Senate ranking thread : looking ahead at 2012

[nkpatel1279]

Democrats are favored to hold onto
CA,CT,DE,FL,HI,MD,MI,MN,MT-assuming Rehberg or Racicot does not run,NJ,NM,NY,ND-assuming Conrad runs again.,OH,PA,RI,VT,VA,WA,WV,and WI-assuming Kohl runs again. or if open and Ryan does not run.  FL,MI,MN,MT,NJ,NM,ND,OH,PA,VA,WA,WV,and WI are going to be competitive but  Dems are favored to win.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I'm thinking a net loss of 2 seats for the Dems, accounting for possible gains.  It will all hinge on the national mood though, as well as whether the Dems keep the White House.

[tpfkaw]

Since the consensus seems to point to a reasonably substantial GOP gain, I'll look at the difficulty of gaining certain seats:

Seats that can be won by any sufficiently competent GOP candidate (to varying degrees of competence):

All current GOP seats (Ensign is probably not a good enough candidate)

FL
MI
MN
MO
MT
NE
ND
NM
OH
PA
WA
WI
WV
VA

States that can be won only by a specific candidate:

CA (Campbell)
CT (Rell)
NJ (Kean Jr.)
NY (Giuliani)

States that can be won only by a specific candidate in a specific scenario:

DE (Castle runs, Carper retires)
HI (Lingle runs, Akaka retires)

States I cannot see them winning in any reasonable scenario:

MD (best case: Steele runs)
RI (best case: Chafee runs and somehow gets nominated)
VT (best case: Douglas runs, Sanders retires or loses Democratic primary leading to a split ticket)

Assuming:

The GOP has a 90/10 chance of winning each of their presently held seats:

10*.9 = 9

They have a 30/70 chance of winning each of the Democratic seats in the first group:

.3*14 = 4.2

They have a 20/80 chance of winning each of the seats in the second group:

.2*4 = .8

They have a 5/95 chance of winning each of the seats in the third group:

.05*2 = .1

And they have a .5/99.5 chance of winning each of the seats in the fourth group:

.005*3 = .015

Then the GOP should gain, on average, 4.115 seats.  Of course, I just pulled those numbers out of nowhere, so feel free to disregard.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

The Republicans will take 2-4 seats, depending on whether Obama gets re-elected. Given the huge amount of seats that the Democrats need to defend (23, compared to just 10 for the Republicans), the Democrats are almost certainly going to suffer a net loss even if Obama gets re-elected.

And how well did similar math work out for Democrats in 2010?

What? I don't know if you're being a hack, but the Democrats had more seats to defend, just like in 2012. (In 2010, the Democrats as 19 seats, and the Republicans only 18.)

[Nichlemn]

The Republicans will take 2-4 seats, depending on whether Obama gets re-elected. Given the huge amount of seats that the Democrats need to defend (23, compared to just 10 for the Republicans), the Democrats are almost certainly going to suffer a net loss even if Obama gets re-elected.

And how well did similar math work out for Democrats in 2010?

What? I don't know if you're being a hack, but the Democrats had more seats to defend, just like in 2012. (In 2010, the Democrats as 19 seats, and the Republicans only 18.)

I guess it's worth noting that the seat count can change with special elections. Republicans initially had a 19-15 edge before the Specter switch. Granted, most of those special elections arose from appointments, but a number of unfortunate Republican deaths for instance could change the symmetry.

Also, the number of seats up is not a surefire indicator of vulnerability. There's the incumbent advantage of course, but there's also the nature of the states. The 2012 class is somewhat bluer than the national average, so even in a neutral environment with no incumbents we should expect the Democrats to win a majority of those seats.

[dmmidmi]

The Republicans will take 2-4 seats, depending on whether Obama gets re-elected. Given the huge amount of seats that the Democrats need to defend (23, compared to just 10 for the Republicans), the Democrats are almost certainly going to suffer a net loss even if Obama gets re-elected.

