|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2020, 01:14:37 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 9807 times)
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,348
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: July 31, 2014, 09:20:01 am »

There's simply too many very conservative one-term senators from purple and blue states in 2016 to bode very well for the GOP, but If its a Republican year, many of them will get reelected on the coattails. If Rubio runs, his seat in Florida could eventually be in jeopardy (don't know how succession works in Florida, though...would Crist (if he wins) appoint whom he pleases, or will a popular Republican be able to easily hold it?)

if Republicans do very well, they may be able to avoid a midterm curse the way Bush did.
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 #51 on: July 31, 2014, 10:45:00 am »

Burr could be in trouble if the Dems nominate a decent candidate or if he retires. He's basically the GOP version of Hagan- low name rec, low controversy, but susceptible to a charismatic or qualified  opponent (a danger which Hagan has fortunately dodged).

As of now I would say that only Kirk, Johnson, and maybe Ayotte are the most vulernable GOP Senators should the Dems win the WH again in 2016.

I agree with you that Burr could go down in a Democratic landslide or his seat could flip if he retires but that all looks unlikely as of now esp. since we haven't even finished 2014 yet let alone begun seriously taking about 16.

I have to disagree on Ayotte. Her seat in general has often been Republican, and even when Lynch won by 5, she still won in a landslide. This either shows bipartisan popularity on her or Lynch's part
Logged
NickCT
Rookie
**
Posts: 140
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: July 31, 2014, 04:52:09 pm »

Burr could be in trouble if the Dems nominate a decent candidate or if he retires. He's basically the GOP version of Hagan- low name rec, low controversy, but susceptible to a charismatic or qualified  opponent (a danger which Hagan has fortunately dodged).

As of now I would say that only Kirk, Johnson, and maybe Ayotte are the most vulernable GOP Senators should the Dems win the WH again in 2016.

I agree with you that Burr could go down in a Democratic landslide or his seat could flip if he retires but that all looks unlikely as of now esp. since we haven't even finished 2014 yet let alone begun seriously taking about 16.

I have to disagree on Ayotte. Her seat in general has often been Republican, and even when Lynch won by 5, she still won in a landslide. This either shows bipartisan popularity on her or Lynch's part

And polls have been going in her direction (though it is definitely early, sure.)

Johnson is done, I think.  Kirk could hold on to his seat, and so could Toomey, but both will likely have trouble doing so.

If Rubio retires (same for Burr), the seat could flip.  If not, I think they'll stay red.

I haven't heard enough from CO to really comment.
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 #53 on: July 31, 2014, 05:02:03 pm »

Burr could be in trouble if the Dems nominate a decent candidate or if he retires. He's basically the GOP version of Hagan- low name rec, low controversy, but susceptible to a charismatic or qualified  opponent (a danger which Hagan has fortunately dodged).

As of now I would say that only Kirk, Johnson, and maybe Ayotte are the most vulernable GOP Senators should the Dems win the WH again in 2016.

I agree with you that Burr could go down in a Democratic landslide or his seat could flip if he retires but that all looks unlikely as of now esp. since we haven't even finished 2014 yet let alone begun seriously taking about 16.

I have to disagree on Ayotte. Her seat in general has often been Republican, and even when Lynch won by 5, she still won in a landslide. This either shows bipartisan popularity on her or Lynch's part

And polls have been going in her direction (though it is definitely early, sure.)

Johnson is done, I think.  Kirk could hold on to his seat, and so could Toomey, but both will likely have trouble doing so.

If Rubio retires (same for Burr), the seat could flip.  If not, I think they'll stay red.

I haven't heard enough from CO to really comment.

Johnson isn't a good fit for his state, and while Kirk is probably the best-suited Republican for Illinois, the heavy Democratic lean of the state puts him in grave danger. Toomey is probably in a tossup.

I agree with your view on Rubio and Burr.

