Why the hell are people saying Republicans will gain seats in the senate?

[Matty]

They're going to lose in Georgia, NC, Arkansas, LA, Alaska, and Kentucky. At the VERY BEST it will be a net o.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Good to know. If you are interested I hear the federal government is hiring fortune tellers in 2023.

[smoltchanov]

They're going to lose in Georgia, NC, Arkansas, LA, Alaska, and Kentucky. At the VERY BEST it will be a net o.

Idiocy. NC, AR, LA, AK are represented by Democrats. Who have serious opponents and very difficult campaigns on hands this year. Only GA and KY are represented by Republicans, and both races are "lean Republican" in my book now..

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

lol

[morgieb]

Ummm....there are three seats in red states that have retiring senators and plenty more incumbents in dangerous territory. Need I say more?

AND FTR even if your predictions come off that will STILL be R+1. Jesus christ.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Maybe because Republicans have double digit leads in three Democratic held seats (WV, SD, and MT), are tied in two more (LA and NC), and trailing in still two more by three or less (AR and CO) with demographics working at least somewhat in favor of the Republicans in one and somewhat in favor of the Democrats in the other. That still leaves yet one more double digit Romney state with a Democratic incumbent and a solid GOP challenger who is running away with the primary (Alaska) and a swing state that for the all the hype of the GOP dropping the ball, the Democrats have yet to fully secure (Iowa).

The Democrats have a chance at just two GOP seats, Kentucky and Georgia. In former you have a long term incumbent who is facing voter fatigue and in Georgia you have a severely divided GOP primary field that is hampering all the candidates in matchups against hand picked singular Democratic candidate. In both states, Democrats have struggled considerably in recent years and whilst the numbers indicate that is beginning to change in one, it is hard to label either as anything less than hostile territory for the Democrats. 

To look at it more broadly, the reason is that the GOP has a good map (more Dems then Reps) yet one that is heavily skewed towards Southern and Western states (courtesy of 2008) in the second midterm of a Democratic President. The GOP could have done much better in NC, NH and IA with regards to candidates, but that doesn't change the significant advantages the GOP has right now in terms of just making gains. The question that may be determined by those mistakes and any others to come is whether they are able to gain control of the chamber. Secondarily, if they gain control, whether it is by enough to whether the storm in 2016 and get to a second shot at class 1 in 2018 where they can reasonably target at least four seats in GOP territory (IN, MO, ND and MT) and two or three more in swing territory, with just eight seats to defend mostly in deep GOP territory (UT, WY, NE, MS, TX, TN, leaving only NV and maybe AZ at risk).

[SWE]

They're going to lose in Georgia, NC, Arkansas, LA, Alaska, and Kentucky. At the VERY BEST it will be a net o.

In the scenario you just described, the GOP nets one seat

[RR1997]

They're going to lose in Georgia, NC, Arkansas, LA, Alaska, and Kentucky. At the VERY BEST it will be a net o.

[ElectionsGuy]

They're going to lose in Georgia, NC, Arkansas, LA, Alaska, and Kentucky. At the VERY BEST it will be a net o.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There is no.given set number of seats Dems are gonna lose. But these States where Pryor and Landrieu are sitting on were won by Bill Clinton. And Landrieu is a Clinton moderate. KY was also won by Bill Clinton and McConnell has worn out his welcome in KY being a two time Senate maj leader loser. In mid terms, as opposed to 2016 the Senate doesn't have to follow the prez map. We can have 52 or 53 votes if we still hold the Maj.

[Torie]

The OP baited the hook, and apparently he netted a lot of fish, didn't he?

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

I doubt Mitch will lose LOL

Realistically, Mitch will probably be Jim Bunning '04.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I doubt Mitch will lose LOL

Realistically, Mitch will probably be Jim Bunning '04.

Nunn or ALG win will ensure we hold onto the Senate or even Pry or.

