2010 senate prediction

[nhmagic]

Hi, first post here, but Ive been reading the site for years.
Heres how I think it will turn out...

Im new to making these maps, but I think the GOP will have a decent year, after all, where can they go other than up.

California - I imagine I'll get the most resistance to this, but I think that Boxer is a perenially weak candidate that only needs the right challenger to defeat her.  Her mistakes this year will become fodder during a campaign.  This is the hopeful seat.

Colorado - There are some decent challengers and Bennett is an unelected and unknown quantity.

Delaware - Assuming Castle runs...if not, the dem wins.

Pennsylvania - Toomey is stronger than people think.  Ive followed his career for a number of years and he is not to be underestimated.  The early polls are looking good and Specter will be knocked off, whether by primary or by Toomey.

Connecticut - Dodd, enough said.

Missouri - Carnahan surely takes this one.

[nhmagic]

*facepalm*

That's funny, but you need the Patrick Stewart facepalm image to spice it up!...Nice to meet you.  Im always hopeful and would love to side with you and hope I get the chance, but the Carnahan name is fairly strong (except in 2002, when the trend was strong republican in the senate races).  I mean a dead Carnahan beat Ashcroft.  Plus, Roy Blunt just reeks of the Bush years (personal opinion of course).

[nhmagic]

California, like I mentioned, is totally hopeful and we still dont know if a candidate will surprise us.  I saw a recent poll showing Fiorina close and thus far, Boxer has only ran against men (Herschenshon, Fong, Jones(I think thats his name)).  Plus it helps Fiorina that shes a bit of a RINO on a lot of issues, issues that in California can sometimes make or break a GOP candidate.  I think shes pro choice and pro gay marriage or at least civil unions. 

In Nevada, I think Heller can beat Reid and remember in 2006 we had no-name democrats winning seats left and right (professors, doctors, et. al.)  If there is a charismatic newbie, that has maybe a little government experience, they could come out ahead.

No I wasnt offended by the facepalm at all.  I just love the Patrick Stewart facepalm image.

[nhmagic]

Regarding California:  If Fiorina is shown as competitive late into the election, Boxer will DESTROY her.  You do remember what she did to Bruce Herschensohn, right?

Regarding Nevada:  Heller is unlikely to run, since he wants to replace Gibbons in the primary. (God bless him)

Yes, I remember, its hopeful anyways.

Yes, please if Heller can replace that stooge Gibbons, im all for that too.

[nhmagic]

R net +2 (42 seats)
D net -2 (58 seats)

Democrats hold both seats in New York, Schumer's with >70% and Gillibrand's with >50%.

I imagine all the big Democratic party figures will be staying put campaigning in Connecticut, Pennsylvania and certainly Nevada so they could still easily be held onto. If Illinois looks to be close this time next year, President Obama will certainly be there quite alot considering Giannoulias was part of Obama's "inner circle" in Illinois. If Deleware looks close, Biden'll be there campaigning alot of Beau aswell.

I don't disagree with you having us picking up seats, but why do you think that we will not keep Florida?

[nhmagic]

I think its silly for the liberals on the board to assume that a conservative republican cannot win a senate race in tossup or any other territory in a bad year for democrats.

In 2006 -
Ohio got Sherrod Brown, the most raging and vile liberal in the senate
Montana got, Jon Tester, a liberal with a crew cut
New Hampshire got Jeanne Shaheen, a full blown liberal
The only somewhat moderate senator from that class was Claire McCaskill
   
In 2008 -
North Carolina got Kay Hagan, a liberal in a lean republican state
Colorado got one of the Udall brothers

Each of these states are tossup, lean republican or lean democrat in national elections - If they can elect socialists like Brown - they can elect conservatives.  The reason I bring this up is that people continue to say Toomey will not win in Pennsylvania.  If it can happen in other tossup/lean states for liberals, it can surely happen for conservatives in PA and NH (if Ayotte even is conservative - we dont know yet).

Now if you are looking at states like NY or CA - then yeah, a full blown conservative might lose in a rout, but in the swing states they can still win big. 

[nhmagic]

I think its silly for the liberals on the board to assume that a conservative republican cannot win a senate race in tossup or any other territory in a bad year for democrats.

In 2006 -
Ohio got Sherrod Brown, the most raging and vile liberal in the senate
Montana got, Jon Tester, a liberal with a crew cut
New Hampshire got Jeanne Shaheen, a full blown liberal
The only somewhat moderate senator from that class was Claire McCaskill
   
In 2008 -
North Carolina got Kay Hagan, a liberal in a lean republican state
Colorado got one of the Udall brothers

Each of these states are tossup, lean republican or lean democrat in national elections - If they can elect socialists like Brown - they can elect conservatives.  The reason I bring this up is that people continue to say Toomey will not win in Pennsylvania.  If it can happen in other tossup/lean states for liberals, it can surely happen for conservatives in PA and NH (if Ayotte even is conservative - we dont know yet).