Colorado will probably reelect Bennet unless there is an unexpectedly strong Republican candidate. It's important to keep in mind that this year's Senate race was not viewed as being very competitive until Gardner jumped in. Perhaps someone like Rep. Coffman could pull off a victory, but that depends on him winning his congressional race this year.
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,088
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: July 31, 2014, 05:02:44 pm »

Robin Kelly will probably run should Madigan pass. And WI is prime pickup. Net 2 for Dems.
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 #55 on: July 31, 2014, 06:14:44 pm »

Burr could be in trouble if the Dems nominate a decent candidate or if he retires. He's basically the GOP version of Hagan- low name rec, low controversy, but susceptible to a charismatic or qualified  opponent (a danger which Hagan has fortunately dodged).

As of now I would say that only Kirk, Johnson, and maybe Ayotte are the most vulernable GOP Senators should the Dems win the WH again in 2016.

I agree with you that Burr could go down in a Democratic landslide or his seat could flip if he retires but that all looks unlikely as of now esp. since we haven't even finished 2014 yet let alone begun seriously taking about 16.

I have to disagree on Ayotte. Her seat in general has often been Republican, and even when Lynch won by 5, she still won in a landslide. This either shows bipartisan popularity on her or Lynch's part

And polls have been going in her direction (though it is definitely early, sure.)

Johnson is done, I think.  Kirk could hold on to his seat, and so could Toomey, but both will likely have trouble doing so.

If Rubio retires (same for Burr), the seat could flip.  If not, I think they'll stay red.

I haven't heard enough from CO to really comment.

IF Feingold runs.
Logged
NickCT
Rookie
**
Posts: 140
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: July 31, 2014, 06:15:37 pm »

All indications are that he will, TheHawk
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 #57 on: July 31, 2014, 06:23:50 pm »

All indications are that he will, TheHawk

Really? I haven't been paying attention. I thought he would either run for president, retire from public life, or be happy with his obscure African job. Granted, I actually like Russy-boy, so I will gladly trade Reid's seat for his.
Logged
KingSweden
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,253
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: July 31, 2014, 09:00:06 pm »

Polling I've seen shows Ayotte is not popular in NH she has middling approval ratings at best. I think she is too conservative for the state her voting record will be attacked heavily and someone like Hassan or Lynch would make the race very competitive. Also if Nixon runs against Blunt in MO it would be a tossup no doubt. Murray is safe in WA if she survived 2010 she should have no problem in 2016 against whomever she is a good politician who knows how to win tough races.

I think you are about right on Ayotte and Blunt. Murray, on the other hand, could be vulnerable if McKenna runs against her and the Republicans have a good night nationally. Should the Republican presidential nominee win at least 300 electoral votes, someone like McKenna could leave the WA-Sen race up in the air for a few days and possibly leave the election with a narrow victory. Of course, Murray isn't in any danger if a Democrat wins the presidency in '16.

If McKenna couldn't win against Inslee in an open Governor race what makes you think he would win against Murray a powerful incumbent who brings home a ton of $$ for the state. Even if a Republican is winning nationwide they won't be winning Washington state it'd likely be a 10 point Democratic win there giving Murray more than enough room to win.

Oh, let me just say that I don't think McKenna is favored or anything like that, I just don't feel that Murray is a 100% lock to win if he is her opponent. Does Murray have 90-95% chance of winning at this point? Yes, but until we have a clearer picture of the national environment in 2016, I think this race should be at Likely D-borderline Safe D.

It's worth noting that while McKenna lost against Inslee, it was only by three points during an Obama victory of nearly 15 points. While Murray has incumbent strength, it is entirely possible that if the Republican presidential nominee wins nationally and loses in WA by just 10 points, McKenna could eke out a victory.

The difference is also that Inslee was a hack running for an open seat with an unpopular outgoing incumbent, and Murray is essentially a female Scoop Jackson.
Logged
NickCT
Rookie
**
Posts: 140
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: July 31, 2014, 09:07:28 pm »

All indications are that he will, TheHawk

Really? I haven't been paying attention. I thought he would either run for president, retire from public life, or be happy with his obscure African job. Granted, I actually like Russy-boy, so I will gladly trade Reid's seat for his.

