The New York Times on the upcoming Senate race

[pjohns]

Not long ago, Nate Silver was disfellowshipped from The Church of Leftist Orthodoxy for having made the (heretical!) observation that Republicans have a 60 percent chance of retaking control of the Senate in November.

The New York Times, however, now has a slightly different perspective: It gives the GOP just a 49 percent chance of winning back control of the Senate, with Democrats having a 51 percent chance of retaining control.

It all comes down to eight competitive races, according to the NYT; and one of these races can probably be given to the Democrat (Colorado), on which the race has a 70 percent chance of going blue, according to the survey. On the other hand, two other races can probably be given to the Republican candidates (a 74 percent chance in Georgia and an 82 percent chance in Kentucky, according to the survey). This leaves the five tossup states of Arkansas, Michigan, North Carolina, Alaska, and Louisiana. And a pickup of just five seats--even if the GOP were to sweep these races--would not be quite enough. However, the GOP stands excellent chances of making gains in the open seats (being vacated by incumbent Democrats) in South Dakota and West Virginia; albeit less of a chance in Iowa.

Anyway, here is a link to the article: Who Will Win The Senate? ? The Upshot Senate Forecasts ? NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/?hp)

[zelmo1234]

It is kind of interesting to see how the polls are working on this!

it is all based on turn out models.

If they get the turn out demographic of 2012, then the Democrats will keep 50 seats and Biden would have the tie breaking vote. If the turn out is more like 2010, then the republicans pick up 9 or 10 seats?

It is all about who can get there voters to the polls

[pjohns]

it is all based on turn out models.

This is so very true.

Many serious analysts believed--in late October or early November of 2012--that we would soon be speaking the words, "President Romney." But it just did not happen. In fact, it was not even close, from an electoral-college standpoint. That is because our Community-Organizer-in-Chief is so very good at energizing the party base and bringing record percentages of young people (a Democratic client group) to the polls. That, plus convincing a large majority of undecided voters--who typically break, in large numbers, against the incumbent--that Mitt Romney is a calloused plutocrat, undeserving of such high office.

[Green Arrow]

The GOP needs six seats to take control of the Senate, but fifteen seats to overcome a Democrat filibuster.

So, the GOP needs to do a lot of work on the Senate if they want to wield total power.

[1751_Texan]

Not long ago, Nate Silver was disfellowshipped from The Church of Leftist Orthodoxy for having made the (heretical!) observation that Republicans have a 60 percent chance of retaking control of the Senate in November.

The New York Times, however, now has a slightly different perspective: It gives the GOP just a 49 percent chance of winning back control of the Senate, with Democrats having a 51 percent chance of retaining control.

It all comes down to eight competitive races, according to the NYT; and one of these races can probably be given to the Democrat (Colorado), on which the race has a 70 percent chance of going blue, according to the survey. On the other hand, two other races can probably be given to the Republican candidates (a 74 percent chance in Georgia and an 82 percent chance in Kentucky, according to the survey). This leaves the five tossup states of Arkansas, Michigan, North Carolina, Alaska, and Louisiana. And a pickup of just five seats--even if the GOP were to sweep these races--would not be quite enough. However, the GOP stands excellent chances of making gains in the open seats (being vacated by incumbent Democrats) in South Dakota and West Virginia; albeit less of a chance in Iowa.

Anyway, here is a link to the article: Who Will Win The Senate? ? The Upshot Senate Forecasts ? NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/?hp)

The right should be explaining how a senate majority would change the status quo. Too many focus on a "Win".

[zelmo1234]

The GOP needs six seats to take control of the Senate, but fifteen seats to overcome a Democrat filibuster.

So, the GOP needs to do a lot of work on the Senate if they want to wield total power.

Not really Dingy Harry already opened that can of worms. and all they need to do is embrace his ideas and do away with the Senate rules and that only requires 51 votes.

[zelmo1234]

The right should be explaining how a senate majority would change the status quo. Too many focus on a "Win".

The big thing is that they can really put a terrible light on the Democrats going into the 2016 elections.

Right now there are 400+ bills in the Senate that are dead, because Dingy Harry does not want the democrats to have to go on record voting against them.

Now many of them cover the same thing in different ways. so lets just say there are 100 bills that will be coming to the Presidents desk?

He will have to Veto them or do things he does to want to do!

many of these are things that the people want like expanding fossil fuel exploration, the Keystone approvals!

It will make the Democrats look like they just want control over people. which is actually what they do want!

It will make 2016 much harder for Hillary. And remember there will be Senator's up for election in 2016. If the republicans have a good year and happen to win 10 seats, they will only need 4 democrat votes in the senate to overturn a presidential veto!

[Peter1469]

Not really Dingy Harry already opened that can of worms. and all they need to do is embrace his ideas and do away with the Senate rules and that only requires 51 votes.

The MSM will never allow it to happen. They will lie and bucket carry for the dems all day long.

[zelmo1234]

The MSM will never allow it to happen. They will lie and bucket carry for the dems all day long.

Ok so the 11 people that are still watching MSM will be against it! :)

[Peter1469]

Ok so the 11 people that are still watching MSM will be against it! :)

Main Stream Media = MSM.

[zelmo1234]

Main Stream Media = MSM.

OK maybe 14~

Have you been watching there numbers? People are getting turned off by all of the propaganda channels, including FOX

They are seeking other sources!

