It is amazing that the Washington Post is predicting by a percentage of 95 percent that the Republicans will win the six seats needed to control the US Senate in 2015-2016.
Even if they do, which is highly unlikely, with two thirds of the seats in 2016 having incumbent Republicans, it is certain that the Democrats, if they lose control will regain it with a major margin in 2016!
But to believe that the Republicans will gain six seats is belied by the likely defeat of Pat Roberts in Kansas and Mike Rounds in South Dakota, both which no one had thought possible to go to the Democrats.
And those who think Mary Landrieu is not going to win her seat in Louisiana forget her ability to survive, as the only sane major figure in a state which includes Bobby Jindal and David Vitter, both disgraces in every possible manner!
And Mitch McConnell in Kentucky is not going to win his seat this time around against Allison Lundergan Grimes, and Georgia will go Democratic as well with Michelle Nunn, which means even if the Republicans win six seats, they will lose three in those those two states and Kansas, and will not win one of the so called three “guaranteed” states of South Dakota, Montana, and West Virginia!
North Carolina with Kay Hagan seems safe, while admittedly, Arkansas, with Mark Pryor, is in more danger.
Expect overall a three seat Senate gain for the Republicans, with the Senate going from 55-45 to 52-48, including a likely four independents, from Maine, Vermont, South Dakota (or Democrat Rick Weiland winning instead of Independent Larry Pressler), and Kansas!
The midterms are tricky. We get about 55 to 60 percent of eligible voters turning out for presidential elections. With midterms, you have to reduce that by about 25 percent of that 55 to 60 percent. That means the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and over 70 percent of state governorships will be decided by about 40 percent of eligible voters. Those “eligible voters” aren’t the same lot who participate in presidential elections. And, in the September 12, 2014 episode of HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” 60th speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that an alarming percentage of people don’t even know about the existence of midterm elections.
If the news outlets stick with forecasting for the Republicans a pickup of majority control of the U.S. Senate, I would anticipate the following: Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia and, perhaps the tipping point, Iowa would be the open-seat states which would flip from blue to red. Given that Ronald wrote, not long ago, about there not being more than two incumbent Democratic U.S. senators unseated from any election cycle since 1982, the two incumbent Democrats most poised for not getting re-elected would be Alaska’s Mark Begich and Arkansas’s Mark Pryor.
Beyond this it can be a little tricky. But the Republicans want to win a majority no matter whether it would be 51, 53, 55, 57.
2016 is going to be interesting if it turns out the Democrats retain the presidency through the election of their nominee. That’s because a number of those Republicans who were party holds or pickups from the midterm congressional elections of 2010 would be ripe for unseatings. Immediately springing to mind are Illinois’ Mark Kirk, New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte, Ohio’s Rob Portman, and Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson. Johnson, in particular, hails from a state that has carried for the same party for both the presidency and senate in every presidential election cycle since 1976. And no Republican presidential candidate has carried the state of Wisconsin since the 49-state landslide re-election of 40th president Ronald Reagan in 1984.
What is, let’s say, discouraging about a 2014 Republican pickup of the U.S. Senate (should that manifest) is the craven leadership and policies most likely to be continued by a party that is not conservative but is wholly owned by the Koch Brothers and their ilk that make up the 1 percent. But, to be honest, I think the Democrats in the White House (including President Obama) made the mistake with not being liberal generally with their policies (the Affordable Care Act of 2010). It helps to explain why there is a “lack of enthusiasm” with self-identified Democrats (and self-identified Independents) who are not feeling excited about Team Blue. I think a minimum wage campaign not on $9 or $10 but on double that amount would worked well with turning out the vote. In a documentary on the life of the late Texas governor Ann Richards, one thing she mentioned about her 1994 unseating (by George W. Bush) was that she (and her campaign) made a mistake. Rather than tell her constituents about her achievements, she needed to tell them what more she had in mind doing for them. That’s why I mentioned the minimum-wage suggestion. Doable or notâ€¦it would speak the electorate on a national level very favorable to Team Blue.