Will The GOP Win Back the Senate in 2010?

[Brainster]

I'll admit, I thought this far-fetched; after all, because of the 6-year cycle on Senate seats, the Republicans are defending a lot more seats than the Democrats based on the 2004 elections.

But consider that the Republicans took the "people's" seat in Massachusetts. Consider that Joe Biden's son decided not to run for his old man's job in Delaware, despite the obvious advantages that the Democrats usually have in that state.

Marc Ambinder (a liberal pundit at the Atlantic, but I repeat myself) says:

Republicans will win North Dakota. Harry Reid is losing against all of his B-tier challengers in Nevada. Arlen Specter looks like an old incumbent in Pennsylvania, and Pat Toomey, the Republican, is running a solid campaign. Republicans have a 10-way primary in Arkansas, and it's not smart to make predictions about a race until they can sort that one out. Coloradans are trying to figure out whether Andrew Romanoff can run a serious challenge to incumbent-selectee Michael Bennet, who is (a) disclosure: the brother of the editor of the Atlantic and (b) proving himself adept at his job and with fundraising. The polling you're seeing now is almost all environmental, except perhaps in Nevada -- and so, while it's probably accurate to assume that the GOP has an edge in these states, that edge is ephemeral. If the environment sucks this much in July or August, if Democrats tear each other up in primaries, then the edge will harden.

And later:

Democrats might lose the seats formerly occupied by Biden (DE), Obama (IL), Reid (NV), and they've lost the Kennedy seat. Beyond these nifty talking points, though, there's not much of a case to me made just yet that Republicans can win eight seats.

Skipping right over the loss of Dorgan's (retiring) seat in North Dakota, and the fact that Evan Bayh, a fairly conservative Democrat with a famous name in Indiana is currently losing in Indiana....

It's still a very tough row to hoe. Of course, if Joe Lieberman decides that he really is an old-fashioned Republican, that's one fewer seat needed.

 

[Darth Rotor]

No.

59-41
1/3 seats available
Need to keep all 41, win ten more outright, to make it 51-49. Need to unseat 10/33 incumbents in one fell swoop.
Absent a collosal screw up in the Democratic Party, or a scandal of major magnitude, I don't see it, particularly as the Dems were given a wake up call in MA regarding complacency.

Only way to do this? Get all the people who don't normally vote, to vote and vote for the GOP candidate. Not holding my breath, as a decent percentage of non voters are in the 18-25 demographic.

The "Throw the bums out, but not our bums" message is one of the trickiest to manage in politics, and can backfire.

DR

 

[shemp]

United States Senate elections, 2010

Elections to the United States Senate will be held on November 2, 2010, for 36 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate. A special election for a 37th seat, was held in Massachusetts on Jan 19, 2010.

Thirty-four of the seats are for six-year terms, beginning January 3, 2011. They will join Senate Class III, which traces its roots back to the Senators who served full six-year terms from March 4, 1789 to March 3, 1795. The other two races, in Delaware and New York, are for shorter terms.

The Senate is currently composed of 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans, and two independents who caucus with the Democrats. Of the seats currently up for election in 2010, 18 are held by Democrats and 18 are held by Republicans.

Taking 10 of 18 seats away from the Dems is gonna be mighty difficult.

 

[Thunder]

no. dems may lose another seat...maybe even two. but will keep the majority.

 

[Brainster]

It's not 59-41; that's brought up constantly and it's wrong. It's 57-41-2 and Joe Lieberman is about as unreliable a Democrat as can be imagined. Sanders I will grant you.

My current prediction is 51-47-2, Democrats.

 

[DavidJames]

Never underestimate the fickle nature of the U.S. electorate.

 

[Beerina]

Ok, if there are 100 senators, how come there are 36 seats up for vote this cycle? There should be 33 or 34, if it were distributed properly.

 

[Brainster]

Ok, if there are 100 senators, how come there are 36 seats up for vote this cycle? There should be 33 or 34, if it were distributed properly.

34 plus Hillary plus Biden. Obama's seat was up in 2010 anyway.

 

[leftysergeant]

David Vitter is probably toast now, after the arrest of pimp boy OKeefe.

 

[MikeMangum]

Add one more Dem Senator to the pile of unsafe seats.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ions/wisconsin/election_2010_wisconsin_senate

One more Democratic senator who has long been regarded as a safe prospect for reelection may be facing a challenging year in 2010.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in Wisconsin finds Republican Tommy Thompson edging incumbent Russ Feingold 47% to 43% in a hypothetical U.S. Senate match-up. Five percent (5%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

ETA: and Barbara Boxer, as well.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ns/california/election_2010_california_senate

California Senator Barbara Boxer is now the latest Democratic incumbent to find herself in a tightening race for reelection.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely California voters finds Boxer with narrow leads over her three leading Republican challengers, including newcomer Tom Campbell.

