Democratic Senate Gains in 2010

[frenger]

So, how does the GOP plan on working with 25 Senators?

[Vasall des Midas]

I like your new avatar and signature, but you should get that McCain button removed.

[Holmes]

They'll introduce a new form of filibuster and make the conservative Democrats let them.

[Keystone Phil]

So, how does the GOP plan on working with 25 Senators?

We'll have that many? Really?

[© Tweed the Younger]

Reid & Co. will feel bad and alter the rules to require 80 votes for cloture.

[Padfoot]

I'm pretty sure the GOP will run roughshod over those 25 Democrats just like they did during the epitome of their power during W's presidency.

Seriously, the potholes in the Democratic path to a "super majority" are starting to crack open and unless some serious roadwork gets done over the next year and a half they're going to be in a world of hurt.  The recent blowups over AIG bonuses and the negative public attitude towards bailouts have made Dodd a liability in CT.  Obama has indirectly dug the potholes even deeper by clearing out half the Senate creating headaches where there shouldn't be any.  Burris is a disaster, Gillibrand is weighed down by Patterson, Bennet is a completely untested candidate, and I'm not sure I'd want to rely on the incumbent VP's son during a midterm election.

I'm not saying the Republicans are in a position of strength here, far from it.  Democrats certainly have some opportunities they could take advantage of in PA, FL, OH, NC. KY, NH, and MO.  However, if they don't get their own crap sorted out soon they could be sorely disappointed come November 2010.

[I'm Not a Witch]

I'm not saying the Republicans are in a position of strength here, far from it.  Democrats certainly have some opportunities they could take advantage of in PA, FL, OH, NC. KY, NH, and MO.  However, if they don't get their own crap sorted out soon they could be sorely disappointed come November 2010.

I agree. I think to a certain extent that the AIG bonuses debacle has hurt the Democrats, but to put this in perspective, 2010 is still over a year away, and I don't think most Americans will still be angry about it. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm "outraged" by it as well, just saying that a year is a long time and a lot can happen in that time.

I concur with the list of most of the seats listed by Padfoot that are looking very good for Democrats right now. I only disagree with Florida. I am 95% sure that Charlie Crist is going to jump in and run in which case Democrats can kiss this seat goodbye. As far as the other seats go, Pat Toomey is certainly going to bloody up poor Arlen Specter who's already despised by the GOP for his stimulus vote in the primary in Pennsylvania for which will definitely benefit the Democratic candidate, Lt. Gov Lee Fisher and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner are both fine candidates to take the seat held by George Voinovich in Ohio, Richard Burr is definitely vulnerable in the now swing state of North Carolina (remember Liddy Dole?) and I think Attorney General Roy Cooper could definitely give Burr a run for his money, Paul Hodes seems to be the consensus candidate in New Hampshire and should easily win seeing as how the state is becoming bluer, Jim Bunning is senile and already has one foot in his political grave and was almost defeated by now Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo in 2004 in a state that simultaneously voted for George W. Bush by 20 points and almost tossed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2008, and Robin Carnahan whose last name is practically an institution in my state of Missouri has pretty much already won Kit Bond's seat and she will crush either Roy Blunt or Sarah Steelman whoever the victim may be.

At the same time, I think Republicans may have some good pickup opportunities as well. If I had to give them any pickup right now, I'd give them Connecticut but I still think Dodd will pull it out in a squeaker. If I were a Republican, I would turn my attention to Arkansas - a state that swung wildly Republican in a Democratic year. I realize this may simply be because of the Clinton factor, but Joe Biden's already gone to Arkansas to campaign for Blanche Lincoln. Last I saw, her approvals weren't that great either. I think they can only get this seat, however, if Mike Huckabee enters the race but he's busy shooting moose and the GOP bench is surprisingly relatively thin in the Natural State. I'd also put Illinois in the tossup category right now with the whole Roland Burris fiasco but either way you know Democrats will bring out the big "O" guns if they think this seat is in trouble. Colorado might be a seat to watch, as Michael Bennet is an untested candidate, but the demographics are in the Democrats' favor in Colorado. As for Kirsten Gillibrand, I think she'll hold onto this seat just fine. She may support gun rights but she is pretty liberal on all the other wedge issues (pro-choice, pro-gay marriage) which I'm sure will appease the people of New York.

Then again, just my opinions at least for now.

[President Marokai]

Apparently, saying "There are structural advantages for the Democrats and they are likely to pick up something." is akin to saying "OMG THE DEMOCRATS WILL TAKE OVER THE SENATE, THE REPUBLICANS WON'T WIN ANYTHING!" which is one of the most retarded mischaracterizations I've seen in awhile now.

[frenger]

Note the date the thread was started Marokai.

[President Marokai]

Note the date the thread was started Marokai.

Fair point.

[Zarn]

I thought the president's party usually loses out in Midterm elections.

[Gravis Marketing]

I thought the president's party usually loses out in Midterm elections.