There hasn't been too much conversation, but polls show him with major leads and I remember a HuffPost article and maybe a POLITICO one saying he was leaning/strongly considering and that pressure was coming from the WI Democratic Party.  (I cannot link because I'm so new to the site, but I'm sure some Google searches will verify my claims)

And I'd trade the Majority for Reid's seat LOL
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 #60 on: July 31, 2014, 09:09:07 pm »

Polling I've seen shows Ayotte is not popular in NH she has middling approval ratings at best. I think she is too conservative for the state her voting record will be attacked heavily and someone like Hassan or Lynch would make the race very competitive. Also if Nixon runs against Blunt in MO it would be a tossup no doubt. Murray is safe in WA if she survived 2010 she should have no problem in 2016 against whomever she is a good politician who knows how to win tough races.

I think you are about right on Ayotte and Blunt. Murray, on the other hand, could be vulnerable if McKenna runs against her and the Republicans have a good night nationally. Should the Republican presidential nominee win at least 300 electoral votes, someone like McKenna could leave the WA-Sen race up in the air for a few days and possibly leave the election with a narrow victory. Of course, Murray isn't in any danger if a Democrat wins the presidency in '16.

If McKenna couldn't win against Inslee in an open Governor race what makes you think he would win against Murray a powerful incumbent who brings home a ton of $$ for the state. Even if a Republican is winning nationwide they won't be winning Washington state it'd likely be a 10 point Democratic win there giving Murray more than enough room to win.

Oh, let me just say that I don't think McKenna is favored or anything like that, I just don't feel that Murray is a 100% lock to win if he is her opponent. Does Murray have 90-95% chance of winning at this point? Yes, but until we have a clearer picture of the national environment in 2016, I think this race should be at Likely D-borderline Safe D.

It's worth noting that while McKenna lost against Inslee, it was only by three points during an Obama victory of nearly 15 points. While Murray has incumbent strength, it is entirely possible that if the Republican presidential nominee wins nationally and loses in WA by just 10 points, McKenna could eke out a victory.

The difference is also that Inslee was a hack running for an open seat with an unpopular outgoing incumbent, and Murray is essentially a female Scoop Jackson.

Inslee is that bad? I can't say I focused on him too much in 2012, so I can't say one way or the other. Since you are from Washington state and probably quite familiar with that state's politics, and I'm not on either count, I'll take what you're saying seriously. Murray is strong (beating back Rossi in 2010), but in a good Republican year, a race between her and McKenna could end up being competitive.

On a side note, perhaps McKenna should just run against Inslee in a rematch for the Governor's Mansion if Inslee is weaker than Murray.
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 #61 on: July 31, 2014, 09:35:10 pm »

Polling I've seen shows Ayotte is not popular in NH she has middling approval ratings at best. I think she is too conservative for the state her voting record will be attacked heavily and someone like Hassan or Lynch would make the race very competitive. Also if Nixon runs against Blunt in MO it would be a tossup no doubt. Murray is safe in WA if she survived 2010 she should have no problem in 2016 against whomever she is a good politician who knows how to win tough races.

Completely off topic, but in Washington, what was the common consensus about the 2004 governor race? Was it agreed that Rossi was screwed over?
I think you are about right on Ayotte and Blunt. Murray, on the other hand, could be vulnerable if McKenna runs against her and the Republicans have a good night nationally. Should the Republican presidential nominee win at least 300 electoral votes, someone like McKenna could leave the WA-Sen race up in the air for a few days and possibly leave the election with a narrow victory. Of course, Murray isn't in any danger if a Democrat wins the presidency in '16.

If McKenna couldn't win against Inslee in an open Governor race what makes you think he would win against Murray a powerful incumbent who brings home a ton of $$ for the state. Even if a Republican is winning nationwide they won't be winning Washington state it'd likely be a 10 point Democratic win there giving Murray more than enough room to win.

