RCP: Why Republicans Will Take the Senate (Part 2)

[Never]

In the last article of a two-part series, RealClearPolitics' Caitlin Huey-Burns transitions from looking at how Democrats could to hold the Senate to analyzing why Republicans could take it.

One of her main points is that the president's party generally has trouble in it's second midterm, and that this is compounded by this year's Senate map:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In an apparent contrast to her prior article arguing that Republicans haven't run away with competitive seats as of late, she argues that the same applies to Democrats. In other words, there are several Senate races that neither party has a clear advantage in, meaning that Republicans have a chance to defeat a number of vulnerable Democrats.

Huey-Burns also notes that Republicans have good chances in Romney 2012 states and that so-called "legacy candidates" on the Democratic side are not in strong positions:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's also noted that Republicans aren't too shabby on many individual issues either, which could prove beneficial to the party in November:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Honestly, I would have preferred more quotes than just those from NRSC spokesman Brad Dayspring, but it seems like the author of this article worked effectively with the information she had at hand.

[Person Man]

Everyone who is in opposition thinks that there are many things going badly. In 2004, it was the war, the economy, the tax cuts on the wealthy, the increase in entitlement spending and the push to privatize schools under the guise of getting more involved in the schools and to a certain extent, the PATRIOT Act. Eventually the economy was replaced by Katrina, more the failed attempt to privatize social security and  the very disturbing Republican scandals during the election of 2006.

The United States' position in the world is actually better than it was during Bush. Gaddafi's gone. Assad no longer has chemical weapons, Iran has a more moderate regime, we are out of Iraq and though it is no better, we have a foe that is so extreme that it can unite our allies (and some hostiles) against them. Ukraine is a mess but it wasn't even in play for us for years. At the very least, the Republicans have no foreign policy to counter ours. They vary between "let's continue to pull out and put our guys are next to Mexico" to "let's bomb Syria, let Israel do whatever it wants to the Palestinians and let's send peacekeepers to Kiev".

[Never]

Everyone who is in opposition thinks that there are many things going badly. In 2004, it was the war, the economy, the tax cuts on the wealthy, the increase in entitlement spending and the push to privatize schools under the guise of getting more involved in the schools and to a certain extent, the PATRIOT Act. Eventually the economy was replaced by Katrina, more the failed attempt to privatize social security and  the very disturbing Republican scandals during the election of 2006.

The United States' position in the world is actually better than it was during Bush. Gaddafi's gone. Assad no longer has chemical weapons, Iran has a more moderate regime, we are out of Iraq and though it is no better, we have a foe that is so extreme that it can unite our allies (and some hostiles) against them. Ukraine is a mess but it wasn't even in play for us for years. At the very least, the Republicans have no foreign policy to counter ours. They vary between "let's continue to pull out and put our guys are next to Mexico" to "let's bomb Syria, let Israel do whatever it wants to the Palestinians and let's send peacekeepers to Kiev".

I actually feel like the nation's position in the world is stronger in some respects and weaker in others under Obama's presidency compared to Bush's, but for the most part I think I see what you're saying. Also, I suppose it is important to keep in mind that foreign policy matters don't always capture the public's attention, so even if things were somewhat worse in that regard, it might only have a limited impact on the Senate races this year.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Why the GOP may not take senate.

GOP maxed out their gains in the first midterm in 2010, but failed to get senate, unlike 1995. Whereas, because of lame duck status in 1986 and 2006, outparty gained most seats.

The GOP boxed themselves in calling for impeachment. If they dont capture both branches in Fall, staus quo remains and investigations would have a limited effect.

ACA, having a limited effect on GOP chances.

[Never]

Why the GOP may not take senate.

GOP maxed out their gains in the first midterm in 2010, but failed to get senate, unlike 1995. Whereas, because of lame duck status in 1988 and 2006, outparty gained most seats.

The GOP boxed themselves in calling for impeachment. If they dont capture both branches in Fall, staus quo remains and investigations would have a limited effect.

ACA, having a limited effect on GOP chances.

The six seat Republican gain in 2010 was pretty impressive (just like the gain of identical quantity for the Democrats in 2006), but it was far from maxing out. With better candidates in Nevada and Colorado, the GOP could very well have gained eight seats. It's also important to keep in mind that Republicans were starting from a very low point in the Senate (just 41 seats) going into the 2010 midterm, so even an above-average gain probably wouldn't have delievered the Senate. For that to have happened, Carly Fiorina and Dino Rossi would have had to defeat Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray in the deeply liberal states of California and Washington.

Democrats seem to care more about the subject of impeachment than Republicans.

Finally, Democrats did do very well in the crop of Senate races from 2008, and the Republicans can take the Senate by just winning seats in states Mitt Romney won in the 2012 presidential election. With that in mind, it is entirely possible that the Republicans could take control of the Senate this year.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Scott Brown, Romney proteje is doing poorly in NH. The Romney effect is limited.

LA and AK were the only two states to move to Obama in 2012.

Coin Flip or narrow Dem advantage in senate, but not GOP wave or favored.

[Never]

Scott Brown, Romney proteje is doing poorly in NH. The Romney effect is limited.

LA and AK were the only two states to move to Obama in 2012.

Coin Flip or narrow Dem advantage in senate, but not GOP wave or favored.

New Hampshire is irrelevant to whether Republicans will take the Senate or not. The race in that state is not going to be anywhere close to being the sixth flip of the night, even if Brown somehow wins.

While Louisiana did shift to the left in 2012, Arkansas did not trend Democratic that year, rather, it trended Republican. Furthermore, whether we're looking at the trend or the swing, more than two states moved in a Democratic direction.

I'm not predicting a GOP wave, but many non-Republican sources other than Huey-Burns, like FiveThirtyEight and the New York Times, seem to believe that Republicans will probably take the Senate.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

While Louisiana did shift to the left in 2012, Arkansas did not trend Democratic that year, rather, it trended Republican. Furthermore, whether we're looking at the trend or the swing, more than two states moved in a Democratic direction.

AK is Alaska, not Arkansas, and Alaska did swing to Obama. OC is still wrong about those being the only two, obviously.

[Never]

While Louisiana did shift to the left in 2012, Arkansas did not trend Democratic that year, rather, it trended Republican. Furthermore, whether we're looking at the trend or the swing, more than two states moved in a Democratic direction.

AK is Alaska, not Arkansas, and Alaska did swing to Obama. OC is still wrong about those being the only two, obviously.

My mistake I was sure I saw AR. That's why I try not to use the postal codes for the states if I don't have to.