GOP underperforming in 2014?

[Devils30]

With all the talk about a wave that will bring them senate seats, it just seems like winning Arkansas, Louisiana, Alaska, West Virginia and other red states really isn't anything impressive. If seats that were up in 2012 like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania were up now I think Dems would still be up in all 3. The GOP winning the senate with 51 or 52 seats says very little if the Dems hold Iowa, Colorado and New Hampshire. Combine this with the fact Dems may take governors races in Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin and even Michigan and I think the GOP is on it's way to denying some serious problems for 2016.

[Brittain33]

Exactly. The Senate map this year and House map this decade are so good for Republicans that even regression to the mean would represent several Dem seats falling into their hands. 2010, this isn't.

[backtored]

With all the talk about a wave that will bring them senate seats, it just seems like winning Arkansas, Louisiana, Alaska, West Virginia and other red states really isn't anything impressive. If seats that were up in 2012 like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania were up now I think Dems would still be up in all 3. The GOP winning the senate with 51 or 52 seats says very little if the Dems hold Iowa, Colorado and New Hampshire. Combine this with the fact Dems may take governors races in Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin and even Michigan and I think the GOP is on it's way to denying some serious problems for 2016.

I actually agree with this.  If the GOP barely slips into the majority by winning Arkansas, Louisiana, and Alaska (and holds Kansas--Kansas ), then I hardly consider that a blockbuster year.  To feel really encouraged by the election I think that the GOP needs to win at least two of CO/IA/NC in addition to the red states.  I think that will put them at 53 seats, an eight seat gain, which is pretty solid (and also pretty doable).

And you're also right about the gubernatorial races.  Considering the party's presidential woes, real conservative innovation has been happening at the state level, and if we lose key states to the Democrats, then we really do lose a lot.

I don't necessarily think it'll be that bad, though.  I do expect the GOP to win Alaska, Colorado, and North Carolina.  And we'll probably lose one of WI/FL/MI, but the GOP will also hold the entire state of Ohio, can win a key gubernatorial race in Colorado, and will win legislative chambers in Iowa, Colorado, and maybe Nevada.  If a lot of that fails to materialize, then, yeah, that's not too good for the GOP.  But let's just wait until November.

[Devils30]

I think the Democrats will hold Colorado in both races. Unless pollsters have fixed their problems there, it seems like it could be another example of Dems doing better on Election Day than in polls. Iowa is going to be close, Ernst is really too far right for the state but Braley is aloof. I can see Braley winning close in the end though. Just seems like voters are supporting their team this year with very few changing usual preferences. The generic ballot is pretty much Obamas 4% win in 2012 minus an adjustment for midterm turnout that makes things pretty even.

[Badger]

I assure you Republicans don't give a damn about 'underperforming' by anyone's subjective standards, just so long as Harry Reid isn't Majority Leader after November.

[eric82oslo]

With all the talk about a wave that will bring them senate seats, it just seems like winning Arkansas, Louisiana, Alaska, West Virginia and other red states really isn't anything impressive. If seats that were up in 2012 like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania were up now I think Dems would still be up in all 3. The GOP winning the senate with 51 or 52 seats says very little if the Dems hold Iowa, Colorado and New Hampshire. Combine this with the fact Dems may take governors races in Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin and even Michigan and I think the GOP is on it's way to denying some serious problems for 2016.

You forgot Kansas. But I agree with you.

[Free Bird]

I assure you Republicans don't give a damn about 'underperforming' by anyone's subjective standards, just so long as Harry Reid isn't Majority Leader after November.

[Miles]

I assure you Republicans don't give a damn about 'underperforming' by anyone's subjective standards, just so long as Harry Reid isn't Majority Leader after November.

[Devils30]

I assure you Republicans don't give a damn about 'underperforming' by anyone's subjective standards, just so long as Harry Reid isn't Majority Leader after November.

You should be concerned though, Obama will still have veto power anyway and the House already is a check on him so it isn't like things change that much in Washington. It is a big deal for 2016 because if the GOP only gets 51-52 seats, the Democrats have prime opportunities in 2016. Illinois, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are prime Democratic targets and a Hillary victory likely flips those blue. That is just the start, GOP seats in Ohio, Florida (open if Rubio runs for President), New Hampshire are never safe as well. Combine that with a potential for a competitive North Carolina in a presidential year with the possibility of open seats in Arizona and Iowa and you never know. If the GOP only gets a small majority and Hillary is winning in 2016, the Senate is going Democratic. If Hillary wins a landslide 2016, the Senate is Democratic with room to spare.

GOP opportunities in 2016 are limited to Nevada and Colorado and even those are pretty bleak. Both had a Democratic PVI the last two cycles and trends are not friendly for the GOP. Reid not running would probably help the Dems and Bennet is unlikely to lose after winning in 2010.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I assure you Republicans don't give a damn about 'underperforming' by anyone's subjective standards, just so long as Harry Reid isn't Majority Leader after November.

[Ogre Mage]

A number of right-wingers both on this site and elsewhere predict a GOP pickup of 8 or 9 seats.  That reminds me of the overestimation of their Senate chances in 2012 which turned out disastrously wrong.  I don't think Senate Democrats will do as well as in 2012, but if the GOP picks up 4 or 5 seats -- which would be a good result by historical standards -- it's not going to look well next to their own overinflated predictions.

In terms of reading the tea leaves for 2016, most of the contested races this year are in conservative states.  Only a few could be described as swing states with opponents who are pretty evenly matched:  North Carolina, Colorado and Iowa.  In North Carolina, both Hagan and Tillis are average in terms of candidate strength.  Hagan has the advantage of incumbency, but the slight GOP lean in this swing state favors Tillis.  In Iowa, the race is for an open seat and both Braley and Ernst are flawed candidates (albeit for different reasons).  In Colorado, Gardner is a strong challenger and Mark Udall is a solid first-term incumbent.  Udall probably should narrowly win all other things being equal.  We'll see if he will.

[sg0508]

Let's not forget how they spun the embarrassments of DE, NV and CO in 2010 by it being covered up by a "good year".  Those that understand politics and read between the lines know better.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Let's not forget how they spun the embarrassments of DE, NV and CO in 2010 by it being covered up by a "good year".  Those that understand politics and read between the lines know better.

Usually, in a second midterm, the outparty maxed out their gains in 1986 and 2006. They failed to gain the senate due to our fillibuster proof maj.
 
Economy improved in time in 2012. They underestimated Begich, our 60th vote in 2006 and our firewall state this election.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats are actually leading the generic Congressional ballot.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html

Of course, thanks to gerrymandering, a 0.5 point win there translates to being further from a majority.

[Devils30]

The Senate polls are striking to me in how closely correlated they are with 2012 presidential results.

[Lief 🗽]

It bodes pretty poorly for 2016 if Republicans can't win senate races in Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina and Michigan in a low turnout midterm election with Obama's approval ratings in the low 40s.

[eric82oslo]

It bodes pretty poorly for 2016 if Republicans can't win senate races in Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina and Michigan in a low turnout midterm election with Obama's approval ratings in the low 40s.

And Kansas.

[Devils30]

If the GOP wins the Senate at 51-49 with all Obama states and NC going blue, that is simply not a GOP wave. Shows more weakness on the GOP side with northern whites.

[Ogre Mage]

If the GOP wins the Senate at 51-49 with all Obama states and NC going blue, that is simply not a GOP wave. Shows more weakness on the GOP side with northern whites.

I predicted the GOP would pick up anywhere from 3 to 6 Senate seats.  If they do have a net gain of 6, giving them 51 seats and the majority, I think the scenario you described is the most likely way it will happen.