Oh, let me just say that I don't think McKenna is favored or anything like that, I just don't feel that Murray is a 100% lock to win if he is her opponent. Does Murray have 90-95% chance of winning at this point? Yes, but until we have a clearer picture of the national environment in 2016, I think this race should be at Likely D-borderline Safe D.

It's worth noting that while McKenna lost against Inslee, it was only by three points during an Obama victory of nearly 15 points. While Murray has incumbent strength, it is entirely possible that if the Republican presidential nominee wins nationally and loses in WA by just 10 points, McKenna could eke out a victory.

The difference is also that Inslee was a hack running for an open seat with an unpopular outgoing incumbent, and Murray is essentially a female Scoop Jackson.
Logged
LeBron FitzGerald
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,840
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -6.78


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: July 31, 2014, 11:38:10 pm »

Not a chance. If they win in 2014, they'll have a 1-3 seat majority depending on what Angus King does and what happens in AK, NC and IA. The Senators will already have financial setbacks from much more GOP focus on the Presidential race which can't be said of 2010 plus the fact that some Senators like Burr and Blunt will have to worry about primary challenges before even getting to the general.

There's not even a guarantee Kirk will run given his health problems, but if he does, the race will still be in Democrats favor for a pickup as long as Democrats get someone strong like Madigan or Duckworth. This is leaning in the favor of being D+1

Johnson is probably doomed either way whether Feingold is the nominee or Kind is. Feingold's a very popular guy who could easily take out a Tea Party Senator in a Presidential year while Kind, although not the strongest, would have great moderate appeal statewide and would be well-funded. This is likely to be D+1, to.

And just from that, there likely goes any chance the GOP would have at holding their majority if they win it in 2014. We'll still need more info on some retirements and who's running to determine the danger of some of these other seats, but out of all GOP seats at threat, I would say about D+3 among the rest. In the order of next likely pickups - PA, NH (if Hassan runs), MO (if Nixon runs), NC, OH, FL, AZ, GA (if Isakson retires), IN (w/Bayh), AR (w/Beebe), and UT (w/Matheson). Regarding IA, Grassley will probably end up running and not even one of the Vilsack's could make that competitive. I also wouldn't count out Utah, either as shocking as it might seem. Zioneer did say if Matheson chooses to run for Senate over Governor in 2016 and if Lee fends off a primary from Romney or Chaffetz, then he could make it competitive. PPP even had Matheson leading Hatch in 2012 (who has higher approval ratings than Lee does) in a hypothetical and he was strongly winning independents, so it's not out of the question.

On the defensive side, the CO GOP is flat-out terrible (nominating a Birther and a social conservative for the Gov and Sen seats this year) so Bennet shouldn't be worried especially when he's well-funded and is a great fit for the state. As for NV, we'll have to see who wins the Lt. Gov. seat in NV this year plus, Sandoval doesn't seem to be that interested in national politics and even then if he runs, Democrats will make sure at all costs that Reid doesn't end up like Daschle.
Logged
KingSweden
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,253
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: July 31, 2014, 11:38:58 pm »

Polling I've seen shows Ayotte is not popular in NH she has middling approval ratings at best. I think she is too conservative for the state her voting record will be attacked heavily and someone like Hassan or Lynch would make the race very competitive. Also if Nixon runs against Blunt in MO it would be a tossup no doubt. Murray is safe in WA if she survived 2010 she should have no problem in 2016 against whomever she is a good politician who knows how to win tough races.

I think you are about right on Ayotte and Blunt. Murray, on the other hand, could be vulnerable if McKenna runs against her and the Republicans have a good night nationally. Should the Republican presidential nominee win at least 300 electoral votes, someone like McKenna could leave the WA-Sen race up in the air for a few days and possibly leave the election with a narrow victory. Of course, Murray isn't in any danger if a Democrat wins the presidency in '16.

