A Question/Reality Check

[Free Bird]

Democrats: explain your path to Senate victory in 2016 that you're all so confident in. Let's be generous here. Let's say the great female savior is the nominee. Let's say you take out Kirk, Johnson, and I guess Toomey. Who is your additional pickup? There is no way in inks that Hoeven is going down, Ayotte is one of the most popular elected officials in New Hampshire, which the great female savior polls lukewarm in, anyway; if you look in the dictionary, there is a picture of Coats and Burr next to the word "fool's gold." Even then, you have to worry about Reid and Bennet. I just dont see a path to victory here...

[IceSpear]

Well, first of all, I wouldn't say people are "oh so confident" Dems will take the Senate. I don't think I've ever seen a post that said it was anything better than a 50/50 proposition.

As for the fourth seat, Ayotte is popular now, but that could change over the course of a campaign. Pryor/Landrieu were popular in early 2013 as well. Burr and Rubio could lose in a decent year for Democrats. In fact, Rubio may even vacate the seat to run for president, which would make it an immediate toss up. Arizona could be competitive after the bloody Republican prmary gives a wounded unpopular McCain or a severely conservative Tea Partier as the nominee. Missouri could be competitive if Dems get a good candidate. Ohio/Indiana could fall in a big enough wave.

[DrScholl]

If the Republican Senate majority is safe, there is no need to even discuss this, let alone start a thread about it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The last poll I checked was Ayotte 48-42% on Maggie Hassen.  Then, we have to look at OHIO and FLORIDA and North Carolina. We have just as good of a chance of with our female candidates as Ayotte.


I wouldn't put NH in the winner's column yet, because Shaheen was running away with the race against Scott Brown and won by 2. We can put it into play, just like the G O P did.

[dmmidmi]

I feel like we had this conversation two years ago. But instead of "Democrats: explain your path to Senate victory in 2016," it was "Republicans: explain your path to Senate victory in 2014." And the seats in question weren't Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Nevada, but Arkansas, Louisiana, Iowa, West Virginia, South Dakota, Alaska, and Montana.

Colorado, New Hampshire, and North Carolina are the same, though.

And most Democrats (myself included) thought it was hilarious that Republicans thought they could pick up seats in Iowa, Louisiana, and with either Schweitzer or Baucus running, Montana.

The moral of the story? Don't count your f'ing chickens before they hatch. This goes for everybody.

[Free Bird]

Tell that to the Hillaryites

[IceSpear]

Tell that to the Hillaryites

Call me when Ayotte/Burr/Rubio et al. are leading by 50 points.

[free my dawg]

Ayotte is one of the most popular elected officials in New Hampshire, which the great female savior polls lukewarm in, anyway

Because being popular a year worked out amazingly for Shaheen...

[Free Bird]

Ayotte is one of the most popular elected officials in New Hampshire, which the great female savior polls lukewarm in, anyway

Because being popular a year worked out amazingly for Shaheen...

Still won!

[Free Bird]

Tell that to the Hillaryites

Call me when Ayotte/Burr/Rubio et al. are leading by 50 points.

Tell me that when the early lead dissipates like it did with Rudy and McCain

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yeah, Shaheen won, because NH is a blue collar state. Ayotte has been a toeing the party line on every issue.

Hilary, or whoever, Dems nominate is gonna tip NH towards the Dems, so it can come our way as well.

[IceSpear]

Tell that to the Hillaryites

Call me when Ayotte/Burr/Rubio et al. are leading by 50 points.

Tell me that when the early lead dissipates like it did with Rudy and McCain

In early 2007, McCain and/or Giuliani were polling in the 20s and 30s. Not exactly comparable to Hillary who is polling in the 60s. See for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2008_presidential_candidates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2016_presidential_primaries

You're right her lead will likely decrease eventually, but it won't matter. She's still a lock. 50 points is more than enough buffer. It's logically inconsistent to do things like rate NY-Sen, OK-Sen, AL-Sen, etc. as "safe", but try to argue that Hillary is vulnerable. If we're going to go the "anything can happen in politics!!!" route, then no seat is safe. Now, if Hillary was trailing in Iowa (as she was for most of the 2008 cycle when she was supposedly "inevitable" according to the Beltway pundits) or New Hampshire, then one could make the argument that the national polls are irrelevant due to the momentum a candidate can get from wins there. But nope, her leads in those states are nearly as big as her lead nationally.

