Will the GOP take the Senate in November?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

It is very possible, but I think the Democrats may just hold on 50-50 (thus, Biden saves them. Sort of) or 51-49.


Either way, nothing really gets done 2015-2016.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There will be a difference between a GOP senate and a Dem one. Hopefully, status quo remains so that some legislation will get through. We don't want the repeat of Oct 2013 again. Congressional spending is already restrained due to the low GDP growth of 2 percent not unemployment.

[Fritz]

Here's an interesting question.  Say the GOP nets 5 seats, leading to what looks like a 50-50 senate.  In true reality, this is a 50-48-2 senate (with 2 independents who caucus with Democrats).  So, which party gets to claim the title of "majority party"?  I can see arguments for both.

[Joe Republic]

Here's an interesting question.  Say the GOP nets 5 seats, leading to what looks like a 50-50 senate.  In true reality, this is a 50-48-2 senate (with 2 independents who caucus with Democrats).  So, which party gets to claim the title of "majority party"?  I can see arguments for both.

The Democrats, of course.  The President of the Senate is a Democrat.

Same thing happened after 2000 when the Senate was split 50-50, and the new President of the Senate was a Republican.  (Until Jeffords defected, that is.)

[Fritz]

Here's an interesting question.  Say the GOP nets 5 seats, leading to what looks like a 50-50 senate.  In true reality, this is a 50-48-2 senate (with 2 independents who caucus with Democrats).  So, which party gets to claim the title of "majority party"?  I can see arguments for both.

The Democrats, of course.  The President of the Senate is a Democrat.

Same thing happened after 2000 when the Senate was split 50-50, and the new President of the Senate was a Republican.  (Until Jeffords defected, that is.)

But if we include the VP in the equation, that is still only 49 Democrats vs. 50 Republicans (and two indies).

[Joe Republic]

But those Indies caucus with the Democrats.

[Fritz]

But those Indies caucus with the Democrats.

Yes, of course.  I'm just saying that, technically, Mitch McConnell might have an argument for saying he is the actual majority leader.

[International Brotherhood of Bernard]

But those Indies caucus with the Democrats.

Yes, of course.  I'm just saying that, technically, Mitch McConnell might have an argument for saying he is the actual majority leader.

Only he wouldn't have a working majority, while Reid would, so no argument. If it's 50-48-2, the only way McConnell becomes Majority Leader is if he convinces Manchin or King or Heitkamp to defect (which I highly doubt they would.)

[Joe Republic]

But those Indies caucus with the Democrats.

Yes, of course.  I'm just saying that, technically, Mitch McConnell might have an argument for saying he is the actual majority leader.

But that's not how it works.  The Democratic Senate caucus would be 50 + the VP.  The Indies are Independent for election purposes, but in the Senate they are considered Democrats.

Plus what interstate73 said.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's sort like how in parliamentary democracies you can end up with opposition parties with more seats, but the governing party is propped up by its coalition partners (see: Norway 2013 etc.)

[moderatevoter]

This reminds me of the situation in the Washington State Senate.

[ShadowRocket]

I'm also in the camp predicting a 50/50 party split post-November . I think it depends on what happens in AK, GA, KY, NC, and to a lesser extent MS. Those are the races where I see Tea Party shenanigans robbing the GOP of control of the Senate for the third time in a row.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Hold onto AK and NC and Southern primaries or runoffs in LA or Ga will give us the chance to keep Senate control and have 51 votes.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

In order for the GOP to net 6 seats that would have to include winning both runoffs in LA and GA. Landrieu is no stranger to runoffs either. She handily def Tyrell at the height of Dubya's popularity. And Cassidy just stuck his foot in mouth about another Romney 47 percent comment. But winning AK and NC is ideal and not depend on a runoff for control, but if we have to, we have a chance to win either Ga or La.

[SPC]

At this point I think the Republicans are favored to win the Senate races in WV, SD, MT, and AR, giving them 4 new seats. I think that they might win the races in LA, NC, CO, and MI. I have those as my pure tossups, but I believe that they would all go to one party or the other, giving them 8 seats, which would be enough to win the majority. I think that the main seat the Republicans should keep an eye on is KY, because I see that as being their only big risk. We'll see after the MS and GA primaries if those two Senate seats become competitive, but as of today, I believe that the Republicans are favored in both races. I think that IA, NH are tilting Democratic right now, but if the situation changes in those races, the Republicans might eye double-digit gains in the Senate.

