How can anyone say the GOP isn't favored to win the Senate?

[eric82oslo]

With Kansas, South Dakota, Kentucky and Georgia all potentially going independent or Democratic, that would leave the GOP with 10 seats to make up, not just 6. Clearly Republicans would need a landslide, not just favorable winds, to make such a thing happen. Expect at least one of those four to not rally behind the Republican candidate in the end.

[eric82oslo]

With Kansas, South Dakota, Kentucky and Georgia all potentially going independent or Democratic, that would leave the GOP with 10 seats to make up, not just 6. Clearly Republicans would need a landslide, not just favorable winds, to make such a thing happen. Expect at least one of those four to not rally behind the Republican candidate in the end.

I mean, you're basically making Del's point for him.  If you're counting on Kansas or South Dakota this year to save the Senate for your party, then you can be sure that you're going to lose the Senate.  That reminds me of Republicans in 2012 talking about Minnesota and Michigan as potential substitutes for a loss in Ohio.

At some point you simply have to acknowledge the reality that the field favors Republicans even if that makes you uneasy or even upset.

According to The New Yorker (who I believe are quoting The New York Times), Democrats right now are the 55% favourites to retain the Senate majority, which would increase to 85% in the case that the Democratic candidate would drop out from the Kansas race, elevating Orman to perhaps an insurmountable opponent for Roberts. In the latest PPP poll, Orman has a 10% lead over Roberts in a two-horse race.

[eric82oslo]

With Kansas, South Dakota, Kentucky and Georgia all potentially going independent or Democratic, that would leave the GOP with 10 seats to make up, not just 6. Clearly Republicans would need a landslide, not just favorable winds, to make such a thing happen. Expect at least one of those four to not rally behind the Republican candidate in the end.

I mean, you're basically making Del's point for him.  If you're counting on Kansas or South Dakota this year to save the Senate for your party, then you can be sure that you're going to lose the Senate.  That reminds me of Republicans in 2012 talking about Minnesota and Michigan as potential substitutes for a loss in Ohio.

At some point you simply have to acknowledge the reality that the field favors Republicans even if that makes you uneasy or even upset.

According to The New Yorker (who I believe are quoting The New York Times), Democrats right now are the 55% favourites to retain the Senate majority, which would increase to 85% in the case that the Democratic candidate would drop out from the Kansas race, elevating Orman to perhaps an insurmountable opponent for Roberts. In the latest PPP poll, Orman has a 10% lead over Roberts in a two-horse race.

The New York Times actually gives the GOP a 66% shot at winning the Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/

The give Republicans a 99% shot at winning both Kansas and South Dakota.  So either the New York Times' political team is going to be epic-ly wrong or else the GOP is probably going to take the Senate.

That's probably most to do with them not considering Orman a Dem, which is true. However, if he were to win, he'd almost certainly caucus more with Dems than the GOP.

[eric82oslo]

I see everyone ignored my question in the other thread, so let's try again:

With President Obama set to issue an executive order unilaterally legalizing millions of undocumented immigrants, how do you think this will impact the midterm elections this November, especially in the South?  Will this give the GOP the edge they need to win races in close contests in North Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana? 

Probably not because he ain't gonna execute those orders until November the earliest.