[The_Doctor]

The 2016 Senate map is fundamentally different from the 2014 map. Yes, there are lots of Republican incumbents up for re-election, whereas there were a lot of Democratic incumbents up for re-election.

The major difference is that most of these Republicans (save Mark Kirk in Illinois) are in states with a decent statewide Republican Party and decent GOP performances on state/federal office levels. You can't say that of most of the Democratic bench in 2014, save maybe Montana's U.S. Senate race. In Alaska, Arkansas, South Dakota, West Virginia, Louisiana, and North Carolina, Republicans were/are the dominant party. In Montana, they are arguably the dominant party (Democrats now hold only U.S. Senate seat and the governorship, among statewide offices, not counting the assorted lower statewide offices).

In 2016, Republicans are dominant in the most competitive states, or at least parity. In Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and Wisconsin, they are the dominant state party. In New Hampshire, they are at parity, roughly (one U.S. Senator, one Congressman, and the state legislature for the GOP versus one Democratic Governor and one Democratic U.S. Senator). In Pennsylvania, the Democrats hold the governorship but the GOP holds the U.S. Senate seat (Toomey's), and the legislature.

Crucially, in 2016, the Republicans are not running in heavy blue states, except Illinois. The 2014 state bench saw Republicans run in heavily red states. Without a Clinton blowout, these states still have enough Republicans and center-right voters to re-elect their senators. Illinois is the bluest state, followed by Wisconsin.

That's why 2016 is a harder lift for the Democrats than 2014 was for the Republicans. You'd need to see gaffes, and the like to see a Democratic Senate majority. That's why the 54-46 breakdown of 2014 is so crucial. It gave the GOP a solid buffer to ride out 2016. If they ride out 2016, they're in power til 2020.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yeah, the 2016, senate map isn't as heavy Democratic as 2014 was G O P.  But, we are beginning to see another realignment whereas the blue dog Democrats are being wiped out like Pryor, and people like Duckworth, Maggie Hassen and Joe Sestak beginning to emerge as the new Democratic majority.

And I might further add, the result of the 2014 saw the maxing out of Governorships and House seats for the Republicans.  There are 26 House seats in states that Obama won and they are in IL, WI, PA, CO, NV and NH. Where the senate control will be taken place.

[free my dawg]

Ayotte is one of the most popular elected officials in New Hampshire, which the great female savior polls lukewarm in, anyway

Because being popular a year worked out amazingly for Shaheen...

Still won!

By 2 points, against the worst candidate the NHGOP could have put up. If they got someone like Sununu, Bradley, or even a state senator with a good reputation, Shaheen would be looking for a job right now.

Popularity this far out is irrelevant. If Ayotte runs against someone like Kuster or maybe even Pappas (after all he wound up winning handily in an R+4 EC district this year), she has a very, very real chance of losing, especially in a Democratic-friendly environment. Both of them are incredible fundraisers and can tear Ayotte's favorabilities down.

[IceSpear]

The 2016 Senate map is fundamentally different from the 2014 map. Yes, there are lots of Republican incumbents up for re-election, whereas there were a lot of Democratic incumbents up for re-election.

The major difference is that most of these Republicans (save Mark Kirk in Illinois) are in states with a decent statewide Republican Party and decent GOP performances on state/federal office levels. You can't say that of most of the Democratic bench in 2014, save maybe Montana's U.S. Senate race. In Alaska, Arkansas, South Dakota, West Virginia, Louisiana, and North Carolina, Republicans were/are the dominant party. In Montana, they are arguably the dominant party (Democrats now hold only U.S. Senate seat and the governorship, among statewide offices, not counting the assorted lower statewide offices).

In 2016, Republicans are dominant in the most competitive states, or at least parity. In Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and Wisconsin, they are the dominant state party. In New Hampshire, they are at parity, roughly (one U.S. Senator, one Congressman, and the state legislature for the GOP versus one Democratic Governor and one Democratic U.S. Senator). In Pennsylvania, the Democrats hold the governorship but the GOP holds the U.S. Senate seat (Toomey's), and the legislature.

Crucially, in 2016, the Republicans are not running in heavy blue states, except Illinois. The 2014 state bench saw Republicans run in heavily red states. Without a Clinton blowout, these states still have enough Republicans and center-right voters to re-elect their senators. Illinois is the bluest state, followed by Wisconsin.

