What freshmen senators do you see being unseated in 2014, after just one term?

[Dan the Roman]

Obama won by <1 point. Hagan won by 9. Her victory was not due to increased youth and black turnout. She would have won regardless, maybe by six points instead of eight, but coattails don't produce a nine point win in a state that was evenly divided at the top.

[Frodo]

Mark Begich and Al Franken are the most likely, IMHO. 

[Lunar]

Obama won by <1 point. Hagan won by 9. Her victory was not due to increased youth and black turnout. She would have won regardless, maybe by six points instead of eight, but coattails don't produce a nine point win in a state that was evenly divided at the top.

Obama's victory margin is irrelevant.

You're ignoring what I said.  I said her existing lead was sizable enough to make Dole do something stupid and expand it.  If her lead was smaller, as I said, then Dole wouldn't have made the gambit.   And, like I said, Dole is an awful campaigner.

Without an anti-GOP surge, and in an off-year election, Hagan's victory wouldn't have been nearly as likely.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Hagan would have lost or won by a very very very small margin. The reason why I said Hagan is safe is because of the new population NC is going to have by 2014.

[Lunar]

Hagan would have lost or won by a very very very small margin. The reason why I said Hagan is safe is because of the new population NC is going to have by 2014.

My counter is that the GOP is going to have to change somewhat to appeal to many of those new voters by 2014 if it wants to ever win an election again (which it does)

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I could very easily see Palin taking down Begich in 2014.

[Smash255]

Obama won by <1 point. Hagan won by 9. Her victory was not due to increased youth and black turnout. She would have won regardless, maybe by six points instead of eight, but coattails don't produce a nine point win in a state that was evenly divided at the top.

Obama's victory margin is irrelevant.

You're ignoring what I said.  I said her existing lead was sizable enough to make Dole do something stupid and expand it.  If her lead was smaller, as I said, then Dole wouldn't have made the gambit.   And, like I said, Dole is an awful campaigner.

Without an anti-GOP surge, and in an off-year election, Hagan's victory wouldn't have been nearly as likely.

North Carolina is really trending Democratic, the state will probably be 50/50 or real close compared to the national average by then.    Unless its a very bad year for the Dems, I don't see much of a chance for Hagan to lose, and even if it is a bad year, Charlotte, Asheville & the Research Triangle could still put her over the top.

[Lunar]

What states aren't really trending Democratic right now?  The GOP has lost its national appeal for everywhere that's not the Upper South.  Is it ridiculous to guess that this might change?

[Sam Spade]

Hagan would have lost or won by a very very very small margin. The reason why I said Hagan is safe is because of the new population NC is going to have by 2014.

My counter is that the GOP is going to have to change somewhat to appeal to many of those new voters by 2014 if it wants to ever win an election again (which it does)

Well, one can never tell whether certain amounts of those new voters will ever vote in elections again or will vote in any election without Obama in it or will vote again in that particular state, but that's neither here nor there.

Certainly the GOP will adapt to some extent, but more importantly than that is that the salient issues among the populace will change.  More likely than not the influence of these changes will impact how the GOP will adapt, unless a realignment happens in the next 4 years.  Then you will probably see more of an adaptation in a large-scale sense, as opposed to an adaptation to changing issues.

I may not be making much sense here, but I do know what I mean to myself. 

Anyway, I really have nothing more to say on this thread other than history tells us that if Obama is a two-term President, a wave or a fairly-strong anti-pattern against him will happen in 2010, 2014 or both (Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan fit the last types).

[Lunar]

I understand what you mean, and you're right -- more of the change is likely to come from changes in issue prioritization than from platform shifts. 

I expect the GOP to be more diverse, younger, and fresher in 2014 which should help them with a lot of the types of migrants that are shifting North Carolina's demographics.

Well, I think we agree that it's a bit simplistic to assume every state will continue to trend Democratic over a long period of time.  mmm

[Mr.Phips]

Hagan would have lost or won by a very very very small margin. The reason why I said Hagan is safe is because of the new population NC is going to have by 2014.

My counter is that the GOP is going to have to change somewhat to appeal to many of those new voters by 2014 if it wants to ever win an election again (which it does)

Well, one can never tell whether certain amounts of those new voters will ever vote in elections again or will vote in any election without Obama in it or will vote again in that particular state, but that's neither here nor there.

