Senate predictions: we lose 6 seats

[mkultra]

giving us 52 to their 46. What say you?

[kentuck]

1. I think that is about right...

Perhaps seven?

Dems keep the Senate regardless.

[HopeHoops]

2. Yeah, Toomey is digging his own grave so I'm pretty optimistic about PA.

[tigereye]

11. I certainly hope that's true, I would hate to see us go back to Santorum-style

Senatorial highjinks... :banghead:


But it's not looking the way i would like... http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate/pennsylvania


However, Sestak is a really intense campaigner and great at coming from behind and surprising everyone. The man apparently works like a maniac! :D NYT has the race as a toss-up. I know I've been phone banking for him and Onorato and a lot of "wavering" Dems really don't seem to know much about the PA candidates other than the negative ads... :(

[tigereye]

13. it isn't looking as good as I would like, but...

It would be a shame to replace a moderate/liberal Senator with another form of Santorum. Sigh. :banghead:


Here's Nate Silver's take on it. http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate/pennsylvania


However, Sestak is a really intense campaigner and great at coming from behind and surprising everyone. The man apparently works like a maniac! :D NYT has the race as a toss-up. I know I've been phone banking for him and Onorato and a lot of "wavering" Dems really don't seem to know much about the PA candidates other than the negative ads... :(

[HopeHoops]

16. Onorato is also being stingy with the campaign signs!

Hell, I was at the booth the Democrats had set up at our Pumpkin Festival last weekend and they didn't even have any - because they couldn't GET any.

[tigereye]

26. huh, I know where you can get some - where are you located?

I"m in Allegheny County, though. We have plenty of em here. It's the Sestak ones that are hard to come by!

[HopeHoops]

28. Well now that's just fucking weird. I'm in Cumberland and that's all we CAN get.

Is it a plastic sleeve sign that fits over a metal frame? If so, I'll swap you an Oronato for a Sestak. Damn that sounds like we're working with Pokemon cards or something. Anyway, if you've got an extra Oronato, I've got an extra Sestak. They'll fit in an envelope folded a few times - well, at least a 6"x9" clasp envelope. PM me with an address if you want to swap and I'll PM you back and get it in the mail tomorrow.

[tigereye]

29. well, it stands to reason that we would have Onorato since we're in Pittsburgh

and you would have Sestak closer to his base, right?


Good to know folks are backing Onorato other places in the state- some of our wavering Dems aren't too happy about him, I think it's all the negative Corbett ads. He isn't really that well known across the state, that's often the problem with Allegheny County folks running for statewide office...


sounds like a plan. But maybe we should tell folks to ship more of them to opposite sides of the state! :D

[HopeHoops]

30. Well, Philli is still a good hike from here. I'd rather take the turnpike to Pittsburgh.

Okay. If you want to do the swap I'll send you a PM with my address. Please try to reply with yours before morning so I can be sure to get your sign in the mail tomorrow. We don't have much time left.

And Corbett is a liar, a sack of shit, and an asshole - and those are his good points.

Shall we move on to dickweed Toomey? :evilgrin:

[tigereye]

35. sure, I don't know that much about him...

other than that we don't need another "santorum" type. :cry:

[mkultra]

3. the races in which i think we will lose a seat are

North Dakota, Arkansas, Indian, Wisconsin, Colorado, Illinois.


sestak might slip in Penn but i have faith in him.

[demwing]

4. Some people think we'll GAIN 6-8 seats?

WHERE?

[racaulk]

7. Yeah, I saw that too.

Perhaps they are just trying to be optimistic, but if that's the case, they are being unrealistically so.

:wtf:

[racaulk]

5. I say we lose 7 seats.

Seats that are definitely gone: North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, and Wisconsin

Seats that are probably gone: Colorado and Nevada (As much as I hate to admit it, I think it's Angle's race to lose at this point. The only reason it's competitive at all is because Angle is batshit looney toons crazy - I think a moderate Repub would have swept the floor with Reid in this election cycle.)

That's six. I think Illinois and Pennsylvania will both be squeakers one way or the other, so I'll say one victory and one loss for us in those races. That makes a total of seven seats.

