2012 a bloodbath for Democrats in the senate?

[Whacker77]

A lot of this talk really depends on who Republicans choose for the nominee.  If they blow their heads off with Palin or some other 2008 retread, Democrats could hold a lot of the Senate seats.  If Republicans find someone the country takes to well, it could be a big night.

As for the House, it could turn, but I doubt it.  A lot of realignment took place in the south and a lot of naturally Republican seats where regained.  I don't think Obama will have near the pull in 2012 as he had in 2008 because now he has a governing record.  The 2006 and 2008 cycles were so much about Iraq and Bush fatigue.

[Skill and Chance]

A lot of this talk really depends on who Republicans choose for the nominee.  If they blow their heads off with Palin or some other 2008 retread, Democrats could hold a lot of the Senate seats.  If Republicans find someone the country takes to well, it could be a big night.

As for the House, it could turn, but I doubt it.  A lot of realignment took place in the south and a lot of naturally Republican seats where regained.  I don't think Obama will have near the pull in 2012 as he had in 2008 because now he has a governing record.  The 2006 and 2008 cycles were so much about Iraq and Bush fatigue.

The potential for a 2010 repeat or better for the GOP in the senate is definitely there, but only if Obama goes down.  I would expect the Dems to hold it by 1 or 2 in a scenario where Obama wins (3 or 4 GOP pickups and Brown loses in MA).

As for the House, you have to remember that there are a good 10-15 seats that would be flipped back just by having a 2008 level minority turnout, and the 2012 electorate is likely to be even less white than 2008.  For the House to be truly "in play" in 2012, Obama would have to win the election.  Even then, those last 10 or so seats would be a real challenge for the Dems unless the environment is slanted a bit in their direction.  I would think that if Obama wins Ohio or Florida or any state more conservative, the Democrats will retake the House, but otherwise they would fall short.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

You're all forgetting the Dem pickup that's going to happen in Connecticut as well.

[Skill and Chance]

You're all forgetting the Dem pickup that's going to happen in Connecticut as well.

First of all, he is already counted as a Dem

Second of all, not if Jodi Rell runs

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

I know, I'm just getting ready to enjoy that we are approaching Lieberman's last two years in the Senate.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You're all forgetting the Dem pickup that's going to happen in Connecticut as well.

First of all, he is already counted as a Dem

Second of all, not if Jodi Rell runs

Jodi Rell won't run. And even if she does, she will suffer Mike Castle's fate.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

You're all forgetting the Dem pickup that's going to happen in Connecticut as well.

First of all, he is already counted as a Dem

Second of all, not if Jodi Rell runs

Jodi Rell won't run. And even if she does, she will suffer Mike Castle's fate.

Connecticut is not Delaware.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You're all forgetting the Dem pickup that's going to happen in Connecticut as well.

First of all, he is already counted as a Dem

Second of all, not if Jodi Rell runs

Jodi Rell won't run. And even if she does, she will suffer Mike Castle's fate.

Connecticut is not Delaware.

And an apple is not an orange.

[redcommander]

If Jodi Rell ran for Senate, Republicans would not nominate a weaker candidate after the McMahon disaster. I think it is probably a good bet that Republicans will find a much stronger group of candidates to run in 2012.

[Sam Spade]

It is far too early to be predicting 2012 or anything.  However, the fact that the Dems have 23 seats up and the GOP only 10 is going to make keeping things even kinda difficult.

[Vepres]

As for the House, you have to remember that there are a good 10-15 seats that would be flipped back just by having a 2008 level minority turnout, and the 2012 electorate is likely to be even less white than 2008.

Republicans will control redistricting, and thus Democrats will have to do better than one would think.

[Mr.Phips]

As for the House, you have to remember that there are a good 10-15 seats that would be flipped back just by having a 2008 level minority turnout, and the 2012 electorate is likely to be even less white than 2008.

Republicans will control redistricting, and thus Democrats will have to do better than one would think.

There is not much Republicans are going to be able to do redistrictingwise to hurt Democrats with the exception of North Carolina.  Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are losing seats and Republicans are already overextended in those states and will have to cut some of their own members unless they want several districts to go back to Democrats in 2012.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There is such a thing as fyking them over, 'long' term... though the tendency of recent gerrymandering has been for short-term over-reach, so maybe not.

[King]

If Jodi Rell ran for Senate, Republicans would not nominate a weaker candidate after the McMahon disaster. I think it is probably a good bet that Republicans will find a much stronger group of candidates to run in 2012.

Based on what I've seen lately, Jodi Rell would be primaried so fast and with such certainty for a random unelectable corporate anarchist sleazeball--whose only campaigning consisted of having his name listed under "Conservative" in the yellow pages--that you would hardly have been given the time to realize she had run a campaign at all. 

And I spent 6 minutes coming up with that sentence so you have better read it.

DOLEMITE

[Brittain33]

Republicans will control redistricting, and thus Democrats will have to do better than one would think.

