How brutal will the 2014 elections be for Republicans if Perry wins?

[Mr.Phips]

They will probably be awful, but not as bad in the Senate, since the Democrats have very little room for gains there. Any gains the economy *might* see will probably be offset by a civil war in the party, as well as political actions that are destined to be unpopular. And I say that as someone who leans Republican.

It was said that Republicans had little room for gain in the Senate in 2010. 

[Mr.Phips]

Probably a loss of most the seats they would win in 2012 in the House.

I'd expect the Senate to increase 1-3 seats.

That assumes that Perry wins by a large margin.

Republicans won pretty much every possible seat that they could win in the House in 2010.  Even in the best of situations, the most they could gain is maybe five or ten more seats through redistricting. 

[Mr.Phips]

Good point. The Democrats would have massive gains in the House, but partisanship would probably save all but Collins in the Senate.

Well, first, even with Obama cruising to victory in 2012, I'd expect the R's to have a net gain of 4 seats in the Senate.  A massive Perry or Romney victory could extend that up to 12 seats.

Even if 2012 is a bad R year, you could see SD, NJ, MT, and AR go R's.

I think that, no matter who is elected in 2012 the GOP will take the Senate and hold it in 2014.  I expect at least a slight increase for the R's in 2014, with a President Romney or Perry.  That's more do to who's up, and where they are from than anything else.

I think the real question is the House.  First, the R's will probably gain 4-10 seats due to redistricting.  Obama could improve and have coattails, but they will be shortened.  The Perry/Romney coattails will be lengthened, but possibly not by much.  

Second is, what will Romney/Perry's coattails be, in addition to that 4-10.  10? 25? 35? 40?  How much will the R "cushion" expand.  We could see an R disaster, where they lose 32 seats, in 2014 and they are down to 243.  

Republicans are not gaining any more than five or ten seats in the House even if Romney or Perry landslide.  There just arent enough winnable Democratic seats.  They are close to hitting a saturation point.  

If Obama cruises to victory in 2012, Republicans wont gain four seats.  They would gain North Dakota and Nebraska, but probably lose Nevada and maybe even Massachussetts. 

[Mr.Phips]

The GOP will not gain Senate seats in 2014 if Perry wins. Sorry, JJ. Also the main headline would likely have to do with the dozens and dozens of House seats they'd lose.

I'm talking about a 1-3 seat gain in 2014, not[//i] dozens.  It has to do with the seats that are up.  It has happened in 1934, 1982, and 2002.

As for the main headline, I've indicated that the Senate would not be.

I expect the R's to take the Senate in 2012.  I would expect them to increase seats in 2012 and 2014.

I think that the possibility (probably 50/50) that between 2011 and 2017, the R's will:

1.  Increase the number of Senate Seats four years in a row, or,

2.  Hold at least 60 in the Senate at some point.


Mr. Phips, that is very "00's" thinking.

Increase Senate seats four years in a row?  2016 will be as lopsided in favor of Democrats as 2012 is for Republicans.  Any Democrat that survived 2010(which was the worst year for Democrats since 1894), they will be able to survive 2016.  The only two Democrats remotely vulnerable in 2016 are Reid and maybe Bennett(but by 2016 Colorado could well be a solid Dem state). 

As for House seats, Republicans would have to start winning D+5 to D+10 seats if they were to increase significantly from where they are now.  Not likely to happen. 

[Mr.Phips]

Increase Senate seats four years in a row?  2016 will be as lopsided in favor of Democrats as 2012 is for Republicans.  Any Democrat that survived 2010(which was the worst year for Democrats since 1894), they will be able to survive 2016.  The only two Democrats remotely vulnerable in 2016 are Reid and maybe Bennett(but by 2016 Colorado could well be a solid Dem state). 

I doubt if Inouye will be around in 2016; it's possible, but he'll be 92.  There might be a shift on the rest of the Pacific Rim, OR, WA, CA, the latter being a real possibility.  CO and NV might be losses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seats that were D+5.  Right now, there are 21 old seats that the D's hold at are D+2 at worst.  The R's hold only one seat that is greater than D+5.

If there wasn't redistricting, and the R's carried every seat above R+4 and lost every seat below D+2, they would have had a net gain of five seats.  Structurally, that is a problem for the Democrats.  And what D+2 in 2008, might be "even" in 2012, or even R+1.

There are a lot of Republican seats out there being held by Democrats; there are fewer Democratic seats being held by Republicans.

You have a few things here that could come together to form a perfect storm against the Democrats.

'


If Republicans couldnt win OR, CO, NV, WA, and CA in a year like 2010, they wont be winning them in a Presidential year.  And where do you get the idea that Republicans are going to win Hawaii in a Presidential year?

Republicans hold over 60 seats that Obama carried, while Democrats hold only about 12 seats that McCain carried.