Talk Elections

Democrats:
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia


Republicans:
Arizona
Indiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
North Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming



Republican pick-ups:
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
Virginia
Wisconsin

Tossup:

Ohio
Florida


Contested Primaries:

AZ: Jeff Flake (R), Terry Goddard (D)
CT: Chris Murphy (D), Linda McMahon (R)
FL: Connie Mack (R)
HI: Mazie Hirono (D), Linda Lingle (R)
IN: Richard Lugar (R)
MI: Pete Hoekstra (R)
MO: Sarah Steelman (R)
NM: Martin Heinrich (D), Heather Wilson (R)
TX: Ted Cruz (R)
WI: Tommy Thompson (R)

I'd add OH and FL to the list of perspective pickups, as even though Brown and Nelson are ahead for now they are going to most likely face a well funded and appealing GOP opponent. In addition to the fact that over the last 4 years they both have casted some pretty unpopular votes that they are going to have to answer to when they go back home to campaign next summer and Fall.

The GOP Primary in Florida is already starting to get nasty between Hasner and LeMieux; the Republican nominee could come out as less "appealing" in the general election.

If Mandel continues closing the gap at his current rate, he'll be tied with Brown by January. So I'd reclassify OH as "Tossup." As for Florida, the Greer trial will render LeMieux radioactive (and he already has base problems) and Hasner's dead in the water for now. I'd still put that Likely D in the interim.

Eh, I'm not sure if I'd jump to that conclusion; I really doubt Mandel will gain 7 points every time PPP polls OH until January....I do agree that the race will tighten though.

Even though Mandel made headway, Brown still held steady at 48%.

Not 7 points, but 2-3 points shouldn't be difficult. Just consolidating the GOP vote (only has 78% right now) should do that.

This would be close to a realistic best case scenario for the GOP in 2008.  In a best case scenario I could see them getting a net gain of +7.

At this point, I would say a best case scenario for the Democrats would be a net loss of only one seat.

If Brown in OH is in the tossup category in spite of his lead in the polls, then I would argue that Brown in MA should be as well.

I don't think Brown in OH should be in the toss-up category, yet.

But if the economy continues to flounder and Obama continues to lose popularity he may drag Brown down with him. Sherrod Brown is the perfect Democrat for Ohio, a liberal extremist who passes for a folksy populist. Despite that, Mandel will continue to improve in the polls because a lot of people aren't familiar with him yet. Now, if Mandel comes across poorly when introduced to the electorate he's not going to gain ground. However, if he comes across well, Brown's not a lock for re-election.

Let's not forget McCalister was leading in the most recent PPP poll...

There is the potential for double digit gains you know with the 2012 landscape.

I think that, if the climate is good enough, the Democrats can actually gain seats (though they'd be due for a loss in either 2018 or 2024); win MA and NV, lose ND while narrowly holding on with Ben Nelson due to a rough GOP primary.

That would be nearly impossible. It's one thing for the 2010 map being difficult for Republican gains, but Democrats have over 20 seats to defend to the Republicans 9. Republicans are a shoo in to at least gain 2 seats with all the opportunities they have this time around.

It's wishful thinking, of course, but remember 2 things:

1. The map has a disproportionately high number of blue states.
2. The Democratic incumbents considered "vulnerable" are strong enough for at least a toss-up.
3. Where things are going, I think an Obama mandate is in the cards, and like in 2008 he'd have some coattails.

Theoretically, if everything became perfectly aligned (double-dip recession, electable Republicans getting nominated) a dozen seats, maybe more. I highly doubt that'll happen, but it could. On the flip side, if the economy strengthens and the GOP nominated a weak Presidential nominee, Democrats could also see a net gain, though it obviously would only be a seat or two.

There also is the "potential" that the Democrats could actually net gain seats.  That does not mean it is realistic.  We heard this GOP happy talk before in 2010 about a double digit Senate pickup.  It turned out to be overblown. 

And, the GOP happy talk about the House of Representatives turned out to be correct, and, they outperformed their own expectations for state legislative races.

At this time in the cycle? The GOP thought Pat Toomey was a sure loser.

Would either krazen1211 or BigSkyBob like to place a bet that that GOP will net gain 10 or more Senate seats? (57+ GOP Senators in the next Congress)  Because I will wager that will not happen.

I don't have a prediction for 2012, yet. 2012 will probably be a trend year, and an anti-incumbent year. Right now, it could be anywhere between 45-60 seats, probably skewed to the upper end.

I'm gonna hold ya to that!

I'm predicting between 45 and 51 seats.

Against Arlen Specter, yes. Although, of course, it turnedo ut that Sestak did better than Arlen ever would've.

Hahahahahahahaha!!

Not that 100% agree with Snowstalker, but it is somewhat possible. They'd have to hold all their seats, except Nebraska and North Dakota, in addition to knocking off Heller, Brown and then possibly Hatch with Matheson or Indiana if Lugar loses the primary. That would be a net gain of 1.

And the possibility of that is so close to zero you couldn't even see it on a microscope

...
I was thinking the same thing about the Republicans in Oct 2009.
It's certainly not looking likely at this point, sure, but your statement is a huge exaggeration.

Charlie Cook agrees with my assessment:


http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/gop-senate-supermajority-fuggedaboutit-says-charlie-cook-20111101 (http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/gop-senate-supermajority-fuggedaboutit-says-charlie-cook-20111101)

Charlie Cook needs to write a column saying that the GOP won't pick up 13 Senate seats? Really. Really, Charlie? You don't think the GOP will go +13? Really?