Now if you are looking at states like NY or CA - then yeah, a full blown conservative might lose in a rout, but in the swing states they can still win big. 

Except all of those raging liberals in the swing states tend to vote pro homeland security or has not opposed funding of the war Webb, Tester, and Hagen.

With the right security message, pro homeland security, not pro war, those raging liberals, can blunt the republican message, like Carnahan or Fisher.

Liberals only oppose funding things (spending money) when a Republican is doing the spending.  Otherwise, they are all for it because using government money means more regulation and rules attached to that money for whatever group they are giving it to - it doesn't matter if it is military or not. 

A conservative message can certainly "blunt" the message of a liberal democrat when it advocates pro-growth, non spending policies.  Additionally, a pro-homeland security message only works when the country is focused on security, which it is not right now.

[nhmagic]

I think its silly for the liberals on the board to assume that a conservative republican cannot win a senate race in tossup or any other territory in a bad year for democrats.

In 2006 -
Ohio got Sherrod Brown, the most raging and vile liberal in the senate
Montana got, Jon Tester, a liberal with a crew cut
New Hampshire got Jeanne Shaheen, a full blown liberal
The only somewhat moderate senator from that class was Claire McCaskill
   
In 2008 -
North Carolina got Kay Hagan, a liberal in a lean republican state
Colorado got one of the Udall brothers

Each of these states are tossup, lean republican or lean democrat in national elections - If they can elect socialists like Brown - they can elect conservatives.  The reason I bring this up is that people continue to say Toomey will not win in Pennsylvania.  If it can happen in other tossup/lean states for liberals, it can surely happen for conservatives in PA and NH (if Ayotte even is conservative - we dont know yet).

Now if you are looking at states like NY or CA - then yeah, a full blown conservative might lose in a rout, but in the swing states they can still win big. 

1.  It will be very unlikely for 2010 to be as strong for the GOP as 06 was for the Dems.  Bush's approvals were averaging in th3 37% range with his disapprovals around 57%,  around a -20 net.  In comparison right now Obama's approvals are in the mid 50's with disapprovals in the upper 30's with around a +17 net

2  All of the states you mentioned with the exception of Montana are less Republican than PA is Democratic and in Montana's case Tester ran a very strong campaign and Burns was involved in numerous scandals.  You could make the argument that NC is about as GOP ad PA is Democratic, but its trending rather strongly to the Dems and Obama did win the state.  Also Dole is a brutal campaigner.

1-Your Obama approval ratings are way off.  Obama is at majority dissaprove in some polls (Rasmussen is at 53 disapproval) and only the crazy polls are keeping that average above 50%.  His disapprovals are in the 40s.

2-But what you are saying is that raging liberal democrats (Sherrod Brown and Jeanne Shaheen) can win in tossup states.  My contention is that hard-line right wingers can too.  You cant say that one can and the other cant.  Thats the problem with the analysis.  The liberals are all saying that the republicans have to be more moderate in those states, but you cannot account for the same on your side.

[nhmagic]

I think its silly for the liberals on the board to assume that a conservative republican cannot win a senate race in tossup or any other territory in a bad year for democrats.

In 2006 -
Ohio got Sherrod Brown, the most raging and vile liberal in the senate
Montana got, Jon Tester, a liberal with a crew cut
New Hampshire got Jeanne Shaheen, a full blown liberal
The only somewhat moderate senator from that class was Claire McCaskill
   
In 2008 -
North Carolina got Kay Hagan, a liberal in a lean republican state
Colorado got one of the Udall brothers

Each of these states are tossup, lean republican or lean democrat in national elections - If they can elect socialists like Brown - they can elect conservatives.  The reason I bring this up is that people continue to say Toomey will not win in Pennsylvania.  If it can happen in other tossup/lean states for liberals, it can surely happen for conservatives in PA and NH (if Ayotte even is conservative - we dont know yet).

Now if you are looking at states like NY or CA - then yeah, a full blown conservative might lose in a rout, but in the swing states they can still win big. 

1.  It will be very unlikely for 2010 to be as strong for the GOP as 06 was for the Dems.  Bush's approvals were averaging in th3 37% range with his disapprovals around 57%,  around a -20 net.  In comparison right now Obama's approvals are in the mid 50's with disapprovals in the upper 30's with around a +17 net

2  All of the states you mentioned with the exception of Montana are less Republican than PA is Democratic and in Montana's case Tester ran a very strong campaign and Burns was involved in numerous scandals.  You could make the argument that NC is about as GOP ad PA is Democratic, but its trending rather strongly to the Dems and Obama did win the state.  Also Dole is a brutal campaigner.

1-Your Obama approval ratings are way off.  Obama is at majority dissaprove in some polls (Rasmussen is at 53 disapproval) and only the crazy polls are keeping that average above 50%.  His disapprovals are in the 40s.