Right now, I think that the Senate Republicans are where Obama was in 2012: the Republicans have many paths to victory the way Obama did 2 years ago, so I think that the Republicans will manage to win at least 6 seats. It is just too soon to tell precisely which seats will go to the Republicans.

Did you overlook Alaska, or are you confident in Begich's reelection chances.

[smoltchanov]

Right now i will say "yes, barely". But that doesn't mean i will say the same words in late October or early November.

[International Brotherhood of Bernard]

As of right now, I'd say no. Yes, they'll probably pick up MT, SD, AR, WV and LA if it goes to a runoff (though Landrieu has survived a runoff before), but I think the strength of Democratic incumbents and/or weakness of Republican challengers in AK, NC, and IA will keep them in the Democratic column. I also think that Scott Brown, Terri Lynn Land, and Cory Gardner are highly overrated and don't really have much of a chance of winning.

[Vosem]

I'd have to say that it looks likelier than not right now, but (a word of caution) this was also the case in 2012 until late August/early September. So things can definitely still change.

[Sol]

I think they're favored at the moment, although it can of course change.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

In order for the GOP to net 6 seats that would have to include winning both runoffs in LA and GA. Landrieu is no stranger to runoffs either. She handily def Tyrell at the height of Dubya's popularity. And Cassidy just stuck his foot in mouth about another Romney 47 percent comment. But winning AK and NC is ideal and not depend on a runoff for control, but if we have to, we have a chance to win either Ga or La.

Although Landrieu is indeed experienced in winning runoffs, I think that the state of Louisiana has drifted in a more conservative direction since her last victory in 2008, negating her experience with winning close elections.

I said with both parties keyed on the runoffs, I said it would be difficult, not impossible for the GOP to win both runoffs.

I might further add not a single PPP poll has all three trailing Begich, Hagen or Landrieu. All of them are leading their respective races in PPP. Rassmussen has continuous had the Dems ahead on the generic ballot. And 7 new people have signed up for Health care reform. Right now generic ballot is 39-38 in favor of Dems. Obama's approval is at 47 percent not 41 percent it once was.

[JerryArkansas]

I have to agree with Nate Silver, GOP pickup of 6+/-5 seats, depending on the climate in November.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

His model is one of the better ones I have seen but saying Begich has a 45 percent of losing or to say Landrieu has a 55 percent of losing are off, I would say the vulnerable three had about 47-49 chance of losing. We should keep control and lose probably 4, ARK, SD, WV, Mnt.

[SWE]

In order for the GOP to net 6 seats that would have to include winning both runoffs in LA and GA. Landrieu is no stranger to runoffs either. She handily def Tyrell at the height of Dubya's popularity. And Cassidy just stuck his foot in mouth about another Romney 47 percent comment. But winning AK and NC is ideal and not depend on a runoff for control, but if we have to, we have a chance to win either Ga or La.

Although Landrieu is indeed experienced in winning runoffs, I think that the state of Louisiana has drifted in a more conservative direction since her last victory in 2008, negating her experience with winning close elections.

Louisiana was one of only six states Obama did better in 2012 than in 2008

[MATTROSE94]

GOP most likely picks up 7-8 seats  (SD, WV, MT, AR, LA, AK, NC) possibly IA with 52-53 seats in 2015 going by the current environment right now. Then 2016 comes into focus if they win 52 seats then Dems can at least breathe easy that they would only need three seats to take it back (WI, IL, PA) already there for them but 53 seats or more for the Rs its a steeper climb for the Ds.

The Democrats could potentially pick up Senate seats in Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Missouri (if Jay Nixon runs), Iowa (if Chuck Grassley retires) and Arizona (if John McCain retires). If those seats and the ones you mentioned all go to the Democrats, then they would have a 57 or 58 seat majority after 2016.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Either way, nothing really gets done 2015-2016.

I think the Democrats barely hang on, 50-50 or 51-49, but no matter who has control, the above statement is key.