Democrats poised for a big night in the Senate?

[sg0508]

After their colossal failures in CO, NV and DE in 2010, the Republicans made another huge mistake with their primary this year in IN and that seat looks lost.  Then, we could talk about Akin in MO all day.  In addition, Scott Brown's poor campaign (among other issues beyond his control) appears to be his end in MA.

MT and VA are leaning democratic and ND isn't out of the question.  In addition, NV is a toss-up.  AZ may not even be out of play and I have a feeling Baldwin hangs on in WI as democrats ALWAYS close well in that state on Election Day (fraudulently or not). 

The prize of prizes would be NE, where a late surge and the Hagel-factor seem to be making a bit of a difference.

Very quietly, the democrats could have a big, big night in the Senate

[Holmes]

I think Nebraska and Arizona won't go to the Democrats. Maybe they'll be close but there's no way. Gun to my head, I'd say Heller carries Nevada, but crazier things have happened there.

[Talleyrand]

I'm very confident the Senate will end up with the current breakdown; 53 Democrats-47 Republicans.

Democratic Gains
Maine*
Massachusetts
Indiana

Republican Gains
Nebraska
North Dakota
Montana

*- Assuming King caucuses as a Democrat

I would be surprised if it were anything but the previous result.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Nebraska is a fool's gold. At most, Kerrey is going to make it embarrassingly close for Fischer, but I just can't see him winning.

As of Arizona, Carmona has a momentum but it faded since then.

North Dakota is a pure tossup and I can't make a projection.

Montana is oddly overlooked. Personally, I think this is most likely Republican pickup.

[Talleyrand]

Nebraska is a fool's gold. At most, Kerrey is going to make it embarrassingly close for Fischer, but I just can't see him winning.

As of Arizona, Carmona has a momentum but it faded since then.

North Dakota is a pure tossup and I can't make a projection.

Montana is oddly overlooked. Personally, I think this is most likely Republican pickup.

Why is Montana more likely to flip than Nebraska? Tester has actually led in a few recent polls, while Kerrey has never led in any poll. As for North Dakota, independent polls as of late have shown Berg establishing a clear advantage.

I think all three of those are gone, but if Democrats manage to retain one, it'll definitely be Montana.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would prefer that it were Rehberg up 4 and Berg down 2, because in ND you can't definately make the case for a GOP underpolling, not as much for MT.

Their is a history of Montana being difficult to pin down before election day, I was certain that Tester would win by 15% to 20% in 2006 and it ended up being the closest raw margin in 2006 I beleive. You had a lot of Conservatives, overlook Burns' ties to Abramoff and stuff and come home at the end when it looked like it might determine the Senate majority. It won't this time but it is being billed as such in the media. Obama did really well there in 2008, then proceeded to rack up some high negative numbers there afterwards. There is the potential for a Romney to be underpolling by a point or two and with the race so close for Senate, that could be the difference.

I think Akin draws still closer then the polls are suggesting even, but still falls short by 1% or 2% and it will come down to his negatives being so high.

Flake probably has Arizona (ironic becuase three weeks ago IN was more solid then AZ), and Donnelly has Indiana.

I think the Republicans will have anywhere from 45 to 48 seats, probably 46 to 48 seats. A net gain of 2 is hardly a big night for Democrats. It is a disaster for a GOP that was poised to take over control of the Senate just four months ago when IN was likely secure (all Mourdoch had to do was shut up about eveything except Obama, Obamacare and Harry Reid and he would have had an 5%-8% win), VA was tied, FL was bobbing back and forth, Thompson and Scott Brown were ahead and Akin was at 17% in the primary.

I think the critical lesson going forward is not that OMG TP is horrible, but that incumbents and candidates in general regardless of faction need to take a much more sobering look at large early leads that can easily vanish overnight and focus on the mechanics and voting blocs in these primaries that will ensure that whatever happens and whoever surges, that they have deep pocket of support to carry them to a victory. That is in the end the only reason we are talking about Fischer by 5-8 and McCaskil by 2-4 instead of Bruning by 20 and Steelman by 12 is just that. Also, no freshmen House members as Senate candidates in targetted states. There were far better candidates in ND then a relatively untested Rick Berg.

[Brittain33]

I have reasonable hope for Tester, unreasonable hope for Berkley and Heitkamp, no hope for Carmona or Kerry. Tester is 50/50 at best for me.

[Frodo]

Democrats would certainly have reason to -we were expecting the GOP to take over the Senate outright all year, and instead we find ourselves actually gaining seats in the chamber, to the extent that the final numbers would likely look like this:

52 Democrats
46 Republicans
2 independents

And those two independents (Bernie Sanders and Angus King) will likely caucus with Democrats, giving us an effective 54:46 majority.

