With such a slim Senate Majority, are the Dems in trouble in 2008?

[Joe Biden 2020]

The Democrats have the Senate Majority, we all know that.  However, it is such a tiny majority and the Republicans will only need a net gain of 1 seat to tie up the Senate and 2 seats to retake.  With that said, could the Democrats lose their Senate majority in 2008?

Of course, there are at least two possible Democrat pickups in the Senate in Oklahoma (Jim Inhofe's unpopularity) and Mississippi (Thad Cochran's possible retirement).  Of the 33 seats up in 2008, I see 31 seats as being potentially competitive with the only two not Idaho and Wyoming.

[Verily]

The two seats that are most likely to change hands are Colorado (with or without Wayne Allard's retirement) and Louisiana, which would be an even split. 2008 plays well for the Democrats; the only Democrat whom the Republicans can take down is Mary Landrieu, but the Democrats have a number of possibilities. I doubt the Democrats could win in Mississippi, but Oregon, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Hampshire and Texas are all good pick-up opportunities against the incumbent. (Elsewhere, a pickup would require a retirement.)

Personally, I'd like to see Chet Edwards run against John Cornyn in Texas; I think he'd win.

[Verily]

Maybe Mike Moore. Maybe. 2004 proved that Democrats do poorly in open seats in the South in Presidential years.

[Deano963]

The Democrats have the Senate Majority, we all know that.  However, it is such a tiny majority and the Republicans will only need a net gain of 1 seat to tie up the Senate and 2 seats to retake.  With that said, could the Democrats lose their Senate majority in 2008?

Well of course it is a possibility, but I think the exact opposite is far more likely if you look at the numbers. Of the 33 seats up in 2008, Republicans are defending 21 and the Democrats just 12. At first glance it appears the Democrats only have 1-3 seats to worry about at the most while the Republicans have at least half a dozen that will be competitive. The numbers this cycle definitely favor the Democrats.

But then again, which seats are and are not competitive at this point completely depends upon retirements on both sides, so it is too early to say for sure which seats will be in play.

Of course, there are at least two possible Democrat pickups in the Senate in Oklahoma (Jim Inhofe's unpopularity) and Mississippi (Thad Cochran's possible retirement).  Of the 33 seats up in 2008, I see 31 seats as being potentially competitive with the only two not Idaho and Wyoming.

Colorado is strangely absent from your list - that is by far our best pick-up opportunity if Allard retires or not. Democrats have a deep bench of candidates against a vulnerable Norm Coleman as well.

[Verily]

Let me make an extremely premature prediction:

GOP Gains
Louisiana

Dem Gains
Minnesota
Colorado
New Hampshire

For a total of D+2, 52-47-1.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sounds about right. I'd expect to lose 1-2 of LA, NJ, or SD, but gain 2-3 others to make up for it.

[Joe Biden 2020]

The Democrats have the Senate Majority, we all know that.  However, it is such a tiny majority and the Republicans will only need a net gain of 1 seat to tie up the Senate and 2 seats to retake.  With that said, could the Democrats lose their Senate majority in 2008?

Well of course it is a possibility, but I think the exact opposite is far more likely if you look at the numbers. Of the 33 seats up in 2008, Republicans are defending 21 and the Democrats just 12. At first glance it appears the Democrats only have 1-3 seats to worry about at the most while the Republicans have at least half a dozen that will be competitive. The numbers this cycle definitely favor the Democrats.

But then again, which seats are and are not competitive at this point completely depends upon retirements on both sides, so it is too early to say for sure which seats will be in play.

Of course, there are at least two possible Democrat pickups in the Senate in Oklahoma (Jim Inhofe's unpopularity) and Mississippi (Thad Cochran's possible retirement).  Of the 33 seats up in 2008, I see 31 seats as being potentially competitive with the only two not Idaho and Wyoming.

