IA: Selzer: RIP Braley

[Sbane]

Not a wave when you have someone like Brandstand helping Ernest, the weaker candidate. 

Hope remains AK, KS and La. Tillis is finished.

R+4, R+5, R+6, R+7, R+8, R+9 is a wave. A 55-45 Senate, which at best is Democrats at 49 or 50 is a wave. It's just a matter of how big the wave is and if the Republicans end up controlling the Senate.

Again, this is not unexpected in the six-year itch election cycle.

If the Republicans win all the Republican states but lose purple states like IA, CO and NC, is that really a wave. What does that portend for the Republicans in 2016? Only if NC and NH fall am I calling this a Republican wave. We would also see the Republicans win most of the tossups in the governors race and gain more than 10 seats in the house. I am not saying that isn't a possibility, but that is what a wave looks like. Republicans winning seats in AR, AK and LA isn't a wave.

[Sbane]

Not a wave when you have someone like Brandstand helping Ernest, the weaker candidate. 

Hope remains AK, KS and La. Tillis is finished.

R+4, R+5, R+6, R+7, R+8, R+9 is a wave. A 55-45 Senate, which at best is Democrats at 49 or 50 is a wave. It's just a matter of how big the wave is and if the Republicans end up controlling the Senate.

Again, this is not unexpected in the six-year itch election cycle.

If the Republicans win all the Republican states but lose purple states like IA, CO and NC, is that really a wave. What does that portend for the Republicans in 2016? Only if NC and NH fall am I calling this a Republican wave. We would also see the Republicans win most of the tossups in the governors race and gain more than 10 seats in the house. I am not saying that isn't a possibility, but that is what a wave looks like. Republicans winning seats in AR, AK and LA isn't a wave.

Nonsense.

The Democrats controlled the Senate by a 55-45 margin.

There were 21 Democrat seats up for grabs this cycle and 15 Republican.

If the polling stands (throwing tossups the way they are dispersed right now in the polling), this class will shift to 22R, 13D, 1 I.

Of course it's a wave. Even at R+4, Democrats go from a 21-15 to 17-18-1 in this cycle. And as the Times pointed out, right now, it's more likely to be an R+9 election than a R+4 or R+5 where the Senate remains in Democrat control.

In the worst case scenario 55-45 D to 54-46 R is a tsunami.

As far as the House goes, a gain of 6-14 seats would likely be the max of Republican possible gains this cycle. Republicans pretty much have as much turf as they possibly can, except in marginal districts in blue states (like MA-6, NY-1, NY-24 with GA-12 and UT-4 being an exception).

So in your opinion, if the Republicans can't win CO, IA, NC and NH, that is still a wave election? Do you think 2012 was a Democratic wave year? Do you find it impressive that Republican candidates are winning in places where Obama lost by double digits?

[Sbane]

Not a wave when you have someone like Brandstand helping Ernest, the weaker candidate. 

Hope remains AK, KS and La. Tillis is finished.

R+4, R+5, R+6, R+7, R+8, R+9 is a wave. A 55-45 Senate, which at best is Democrats at 49 or 50 is a wave. It's just a matter of how big the wave is and if the Republicans end up controlling the Senate.

Again, this is not unexpected in the six-year itch election cycle.

If the Republicans win all the Republican states but lose purple states like IA, CO and NC, is that really a wave. What does that portend for the Republicans in 2016? Only if NC and NH fall am I calling this a Republican wave. We would also see the Republicans win most of the tossups in the governors race and gain more than 10 seats in the house. I am not saying that isn't a possibility, but that is what a wave looks like. Republicans winning seats in AR, AK and LA isn't a wave.

Nonsense.

The Democrats controlled the Senate by a 55-45 margin.

There were 21 Democrat seats up for grabs this cycle and 15 Republican.

If the polling stands (throwing tossups the way they are dispersed right now in the polling), this class will shift to 22R, 13D, 1 I.

Of course it's a wave. Even at R+4, Democrats go from a 21-15 to 17-18-1 in this cycle. And as the Times pointed out, right now, it's more likely to be an R+9 election than a R+4 or R+5 where the Senate remains in Democrat control.

In the worst case scenario 55-45 D to 54-46 R is a tsunami.

As far as the House goes, a gain of 6-14 seats would likely be the max of Republican possible gains this cycle. Republicans pretty much have as much turf as they possibly can, except in marginal districts in blue states (like MA-6, NY-1, NY-24 with GA-12 and UT-4 being an exception).

So in your opinion, if the Republicans can't win CO, IA, NC and NH, that is still a wave election? Do you think 2012 was a Democratic wave year? Do you find it impressive that Republican candidates are winning in places where Obama lost by double digits?

Those were seats that Democrats could have chosen to defend with incumbents, so yes. Those incumbents somehow managed to beat the Republican six years ago, right?

Yes, in 2008 which was a Democratic wave year, especially in the senate. Also, that was before the south stopped voting democrat at all levels. That is why so many of these pickups are in the south.

Also, if you are playing an expectations game, then that is absolutely stupid. Parties do that in order to get their base fired up and to get money. Which of those two are you hoping to accomplish on the atlas forum?