 

[Kodiak]

Yes, I hope so.

Being a Libertarian, I find gridlock between the Dems (tax & spenders) and the GOP (just spenders) to generally be a good thing. The US Constitution and States' Rights have been trodden upon enough.

 

[Allen773]

They may defeat a few conservative Democrats, but overall, I'd say that the Democrats will retain a solid lead in the Senate.

 

[leftysergeant]

Actually, Brown may prove to be an albatross around the GOP's neck.

He is begining to look like a clown. He is going to be watched more closely than he probably wants.

David "Diapers" Vitter is in trouble, and may wind up wearing some of the mud that gets dug up in the Louisianna Federal Prosecutor's office. The Dems may very well have a good weapon to use against the GOP.

The GOPers are acting like little babies throwing a tantrum, and more and more of them are getting caught acting like perverts and whoremongers. The religious right is begining to crumble. If the unions get their acts together, the fundies will become irrelevant.

Don't make predicitions based on the old power structures.

 

[Brainster]

Blanche Lincoln may be depending on the kindness of strangers soon:

John Boozman will enter the Arkansas Senate race this weekend as the frontrunner. He leads incumbent Blanche Lincoln by an amazing 56-33 margin in our first poll of the race.

Lincoln's approval rating has sunk to just 27%, with 62% of voters in the state disapproving of her. She's at a middling 51% even within her own party and just 17% of independents and 9% of Republicans are happy with how she's doing.

 

[leftysergeant]

Actually, speculating now before the Senate has even held any kind of hearings on the tax bill would be premature.

If the Senate GOP goes the now-predictable course of having a tantrum, they will go home to a lot of working class voters wanting to know why the GOP wants tax cuts for the rich instead of for the unemployed.

I don't think they are going to get away with little-boys antics again.

 

[Kodiak]

Actually, speculating now before the Senate has even held any kind of hearings on the tax bill would be premature.

If the Senate GOP goes the now-predictable course of having a tantrum, they will go home to a lot of working class voters wanting to know why the GOP wants tax cuts for the rich instead of for the unemployed.

I don't think they are going to get away with little-boys antics again.

See my previous post in this thread. It's the SPENDING on BOTH sides that is the biggest problem...

 

[leftysergeant]

See my previous post in this thread. It's the SPENDING on BOTH sides that is the biggest problem...

The majority of people in this country does not hold the same views as you. That the money was spent unwisely and taken from the wrong people's pocket is more important to most of us.

Government spent like mad during the years when the ecconomy was expanding.

 

[Kodiak]

Government spent like mad during the years when the ecconomy was expanding.

Your statement above would've been more accurate if you had just said "Government spent like mad."

Most ordinary people understand what a "nest egg" or "a rainy day" means. The U.S. Government obviously does not.

Lastly, economic prosperity should never be a valid reason for "mad" spending of taxpayer's dollars...

 

[leftysergeant]

Most ordinary people understand what a "nest egg" or "a rainy day" means. The U.S. Government obviously does not.

I am referring to the Eisenhower years, when we were still building infrastructure and we still had an industrial base.

And the people who were making the profits from that spending were paying the taxes to keep it going. Kenedy cut the taxes , but closed the loopholes that kept the really rich from paying their share, and the ecconomy continued to grow

And the people had the extra money to build a nest egg.

Then there was a war that drained away our prosperity, and then an idiot president sold us a pile of woo called supply-side ecconiomics and stopped collecting the taxes to pay for government operations.

You must be either too young to have gone through this or too old to remember much.

Lastly, economic prosperity should never be a valid reason for "mad" spending of taxpayer's dollars...

Whewn the ecconomy gets so screwed up as it is now because of misplaced spending and the refusal of the prosperous to put back into the system, it has to be done. Stop whining about government stepping in to save capitalism from itself again.

Next time the victims of the crash might just decide capitalism is not worth ther emotional roller coaster any more and just kill and eat the entrepreneurial class and start all over with something else.

 

[Kodiak]

I am referring to the Eisenhower years, when we were still building infrastructure and we still had an industrial base.

And the people who were making the profits from that spending were paying the taxes to keep it going. Kenedy cut the taxes , but closed the loopholes that kept the really rich from paying their share, and the ecconomy continued to grow

And the people had the extra money to build a nest egg.

Then there was a war that drained away our prosperity, and then an idiot president sold us a pile of woo called supply-side ecconiomics and stopped collecting the taxes to pay for government operations.

You must be either too young to have gone through this or too old to remember much.

Cherry-picking followed by revisionist history followed by an Ad Hominem...

Nicely done.