If McKenna couldn't win against Inslee in an open Governor race what makes you think he would win against Murray a powerful incumbent who brings home a ton of $$ for the state. Even if a Republican is winning nationwide they won't be winning Washington state it'd likely be a 10 point Democratic win there giving Murray more than enough room to win.

Oh, let me just say that I don't think McKenna is favored or anything like that, I just don't feel that Murray is a 100% lock to win if he is her opponent. Does Murray have 90-95% chance of winning at this point? Yes, but until we have a clearer picture of the national environment in 2016, I think this race should be at Likely D-borderline Safe D.

It's worth noting that while McKenna lost against Inslee, it was only by three points during an Obama victory of nearly 15 points. While Murray has incumbent strength, it is entirely possible that if the Republican presidential nominee wins nationally and loses in WA by just 10 points, McKenna could eke out a victory.

The difference is also that Inslee was a hack running for an open seat with an unpopular outgoing incumbent, and Murray is essentially a female Scoop Jackson.

Inslee is that bad? I can't say I focused on him too much in 2012, so I can't say one way or the other. Since you are from Washington state and probably quite familiar with that state's politics, and I'm not on either count, I'll take what you're saying seriously. Murray is strong (beating back Rossi in 2010), but in a good Republican year, a race between her and McKenna could end up being competitive.

On a side note, perhaps McKenna should just run against Inslee in a rematch for the Governor's Mansion if Inslee is weaker than Murray.

I'll admit I prefer Cantwell to Murray out of our two Senators, but both of them are pretty unbeatable by anyone in our state's GOP bench. McKenna was the best GOP candidate in a generation - moderate, from the Seattle area, had won a statewide election - and he still couldn't close against a guy who'd spent a decade in DC and not in WA, unlike Locke and Gregoire before him. (Full disclosure, I voted for McKenna). McKenna doesn't seem like someone who wants to go to Congress - I doubt he'll run again, for governor even.

I honestly have no idea who the GOP will put up for either Gov or Senate in 2016. Inslee would be the easier target, he's not doing super well so far. None of the Congressmen/women would give up a safe seat (all four Rs are safe) to take on Murray, but Inslee will be hard to unseat as an incumbent.
Logged
NickCT
Rookie
**
Posts: 140
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: August 01, 2014, 11:27:41 pm »

As for leadership, it was said earlier that if Reid left office Schumer would get the job.  That was before E. Warren and others of her ilk were in power/vocal.  Schumer has close ties with Wall St. and the Democrats are increasingly weary of being closely tied w/ them; it is possible, for sure, that Schumer wouldn't be the Leader, though he desperately wants it.
Logged
sg0508
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,750
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: August 02, 2014, 02:06:11 pm »

As for leadership, it was said earlier that if Reid left office Schumer would get the job.  That was before E. Warren and others of her ilk were in power/vocal.  Schumer has close ties with Wall St. and the Democrats are increasingly weary of being closely tied w/ them; it is possible, for sure, that Schumer wouldn't be the Leader, though he desperately wants it.
Schumer is well-respected, although I am biased coming from NY.  That being said, he has been given a ton of credit for the Democrats' rebirth in many states starting after Bush won a 2nd term and the GOP picked up several seats in the '04 cycle. 
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,504


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: August 02, 2014, 02:14:00 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.

What is the Democratic Party's equivalent of talking about rape?
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,763


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: August 02, 2014, 04:57:03 pm »

As for leadership, it was said earlier that if Reid left office Schumer would get the job.  That was before E. Warren and others of her ilk were in power/vocal.  Schumer has close ties with Wall St. and the Democrats are increasingly weary of being closely tied w/ them; it is possible, for sure, that Schumer wouldn't be the Leader, though he desperately wants it.

Warren doesn't have that influence among Senate Ds and she practically owes Schumer, Durbin, Reid for getting her elected they talked her into running, cleared the primary for her and helped raise money for her and gave her Chair of the committee she wanted to be on.
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