In terms of determining how the parties need to delegate resources, the number of seats (2:1) that Democrats will be defending seems important. What's more important is which seats each party needs to defend, and in what type of environment. In 2010, the GOP had to defend almost as many seats (even seats with incumbents) as the Democrats did, but how many of those incumbents would have been deemed "vulnerable" in any environment? Maybe one or two?

Point is, if the Democrats have to "defend" 20 seats, but only 2 or 3 appear to be vulnerable (e.g. unpopular with constituents, etc.), and Republicans have to "defend" 10 seats, but 4 or 5 are vulnerable, does it really matter how many seats each party is "defending"?

[Nichlemn]

The Republicans will take 2-4 seats, depending on whether Obama gets re-elected. Given the huge amount of seats that the Democrats need to defend (23, compared to just 10 for the Republicans), the Democrats are almost certainly going to suffer a net loss even if Obama gets re-elected.

In terms of determining how the parties need to delegate resources, the number of seats (2:1) that Democrats will be defending seems important. What's more important is which seats each party needs to defend, and in what type of environment. In 2010, the GOP had to defend almost as many seats (even seats with incumbents) as the Democrats did, but how many of those incumbents would have been deemed "vulnerable" in any environment? Maybe one or two?

Point is, if the Democrats have to "defend" 20 seats, but only 2 or 3 appear to be vulnerable (e.g. unpopular with constituents, etc.), and Republicans have to "defend" 10 seats, but 4 or 5 are vulnerable, does it really matter how many seats each party is "defending"?

To be sure, the Democrats could certainly defy the odds. All else equal though, having more seats up increases your chances of losing seats.

[Badger]

The Republicans will take 2-4 seats, depending on whether Obama gets re-elected. Given the huge amount of seats that the Democrats need to defend (23, compared to just 10 for the Republicans), the Democrats are almost certainly going to suffer a net loss even if Obama gets re-elected.

And how well did similar math work out for Democrats in 2010?

What? I don't know if you're being a hack, but the Democrats had more seats to defend, just like in 2012. (In 2010, the Democrats as 19 seats, and the Republicans only 18.)

My bad/hackery. I added the seats up to defend early in 2009 and incorrectly remembered them as being inordinately GOP.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, let's see... I'm not as well aware as you of the situation of each races and the popularity of each incumbent, but here's my first guess :

Seats likely to change hands :
- Nebraska (I see Nelson ending up like Lincoln even though the context will be different)
- Connecticut (Hopefully democrats will primary Lieberman, or otherwise a good rep candidate might stand a chance)
- Massachusetts (Dems just need someone slightly more appealing than Coakley)
- Michigan (I've read Stabenow is deeply unpopular there)
- Missouri (seems like McCaskill is unpopular too)

Seats that have even chances of changing hands :
- Nevada (if Ensign or some teabagger runs)
- Montana (Tester is probably the weakest of the two Senators, so there might be a chance with the good GOP nominee)
- Ohio (we'll see what happens there, but I guess it will all depend to the environment and the GOP candidate)

Seats that might change hands :
- Maine (there are many scenarioes dems could benefit to, but all imply Collins not being the rep nominee ; we'll see what happens)
- Virginia (the 2006 election was close, so there always is some danger)
- Pennsylvania (not likely, but who knows)
- North Dakota (it's a red State, so Conrad can take nothing for granted)
- Florida (we'll see)

Seats that could become competitive with a retirement :
- Hawaii
- Wisconsin
- Indiana (but it seems like Lugar is running)

Seats that could become competitive in a wave year :
- NJ
- MD (Cardin's win was quite close compared to Mikulski)
- WV (remember it's a very red State)
- TN (Corker's win was close too)
- WA (since the GOP made it close in 2010 it could make it again in 2012)
- CA (same)
- AZ (who knows ?)
- RI (Chafee comeback ?)


Overall, I'd tend toward a rep gain of between 2 and 3 seats, which would keep the dems in control of Senate provided that Obama/Biden win. Anyways, there is a lot of uncertainty there, and we will be really able to make clearer guess only next year. I vote for a rep gain of 2 since I want to be optimistic.