Next week's article: House Republicans unlikely to win 2/3 majority.

I think it is possibly for a GOP net gain. 2006 was a pro-D wave year. Even an even year would be more GOP than 2006.

That would be the "spin" if the Republicans were approaching 60.

Okay, so that's vanishingly unlikely to be the spin. Good to know.

This is what I see the map looking like on election day:
()

GOP +1
()

±0? I'd love to agree with you, but I'm really not sure we're going to end up winning Nevada after all, and I'm kind of worried about Wisconsin too.

This map is a realistic best-case scenario for the Democrats.  It is plausible, but all the dominoes would have to fall our way for it to happen.

I agree. With the exception of Indiana  (Lugar losing the primary and Donnelly winning), I think this would  be the best-case Democratic map.

I tend to be an optimist when it comes to far-off congressional races.

My logic works like this:
Missouri - This one is very, very difficult to call and is a coinflip. I do think that the latest PPP poll is too favorable for Republicans (33-37-30 D-R-I registration) and underestimates McCaskill strengths. Steelman is a worthy opponent and will have a strong narrative but I suspect that McCaskill still has the right "brand" to outperform Obama significantly among traditional working class Democrats. As always with Missouri, the race will be down to the wire. (I'd probably change MO to Republican if I made my map today)

Montana - Rehberg is an absolute idiot and has a history of making inane gaffes and verbal mistakes. These will come to bite him hard in the arse and the voters, for the most part, are unaware of them because he hasn't faced a tough challenge since 2000 (they obviously know/remember about the wealth gaffe but he's has a plethora of stupid statements). Tester is still well liked in Montana and has an image that will allow voters to split their tickets comfortably.

Virginia - The opposition is George Allen. Need I say more? I fully expect his campaign to go down in flames once attack ads start reminding voters that he is the "macaca" guy. We'll see though.

Wisconsin - I'd be scared if I expected Tommy Thompson to be the nominee but I think it will be Neumann and he will be weak. Tammy Baldwin will probably end up being branded as an evil communist lesbian from Madison but Neumann's favorables should get hammered as well. WI's Democratic edge should deliver this for Baldwin (hopefully).

Nevada - The turnout machine that got Harry Reid re-elected will be out in full force next year and if Heller's voting record is any indication, there will be little in the way of ticket splitting between Berkeley and Heller. On the whole, I'd expect that to be detrimental for Heller. Yet again, this race is a complete coinflip

I don't feel like I need to explain MA, MI, OH, HI etc. Anyways, I just view all of these races as being more likely to go our way that against us outside of Missouri but they're still marginal at the maximum level.

"Optimist" is an understatement.

My map really isn't that optimistic, it matches polling numbers with about a 1 to 2 percent deviation from them in favor of my D homies.

What you described would be a best-case scenario for Democrats.

Update: Moving Florida from Likely D to Tossup due to Mack's entry.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/11/11/2497096/mack-attack-poll-shows-rep-mack.html

Why is Scott Brown so popular?  Is he super-moderate or something? 

My analysis thus far:
Likely Democratic Gains:
Connecticut

Likely Democratic Holds:
Delaware
Hawaii (well, starting to become shaky)
New Mexico
Virginia (I have a slightly queasy feeling)
California
Maryland
Michigan (a bit shaky)
Minnesota
New Jersey (meh)
New York
Pennsylvania
Vermont (well, Independent, but Sanders caucuses with the Dems)
Rhode Island
West Virginia
Ohio (slightly shaky)
Missouri (slightly shaky)
Washington

Likely Republican gains:
Wisconsin
Nebraska (not that it matters, since Ben Nelson is basically a Republican anyway)
Montana

Likely Republican Holds:
Texas
Indiana (unless Mourdock wins the Republican primary, oh, what fun :) )
Maine (unless one of Snowe's challengers wins the primary, that would also be fun :) )
Mississippi
Tennessee
Utah
Wyoming

Toss-ups:
Florida (leaning Democrat)
Massachusetts (leaning Republican)
Nevada (leaning Republican)
North Dakota (leaning Republican)
Arizona (leaning Republican)


So if things all go according to current leanings, the balance between the Left (aka the Democrats plus Sanders) and the Republicans will be exactly 50/50.  In order for the Democrats (plus Sanders) to retain their (almost inevitably reduced) majority, they will need to take one or more of the Republican leaning toss-ups (I really wanna see Scott Brown kicked out lol).  Or Lugar or Snowe can loose their primaries to their Tea Party challengers, thus handing the Democrats the seat on a golden platter. 

Lugar losing a primary doesn't hand a seat to the Democrats (You make it sound like DE, Mourdock isn't O'Donnell). It just makes it more difficult to hold. Maine, on the other hand, would definately be handing the seat to the Democrats.

I'll probably move FL from Lean D to Slight D on my next map. I won't have it as a Tossup unless I see another poll with Mack within 3 points of Nelson.

What would seem to be the chances of that happening in either state?

Nil in Maine and less than 25% in Indiana.

Update: MA moves to Slight R, OH and FL move to Lean D.

MA should not be more than toss-up, and likely lean D. Most insiders here think Brown is in serious trouble. His favorables are tanking, he is stuck in the low 40s, and the Presidential race is developing in exactly the worst possible direction for him(toss-up to lean R). I would not put his odds of victory personally above about 20%.

MA: Slight R --> Tossup

OH: Lean D --> Likely D

FL: Lean D --> Tossup