It varies a lot more for Senate elections than House elections. Look at '02 and '98. The individual seats at stake matter much more, and in 2010, that favors the Democrats because the Republicans had done so well in 2004.

[Senator Ben]

For 2010, things look pretty interesting.  The GOP has, by my count, and barring anymore retirements, 11 seats that are safe GOP (AK, AZ, UT, ID, KS, OK, IA, LA, AL, GA, SC).  They then need to defend 8 more seats.  They're going to be in the same position they were in in 2008; they need to spread their money around to defend more vulnerable seats, and therefore unable to really attack the Democrats.  In pretty much every single one of these states, there is a Democratic bench that can run strong candidates.

By contrast, the Democrats have 12 seats that are safe Democratic (HI, CA, OR, WA, ND, WI, IL, IN, MD, NY1, NY2, VT), and another (CT) which will likely be safe by election day.  This means that they will likely need to defend at most 3 seats, 2 of which have established incumbents and a weak GOP bench.  CO is the only state that isn't safe/having an entrenched incumbent, and the GOP bench there is almost empty.

The Democrats, then, will be able to spend a much higher amount attacking Republicans than vice versa.  This will be the last year that the Democrats have this advantage, and they need to take full advantage.

[Smash255]

For 2010, things look pretty interesting.  The GOP has, by my count, and barring anymore retirements, 11 seats that are safe GOP (AK, AZ, UT, ID, KS, OK, IA, LA, AL, GA, SC).  They then need to defend 8 more seats.  They're going to be in the same position they were in in 2008; they need to spread their money around to defend more vulnerable seats, and therefore unable to really attack the Democrats.  In pretty much every single one of these states, there is a Democratic bench that can run strong candidates.

By contrast, the Democrats have 12 seats that are safe Democratic (HI, CA, OR, WA, ND, WI, IL, IN, MD, NY1, NY2, VT), and another (CT) which will likely be safe by election day.  This means that they will likely need to defend at most 3 seats, 2 of which have established incumbents and a weak GOP bench.  CO is the only state that isn't safe/having an entrenched incumbent, and the GOP bench there is almost empty.

The Democrats, then, will be able to spend a much higher amount attacking Republicans than vice versa.  This will be the last year that the Democrats have this advantage, and they need to take full advantage.

The GOP bench is CO is well beyond almost empty, its utterly dead.  Elected Republican officials in CO, are VERY conservative, absolutely batsh*t crazy and don't have a chance in hell of getting elected statewide even under the best circumstances for the GOP.

[Lunar]

Well, there's Owens who probably won't run and Generic Pseudolibertarian Businessman #5

[Senator Ben]

Well, there's Owens who probably won't run and Generic Pseudolibertarian Businessman #5

That bad?  Yikes; I'd say the state is probably safe then.

[Mr.Phips]

I thought the president's party usually loses out in Midterm elections.

It varies a lot more for Senate elections than House elections. Look at '02 and '98. The individual seats at stake matter much more, and in 2010, that favors the Democrats because the Republicans had done so well in 2004.

Yes.  Because only a third of the Senate is up each cycle, the political climate matters far less than the class of Senators up.  Democrats are lucky that they have a cycle coming up where Republicans have pretty much maxed out their gains(the last time Democrats made gains in this class was 1986).  Republicans had similarly lucky cycles in 1970 and 1982, where the party gained seats despite having an otherwise tough environment.  Democrats got lucky here in 1962. 

[Senator Ben]

I thought the president's party usually loses out in Midterm elections.

It varies a lot more for Senate elections than House elections. Look at '02 and '98. The individual seats at stake matter much more, and in 2010, that favors the Democrats because the Republicans had done so well in 2004.

Yeah, exactly.  This is the final cycle where the GOP is going to be spread so thin; starting in 2012, the roles are reversed again.

[OC]

The Dems that are going to have the toughest times are still going to be in the redder states Tester, McCaskill and Webb are going to have the toughest time being reelected.

[I left.]

The Dems that are going to have the toughest times are still going to be in the redder states Tester, McCaskill and Webb are going to have the toughest time being reelected.

I don't think they're going to be in any danger at all in 2010.

[Badger]

The Dems that are going to have the toughest times are still going to be in the redder states Tester, McCaskill and Webb are going to have the toughest time being reelected.

Dems should hope McDonnell loses his race for VA gov (even to McCullife) to avoid giving the Republicans a grade A+ challenger to Webb. Webb's no sure winner without Gov. McDonnell as an opponent, nor sure loser against McDonnell, but that race would likely turn into the #1 shot of a GOP pickup in '12 (with the possible exception of if Rehberg challenges Tester in MT).

[OC]

I was referring to the rule of 60, there probably won't be much of a difference between the 60 mark in 2010 and 2012. The Dems will probably pickup up MO,NH, and OH this election cycle and probably lose MT, MO, and VA in the next election cycle so there still will be 60 Dems in the near term furture.