The democrats are going to gain a seat in the senate this november

[Antonio the Sixth]

Semi-realistic best case scenario for Democrats:

Dems lose MT and WV as expected; gain KS, GA, MS, and KY. Overall D+2.

Mississippi? Sure...

[Dixie Reborn]

Semi-realistic best case scenario for Democrats:

Dems lose MT and WV as expected; gain KS, GA, MS, and KY. Overall D+2.

Mississippi? Sure...

It is possible if enough African Americans go back to the Democrats' column and if enough butthurt Tea Partiers stay butthurt and don't vote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Semi-realistic best case scenario for Democrats:

Dems lose MT and WV as expected; gain KS, GA, MS, and KY. Overall D+2.

Mississippi? Sure...

It is possible if enough African Americans go back to the Democrats' column and if enough butthurt Tea Partiers stay butthurt and don't vote.

It might in a couple years, but not this November.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Georgia, Kansas, and Kentucky will go dem. West Virginia and Montana will go republican. SD will stay democratic.  The dems will hold on to Colorado, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Alaska.

The reason I believe this is because the polls are underestimating minority turnout, just like in 2012. Virtually all of the swing states (besides maybe Iowa and NH) have sizable minority populations that are not being polled. For example, the polls are not reaching bush people in Alaska. That is tens of thousands of begich votes. The polls are not reaching hispanics in Colorado. That is tens of thousands of Udall votes. The polls are not reaching blacks in Georgia or Kentucky. THat is tens and tens of thousands of Nunn and Grimes votes.

[citation needed]

[GaussLaw]

Georgia, Kansas, and Kentucky will go dem. West Virginia and Montana will go republican. SD will stay democratic.  The dems will hold on to Colorado, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Alaska.

The reason I believe this is because the polls are underestimating minority turnout, just like in 2012. Virtually all of the swing states (besides maybe Iowa and NH) have sizable minority populations that are not being polled. For example, the polls are not reaching bush people in Alaska. That is tens of thousands of begich votes. The polls are not reaching hispanics in Colorado. That is tens of thousands of Udall votes. The polls are not reaching blacks in Georgia or Kentucky. THat is tens and tens of thousands of Nunn and Grimes votes.

[citation needed]

This. 

[Matty]

My citation is the 2012 election.

[Mr. Reactionary]

My citation is the 2012 election.

What year is it currently?

[Recalcuate]

My citation is the 2012 election.

I'll take established history over some blinded claims that somehow every poll showing a Republican in the lead is wrong right now.

Sixth year election is bad for just about every two-term President in recent history from Reagan on down.

[Torie]

This thread is going to have every blue avatar bumping it after Election Day. Great work!

These kids are just hilarious aren't they?  What's most interesting to me, in this otherwise boring and rather predictable election cycle, are all these rather safe Dem House seats that now suddenly seem to be in play, you know like MN-08 and those two Mass. seats, and ME-02 and the old Braley seat in Iowa and so forth, with some potential surprise Dem problems in NY as well. Pity polling has become so problematical these days.  I am surprised that the polls are as accurate as they are. I don't know how they do it, with such low and demographically uneven response rates. That is why I tend to look at the "fundamentals" every bit as much as the problematical polling out there. Otherwise it is like trying to steer a sailboat without ballast and a keel.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Remotely possible. But not very likely. At all.

But if The Media had been honest during this cycle, it would be a certainty.

[Lief 🗽]

This thread is going to have every blue avatar bumping it after Election Day. Great work!

These kids are just hilarious aren't they?  What's most interesting to me, in this otherwise boring and rather predictable election cycle, are all these rather safe Dem House seats that now suddenly seem to be in play, you know like MN-08 and those two Mass. seats, and ME-02 and the old Braley seat in Iowa and so forth, with some potential surprise Dem problems in NY as well.

Meanwhile, Democrats are poised to pick up seats like FL-02, NE-02, and IA-03. Republicans won't gain more than a handful of seats net.

[Torie]

This thread is going to have every blue avatar bumping it after Election Day. Great work!

These kids are just hilarious aren't they?  What's most interesting to me, in this otherwise boring and rather predictable election cycle, are all these rather safe Dem House seats that now suddenly seem to be in play, you know like MN-08 and those two Mass. seats, and ME-02 and the old Braley seat in Iowa and so forth, with some potential surprise Dem problems in NY as well.

Is it almost election day? Time for some classic Torie concern trolling about how big the Republican wave is going to be.

Meanwhile, Democrats are poised to pick up seats like FL-02, NE-02, and IA-03. Republicans won't gain more than a handful of seats net.

You just posted there would be a Dem wave (well it's "building" you say, whatever), so more salient, or at least more interesting, is how many seats you think the Pubs will lose actually. I would surmise it would have to be more than 15 if you are tossing the word "wave" around.

