[RD] USA Senate - 2016

[metalhead]

I think that the Democrats faced some unique challenges in 2014, which made for an unusually large loss of seats. 4 of the seats that the Democrats lost, were lost in red states where the incumbent didn't run.

Don't get me wrong, it is virtually impossible that they won't lose seats, and likely control of the chamber - UNLESS they get an unusually high number of seats this year. There are enough Republican held seats in play that a big Democratic wave could give them a 4 or even 5 seat majority, plus the tiebreaker. Donnelly will probably lose; he only got in because a Tea Party idiot primaried Dick Lugar. Baldwin and Kaine's successor also seem vulnerable. Brown, Heitkamp, Tester, and especially McCaskill would all hold an advantage against a generic opponent. Bill Nelson may retire, so that's a very vulnerable seat if so; if he runs again it's hard to see him losing.

I think they could lose as few as 2, as many as 7. Which makes this year's outcome yugely important going forward; if they eke out a 50-50 or 51-49 majority, they'll almost certainly lose it. If they can get to 54, however, then their majority looks relatively safe pending Bill Nelson's decision on whether he wants to run again.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Even if you guys think Casey and Munchin are safe, they, with Baldwin (WI), Kaine's successor (VA), Brown (OH), Heidkamp (ND), Tester (MT), McCaskill (MO), Donnelly (IN) and Nelson (FL) can be targetted by republicans. And only Heller in NV is a potential target for the democrats. If they only lose 4 seats in 2018 the democrats will be happy about the result.

The question is "targeted by what Republicans?"

The nativist Republicans have watched the conservative Republicans slug it out with the moderate Republicans for decades and just supported whichever. No matter how badly Trump loses those days are over. I would expect many Republican primaries to be three way races between a con, a mod, and a nativist, with the very real possibility that no matter who wins the supporters of the other two will say "not really a Republican" and just stay home. They may all stay in the one tent together, but their positions have diverged sufficiently that no single candidate can represent them all.

 

[danjuno]

Arizona and Texas are possible targets as well, with the growing (and increasingly unfriendly to the GOP) Latino population. They should at least force the GOP to spend what little money they have in states that shouldn't be competitive. As for McCaskill, she is in a similarly red state to Donelly and also owes her 2012 win to a moronic opponent. That said, I don't have much idea what the electorate in these states will be in 2018. Though, Indiana is whiter. Tester is second most vulnerable D, because of the Montana electorate. Ultimately, Heitkamp is the one incumbent who is running on a wing and a prayer.

 

[onejayhawk]

It's a mistake to think that Latinos are a natural Democratic vote. They are generally very conservative. In states like Arizona and Texas, they are also well represented.

Also, Hispanics with three or more generations in the USA are a different group than recent immigrants. My own Representative, Bill Flores is Hispanic, "My family came from Spain in 1725, and if people want to consider me Hispanic, they can, but I didn't advertise that way, and I'm an American first."

I think that the Democrats faced some unique challenges in 2014, which made for an unusually large loss of seats. 4 of the seats that the Democrats lost, were lost in red states where the incumbent didn't run.

Not unique. Not even that unusual. It is caused by watershed midterm elections, in this case 2006. 2012 did not change things much and 2018 is the first off-year election. The Democrats have the advantage of more time in office but 2018 looks a lot like 2014. If you go further back, 2006 is the first midterm after the watershed 1994 election.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's a mistake to think that Latinos are a natural Democratic vote. They are generally very conservative. In states like Arizona and Texas, they are also well represented.

J

Natural? No. Driven away by the party that harbors and quietly panders to glaring racists? Yes.

This is where a couple years ago you said "there are no more racists in the GOP than there are anywhere else, and the GOP doesn't pander to them." Feel free to repeat that claim.

 

[mrt144]

What Tim said - Theyre not naturally democratic voters except theyve been driven into the arms of Democrats repeatedly by Republicans. At what point do you think routine alienation is more important than 'natural'?

 

[onejayhawk]

What Tim said - Theyre not naturally democratic voters except theyve been driven into the arms of Democrats repeatedly by Republicans. At what point do you think routine alienation is more important than 'natural'?

I tend to skip over Tim's comments because he makes no pretense at considering both sides. This seems to be a case in point. I suspect you get a better correlation with Urban vs Rural.

J

 

[mrt144]

I tend to skip over Tim's comments because he makes no pretense at considering both sides. This seems to be a case in point. I suspect you get a better correlation with Urban vs Rural.

J

How does a conservative explain their lack of appeal to latinos then?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I tend to skip over Tim's comments because he makes no pretense at considering both sides. This seems to be a case in point. I suspect you get a better correlation with Urban vs Rural.

J

LOL...both sides of your position? NO, I certainly don't consider that. Your position is so comically far out there that it may not even have a far side.

Case in point here...you are still refusing to acknowledge that the GOP contains a large component of xenophobic racists who actively drive away Hispanics even though that component has now demonstrated that they are a plurality.

 

[metalhead]

It's a mistake to think that Latinos are a natural Democratic vote. They are generally very conservative. In states like Arizona and Texas, they are also well represented.

Also, Hispanics with three or more generations in the USA are a different group than recent immigrants. My own Representative, Bill Flores is Hispanic, "My family came from Spain in 1725, and if people want to consider me Hispanic, they can, but I didn't advertise that way, and I'm an American first."