So yeah, it's reason to celebrate!  

[Ogre Mage]

At this point it appears that the conventional wisdom about the outcome in the Senate races is the status quo, with Democrats retaining a 53-47 edge in the chamber.  Given the terrible map (defending 23 seats vs. only 10 for the GOP), this outcome would be a major victory for us.

But there is a fair chance that the Democrats could actually gain seats.  IMO, the realistic best case scenario for us would be a net gain of two seats, for a 55-45 majority.  Frankly I think the idea that we will win Nebraska is foolish.  I can see why some people have hope for North Dakota (Heitkamp) and Arizona (Carmona) but personally I think those races will go to the GOP.

I think we will win:  Maine, Massachusetts, Indiana, Wisconsin and Virginia.  I also think the right-wing praying for Akin in MO is foolish.

In terms of a Democratic pickup of seats, I would say these are the critical two to watch:

Montana:  I think this is the truest tossup Senate race of the cycle at this point.  For most of the race Tester appeared to be a very slight underdog, but due to a very strong campaign there are even odds that he could pull this out.

Nevada:  We don't really know where this race is.  Heller is leading in the polls, but I simply don't trust them given what we know about Democrats underpolling in Nevada.  As I have said before, I think this is the most confusing race of the cycle.

So what will actually happen?  Between Montana and Nevada, I'll play the law of averages and say the Democrats win one but not the other.  

That would result in a net gain of +1 for Democrats in the Senate, for a 54-46 edge.  And we would have big reasons to celebrate if this was the result.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, I'd say 55/45 is our best realistic outcome. Far from being a sure thing, but I think I can be reasonably optimistic.

[Torie]

The Dems may very well have a good night in the Senate, and certainly will, as compared to expectations six months ago. There are lots of tight races though.

[Psychic Octopus]

The fact that it is virtually guaranteed they will retain the Senate makes it a victory. I remember how we were musing back in 2010 that the Dems had no chance at retaining the chamber. Now, thanks to Akin, Mourdock, and Thompson being lazy, it looks very possible - if not likely - that the worst outcome for them would be not net gain in seats.

The funny thing is, most Republicans aren't even paying attention to this. They are too consumed by the presidential race to have more than a passing interest. I get the feeling that if Obama is re-elected, Dems gain seats in the House, and cement their control of the Senate, they will be furious.

[Bacon King]

The fact that it is virtually guaranteed they will retain the Senate makes it a victory. I remember how we were musing back in 2010 that the Dems had no chance at retaining the chamber. Now, thanks to Akin, Mourdock, and Thompson being lazy, it looks very possible - if not likely - that the worst outcome for them would be not net gain in seats.

The funny thing is, most Republicans aren't even paying attention to this. They are too consumed by the presidential race to have more than a passing interest. I get the feeling that if Obama is re-elected, Dems gain seats in the House, and cement their control of the Senate, they will be furious.

I agree completely; the fact that Democratic gains in the Senate are even being realistically discussed shows that this Senate cycle has been a Republican defeat. It's not too difficult to imagine, with hindsight, an alternate scenario where Republicans could have been on the cusp of a Senate supermajority right now.

First, imagine if Snowe hadn't retired, Lugar won his primary, and Akin kept his mouth shut about rape - safe Republican seats, all three.

Then, look at Montana, Nebraska, and North Dakota: given the region's politics, all three "should" be safe Republican gains, especially that two are open seats and the third Democrat is a freshman narrowly elected in a wave year.

Consider also that the GOP candidates in three open Democratic seats are popular former governors: Allen in Virginia, who is facing a former DNC chairman; Lingle in Hawaii; and Thompson in Wisconsin. On paper, all three sound like they're easily winnable with good campaigns.

On top of that, you have states like FL, OH, PA, MI, and NJ: good candidates running solid (and well-financed) campaigns could have used the infrastructure and support of recent Republican takeovers in these states to mount serious challenges against incumbents with muted support among the electorate.

It's pretty easy to imagine a scenario where Scott Brown gets reelected, of course. And WV sounds possible on paper, as well: Manchin might have lost to a good candidate when he's stuck on the same ballot as Obama. It's also even conceivable to imagine Connecticut going Republican- hell, the 2nd place finisher in the Republican primary was consistently beating the 2nd place finisher in the Democratic primary, in the hypothetical match-ups through the summer. As it is, McMahon is still keeping it pretty close.