Certainly the GOP will adapt to some extent, but more importantly than that is that the salient issues among the populace will change.  More likely than not the influence of these changes will impact how the GOP will adapt, unless a realignment happens in the next 4 years.  Then you will probably see more of an adaptation in a large-scale sense, as opposed to an adaptation to changing issues.

I may not be making much sense here, but I do know what I mean to myself. 

Anyway, I really have nothing more to say on this thread other than history tells us that if Obama is a two-term President, a wave or a fairly-strong anti-pattern against him will happen in 2010, 2014 or both (Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan fit the last types).

That seems to usually be the case.  Whenever a sitting President sees a wave against his party in  midterm, he usually wins reelection.  However, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush were both reelected after OK or quite good midterms for there party(Nixon in 1970 and Bush in 2002).  Probably the best way for Republcans to beat Obama in 2012 is to have a fairly quiet 2010 midterm, gaining around 12 House seats and treading water in the Senate pretty much like 1978 and 1990 and then sneak up on him in 2012.  If Democrats take a beating in 2010, Obama is going to prepare for a major fight and will be able to blame Congressional Republicans for many of the nations problems(ie Clinton in 1996 or Truman in 1946). 

[Robespierre's Jaw]

I could very easily see Palin taking down Begich in 2014.

I certainly hope not. However this is Alaska we are talking about.

[Ronnie]

I could very easily see Palin taking down Begich in 2014.

I certainly hope not. However this is Alaska we are talking about.

Unless Begich proves himself to be as popular as someone like Mike Castle, he should be knocked out no matter who the Republican nominee is.

If Palin decides to fill out both of her gubernatorial terms, and runs for the senate afterward, she should beat him by a decent margin barring a spoiler, scandal, or a gargantuan trend toward the Democrats over these next 6 years.

[bgwah]

possibly these three:
Begich, because he's a Democrat in f**king Alaska who got elected on a fluke
Franken, because he's f**king annoying
Hagan, because it's f**king North Carolina

[Josh/Devilman88]

Hagan would have lost or won by a very very very small margin. The reason why I said Hagan is safe is because of the new population NC is going to have by 2014.

My counter is that the GOP is going to have to change somewhat to appeal to many of those new voters by 2014 if it wants to ever win an election again (which it does)

I understand that, but that will be at the national level. I think it will be a long time before any of the southern states see the local Republican party chance. Also, unless some unsee person comes around, which Republican from NC will be able to unseat Hagan?

[minionofmidas]

Funny how all five of your good chances are Democrats.  Well, it's not funny so much as inaccurate and biased.

I was going to say the same thing.

Only in the claim that there are five "good chances". Not in that there aren't any Republicans among them.

[Brittain33]

Just as a general rule, it's very hard for any two-term President (I don't think it's happened since the 1920s, when the country was quite different) to get away without one wave election occurring against them during their Presidency.

Well, thank God that Bush already used up both his own wave and Obama's projected wave...

[Brittain33]

What states aren't really trending Democratic right now?  The GOP has lost its national appeal for everywhere that's not the Upper South.  Is it ridiculous to guess that this might change?

Very true. We had to hear about how every demographic group was "trending Republican" in 2004 because Bush increased his national average by 3 points that was reflected very evenly across the population.

Demographic changes in North Carolina favor Democrats under the current configuration of voters, but the current configuration requires a substantial Democratic win, so it won't persist.

[Nixon in '80]

I could very easily see Palin taking down Begich in 2014.

It could be possible, but it doesn't fit with her Presidential ambition timetable...

Unless, she runs in 2012, finds out nobody wants her, and decides a career in the Senate is better than no career at all... in that case, I could definitely see it.

I retract my first sentence.

[Smash255]

What states aren't really trending Democratic right now?  The GOP has lost its national appeal for everywhere that's not the Upper South.  Is it ridiculous to guess that this might change?

Very true. We had to hear about how every demographic group was "trending Republican" in 2004 because Bush increased his national average by 3 points that was reflected very evenly across the population.

Demographic changes in North Carolina favor Democrats under the current configuration of voters, but the current configuration requires a substantial Democratic win, so it won't persist.

The current configuration does require a rather large Democratic victory, no question.  However, the state has moved more towards the Democrats than the national average has and its something likely to continue considering the bulk of the population growth and Democratic trends are occurring in the same area.  Not saying its going to become a Democratic stronghold by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it will likely move more towards tossup status over the next few years.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Begich and Hagen are obviously the most vulnerable, but 6 years is pretty far to predict anything.