|           
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2020, 01:05:27 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  2016 Senate: Republicans maintain it?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: 2016 Senate: Republicans maintain it?  (Read 9806 times)
Free Bird
TheHawk
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,892
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 16, 2014, 01:02:27 am »

The popular consensus seems to be that even if Pubs take back the Senate, Dems will bounce back in 2016 and take it back by taking out Toomey, Kirk, and Johnson. Is there any way they could avoid this outcome? What races could Republicans win to result in no change in the Senate? I am seeing Sandoval taking out Reid, and Bennet having the fight of his political life. Are those predictions accurate, and what other races could they go after to defend themselves?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,011
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2014, 06:58:08 pm »

They could always pull a mirror 2012 in 2016, but that is a bit more difficult since Democrats tend to do better during election years. The most obvious way for Republicans to keep control of the Senate would be to sweep all the competitive races in 2014. Failing that, I wouldn't necessarily say that Toomey, Kirk, or Johnson are doomed, although each will have a tough re-election fight.
Logged
GaussLaw
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,283
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2014, 09:25:04 pm »

Basically, here's their game plan in 2016 if they take it, regardless of whether it's with 6 or 11 seats.

1:  See early on if it's worth trying to save Kirk.  Otherwise, just drop it.
2:  Brian Sandoval for Senate in Nevada,   someone decent (maybe Doug Lamborn?) in Colorado.
3. Barrage of TV ads in WI/PA to save Johnson and Toomey.  Make sure Ayotte, Rubio, Portman, etc. can pull it off.
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,763


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2014, 09:39:47 pm »

If Ds lose the Senate they will recruit their strongest candidates possible in every race they can realistically win Kirk v. Madigan, Cordray v. Portman, Kind/Feingold v. Johnson, Castor/Murphy v. Rubio, Hassan v. Ayotte and try to expand the map in states like IA, MO, AZ etc.
Logged
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,424


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2014, 09:50:12 pm »

The map is daunting for the GOP, sure, but some people here are overconfident about Dem chances. Yes, with the map, there is potential for a big Dem year. But we don't know what the environment or the circumstances are like.
I think the only truly doomed one is Kirk. My roomate from Chicago is convinced Madigan wants to stay in IL, but even without her, the state is very tough in presidential years. I think Toomey and Ayotte can run about 4-5% ahead of the top of the ticket, and it depends who they are up against. The PA Dem bench is not so stellar, particularly now that Kane is in trouble with this scandal.

Yes, the pieces are there, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion by any stretch.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,991
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2014, 10:27:11 pm »

The problem for Republicans in 2016 is the limited number of pick-up opportunities (Nevada and maybe Colorado) so they'd have the run the table just to stay even.

One major factor in whether Democrats would take back the Senate is the size of the Republican win. It's one thing if Republicans eke out a narrow 51-49 majority. It's another if Republicans run the table and pick up Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and West Virginia. In that case, Democrats would have to pick up eight seats (one of which is the office of Vice President).

The mood of the electorate two and a half years from now will also be important. If Hillary Clinton has a nine point win against Rand Paul, it's likely to come with coattails for Democrats. If a Republican wins by more than five points, it seems unlikely that Democrats will pick up any seats.
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,014
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2014, 10:38:13 pm »

I don't see the GOP winning the Senate should Hilary be
nominee but anything possible. Johnson is toast. Slight
chance Kirk or Toomey holds on. Definate pickup opportunity
in FL.  I see the Dems taking  4 seats in 2016. FL may not
decide the election like OH or Va might be but def pickup.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,498
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.23, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2014, 11:03:42 pm »

I honestly think in order for republicans to keep the senate (in the case that they take it in '14) they will need Democrat '12 luck, meaning some really bad fumbles on the democratic side and some particularly good campaigning on the republican side. Most likely no.
Logged
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,424


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2014, 01:09:49 am »

I think people here (nothing new, really) are counting people out way too early. We have two and a half years to go.