J

California was a Republican state until the Republicans completely lost their credibility with the residents of the state. A Republican presidential candidate could garner as much as a quarter of the black vote, until the Republican party lost all credibility with black people - and many black people, like many Latinos, are both conservative AND religious.

And now with their embrace of Trump, the Republican party risks losing its credibility with most Latino voters. Hillary is on track to win over 80% of the Latino vote, due in no small part to Trump declaring Mexicans to be rapists and criminals. That is not the only offense, of course - all of Trump's myriad offenses of one minority group or another affects ALL minority groups. Mormons were greatly offended at his proposing a Muslim ban, for example. But the ongoing tolerance of him by the GOP, and his absurdly offensive efforts at minority outreach are going to lose Latino voters for the GOP for a generation, perhaps longer, at least at the presidential level.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Democrats are pulling money out of Florida and conceding to Rubio. Not a good last few weeks of polling. Voters appear to be both separating Trump from down ballotors and also wanting a "check" on Hillary with a Republican congress, aka, more dysfunction.

 

[mrt144]

Democrats are pulling money out of Florida and conceding to Rubio. Not a good last few weeks of polling. Voters appear to be both separating Trump from down ballotors and also wanting a "check" on Hillary with a Republican congress, aka, more dysfunction.

Good job America. Creating the problems you complain about.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Democrats are pulling money out of Florida and conceding to Rubio. Not a good last few weeks of polling. Voters appear to be both separating Trump from down ballotors and also wanting a "check" on Hillary with a Republican congress, aka, more dysfunction.

To be clear, they didn't really "pull money." The Murphy campaign released its hold on reserved ad buys. Ad buys they possibly never could have afforded anyway. I haven't seen anyone specify what happened immediately after, but there's a good chance that the Clinton campaign "just happened" to come along right behind them and buy up the newly available ad blocks. And they could certainly fill those ad blocks with ads that are just as helpful for Murphy as they are for Clinton.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Senate Majority PAC pulled $12 million out of $20 million in ads for him, and considering that a plurality of Floridians still haven't even heard of Murphy, that's a problem. Rubio is at +7 now.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Senate Majority PAC pulled $12 million out of $20 million in ads for him, and considering that a plurality of Floridians still haven't even heard of Murphy, that's a problem. Rubio is at +7 now.

Like I said, it depends on what happened to that suddenly available ad space. The DSCC and SMaPAC both work closely with the Clinton PACs. If it fills with ads featuring Rubio and Trump calling each other names and then endorsing each other it works to everyone's advantage.

 

[EnglishEdward]

My guess is that many Republican leaning voters may decide that Donald Trump is unsuitable,
but that they can not betray their beliefs by voting for Hilary Clinton; after all she is not only
a democrat but a bossy fussy wrinkly old woman like their wife, aunt, granny, school principal.

Yes, my apologies for being rude, but life is unfair on ladies who are not young and glamorous.

That potential base element will simply not make the effort to show up. So the republican candidate for the
senate will lose their vote. I.e. The republicans may lose seats but not because republicans disenchanted with
Trump voted democrat because the republican candidate supported Trump, but because they did not vote at all.

I am unclear as to whether the pollsters have factored such no shows into their calculation algorythms.
If not, there may be a landslide benefiting the democrats.

Now I am English, so please tell me where I have got your contemporary american politics wrong.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

My guess is that many Republican leaning voters may decide that Donald Trump is unsuitable,
but that they can not betray their beliefs by voting for Hilary Clinton; after all she is not only
a democrat but a bossy fussy wrinkly old woman like their wife, aunt, granny, school principal.

Yes, my apologies for being rude, but life is unfair on ladies who are not young and glamorous.

That potential base element will simply not make the effort to show up. So the republican candidate for the
senate will lose their vote. I.e. The republicans may lose seats but not because republicans disenchanted with
Trump voted democrat because the republican candidate supported Trump, but because they did not vote at all.

I am unclear as to whether the pollsters have factored such no shows into their calculation algorythms.
If not, there may be a landslide benefiting the democrats.

Now I am English, so please tell me where I have got your contemporary american politics wrong.

I rate this interpretation as mostly on target.

 

[Camikaze]

The Senate is looking like an interesting contest, and it's getting harder for the Dems. Indiana has tightened significantly, Ohio is a completely lost cause (the Dems have a better chance in Kentucky and Louisiana - what the hell happened with Ted Strickland?), and New Hampshire and Pennsylvania seems closer than they should be. Joe Heck's flight from Trump may have hurt him in Nevada though, so that Dems' chances have gone up there recently.

 

[danjuno]

A close loss in AZ and TX will be worth it if the DSCC can force the GOP to yank dearer dollars from places like OH, Fl, and NV.

 

[metalhead]

So, an interesting thing happened tonight. President Obama spent a considerable amount of time in a speech to Ohio democrats deriding Rob Portman's seeming lack of involvement in the Trump fiasco.

One thing I think senate candidates all wish they had was the backup of people higher up on the food chain, of which there are three. Hillary has probably surmised, correctly, that her explicitly coming out like that would be ineffective given her negatives. Biden is better suited to explaining to working folks how full of crap Donald Trump is.

That leaves Obama to do it. He's starting to do it. He called out Portman pretty hard tonight, and while he isn't looking vulnerable, this seems like a good needle-mover down ballot. Here in PA, Obama basically got Katie McGinty the senate nomination by supporting her. I think this is the right messenger, giving the right message to move the needle in these close races.