That's why 2016 is a harder lift for the Democrats than 2014 was for the Republicans. You'd need to see gaffes, and the like to see a Democratic Senate majority. That's why the 54-46 breakdown of 2014 is so crucial. It gave the GOP a solid buffer to ride out 2016. If they ride out 2016, they're in power til 2020.

You bring up some good points, but it's worth noting that the only Obama-state Senate seats Republicans won in either 2008 or 2012 were Maine (2008) and Nevada (2012). Similarly, the only Romney-state Senate seat Democrats won in either 2010 or 2014 was West Virginia (2010). Democrats have won many seats in Romney states, but only in presidential years. Similarly, Republicans have won many seats in Obama states, but only in midterm years. This looks like a pretty significant trend to me, and fits in nicely with the intense polarization and schism between midterm and presidential electorates of the past 6 years.

You're correct that many of the Republican incumbents in 2016 are in better shape than their Democratic counterparts were in 2014, mostly because their states are more competitive. But I also think the theory that there's going to be this vast amount of Hillary/Republican Senator crossover voters is overblown. It reminds me of the wishful thinking Democrats were doing in 2013/2014. "Yeah, Arkansas and Louisiana are very red states, but Pryor and Landrieu are very popular, so they're going to get tons of crossovers!" Putting it simply, if Hillary wins the presidential election (which of course isn't guaranteed this early), the Republicans will certainly be in danger of losing the Senate. That said, Hillary winning while Republicans hold the Senate is at least a plausible scenario, whereas Democrats losing the presidential election while winning the Senate is essentially impossible.

Unfortunately, unless 2016 ends up being a complete and utter bloodbath for Republicans, they'll likely regain the Senate in 2018 anyway, so they shouldn't fret too much if they lose it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Bloodbath for Republicans, they'll likely regain the Senate in 2018 anyway, so they shouldn't fret too much if they lose it.

Cut the shenanegans and sign Keystone, eventhough it is against your wishes as a Climate Change President, you authorized more drilling on the continental shelf in the Pacific and Atlantic.  Pipeline is already being built and there isn't gonna be a difference in telling between Canadian or American oil.

Hilary should pick Kaine or Hickenlooper, at least that will be a start.

It will come up again in 2018.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Bloodbath for Republicans, they'll likely regain the Senate in 2018 anyway, so they shouldn't fret too much if they lose it.

Cut the shenanegans and sign Keystone, eventhough it is against your wishes as a Climate Change President, you authorized more drilling on the continental shelf in the Pacific and Atlantic.  Pipeline is already being built and there isn't gonna be a difference in telling between Canadian or American oil.

Hilary should pick Kaine or Hickenlooper, at least that will be a start.

It will come up again in 2018.

If the Democrats are going to do the same exact things as Republicans (like dismiss the imminent threat of climate change as "shenanegans"(sic) and "sign Keystone"), what difference does it matter which party wins or loses?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Because they put Tester, not McCaskill or Brown or other Climate Change dems in charge of the 2016 Senatorial elections.

I think he is a pragmatic politician and has the right solutions to solving problems and he affirms Keystone. 

They already made their political point by obstructing Keystone in the lame duck session of congress to get back at the G O P for obstructing them in the 113th congress, now it is time to legislate.

Be advised, Hilary hasn't declared herself as an automatic no vote on Keystone.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Because they put Tester, not McCaskill or Brown or other Climate Change dems in charge of the 2016 Senatorial elections.

I think he is a pragmatic politician and has the right solutions to solving problems and he affirms Keystone.  

They already made their political point by obstructing Keystone in the lame duck session of congress to get back at the G O P for obstructing them in the 113th congress, now it is time to legislate.

Be advised, Hilary hasn't declared herself as an automatic no vote on Keystone.

Opposing Keystone isn't about scoring political points.

If Obama signs Keystone, his legacy will be severely tarnished. Same goes for Hillary.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Well oil production is at its all time best, and hopefully there will be alternative fuels of energy, with or without KEYSTONE.

But, certainly, someone like Hickenlooper should be considered as VP material, his isn't partisan as result of climate change.

[Free Bird]

I think OC is malfunctioning

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I think OC is malfunctioning

Yeah, and I agreeing with conservatives on Keystone. Save it.