With all that in mind, this was a realistic (if optimistic) map for the GOP, only nine months ago:

For those of you keeping score at home, that's a 61 member Republican Senate Caucus. Of course, I'm not saying that any sane person would have actually predicted this map, but at one point in this cycle it was a realistic "GOP Best Case Scenario" perfect storm (like a mirror version of the 2008 results [though maybe if the Democrats had also managed to take Kentucky and Georgia]). But, thankfully, it didn't happen, and we're now thankfully talking about Democratic gains in the Senate, and not worrying about a ten seat loss.

[JoeyJoeJoe]

I'd say 62 in the case.  If Republicans are winning New Jersey, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, then they are almost certainly winning New Mexico.

[sg0508]

This was EXACTLY what I was talking about.  It was a huge night for the democrats in the Senate since they were defending a tough map this year and they gained two seats, plus an independent. 

GOP once again asking themselves, "what went wrong?"

[Antonio the Sixth]

Excluding Hawaii and New Jersey, which probably weren't winnable for the GOP this year (but including NM), that means the GOP missed 15 opportunities. Democrats missed 3 (Nebraska is a bit of a stretch, but in an absolute best-case scenario, Nelson might have narrowly held on). So that's an 83% success rate for the dems. Just wow!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, I'd say 55/45 is our best realistic outcome. Far from being a sure thing, but I think I can be reasonably optimistic.

[Frodo]

Well I apparently got Nevada, Montana, and North Dakota wrong in my Senate predictions. 

Though now that we have an effective 55:45 majority, I am glad of it. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well I apparently got Nevada, Montana, and North Dakota wrong in my Senate predictions. 

Though now that we have an effective 55:45 majority, I am glad of it. 

An effective Dem majority in the Senate would be 65-35.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well I apparently got Nevada, Montana, and North Dakota wrong in my Senate predictions. 

Though now that we have an effective 55:45 majority, I am glad of it. 

An effective Dem majority in the Senate would be 65-35.

How about 100 Bernie Sanders?

[Antonio the Sixth]

...or alternatively, Reid getting ballsy and threatening to "nuke" the GOP like they did back in Bush years.

[politicallefty]

...or alternatively, Reid getting ballsy and threatening to "nuke" the GOP like they did back in Bush years.

It's very unlikely he'll nuke the filibuster entirely. At the least, I would hope it is ended for judicial nominations (not to mention, Republicans wouldn't hesitate if they had a Senate majority with a Republican President). To me, the prospect of four more years of Obama judicial appointments is exciting, especially if a conservative seat opens up at the Supreme Court. Reid needs to prepare for this possibility now. If Obama gets the opportunity to fill a conservative seat, WWIII is upon us.

Right now, it does look like Reid will pursue some reform to the filibuster. Hopefully, it will actually make a difference. Respecting the rights of the minority should not mean tyranny of the minority, as we have had as of late.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course, I wasn't saying that was a plausible thing.

Whatever can be done to heal the plague that filibuster is, we ought to.

[Ogre Mage]

...or alternatively, Reid getting ballsy and threatening to "nuke" the GOP like they did back in Bush years.

To me, the prospect of four more years of Obama judicial appointments is exciting, especially if a conservative seat opens up at the Supreme Court. Reid needs to prepare for this possibility now. If Obama gets the opportunity to fill a conservative seat, WWIII is upon us.

Right now, it does look like Reid will pursue some reform to the filibuster. Hopefully, it will actually make a difference. Respecting the rights of the minority should not mean tyranny of the minority, as we have had as of late.

Frankly, Obama was so busy dealing with rescuing the economy and health care reform that judicial nominations below the Supreme Court level went completely by the wayside.  There are a huge number of vacancies.  Not all of the problem was due to Obama neglect, the GOP obstruction on this issue was continuous and infuriating. 

It is critical that the Obama administration put more resources into moving judicial nominations through the pipeline during his second term.  And yes, the filibuster needs to be reformed.  It is being wantonly abused.  Without reform, I would not put it past Senate Republicans to filibuster any Obama nominee to the Supreme Court.

[politicallefty]

I totally agree. He should be pushing appointments forward at a faster pace. However, his total confirmation rate is only barely behind Clinton and Bush as an average per term (and particularly very close to Bush, who really pushed judicial nominations through the Senate). I definitely agree that filibuster reform needs to be done ASAP in the event of a Supreme Court opening. Even a Ginsburg replacement would be hard to confirm, let alone what would happen if one of the five conservatives leaves during the next four years. I've thought, though, that the President's ace in the hole is to appoint a Senator, which tends to make opposition in the Senate especially hard (Amy Klobuchar comes to mind, if necessary).