Except for North Carolina and IN-2, Republicans control redistricting in states where they already had control in 2002 or mid-decade (GA and TX) or have maxed out their gains (TN, AL, LA) so they can't really make things worse for Democrats. Illinois makes up for North Carolina. Republicans controlling the maps amounts to a lost opportunity for Democrats to make things better than the current set-up, nothing more.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As for the House, you have to remember that there are a good 10-15 seats that would be flipped back just by having a 2008 level minority turnout, and the 2012 electorate is likely to be even less white than 2008.

Republicans will control redistricting, and thus Democrats will have to do better than one would think.

They can't make more damage than what they made in 2001. The democrats have nothign to lose, only to gain in States like IL or CA.

[Landslide Lyndon]

One possible wild card for redistricting: this will be the first time since the VRA was implemented that a Democratic DOJ will oversee the process in southern states.
This can go a long way into curbing possible shenanigans in states like Texas, North Carolina and Georgia

Also, I read somewhere that Snyder said that he wants a reasonable congressional map for Michigan and won't accept a partisan gerrymander. I don't believe he will fulfill his promise, unless he wants to carry favor with Democrats in case of a future takeover of the legislature or in return for their support for his reelection bid.

[Whacker77]

I don't think you're likely to see a Delaware scenario again.  The 2010 cycle was a fluke.  I'm pretty certain a lot of Republicans who voted for the witch in the primary regretted the choice not long after they did it.  Suspecting or hoping, in some cases, for lots of primary challenges by Republicans is not likely.  Brown, Snowe, and Rell aren't going to get serious challenges.  Look at Mark Kirk.  He won his primary easily.

Delaware had a strange confluence of events.  First, it happened so late in the cycle general election style attention was place on it.  Second, Castle was torpedoed by the radio flame throwers.  For whatever reason, Rush and the gang decided he needed to be made an example.  Their attention next time will be on the presidential race.  Third, COD cast a spell over the voters!  I kid, of course.

As for predicting the House will turn over with Obama on the ticket is the same spin said in 1996 with Clinton on the ticket.  Obama now has a governing record and that will play a major role in the support he receives from Independent voters.  He's not going to receive the outsized support he saw too years ago.  I'm not saying Democrats don't win back seats, but is there any reason to believe the seats lost in rural America are coming back, or what about the seats lost by Gene Taylor and Allen Boyd in the South.  I just don't see it happening.

I've always seen this election year and the upcoming one as much like 1918 and 1920.  With the economy very likely not to significantly improve, I still feel that example works.

[Brittain33]

As for predicting the House will turn over with Obama on the ticket is the same spin said in 1996 with Clinton on the ticket. 

I think it would take some dramatic change for the Dems to take back the House in 2012--the kind of dramatic change we saw Republicans benefit from these last two years--but I will say in defense of your counterfactual that Clinton did have a chance for Dems to take back the House in 1996, but trends in October killed off that opportunity. 1996 could have been a better year for Dems in the House if Clinton hadn't been such a compromised candidate in so many ways.

[J. J.]

It is far too early to be predicting 2012 or anything.  However, the fact that the Dems have 23 seats up and the GOP only 10 is going to make keeping things even kinda difficult.

I think that is the key.  Even if Obama would win in a Democratic landslide in 2012, it would be likely that at least some of those will flip.

2014 is almost as bad, with 20 Dem seats up. That leads to an interesting situation.  Obama is re-elected in 2012.  There is a bloodbath in 2014, in all probability.

Obama loses in 2012 and there is a bloodbath in the Senate in 2012.  2014, there may not be a total disaster in the Dems in the Senate, but there is still a likely loss. 

It might be probable to say that there will be three Senate Elections with GOP gains.

And yes, that is one of the signs of a realignment.  3 years of gains in at least one House, with a switch of control.

[Psychic Octopus]

Debbie Stabenow's (a bit old, but worth mentioning) approval rating. Ouch. Survey was taken in September 2010, and Stabenow's approvals stand at 38% Approve, 50% Disapprove.

If only the GOP could find a candidate to run, who can appeal to Michigan voters, they have a good chance of picking this seat up in 2012, unless it is a wave election in favor of the Democrats.

[Badger]

You're making precisely the same mistake Democrats made in 2008.

Psst, the Republicans don't control the White House or the Senate.

Still doesn't make it any less stupid to be making these assumptions at this point.

So you think the Democrats will make gains when they hold 21 seats to the Republicans' 10?

By that logic the GOP should've been slaughtered this year with having to defend a similarly lopsided number of seats, many in states Obama won or ran close in.

The national picture will matter more than anything.

[The Vorlon]

I noticed a modest change in the political environment between 2008 and 2010.

There is a possibility they may also be change between 2010 and 2012.

The Dems will have a lot more seats up than the GOP will.

Beyond that, it's hard to predict....

[minionofmidas]

This is why I'm glad the Senate is 53-47 and not 51-49 or 50-50. This way, there is a chance to hold it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

To all those who rate Olympia Snowe as super-safe in 2010, I would like to point out that when PPP polled the state a couple of months, they found that her approvals have dropped dramatically.

Democrats are pissed because of her lockstep voting with the rest of  her party, while Republicans are furious with her votes for the stimulus, TARP and the fact that she voted yes for HCR at the Finance Committee.