[The_Doctor]

You bring up some good points, but it's worth noting that the only Obama-state Senate seats Republicans won in either 2008 or 2012 were Maine (2008) and Nevada (2012). Similarly, the only Romney-state Senate seat Democrats won in either 2010 or 2014 was West Virginia (2010). Democrats have won many seats in Romney states, but only in presidential years. Similarly, Republicans have won many seats in Obama states, but only in midterm years. This looks like a pretty significant trend to me, and fits in nicely with the intense polarization and schism between midterm and presidential electorates of the past 6 years.

You're correct that many of the Republican incumbents in 2016 are in better shape than their Democratic counterparts were in 2014, mostly because their states are more competitive. But I also think the theory that there's going to be this vast amount of Hillary/Republican Senator crossover voters is overblown. It reminds me of the wishful thinking Democrats were doing in 2013/2014. "Yeah, Arkansas and Louisiana are very red states, but Pryor and Landrieu are very popular, so they're going to get tons of crossovers!" Putting it simply, if Hillary wins the presidential election (which of course isn't guaranteed this early), the Republicans will certainly be in danger of losing the Senate. That said, Hillary winning while Republicans hold the Senate is at least a plausible scenario, whereas Democrats losing the presidential election while winning the Senate is essentially impossible.

Unfortunately, unless 2016 ends up being a complete and utter bloodbath for Republicans, they'll likely regain the Senate in 2018 anyway, so they shouldn't fret too much if they lose it.

That's a fair point about Obama/Republican states in 2016. If I were to argue against that, and I am to a degree. I would argue that while heavily Democratic states would be virtually impossible to carry for the GOP in a presidential year, states where Republicans have been competitive would be more likely, on balance, to re-elect the Republican candidate. If your base level is 45-48%, you only need a few more percent to go over the top. And with the benefits of incumbency, you are probably closer to that than what most people think. If we look at 2014, a lot of incumbents kept it close to the end. Begich, Hagan, Shaheen, Udall all kept it close to the end (and Shaheen won). I'm going to throw out an example I'm less secure about but still worthy of thought, I think: Warner in Virginia.

So, I'm arguing that there is room for Republican senators to win re-election in competitive states, even if Clinton wins their states - if their race is competitive in the first place. But it would have to be a narrow Clinton win and would probably end up being a close GOP win for these senators. I can see 2-3% voters splitting loyalties - so a 50-48% Clinton victory in x state can also yield a 50-48% Senate Republican win in that state. There is also the fact we're considering races where resources are going to be spent; in states that are orphaned on the Senate level, the Democratic Party will probably focus its energies on the Presidential level and leave the Senate race with less resources. So in some cases, I think that we'll see some Republican senators win fairly comfortably, even if Clinton wins their state. This comes out a bit complicated to say, but I think you get the gist of it.

I also think that we should pay attention only to the Presidential level voting but also the strength of the state parties. Democrats have been terrible at building party strength in critical states because they've become obsessed (I think) about the strength of these states on the Presidential level, while ignoring the strength of the party in these states, overall. But it's important, I think, because the party's strength can insulate incumbents and add their vote totals.

I agree that voting will be heavily polarized in 2016. I agree there won't be vast quantities of Hillary Clinton/Senate GOP candidate voters, unless that Republican has a personal connection to the state (think Collins in Maine, for example). I also agree we win back the Senate, if we somehow lose the 4 Senate seats and the Presidency in 2016.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

That's why KEYSTONE is such a waste, it is an issue that is given in a handbasket to the Dems and they don't want it.

Offshore oildriling and difference between Canadian and American oil is punitive. I think Obama should get something in return for Keystone but putting it off til 2018 will doom our Senate prospects then should we regain the majority.

As far as 2016 goes, Kirk was elected on consensus building and collegiatality with President Obama. But, he has managed to filibuster the Crt of Appeals Judges and not play ball on immigration.

Sestak, he had problems in a G O P primary fight, where people were allied with Specter, they didn't want to vote for him in the general.

As for Ayotte, Shaheen managed to eak out a narrow win, but the state was put into play and Maggie Hassen has had a good go as Gov.

I think your points are given, that party affiliation isn't gonna matter, but we have to recruit the best candidates and hopefully Dems will win in 2016.