Johnson is vulnerable, obviously, but is he toast? Unless Feingold runs (no guarantees), then I wouldn't say so.

Kirk is obviously in a very tough spot though. Like I said earlier, if a Democrat wins the White House by a margin around or smaller than Obama's 2012 margin, then I can see both Ayotte and Toomey squeaking out wins.

OC, how is Florida a "definate" pickup? Have you seen the Democratic bench in Florida? That state party apparatus is pathetic and the bench is weak.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,127
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2014, 03:14:19 am »

It's very possible.  The "map penalty" was actually even higher for Democrats in 2012 when they had to win a bunch of McCain states + states that Obama barely won for it to work.  For example, if 2016 is a Republican presidential win with the same margin as Obama in 2012, the Republican nominee would probably carry every state with a GOP seat up save for Illinois.

A lot of the 2010 R pick ups were only in soft Dem states.  If Hillary wins 55/43, then it very well might be D+11.  If the 2016 Dem turns in a Kerry level narrow loss, I could easily see the senate being R+1-2

Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,014
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2014, 08:26:08 am »
« Edited: May 17, 2014, 08:38:53 am by OC »


OC, how is Florida a "definate" pickup? Have you seen the Democratic bench in Florida? That state party apparatus is pathetic and the bench is weak.
[/quote]
:
Hilary is gonna spend a lot of time trying to win over the New York Snow birds that vacation in Florida during  Christmas. Florida is more winnable to us cause it might be an open seat should Rubio opt to run for prez. Patrick Murphy should beat any GOPer not named Rubio. Clinton is gonna spend a lot of time def Johnson , Kirk and Toomey.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,892
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2014, 10:37:21 am »


OC, how is Florida a "definate" pickup? Have you seen the Democratic bench in Florida? That state party apparatus is pathetic and the bench is weak.
:
Hilary is gonna spend a lot of time trying to win over the New York Snow birds that vacation in Florida during  Christmas. Florida is more winnable to us cause it might be an open seat should Rubio opt to run for prez. Patrick Murphy should beat any GOPer not named Rubio. Clinton is gonna spend a lot of time def Johnson , Kirk and Toomey.
[/quote]

We all seem very convinced of Hillary making a snowball effect. We don't even know if SHES running.
Logged
Never
Never Convinced
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,627
Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: 3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2014, 12:00:09 pm »

It is really difficult to say whether the Republicans could maintain the Senate in 2016 should they win it this year.

While Kirk seems like a good senator, Illinois is such a left-leaning state that all it could take for him to lose is a average Democratic presidential nominee and an acceptable opponent. On the other hand, if the Republicans win the White House, he could barely hold on.

Johnson is probably the next most vulnerable senator. He is quite conservative for Wisconsin, which might cause him to lose some ground with a presidential electorate. Still, he appears to be a strong campaigner, which might allow him to hold on. If the Republican presidential nominee wins the election, I'd expect him to be reelected. On the other hand, should the Democratic presidential nominee win by less than 5 points nationally, I'd estimate that he would have a 50/50 chance of keeping his seat, but if the Democrat wins by a larger margin than that, then his or her coattails would probably take down Johnson.

Toomey can probably hold on as long as the Democratic presidential nominee doesn't win Pennsylvania by a huge margin. He is good enough of a senator that I would expect many Pennsylvanians to pick him over his opponent.

Ayotte is probably at some level risk simply because there are many credible opponents in New Hampshire. Still, she might be able to run ahead of the other Republicans on the ballot, as others on this thread expect.

Rubio and Portman will probably hold on, and I'm not too worried about either one losing.