[Green Arrow]

Not really Dingy Harry already opened that can of worms. and all they need to do is embrace his ideas and do away with the Senate rules and that only requires 51 votes.

Again, that only applies to non-judicial presidential nominees, and as I've said several times, the answer to usurpation of power is NEVER to usurp more power. The GOP taking Hairy Greed's lead would be about the stupidest thing they could do.

[zelmo1234]

Again, that only applies to non-judicial presidential nominees, and as I've said several times, the answer to usurpation of power is NEVER to usurp more power. The GOP taking Hairy Greed's lead would be about the stupidest thing they could do.

I would agree, but Revenge is going to be on the mind of the Senator's

He has refused to even bring up the legislation that has been passed by republicans since 2006 And they will be looking to turn the table.

Politicians are great at coming up with bad ideas, and I think that this will happen

[Mainecoons]

It won't happen because this is the case all over the country:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/23/over-40000-voters-are-registered-in-both-virginia-and-maryland-group-finds/

This is how the Democrats do virtually untraceable voter fraud. There is no way that voter rolls can be kept current and there is no routine cross checking between states. To uncover this kind of fraud you have to literally trace individual voters and check signatures one at a time. Been there, tried that. Basically impossible.

There is only one way to end voter fraud. Everyone has a photo ID and everyone is required to show up in person to vote.

[Ransom]

The GOP needs six seats to take control of the Senate, but fifteen seats to overcome a Democrat filibuster.

So, the GOP needs to do a lot of work on the Senate if they want to wield total power.

Green Arrow makes a great point here. A little much as wielding total power means only control of the Senate...if we win. But the second paragraph there is great advice, GA. The GOP has much work to do. I'd rather not focus on what happens if.....I think it's a huge mistake to assume any kind of 'win.' I think the GOP needs to raise serious money, and hit the streets....and give the American People a platform they can vote for. We're not popular....if you believe polls, most people do not trust Republicans either.

Much work to be done. Assuming...isn't a policy.

[Ransom]

I would agree, but Revenge is going to be on the mind of the Senator's

He has refused to even bring up the legislation that has been passed by republicans since 2006 And they will be looking to turn the table.

Politicians are great at coming up with bad ideas, and I think that this will happen

If....we can unseat Reid....it's huge. Filibuster proof majority or not isn't as important as Reid forced to sit. I pray for that daily.

[pjohns]

The right should be explaining how a senate majority would change the status quo.

Well, it would reduce Harry Reid's status to that of Minority Leader...

[The Sage of Main Street]

This is so very true.

Many serious analysts believed--in late October or early November of 2012--that we would soon be speaking the words, "President Romney." But it just did not happen. In fact, it was not even close, from an electoral-college standpoint. That is because our Community-Organizer-in-Chief is so very good at energizing the party base and bringing record percentages of young people (a Democratic client group) to the polls. That, plus convincing a large majority of undecided voters--who typically break, in large numbers, against the incumbent--that Mitt Romney is a calloused plutocrat, undeserving of such high office.

Obama also got re-elected because he was wise enough to concentrate his campaign on the states that counted most in that situation. So GOPers who say he didn't get such a heavy win in the popular vote are begging the question. If the popular vote had counted, Obama would have been wise enough to concentrate his efforts there and would have beaten Romney just as bad under that scenario.

[Green Arrow]

Well, it would reduce Harry Reid's status to that of Minority Leader...

Just a word of advice, but "Hey, look, let's demote this asshat and put our guy in charge," is not exactly a winning platform.

[Mainecoons]

I wonder how many of the dumbed down American voters even know who Dirty Harry is?

[pjohns]

Obama also got re-elected because he was wise enough to concentrate his campaign on the states that counted most in that situation.

In fact, he won every single tossup state, as far as I can recall. (Even if Mitt Romney had carried Florida, Ohio, and Virginia--all three--he would have still come up short. And he won none of these.)

[Mainecoons]

The combination of disgruntled Reps staying home and the usual Democrat ballot box stuffing was enough to get the job done.

I voted for Gary Johnson. I won't vote for Democrat Lite ever again. May as well let the real thing get elected and sink the country faster so we can start over.

[pjohns]

Just a word of advice, but "Hey, look, let's demote this asshat and put our guy in charge," is not exactly a winning platform.

Perhaps not.

But concentrating upon the simply horrid nature of ObamaCare, plus the weakest recivery since WWII, is a winning strategy, in my opinion. (And the so-called "six-year itch"--the president's own party, in Congress, seldom fares very well midway through the president's second term--doesn't hurt any, either.)

[pjohns]

I won't vote for Democrat Lite ever again. May as well let the real thing get elected and sink the country faster so we can start over.

This strikes me as The Apocalyptic Inerpretation of politics--things must get really, really bad before they can improve--that is similar to the Jewish interpretation of history during the Maccabean Era (167-160 BC). And I am really not seeking deliverance from the current state of affairs--just an appreciable improvement.

[Green Arrow]

Perhaps not.

But concentrating upon the simply horrid nature of ObamaCare, plus the weakest recivery since WWII, is a winning strategy, in my opinion. (And the so-called "six-year itch"--the president's own party, in Congress, seldom fares very well midway through the president's second term--doesn't hurt any, either.)

Sure, if you can do it by focusing on policies rather than people.