But we'll still have the majority regardless. We'll still technically have a majority with 50 seats (with Biden's tiebreaker vote), and I have a hard time seeing where we'll have less than 51 seats.

:hi:

[mkultra]

12. i agree somewhat abotu angle

I think ried will hammer her close to the end on her stupidity though and pull it out.

[Hawkeye-X]

15. Disagree.

We'll hold Colorado, Nevada, Illinois, Pennsylvania, gain NH, ummm.....

I think the voters will be disgusted with the teaparty and vote Dem.

Hawkeye-X

[racaulk]

17. From your fingers to God's ears, so to speak.

I hope you're right! :hi:

[tigereye]

6. what does fivethirtyeight.com say?

He's usually right on target.

[racaulk]

8. Nate Silver says 52/48.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate

You're right, he's pretty good in his predictions. In the 2008 Presidential election, with the exceptions of IN and NE-2, he called every state election accurately.

:hi:

[tigereye]

10. he was amazing last time around!

:hi:

[mkultra]

14. 48?

is he saying repubs pick up the two indie seats?

[racaulk]

18. No, he's predicting a swing of 7 states.

Our caucus is currently in the majority by 59/41. A swing of 7 states would put it at 52/48.

The two indie seats will stay in our caucus - neither of those Senators is up for reelection this year.

[mkultra]

20. yeah. We are 58/40 with two indie seats

[racaulk]

31. No, we're at 59/41.

There are currently 41 Republican Senators, and there have been ever since Scott Brown was seated earlier this year.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[Upton]

9. Nate currently has us losing seven..

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/democrats-remain-favored-to-retain-senate/

[Erose999]

19. We could honestly stand to lose Lincoln and some of the Blue Dogs.

As long as we hang on to a razor's edge of a majority I think we'll be ok. Give the obstructionist Dems' seats to the GOP as they are just holding us back.

[mkultra]

23. well, it looks like lincoln and fiengold are on their way out.

Murray isn't though.

[demwing]

25. Don't be so quick

Feingold is surging and now tied.

We'll take California, Washington, and Illinois, plus Feingold, Bennet, and Sestak will pull it out in the end. We'll lose 7 or 8 seats total, and walk away bruised but happy to still have those 52-53 Senators.

[tigereye]

27. oh, not Feingold! That really sucks. :(

[a kennedy]

21. I can't even bring myself to think of losing Wisconsin....

D*mn...... :cry: :cry: :cry:

[mkultra]

22. its not looking good.

[ieoeja]

24. Has anyone ever polled the likelihood of tea partiers voting?

Obviously, the activists will. But the only people I personally know who are big fans of the Tea Party are people who never vote anyway. Furthermore, all but one has admitted that he probably won't vote this election.

In the early days of the Tea Party, we saw a lot of anger at both parties. And that is very much the case with all the aforementioned Tea Partiers I know. Not all non-voters fail to vote out of apathy. A lot of them don't vote out of anger.

Notably, Tea Party success in the primaries began to wane as they became increasingly enmeshed with the Republicans. So my anecdotal evidence would seem to have some supporting evidence.

I believe they tapped into the anger of the non-voter who, come election day, is not going to vote.

[cbdo2007]

32. Or of Tea Partiers being able to even find the voting locations??

haha, I'm just kidding, but they're all so mad I wouldn't be surprised if they went to the wrong places.

Your post does bring up an interesting point though - who is more likely to PARTICIPATE in a poll? One of these Tea Partiers who hates Obama with a passion or a lower class single mom with two kids? I've always thought polls drifted the Repube way anyways just because they're more likely to be interested in spreading their opinion while Dems are more likely to just be living their lives but will still show up on election day.

[TexasObserver]

33. we lose 3-4

I'm an optimist, officially speaking.

[struggle4progress]

34. I say: step away from the computer and dial phones or knock doors

[mkultra]

37. true that

[ProudDad]

36. As Tonto said to the Masked Man

Who's this guy "we"?

I can count my representatives in Congress on one hand...

[mkultra]

38. my bad. "We" means democrats

you know, as in "Democratic" underground. lol