HILL: GOP confidence in Senate majority builds

[Kevin]

Call me skeptical,

But then again the Democratic candidates running in places like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania are low energy.

However, ANGRY NEW HAMPSHIRE WOMEN WILL VOTE AGAINST AYOTTE IN DROVES!!!!!!!

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/289763-gop-confidence-in-senate-majority-builds

[The Other Castro]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah no, these people are talking out of their asses.

[Heisenberg]

Reading about how they think New Hampshire is still winnable AND a presidential swing state makes me feel sick.

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

20 Million Dollars of D spending in NH? They must have missed the memo about angry women making Hassan inevitable.

[Ebsy]

Why did this need to be posted? A party predicting that they will be victorious is hardly worthy of discussion.

[The Arizonan]

The Republicans better enjoy their Senate majority while it lasts because the demographic changes are eventually going to push them to the side.

[Xing]

They can deny it all they want, but they have little hope of holding Illinois and Wisconsin, Indiana went from a near lock to a serious problem, and Colorado's off the map. If Democrats win two more seats, they get the senate (assuming Hillary wins), and Republicans only losing one of AZ/FL/MO/NV/NH/NC/OH/PA is a tall order to say the least.

[Virginiá]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, running from Trump? Clearly they are adopting a wildly successful strategy from Democrats, used in 2010 and 2014. Curious what they will have to say when a wave comes and wipes the smile off their faces in November.

[IceSpear]

And Republicans said they'd win back Congress in 2008. And Democrats did in 2014. Who cares?

[Adam Griffin]

Triage Ohio.

The rest are still winnable by Democrats.

[windjammer]

Triage Ohio.

The rest are still winnable by Democrats.

Ohio is still winnable by Democrats.

[heatcharger]

Triage Ohio.

The rest are still winnable by Democrats.

Ohio is still winnable by Democrats.

If Strickland starts running a better campaign.

[The Other Castro]

Triage Ohio.

The rest are still winnable by Democrats.

That would be a BIG mistake, at least this early out.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Portman is one of those Republicans who champion a late surge strategy, building up a tremendous warchest and then bombing the Democrat into submission in August and September.

[windjammer]

Portman is one of those Republicans who champion a late surge strategy, building up a tremendous warchest and then bombing the Democrat into submission in August and September.

If money decided elections , Blanche Lincoln' would still be senator though

[Adam Griffin]

Triage Ohio.

The rest are still winnable by Democrats.

That would be a BIG mistake, at least this early out.

Ohio is way too costly. It's a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis; for the amount that'll be spent in OH on an unwinnable race, DSCC et al could more effectively target several other swing state races or even roll the dice on expanding the map. Strickland isn't going to help Clinton win OH (she'll help him, though) and he is under-performing by far too much to justify spending $100 million or whatever ungodly amount will be spent there...only for him to lose.

If it was a more leaning-GOP state and the Democratic candidate was down by a few points, I could actually understand trying to upset things, but this is a state where Democratic money will be met dollar-for-dollar and will end up being a wash; the party with the better infrastructure will overperform and for somebody like Strickland, having a Senate infrastructure above and beyond what Clinton's campaign will bring is redundant.

It'll take nothing short of a big wave to oust Portman and if said wave were to occur, I don't buy the notion that it'll be achieved/missed by throwing tons of money at a Senate race...especially when Democrats aren't going to have a money advantage in the state. Let Strickland raise what he can, let Clinton's campaign handle turnout and support strategies, and put that money to good use elsewhere. If it weren't Portman specifically, I'd expect Strickland to outperform Clinton, but alas...maybe Portman will have a "'macaca' moment" or something.

[Del Tachi]

I'm predicting D+3/4.  Just short of a majority.

Dems pickup IL, WI, IN and NH.  GOP may offset that with a pickup in NV. 

[Gass3268]

As of now I have 5 (Some locks):

IL, IN, NH, PA, and WI

If Trump continues to self-destruct, these too could move to the Democrats (Away from Toss Up-Likely R):

FL, IA, MO, OH

Really hard to see how Republicans hold the Senate.

[windjammer]

As of now I have 5 (Some locks):

IL, IN, NH, PA, and WI

If Trump continues to self-destruct, these too could move to the Democrats (Away from Toss Up-Likely R):

FL, IA, MO, OH

Really hard to see how Republicans hold the Senate.

Apparently, you have forgotten AZ and NC as well.

[BuckeyeNut]

Triage Ohio.

The rest are still winnable by Democrats.

That would be a BIG mistake, at least this early out.

Ohio is way too costly. It's a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis; for the amount that'll be spent in OH on an unwinnable race, DSCC et al could more effectively target several other swing state races or even roll the dice on expanding the map. Strickland isn't going to help Clinton win OH (she'll help him, though) and he is under-performing by far too much to justify spending $100 million or whatever ungodly amount will be spent there...only for him to lose.

If it was a more leaning-GOP state and the Democratic candidate was down by a few points, I could actually understand trying to upset things, but this is a state where Democratic money will be met dollar-for-dollar and will end up being a wash; the party with the better infrastructure will overperform and for somebody like Strickland, having a Senate infrastructure above and beyond what Clinton's campaign will bring is redundant.

It'll take nothing short of a big wave to oust Portman and if said wave were to occur, I don't buy the notion that it'll be achieved/missed by throwing tons of money at a Senate race...especially when Democrats aren't going to have a money advantage in the state. Let Strickland raise what he can, let Clinton's campaign handle turnout and support strategies, and put that money to good use elsewhere. If it weren't Portman specifically, I'd expect Strickland to outperform Clinton, but alas...maybe Portman will have a "'macaca' moment" or something.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Triage Ohio.

The rest are still winnable by Democrats.