2-But what you are saying is that raging liberal democrats (Sherrod Brown and Jeanne Shaheen) can win in tossup states.  My contention is that hard-line right wingers can too.  You cant say that one can and the other cant.  Thats the problem with the analysis.  The liberals are all saying that the republicans have to be more moderate in those states, but you cannot account for the same on your side.

They can't in this sort of a scenario with a very strong moderate liberal in Sestak and a painfully terrible candidate in Toomey.

Toomey is not a terrible candidate.  Please explain how he continued to win in his congressional district where there were more democrats than republicans.

[nhmagic]

I think its silly for the liberals on the board to assume that a conservative republican cannot win a senate race in tossup or any other territory in a bad year for democrats.

In 2006 -
Ohio got Sherrod Brown, the most raging and vile liberal in the senate
Montana got, Jon Tester, a liberal with a crew cut
New Hampshire got Jeanne Shaheen, a full blown liberal
The only somewhat moderate senator from that class was Claire McCaskill
   
In 2008 -
North Carolina got Kay Hagan, a liberal in a lean republican state
Colorado got one of the Udall brothers

Each of these states are tossup, lean republican or lean democrat in national elections - If they can elect socialists like Brown - they can elect conservatives.  The reason I bring this up is that people continue to say Toomey will not win in Pennsylvania.  If it can happen in other tossup/lean states for liberals, it can surely happen for conservatives in PA and NH (if Ayotte even is conservative - we dont know yet).

Now if you are looking at states like NY or CA - then yeah, a full blown conservative might lose in a rout, but in the swing states they can still win big. 

1.  It will be very unlikely for 2010 to be as strong for the GOP as 06 was for the Dems.  Bush's approvals were averaging in th3 37% range with his disapprovals around 57%,  around a -20 net.  In comparison right now Obama's approvals are in the mid 50's with disapprovals in the upper 30's with around a +17 net

2  All of the states you mentioned with the exception of Montana are less Republican than PA is Democratic and in Montana's case Tester ran a very strong campaign and Burns was involved in numerous scandals.  You could make the argument that NC is about as GOP ad PA is Democratic, but its trending rather strongly to the Dems and Obama did win the state.  Also Dole is a brutal campaigner.

1-Your Obama approval ratings are way off.  Obama is at majority dissaprove in some polls (Rasmussen is at 53 disapproval) and only the crazy polls are keeping that average above 50%.  His disapprovals are in the 40s.

2-But what you are saying is that raging liberal democrats (Sherrod Brown and Jeanne Shaheen) can win in tossup states.  My contention is that hard-line right wingers can too.  You cant say that one can and the other cant.  Thats the problem with the analysis.  The liberals are all saying that the republicans have to be more moderate in those states, but you cannot account for the same on your side.

1  Rasmussen is the ONLY poll to have Obama's numbers around there, everyone else has him higher,

CNN   53-45
CBS   56-35
Ipsos 56-40
Pew    52-37
Gallup 55-38
Rasmussen 49-51

Which one doesn't fit?

2.  I also don't see Obama's approvals being as low as Bush's were in 06. 

3.  Also someone like Toomey is a bit further right than Brown is to the left.  Even if you disagree with that, Ohio is not as Republican as Pennsylvania is Democratic.  Ohio is a true toss up state, Pennsylvania is a lean Democratic state.    On top of that the dynamics of the two states make it a  bit more possible in Ohio than in Pennsylvania.  First off 2006 was a BRUTAL year for the GOP in Ohio.  As bad as it was nationwide Ohio was one of the hardest states.  Even if it winds up being a bad year for Obama, what are the chances PA becomes on of the worst hit states of the year much like Ohio was in 06?  You also have the suburban Philly factor.  For a Republican to win statewide they might not exactly need to win the Philly suburbs (though no one from either party has won without them), but they need to be at least competitive there.  Toomey simply won't be able to do that period, he is just too conservative to be competitive there.  Even if it winds up being a rough year for the Dems, the margins he will lose by in the SE will just be too much to overcome

And Rasmussen is the only one weighting correctly - he was also weighting correctly during the presidential election.  All of the others give democrats 11pt+ party identification advantages in their polls when at max it is at 6pts.  For example in the pew poll, of the 2003 people polled, 23% identified as republican, 34% as democrat, and 37% as independent.  And the CBS poll is a joke.  Most of the others all show his disapproval in the range of high-low forties.

Pennsylvania is also getting hard hit by Obama's policies and I guarantee that if Cap n' Trade passes, Toomey will win.

[nhmagic]

Updated Map:

Boxer will win California, no matter who the nominee is.  I flirted with it for a second, but our wave will not be that strong.

To make up however, Lincoln will lose

I am awaiting Hoeven's announcment.  The moment he decides for or against, or the longer he takes, the soon I will make a change or keep the same.  If Hoeven jumps in he wins.

We lose Missouri.

Total Net Pickup of 6-7 seats.
Senate Makeup: 2 I, 47 R, 51 D or 2 I, 46 R, 52 D