The Republicans could make some pickups. Obviously, their best opportunity would be to have Brian Sandoval run against Harry Reid in Nevada. I'd say this would be a 50/50 race, and that Sandoval would win if the Democratic presidential nominee wins less than 54/55% of the vote nationally. Even though Nevada tilts Democratic, Sandoval is a particularly strong option. Unfortunately for the Republicans, that might be their only pickup of the night. Although Bennet is definitely not the strongest candidate, it is important to remember how thin the Republican bench is in Colorado. After all, until Cory Gardner jumped in this year's Senate race in the state, Udall was practically assured of victory. If the bench was that weak during a midterm, what Republican will challenge Bennet in a presidential electorate that favors the Democrats more? There could be another GOPer in the state who might end up being a credible threat to Bennet, but right now, I only think Bennet would lose if the Republicans win the White House.

All in all, Kirk and Johnson are probably at high risk of losing their seats, and Toomey and Ayotte are probably both going to have competitive races. Barring a Democratic landslide, the Republicans are in danger of losing about three or four seats. They could make up for that with one pickup, or two if they are having a good night. Based on that, a Democratic net gain of 1-4 seats seems plausible should the Democrats win the presidential election, and if the Republicans win the White House, their party will probably either break even or have a net gain of 2 seats.

It seems that the Republicans need to get to least 53-54 seats in the Senate after November's election in order to secure their majority for 2016.
Logged
MATTROSE94
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,572
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.43

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2014, 01:04:12 pm »

It is really difficult to say whether the Republicans could maintain the Senate in 2016 should they win it this year.

While Kirk seems like a good senator, Illinois is such a left-leaning state that all it could take for him to lose is a average Democratic presidential nominee and an acceptable opponent. On the other hand, if the Republicans win the White House, he could barely hold on.

Johnson is probably the next most vulnerable senator. He is quite conservative for Wisconsin, which might cause him to lose some ground with a presidential electorate. Still, he appears to be a strong campaigner, which might allow him to hold on. If the Republican presidential nominee wins the election, I'd expect him to be reelected. On the other hand, should the Democratic presidential nominee win by less than 5 points nationally, I'd estimate that he would have a 50/50 chance of keeping his seat, but if the Democrat wins by a larger margin than that, then his or her coattails would probably take down Johnson.

Toomey can probably hold on as long as the Democratic presidential nominee doesn't win Pennsylvania by a huge margin. He is good enough of a senator that I would expect many Pennsylvanians to pick him over his opponent.

Ayotte is probably at some level risk simply because there are many credible opponents in New Hampshire. Still, she might be able to run ahead of the other Republicans on the ballot, as others on this thread expect.

Rubio and Portman will probably hold on, and I'm not too worried about either one losing.

The Republicans could make some pickups. Obviously, their best opportunity would be to have Brian Sandoval run against Harry Reid in Nevada. I'd say this would be a 50/50 race, and that Sandoval would win if the Democratic presidential nominee wins less than 54/55% of the vote nationally. Even though Nevada tilts Democratic, Sandoval is a particularly strong option. Unfortunately for the Republicans, that might be their only pickup of the night. Although Bennet is definitely not the strongest candidate, it is important to remember how thin the Republican bench is in Colorado. After all, until Cory Gardner jumped in this year's Senate race in the state, Udall was practically assured of victory. If the bench was that weak during a midterm, what Republican will challenge Bennet in a presidential electorate that favors the Democrats more? There could be another GOPer in the state who might end up being a credible threat to Bennet, but right now, I only think Bennet would lose if the Republicans win the White House.

All in all, Kirk and Johnson are probably at high risk of losing their seats, and Toomey and Ayotte are probably both going to have competitive races. Barring a Democratic landslide, the Republicans are in danger of losing about three or four seats. They could make up for that with one pickup, or two if they are having a good night. Based on that, a Democratic net gain of 1-4 seats seems plausible should the Democrats win the presidential election, and if the Republicans win the White House, their party will probably either break even or have a net gain of 2 seats.