[Attorney General & Senator Dwarven Dragon]

The simplest explanation is thus:

The Republicans have a total of 13 targets. Yes, 13. They already have the edge in MT, SD, and WV. The next six best are AK, AR, LA, NC, MI, and CO. They also have about a 30-40% chance in IA and NH, and a small, outside chance in MN and VA.

Some prognosticators think that OR could be a long-shot target, although I highly doubt it. The potential republican nominees definitely aren't top tier candidates of the caliber of Gordon Smith (Republican Senator from Oregon, 2003-2009).
 
There is also a bit of buzz about HI becoming remotely competitive if the democratic primary between Schatz and Hanabusa leaves the winner very badly scarred, but once again, I highly doubt it, considering that Linda Lingle, the popular (former) republican governor of Hawaii lost the 2012 senate race by 25 points, and also the fact that the republican candidate this time, Campbell Cavasso, is little more than a perennial candidate.

Meanwhile, there are very few places for democrats to target. Republican incumbents in SC, KS, and MS are very likely to get through their primaries, which will eliminate any notion of those seats becoming competitive. Democrats failed to recruit a strong candidate in NE. Susan Collins (R-ME), is in a democratic-leaning state, but the people of that state love her and she is likely to win reelection by 20-30 points (Even in 2008, she won by 22 points against a strong challenger. The democrats CAN'T beat her.).

All that leaves is KY, where McConnell is definitely at some risk of losing, but has an edge due to his huge monetary advantage and kentucky's partisan leanings, and GA, where Michelle Nunn (D) has to hope for a tea party nominee. Republicans should be able to win GA (narrowly) as long as they nominate David Perdue or Jack Kingston.

The democratic nominees in the republican target seats mostly aren't pushovers, and it's no easy task for the GOP to capitalize on this map and win the six seats they need to retain the majority. I currently see 2014 as a year of a very small to small republican wave, and predict the GOP will gain 3-5 seats (net), mostly due to a good map, but if Republicans can make this year into something between a small wave and a medium wave, they will take the senate.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

There is no.given set number of seats Dems are gonna lose. But these States where Pryor and Landrieu are sitting on were won by Bill Clinton. And Landrieu is a Clinton moderate. KY was also won by Bill Clinton and McConnell has worn out his welcome in KY being a two time Senate maj leader loser. In mid terms, as opposed to 2016 the Senate doesn't have to follow the prez map. We can have 52 or 53 votes if we still hold the Maj.

Which happened almost 20 years ago and is, therefore, irrelevant.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I was referring to their partisan leanings not a prez contender winning them But aside from FL or Va, Clinton is exceeding expectations in AR. And Bill is trying to get Mike Ross elected which may help Pry or. If we maintain AR we keep Senate.

[Attorney General & Senator Dwarven Dragon]

I was referring to their partisan leanings not a prez contender winning them But aside from FL or Va, Clinton is exceeding expectations in AR. And Bill is trying to get Mike Ross elected which may help Pry or. If we maintain AR we keep Senate.

Not certain, actually. Even if the Republicans lose Arkansas, they'll still be capable of keeping KY and GA, and adding in MT, SD, WV, and LA. They will also still be capable of winning in NC and, if they nominate Mark Jacobs, IA. That's six. If they lose one of these, they can simply make it up by getting Angus King to caucus with them, or perhaps even by defeating Udall in CO. Currently, Pryor's in better shape than Landrieu or Hagan, his chances of winning are equal with those of Mark Udall, and, if Mark Jacobs wins the IA rep. primary next month, that race becomes equivalent with CO and AR in terms of democratic prospects.

The Republicans have a large number of potential paths to the senate. Some are easier than others. But does a loss in AR mean all of them are out of reach? Nope. A loss in AR only signals that AK, MI, NH, VA, and MN are out of reach for the republicans - and that doesn't eliminate the possibility of a republican senate.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Our path to keeping our Maj is through NC not La because of GOP threat in runoff. But having def Pryor, they would have had a better chance of beating Begich. Now, we only have to hold one of them.