of course, but there's also the nature of the states. The 2012 class is somewhat bluer than the national average, so even in a neutral environment with no incumbents we should expect the Democrats to win a majority of those seats.

[Nichlemn]

The Republicans will take 2-4 seats, depending on whether Obama gets re-elected. Given the huge amount of seats that the Democrats need to defend (23, compared to just 10 for the Republicans), the Democrats are almost certainly going to suffer a net loss even if Obama gets re-elected.

In terms of determining how the parties need to delegate resources, the number of seats (2:1) that Democrats will be defending seems important. What's more important is which seats each party needs to defend, and in what type of environment. In 2010, the GOP had to defend almost as many seats (even seats with incumbents) as the Democrats did, but how many of those incumbents would have been deemed "vulnerable" in any environment? Maybe one or two?

Point is, if the Democrats have to "defend" 20 seats, but only 2 or 3 appear to be vulnerable (e.g. unpopular with constituents, etc.), and Republicans have to "defend" 10 seats, but 4 or 5 are vulnerable, does it really matter how many seats each party is "defending"?

To be sure, the Democrats could certainly defy the odds. All else equal though, having more seats up increases your chances of losing seats.