It seems that the Republicans need to get to least 53-54 seats in the Senate after November's election in order to secure their majority for 2016.
I think that if Cory Gardner loses this year against Mark Udall by a slim margin, he might run again in 2016 against Michael Bennett and could potentially defeat him.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,892
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2014, 01:43:45 pm »

It is really difficult to say whether the Republicans could maintain the Senate in 2016 should they win it this year.

While Kirk seems like a good senator, Illinois is such a left-leaning state that all it could take for him to lose is a average Democratic presidential nominee and an acceptable opponent. On the other hand, if the Republicans win the White House, he could barely hold on.

Johnson is probably the next most vulnerable senator. He is quite conservative for Wisconsin, which might cause him to lose some ground with a presidential electorate. Still, he appears to be a strong campaigner, which might allow him to hold on. If the Republican presidential nominee wins the election, I'd expect him to be reelected. On the other hand, should the Democratic presidential nominee win by less than 5 points nationally, I'd estimate that he would have a 50/50 chance of keeping his seat, but if the Democrat wins by a larger margin than that, then his or her coattails would probably take down Johnson.

Toomey can probably hold on as long as the Democratic presidential nominee doesn't win Pennsylvania by a huge margin. He is good enough of a senator that I would expect many Pennsylvanians to pick him over his opponent.

Ayotte is probably at some level risk simply because there are many credible opponents in New Hampshire. Still, she might be able to run ahead of the other Republicans on the ballot, as others on this thread expect.

Rubio and Portman will probably hold on, and I'm not too worried about either one losing.

The Republicans could make some pickups. Obviously, their best opportunity would be to have Brian Sandoval run against Harry Reid in Nevada. I'd say this would be a 50/50 race, and that Sandoval would win if the Democratic presidential nominee wins less than 54/55% of the vote nationally. Even though Nevada tilts Democratic, Sandoval is a particularly strong option. Unfortunately for the Republicans, that might be their only pickup of the night. Although Bennet is definitely not the strongest candidate, it is important to remember how thin the Republican bench is in Colorado. After all, until Cory Gardner jumped in this year's Senate race in the state, Udall was practically assured of victory. If the bench was that weak during a midterm, what Republican will challenge Bennet in a presidential electorate that favors the Democrats more? There could be another GOPer in the state who might end up being a credible threat to Bennet, but right now, I only think Bennet would lose if the Republicans win the White House.

All in all, Kirk and Johnson are probably at high risk of losing their seats, and Toomey and Ayotte are probably both going to have competitive races. Barring a Democratic landslide, the Republicans are in danger of losing about three or four seats. They could make up for that with one pickup, or two if they are having a good night. Based on that, a Democratic net gain of 1-4 seats seems plausible should the Democrats win the presidential election, and if the Republicans win the White House, their party will probably either break even or have a net gain of 2 seats.

It seems that the Republicans need to get to least 53-54 seats in the Senate after November's election in order to secure their majority for 2016.
I think that if Cory Gardner loses this year against Mark Udall by a slim margin, he might run again in 2016 against Michael Bennett and could potentially defeat him.

Perhaps, certainly in a strong Republican year with a nominee like Rand Paul and a generic Democrat. Same with Reid if he goes against Sandoval. Colorado is NOT gone for Republicans. Even Hillary has been trailing in hypotheticals there.
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,014
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2014, 02:32:03 pm »

Rubio is definately leaning on running for VP or Prez. We must win FL, it's a swing stare and FL will be key in deteining whether we get House. Toomey is definately the strongest. 3-4 seat net gain Pa or FL and WI and IL and win NH should be our goal in 2016.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,991
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2014, 02:42:44 pm »
« Edited: May 17, 2014, 02:44:16 pm by Mister Mets »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
:
Hilary is gonna spend a lot of time trying to win over the New York Snow birds that vacation in Florida during  Christmas. Florida is more winnable to us cause it might be an open seat should Rubio opt to run for prez. Patrick Murphy should beat any GOPer not named Rubio. Clinton is gonna spend a lot of time def Johnson , Kirk and Toomey.
[/quote]I don't think Democrats are likely to nominate Murphy for Senate. He's one of the more vulnerable incumbents in the House, and there were early reports that he wanted to join the Republicans.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/democrat-who-beat-allen-west-in-2012-discussed-flipping-to-gop-according-to-report/