Colorado is strangely absent from your list - that is by far our best pick-up opportunity if Allard retires or not. Democrats have a deep bench of candidates against a vulnerable Norm Coleman as well.

I just said, at least two possibilities.  Colorado and Minnesota are definite possibilities and I should have included those, but Oklahoma and Mississippi can and will be competitive.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

We should keep SD. Johnson is routinely in the top 5 most poular Senators and Rounds isn't so popular anymore (he blew it with the abortion ban)

[Conan]

2008 is a great dem year in the senate.
Expect possible gains here:
CO
NH
NM -providing Domenici retires.
OR
VA - providing Warner retires.
MN
ME - in the bag is Collins would retire but still in play if Allen runs.

2nd Tier:
KY
NC
OK

3rd Tier:
TX
MS
GA

The rest are just highly unlikely unless Graham gets a primary challenger and is defeated and we have a credible candidate.

Republicans can go for:
LA
SD

2nd Tier:
NJ

The rest are not possible to switch unless Republicans run Rehberg or Racicot in Montana but Baucus is quite popular.

[© tweed]

South Dakota is completely non-competitive unless Rounds runs, and even then I think Johnson would beat him.

[Nym90]

The odds at this point favor the Democrats making gains, simply because the Republicans have to defend more seats than the Democrats do.

The only good news for the GOP is that the geography of the Senate is most favorable for them in the batch of seats that is up in 2008. 2006 was the most favorable of the three cycles for the Democrats (16 of the 19 Kerry states had a Senate race this year, whereas in 2008 it will only be 10 out of 19).

[Conan]

The odds at this point favor the Democrats making gains, simply because the Republicans have to defend more seats than the Democrats do.

The only good news for the GOP is that the geography of the Senate is most favorable for them in the batch of seats that is up in 2008. 2006 was the most favorable of the three cycles for the Democrats (16 of the 19 Kerry states had a Senate race this year, whereas in 2008 it will only be 10 out of 19).

2006 was supposed to be a bad geographic year for dems. On the other hand most of everyone has been saying that 08 favors dems a lot.

[ottermax]

There could be many retirements in this election, which makes it difficult to predict. At this point, most races could turn out competitive; it will depend on the national mood, and the retirements.

It doesn't look like 2008 will be very easy for the Democrats to gain seats considering the number of strong Republican states with elections. For now, I don't think I can make a prediction, although I can make guesses that will most likely change within the coming months.

[Conan]

There could be many retirements in this election, which makes it difficult to predict. At this point, most races could turn out competitive; it will depend on the national mood, and the retirements.

It doesn't look like 2008 will be very easy for the Democrats to gain seats considering the number of strong Republican states with elections. For now, I don't think I can make a prediction, although I can make guesses that will most likely change within the coming months.

Look at those democtatic or trending democratic states who currently have republicans though. Theres tons of opportunities for dems in 08.

[Nym90]

The odds at this point favor the Democrats making gains, simply because the Republicans have to defend more seats than the Democrats do.

The only good news for the GOP is that the geography of the Senate is most favorable for them in the batch of seats that is up in 2008. 2006 was the most favorable of the three cycles for the Democrats (16 of the 19 Kerry states had a Senate race this year, whereas in 2008 it will only be 10 out of 19).

2006 was supposed to be a bad geographic year for dems. On the other hand most of everyone has been saying that 08 favors dems a lot.

When I speak of geography I'm referring to the political inclinations of the states that are holding Senate races. Clearly this year's crop was the most Democratic of the 3 batches, and the 2008 crop is the most Republican. The 2010 crop is the most politically balanced of the three.

I agree that Dems even gaining any seats this year, much less 6 seats, definitely defied the odds since we already had to defend more seats than the GOP this year. Thus the Republicans could just as well defy the odds in 2008 and gain 6 seats despite having to defend more than the Dems do, but it's pretty highly unlikely.

[TheresNoMoney]

Of course it will be tough keeping the majority, but I think the Democrats have a great chance to gain seats.