In the meantime, just to satisfy your insatiable and intrusive curiosity, my wild guess, which may change of course based on new data, is that the Pubs are in the hunt for a dozen seat gain. You can write that down. Thanks.

And just why do so many around here misuse the term "troll" so egregiously? Is there something in the local water supply or what?

[Princess Nyan Cat]

Maybe what the original poster meant to say is "The democrats are going to gain a seat in the senate this november" ... and lose 8 others.

[Bigby]

At this rate, the only potential seat the Democrats can gain is Georgia. If Rounds loses, since the current Senator in that seat is a Democrat, that's not technically a gain. If the Democrats have 49 or 50 seats and Orman wins, he might caucus with the Democrats, but his chances seem to be decreasing.

[DS0816]

I'm leaning toward a Republican majority-control pickup of the U.S. Senate with the midterm congressional elections of 2014.

That actually goes against historical voting pattern.

Since the 1910s, with the 17th Amendment, every president elected beyond a single term (minus Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon) who had majority control of either house of Congress at any point during their presidency ended up losing one of both houses in just a single midterm cycle.

Woodrow Wilson lost the Senate and House in 1918 (not 1914 and 1918).

Dwight Eisenhower lost the Senate and House in 1954 (not 1954 and 1958).

Ronald Reagan lost the Senate in 1986 (not 1982 and 1986).

Bill Clinton lost the Senate and House in 1994 (not 1994 and 1998).

George W. Bush had the special situation, not via elections, with the Senate in 2001 but, through elections, lost the Senate and House in 2006 (not 2002, with Republican pickup of the Senate, and 2006).

Already Barack Obama lost the House in 2010. So the pattern is that he shouldn't be losing the Senate and House in 2014 after 2010.

If the consensus in the mainstream, corporate news media sticks with predicting a Republican majority-control pickup of the Senate … they better be right. Otherwise, they're gonna look corrupt. Just like Gallup did with their presidential polling results for 2012.


For a Republican pickup of the U.S. Senate (with 2014): I would anticipate every Republican seat held. The Republican pickups would come from the open-seat races in Iowa (perhaps the tipping point), Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia. For reaching the majority-No. 51, incumbent Democrats would become unseated in Alaska and Arkansas. Any more beyond that tilts the final numbers to 53 to 55 for the Republican caucus.

[Dixie Reborn]

Well, well, well, look how this prediction turned out.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm leaning toward a Republican majority-control pickup of the U.S. Senate with the midterm congressional elections of 2014.

That actually goes against historical voting pattern.

Since the 1910s, with the 17th Amendment, every president elected beyond a single term (minus Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon) who had majority control of either house of Congress at any point during their presidency ended up losing one of both houses in just a single midterm cycle.

Woodrow Wilson lost the Senate and House in 1918 (not 1914 and 1918).

Dwight Eisenhower lost the Senate and House in 1954 (not 1954 and 1958).

Ronald Reagan lost the Senate in 1986 (not 1982 and 1986).

Bill Clinton lost the Senate and House in 1994 (not 1994 and 1998).

George W. Bush had the special situation, not via elections, with the Senate in 2001 but, through elections, lost the Senate and House in 2006 (not 2002, with Republican pickup of the Senate, and 2006).

Already Barack Obama lost the House in 2010. So the pattern is that he shouldn't be losing the Senate and House in 2014 after 2010.

If the consensus in the mainstream, corporate news media sticks with predicting a Republican majority-control pickup of the Senate … they better be right. Otherwise, they're gonna look corrupt. Just like Gallup did with their presidential polling results for 2012.


For a Republican pickup of the U.S. Senate (with 2014): I would anticipate every Republican seat held. The Republican pickups would come from the open-seat races in Iowa (perhaps the tipping point), Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia. For reaching the majority-No. 51, incumbent Democrats would become unseated in Alaska and Arkansas. Any more beyond that tilts the final numbers to 53 to 55 for the Republican caucus.

That is because typically when they lose majority in the first term, the two sides come together and voters reelect both together like 1956 and 1996. However, I would point out that prior to 2010, voters had never changed the majority in the House without chnaging the Senate, but just like very other rule, they exist until they are broken.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If I was President I would push for an Amendment to arrest and imprison anyone who predicts elections based on truisms.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, he was correct modulo 10.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The worst prediction of the cycle.

[Wisconsin+17]

Tellingly worse than my R+12. Oh, if only it were R+11. Then I could brag!

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Tellingly worse than my R+12. Oh, if only it were R+11. Then I could brag!

Compared to this, R+12 is an exemplary prediction.

[free my dawg]

Tellingly worse than my R+12. Oh, if only it were R+11. Then I could brag!

Just wondering - what was your 12th pickup? I can only assume you had the nine we thought would flip+NH/VA, but what was the other one?