That said, in a large swing state with 27 congressional districts, the Democratic party should be able to find a plausible candidate.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,127
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2014, 04:58:51 pm »

It does seem like Hillary has some unique strength compared to Obama in FL.
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,763


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2014, 04:31:53 am »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
:
Hilary is gonna spend a lot of time trying to win over the New York Snow birds that vacation in Florida during  Christmas. Florida is more winnable to us cause it might be an open seat should Rubio opt to run for prez. Patrick Murphy should beat any GOPer not named Rubio. Clinton is gonna spend a lot of time def Johnson , Kirk and Toomey.
I don't think Democrats are likely to nominate Murphy for Senate. He's one of the more vulnerable incumbents in the House, and there were early reports that he wanted to join the Republicans.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/democrat-who-beat-allen-west-in-2012-discussed-flipping-to-gop-according-to-report/

That said, in a large swing state with 27 congressional districts, the Democratic party should be able to find a plausible candidate.
[/quote]

The current FL maps may be redrawn because of the redistricting court case and Murphy may get a more favorable seat as a result.
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,014
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2014, 06:47:21 am »
« Edited: May 18, 2014, 06:52:23 am by OC »

Aside for Tammy Duckworth, Murphy will take a look at the House is in terms of seizing control of it. Murphy might want to stay. Regardless, 2016 will have big implications on SCOTUS, House and Senate.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,991
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2014, 10:21:10 am »

Democrats seem unlikely to take back the House any time soon, due to a combination of gerrymandering and geographic sorting. Their best bet is winning state legislatures and governorships in 2018 and 2020, which might not happen. So anyone ambitious has few incentives to stick around in the House.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
:
Hilary is gonna spend a lot of time trying to win over the New York Snow birds that vacation in Florida during  Christmas. Florida is more winnable to us cause it might be an open seat should Rubio opt to run for prez. Patrick Murphy should beat any GOPer not named Rubio. Clinton is gonna spend a lot of time def Johnson , Kirk and Toomey.
I don't think Democrats are likely to nominate Murphy for Senate. He's one of the more vulnerable incumbents in the House, and there were early reports that he wanted to join the Republicans.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/democrat-who-beat-allen-west-in-2012-discussed-flipping-to-gop-according-to-report/

That said, in a large swing state with 27 congressional districts, the Democratic party should be able to find a plausible candidate.

The current FL maps may be redrawn because of the redistricting court case and Murphy may get a more favorable seat as a result.
[/quote]Could it be done it time to change anything for 2014?
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,043
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2014, 12:26:17 pm »

The idea that 2016 is as bad for Republicans as 2014 is for Democrats is an exaggeration, but that doesn't mean that it won't mostly be Democrats on offensive in 2016. Republicans hold relatively few seats in actual left-wing states (the only one, actually, is Kirk in Illinois, who is pretty personally popular, though that probably won't save him) but there's lots of seats in swing states (Johnson/Portman/Toomey/Ayotte/Rubio/Burr/Grassley/McCain/Paul) which Republicans are all basically favored to maintain, but which could fall if the incumbent retires or the Democratic candidate runs a good campaign, and will begin falling like dominoes in a Democratic landslide year. The question for 2016 is the environment -- a neutral one means the Senate staying about the same, or maybe very small Democratic gains, but a Democratic environment could mean massive gains for the Democrats. (Unlike 2014, where even in a neutral environment this November Republicans might still gain the Senate because of how skewed the map is). Republicans do have two options, more or less, for gains (Nevada and Colorado, probably in that order), but it'll take either Sandoval running in NV or a very good Republican environment to pick either of those up, and in the latter case Democrats retaking the Senate probably won't be a real concern.
Logged
MATTROSE94
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,572
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.43

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 19, 2014, 11:28:37 am »

It is really difficult to say whether the Republicans could maintain the Senate in 2016 should they win it this year.

