My 2012 Senate predictions: GOP +6

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I think that, if the climate is good enough, the Democrats can actually gain seats.

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.

[Ogre Mage]

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.

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

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. 

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

Charlie Cook agrees with my assessment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

[phk]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

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

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

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

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

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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

[Kaine for Senate '18]

GOP +1

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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

±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.

[Ogre Mage]

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

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.

[Miles]

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

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.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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

±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.

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.

[FloridaRepublican]

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

±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.

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.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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.

[FloridaRepublican]

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.

[RogueBeaver]

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

[Peter the Lefty]

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

[Peter the Lefty]

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. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Miles]

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

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.

[Peter the Lefty]

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.

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

[RogueBeaver]

Nil in Maine and less than 25% in Indiana.

[RogueBeaver]

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

[Dan the Roman]

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%.

[RogueBeaver]

MA: Slight R --> Tossup

OH: Lean D --> Likely D

FL: Lean D --> Tossup