That would be a BIG mistake, at least this early out.

Ohio is way too costly. It's a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis; for the amount that'll be spent in OH on an unwinnable race, DSCC et al could more effectively target several other swing state races or even roll the dice on expanding the map. Strickland isn't going to help Clinton win OH (she'll help him, though) and he is under-performing by far too much to justify spending $100 million or whatever ungodly amount will be spent there...only for him to lose.

If it was a more leaning-GOP state and the Democratic candidate was down by a few points, I could actually understand trying to upset things, but this is a state where Democratic money will be met dollar-for-dollar and will end up being a wash; the party with the better infrastructure will overperform and for somebody like Strickland, having a Senate infrastructure above and beyond what Clinton's campaign will bring is redundant.

It'll take nothing short of a big wave to oust Portman and if said wave were to occur, I don't buy the notion that it'll be achieved/missed by throwing tons of money at a Senate race...especially when Democrats aren't going to have a money advantage in the state. Let Strickland raise what he can, let Clinton's campaign handle turnout and support strategies, and put that money to good use elsewhere. If it weren't Portman specifically, I'd expect Strickland to outperform Clinton, but alas...maybe Portman will have a "'macaca' moment" or something.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Seconded

[JerryArkansas]

Triage Ohio.

The rest are still winnable by Democrats.

That would be a BIG mistake, at least this early out.

Ohio is way too costly. It's a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis; for the amount that'll be spent in OH on an unwinnable race, DSCC et al could more effectively target several other swing state races or even roll the dice on expanding the map. Strickland isn't going to help Clinton win OH (she'll help him, though) and he is under-performing by far too much to justify spending $100 million or whatever ungodly amount will be spent there...only for him to lose.

If it was a more leaning-GOP state and the Democratic candidate was down by a few points, I could actually understand trying to upset things, but this is a state where Democratic money will be met dollar-for-dollar and will end up being a wash; the party with the better infrastructure will overperform and for somebody like Strickland, having a Senate infrastructure above and beyond what Clinton's campaign will bring is redundant.

It'll take nothing short of a big wave to oust Portman and if said wave were to occur, I don't buy the notion that it'll be achieved/missed by throwing tons of money at a Senate race...especially when Democrats aren't going to have a money advantage in the state. Let Strickland raise what he can, let Clinton's campaign handle turnout and support strategies, and put that money to good use elsewhere. If it weren't Portman specifically, I'd expect Strickland to outperform Clinton, but alas...maybe Portman will have a "'macaca' moment" or something.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Seconded

I think Adam does know what he is talking about.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Triage Ohio.

The rest are still winnable by Democrats.

That would be a BIG mistake, at least this early out.

Ohio is way too costly. It's a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis; for the amount that'll be spent in OH on an unwinnable race, DSCC et al could more effectively target several other swing state races or even roll the dice on expanding the map. Strickland isn't going to help Clinton win OH (she'll help him, though) and he is under-performing by far too much to justify spending $100 million or whatever ungodly amount will be spent there...only for him to lose.

If it was a more leaning-GOP state and the Democratic candidate was down by a few points, I could actually understand trying to upset things, but this is a state where Democratic money will be met dollar-for-dollar and will end up being a wash; the party with the better infrastructure will overperform and for somebody like Strickland, having a Senate infrastructure above and beyond what Clinton's campaign will bring is redundant.

It'll take nothing short of a big wave to oust Portman and if said wave were to occur, I don't buy the notion that it'll be achieved/missed by throwing tons of money at a Senate race...especially when Democrats aren't going to have a money advantage in the state. Let Strickland raise what he can, let Clinton's campaign handle turnout and support strategies, and put that money to good use elsewhere. If it weren't Portman specifically, I'd expect Strickland to outperform Clinton, but alas...maybe Portman will have a "'macaca' moment" or something.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Seconded

I think Adam does know what he is talking about.

Most of the time he does.  This is not one of those times.

[Badger]

Triage Ohio.

The rest are still winnable by Democrats.

That would be a BIG mistake, at least this early out.

Ohio is way too costly. It's a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis; for the amount that'll be spent in OH on an unwinnable race, DSCC et al could more effectively target several other swing state races or even roll the dice on expanding the map. Strickland isn't going to help Clinton win OH (she'll help him, though) and he is under-performing by far too much to justify spending $100 million or whatever ungodly amount will be spent there...only for him to lose.

If it was a more leaning-GOP state and the Democratic candidate was down by a few points, I could actually understand trying to upset things, but this is a state where Democratic money will be met dollar-for-dollar and will end up being a wash; the party with the better infrastructure will overperform and for somebody like Strickland, having a Senate infrastructure above and beyond what Clinton's campaign will bring is redundant.

It'll take nothing short of a big wave to oust Portman and if said wave were to occur, I don't buy the notion that it'll be achieved/missed by throwing tons of money at a Senate race...especially when Democrats aren't going to have a money advantage in the state. Let Strickland raise what he can, let Clinton's campaign handle turnout and support strategies, and put that money to good use elsewhere. If it weren't Portman specifically, I'd expect Strickland to outperform Clinton, but alas...maybe Portman will have a "'macaca' moment" or something.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Seconded

I think Adam does know what he is talking about.

Most of the time he does.  This is not one of those times.

Most of the time he does.  This is not one of those times.

Coattails, coattails, coattails.

[Mister Mets]

Republicans are favored in one Democratic-leaning state (Nevada.)

If this holds, they can afford to lose 4 senate seats.

They're probably most vulnerable in Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin.

As long as they can keep Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, they'll probably win.

Of course, this doesn't leave much room for error. If Nevada's AG starts taking off, if McCain loses the primary to State Senator Chemtrails, or if a moron wins in Louisiana, the math becomes tougher.