While Kirk seems like a good senator, Illinois is such a left-leaning state that all it could take for him to lose is a average Democratic presidential nominee and an acceptable opponent. On the other hand, if the Republicans win the White House, he could barely hold on.

Johnson is probably the next most vulnerable senator. He is quite conservative for Wisconsin, which might cause him to lose some ground with a presidential electorate. Still, he appears to be a strong campaigner, which might allow him to hold on. If the Republican presidential nominee wins the election, I'd expect him to be reelected. On the other hand, should the Democratic presidential nominee win by less than 5 points nationally, I'd estimate that he would have a 50/50 chance of keeping his seat, but if the Democrat wins by a larger margin than that, then his or her coattails would probably take down Johnson.

Toomey can probably hold on as long as the Democratic presidential nominee doesn't win Pennsylvania by a huge margin. He is good enough of a senator that I would expect many Pennsylvanians to pick him over his opponent.

Ayotte is probably at some level risk simply because there are many credible opponents in New Hampshire. Still, she might be able to run ahead of the other Republicans on the ballot, as others on this thread expect.

Rubio and Portman will probably hold on, and I'm not too worried about either one losing.

The Republicans could make some pickups. Obviously, their best opportunity would be to have Brian Sandoval run against Harry Reid in Nevada. I'd say this would be a 50/50 race, and that Sandoval would win if the Democratic presidential nominee wins less than 54/55% of the vote nationally. Even though Nevada tilts Democratic, Sandoval is a particularly strong option. Unfortunately for the Republicans, that might be their only pickup of the night. Although Bennet is definitely not the strongest candidate, it is important to remember how thin the Republican bench is in Colorado. After all, until Cory Gardner jumped in this year's Senate race in the state, Udall was practically assured of victory. If the bench was that weak during a midterm, what Republican will challenge Bennet in a presidential electorate that favors the Democrats more? There could be another GOPer in the state who might end up being a credible threat to Bennet, but right now, I only think Bennet would lose if the Republicans win the White House.

All in all, Kirk and Johnson are probably at high risk of losing their seats, and Toomey and Ayotte are probably both going to have competitive races. Barring a Democratic landslide, the Republicans are in danger of losing about three or four seats. They could make up for that with one pickup, or two if they are having a good night. Based on that, a Democratic net gain of 1-4 seats seems plausible should the Democrats win the presidential election, and if the Republicans win the White House, their party will probably either break even or have a net gain of 2 seats.

It seems that the Republicans need to get to least 53-54 seats in the Senate after November's election in order to secure their majority for 2016.
I think that if Cory Gardner loses this year against Mark Udall by a slim margin, he might run again in 2016 against Michael Bennett and could potentially defeat him.

Perhaps, certainly in a strong Republican year with a nominee like Rand Paul and a generic Democrat. Same with Reid if he goes against Sandoval. Colorado is NOT gone for Republicans. Even Hillary has been trailing in hypotheticals there.
I agree. I think that Colorado has a pretty good chance to vote Republican in 2016, especially if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee.
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,014
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 19, 2014, 12:09:20 pm »
« Edited: May 19, 2014, 12:19:39 pm by OC »

Hilary is the best bet to secure the WH and she will pick a running mate with mod appeal
 She did very well in OH especially in 2008 primaries.

Our targets are still Toomey and Johnson and Kirk. Toomey has the best chance of winning
 But OH will be the tipping pt state. And should Rubio ret, and West should be nominee we stand a chance.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,347
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2014, 07:08:40 pm »

If Hillary wins, the Republicans will not maintain the senate or gain seats if they never took it.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines