HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Senate Winners/Losers 201...

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:40 PM

 

Senate Winners/Losers 2012 Election

10 replies, 966 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Senate Winners/Losers 2012 Election (Original post)
RC Nov 2012 OP
ErikJ Nov 2012 #1
DURHAM D Nov 2012 #2
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #3
Iterate Nov 2012 #4
DarthDem Nov 2012 #5
Iterate Nov 2012 #7
DarthDem Nov 2012 #10
sadbear Nov 2012 #6
karynnj Nov 2012 #8
sadbear Nov 2012 #9

Response to RC (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:43 PM

1. Wyoming GOP John Barrasso 76%?

Shameful.. Wyoming was the first state to let women vote too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:58 PM

2. Senator Gillibrand's numbers are truly impressive.

She is my choice for the WH in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:00 PM

3. Much as I dislike her politics, it's too bad that Berkley lost in NV. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:21 PM

4. Senate races in 2014

One glance at the map and two years out it looks to be difficult to pick up (or to lose) many seats, with 20 Democratic and 13 Republican seats up for election. 2016 is quite a different story - 10 Democrats and 24 Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iterate (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:56 PM

5. Exactly Right

Of course, things can change fast. Two years ago a few of us here shot down some persistent handwringing about how 2012 would be a bloodbath for the Dems. It wasn't, thanks in major part to outstanding candidate recruitment and some truly awesome campaigners: Elizabeth Warren, of course, but also Heinrich, Heitkamp, Baldwin and many others. (I should go back and look at those posts.)

Still, my insta-assessment is that you're right. 2014 will not change the chamber much either way. People will start fretting soon about Franken and Hagan, but Al will win easily, and after a year or more of all-thug government at the state level in NC, everyone will be very happy to keep Kay, I bet. (The Thug bench in NC is pretty thin, too.) The major threats to us will be retirements; I'm most worried about Harkin and Rockefeller. Rockefeller most of all. Meanwhile, we'll have great shots at Cabbage Patch Coot McConnell (or tea party nutjob who primaries him) and Susan Collins, who needs to follow Snowe out the phony moderate exit door right away.

Other that that, right now it's hard to see much 2014 movement, which is awesome for us.

I also agree that 2016 will be tough for the wingnuts as all the clowns they elected last time come up for reelection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DarthDem (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:04 PM

7. Harkin will be fine if he runs,

but he'll be 74. OTOH, Grassley will be 83 in 2016. Iowa has a history of splitting senate seats between the parties and now has a 2-2 split in the House on an E/W divide.

The worst part of this relative stability, long incumbency, and locked-in positions is that even if we turn the House, I can't see any chance for radical action on climate and transportation -and every year that goes by makes a more radical solution necessary (if there still is one).

But as you say, other than an approximation it's too far away to be too specific. At least for a while we can block House bs and hold the Supreme Court margin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iterate (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:29 AM

10. Right

And my bad; I didn't mean to imply that Harkin would be in trouble if he runs. As with Rockefeller, if they both stay we'll win both seats easily and the cycle will become even more static.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:59 PM

6. No incumbents lost.

I guess that's good since we had a lot more incumbents than they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:47 PM

8. Scott Brown lost - and Lugar in the primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 08:40 PM

9. Huh. I wonder why I never considered Scott Brown the incumbent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread