Nate Silver: 50-50 chance Democrats will lose the Senate in 2014

[BlueDemKev]

With pick-ups in WV, SD, and MT likely, the Rethugs only need to win three (3) more races to take Senate control. With Louisiana, Arkansas, and North Carolina in play, the possibility is likely. There appear to be zero (0) opportunities for Democrats to pick up some seats next year.

Here's his article:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/senate-control-in-2014-increasingly-looks-like-a-tossup/

[onehandle]

1. Ensuring that President Obama's Presidency only lasted 2 years. nt

[vi5]

2. Which makes it even more of a shame

That he wasted so much of his time those two years trying to be "bipartisan" and "centrist".

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. As if he knew that the people were going to swallow all of that teabagger BS in 2009-2010

n/t

[Deep13]

4. I knew. nt

[BlueDemKev]

5. You can't put anything past the American people.

The fact is we liberals should have been actively supportive of Obama and the Democratic Congress his first two years of office. Instead, we got caught up in our own lives because of the recession, the overall "let-down" after the emotional high of electing Obama, and we started fighting among ourselves about whether Obama was liberal enough. As a result, our turnout for the Nov. 2010 was atrocious, while the tea-baggers were tripping over each other to get into the voting booths.

Had we gotten out and voted as we did in 2008 and 2012, the Democrats would still control not only the House and Senate, but also control the governorships in key states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Compared to ANY Republican today, Obama's liberalism is MORE than satisfactual.

Bottom line is this: we need to keep the Senate. For example, in Louisiana, we must work our butts off to ensure a heavy turnout of African-American voters in the New Orleans area so that Mary Landrieu is re-elected. While Landrieu isn't the most liberal member of the Senate, her opponent is an absolute tea-bagging nutjob! Keep in mind also, that Louisiana often has a "December runoff" if no candidate receives 50+% of the vote (of ALL candidates) in the November election.

ROCK THE VOTE, 2014!!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. +1

Couldn't agree more with everything that you just said!

[VirginiaTarheel]

7. absolutely

you said it best. stop fighting amongst ourselves and get galvanized for 2014!

[LongTomH]

8. +1000

I would prefer more progressive Democrats' but, we absolutely cannot let this insane-right GOP control both houses of Congress.

[JoeyT]

9. Oh bullshit.

It was the centrists that stayed home. The left got out and voted.

Besides, all the left heard for the two years leading up to that election was how the party didn't need us, since then it's been dishonest whining about how we didn't support a party that didn't need us that we actually did support anyway.

Obama's liberalism is *not* satisfactory, and you will *not* shut down criticism of his horrible policy by insisting that's what causes Republicans to get elected.

We lost in 2010 because Obama looked weak. We won in 2012 because Romney was the most unlikable human being in existence. We may or may not win in 2014, but we won't win by pushing Republican policy.

[BlueDemKev]

16. African-Americans, Hispanics, College students, Union members...

The turnout of these groups, as well as with progressives in general, was SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER in 2010 than it was in 2008. Yes, Obama looked weak but anybody would with Fox News and the tea-baggers beating up on him every single day, playing on people's fears as they worried themselves sick about losing their job (or trying to find a new one), as well as their life savings because of the horrid economic conditions. We as Democrats should have been out and supporting Pres. Obama and the Democratic Congress constantly reminding the public that these tea party morons are the same people who destroyed our economy and took us into the Iraq War and how they were all suddenly pretending that they never like Bush!

Conservatives will never shut up. That's just a fact. We have to make sure that we're there to meet them and debunk their bull shit before the public accepts it as gospel.

[totodeinhere]

19. Silver rates that state's senate race as a tossup right now.

So yes, it's important that we don't let that one slip away. I hope it doesn't come down to that but that seat might make the difference between retaining control of the Senate or not.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. You are amazing!! Thank you!!

[Cosmocat]

22. Yes

a shame that he did what he campaigned on.

That said, what exactly might "he" have done had he been more whatever it is that you think he should have been.

[vi5]

25. I didn't say anything about his campaign.

It still sucks that he was more concerned with being bipartisan and centrist and "reaching across the aisle" even though any idiot who had been paying attention for even 10 minutes before hand would and should have known that all it was going to be met with was a slap and a middle finger from the other side.

We can all play "woulda shoulda coulda" but I would have liked to see what could have gotten done if he actually played hard ball instead of trying to win the affection and kind words of the David Brooks, Tom Friedman's and Richard Cohen's of the country. I also would have liked to see him appoint people who were not part of the rotten system that got us to that shitty point in the first place (Geithner, Summers, Duncan, most of the folks at Defense/CIA/etc.).

But I guess we'll never know now because, hey can't do anything with that damn obstructionist Senate and House. Oh well.

[Cosmocat]

34. The campaign is very germane

He campaigned on working with people in DC.

He did what he campaigned on.

And, I suspect he could care less what Brooks or Friedman thought.

He did what he thought was right, and that was to try to have government work as it should.

REGARDLESS, with a minority in complete lockstep against him and his own party fractured, there is literally nothing more he could have gotten done by "playing hardball."

He could scream, yell, call names, or whatever, but republican's were going to be united in total against him, and the democrats would have broke the same, those who are in safer districts being behind him and those in more contested districts bailing on him on the tough votes.

You think the democratic house/senate members who softened everything and/or bailed on the big votes would have broke his way more if he was more caustic, thereby giving some actual reality to how republican's were negatively framing him?

All his "playing hardball" would have done was make his reelection more at risk, cause his margin of victory was with those folks in the middle who saw he was doing his part to TRY work in a civil manner.

[vi5]

36. Well then we can agree to disagree. (n/t)

[DCBob]

27. Why makes this about Obama?

Cant you people focus on the most important issue facing the future of this country? If the GOP takes full control we are fking doomed.

[vi5]

30. I responded to a post that made this about Obama.

I responded to a post about how somehow this meant that Obama only had 2 years of presidency.

[mgcgulfcoast]

10. i think silver is wrong

we may lose 2 seats but maintain control.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Silver's got a pretty good track record when it comes to races

but I hope that he's wrong. Some seats in some states may be favored for the GOP but the races will still turn, of course, on how strong/electable the GOP and Democratic nominees are. Let's just make sure that we get people out to vote. I don't see any huge teabagger groundswell in this upcoming election like in 2010 but turnout will still (likely) be higher among the wingnuts than progressives. Hopefully, we can boost turnout and get rid of some of the 2010 gubernatorial mistakes (i.e. Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan).

[Robbins]

12. Silver

He's good at presidental race but not as good at senate races

2010-had Republicans winning In Nevada and Colorado and democrat winning In Illinois
2012-had republicans winning In Indiana,ND,and Montana

[DFW]

24. Romney thought Silver was wrong, too N/T

[Parable Arable]

13. Is Silver's report disheartening?

Admittedly, yes it is. We shouldn't be struggling to keep the senate given how unpopular the opposition is. Does it mean we should start the "Who's to blame: Progressives or the Democratic party/Obama" game? No, let's play that game if we lose in 2014. To play it now willl get us nowhere. Right now, we should be motivated by this report to work even harder, not making precognitions of doom

[Cosmocat]

23. It is what it is

it is a bad cycle for dems in the senate.

Gotta man up and find a way to keep the majority.

[John2]

14. I don't see how he thinks

a Republican has a chance of winning statewide in North Carolina with the anger going on right now in this state. He makes the wrong assumption that anger will not push people towards the Polls. Especially with the NAACP neing among the main organizations organizing rallies on Moral Monday and other organizations involved.

[rtracey]

15. If it happens

If this does happen, the first thing that will happen will be the affordable care act will be repealed, every gun law in the country will be overturned or voted down. Now jobs bills will ever come up, Koch brothers will rule the world, and this country will sink into another depression, until the 2016 elections.....makes get out the vote seem VERY important now huh?

[Robbins]

17. Um

Obama can still veto.Do people really think he would sign that.If republicans take majority it won't be a huge one and Democrats have enough seats to prevent any veto from being overturned.

This could be a short term majority.Republicans can't gerrymander Us senate seats.And the 2010 republicans will be running for relection
In a presidential year when the likely democratic nominee will be Hilary Clinton.

[totodeinhere]

18. He also says that Mitch McConnell has an 80% chance of retaining his seat.

Very depressing.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. A week is a long time in politics

by 2014 it may be difficult for us. We need to be ready. I see too many of us at the beach.

[Marsala]

21. Nate was rating the odds of the Democrats keeping the Senate in 2012 as around 50% until last August

And we all remember what happened. Events are important. It's way too early to be certain of anything.

The Republicans' habit of flushing away multiple winnable races in the past two cycles certainly doesn't bode well for them, though.

[BlueDemKev]

32. Unless they're complete idiots...

...the Republican senatorial candidates will do everything they can not to say anything which would piss off women, blacks, or Hispanics. But, then again, we are talking about the Republicans here!

[Sunlei]

26. The way republican cons have domanated the most local govs, would not doubt Sen. Ds have a volcano

under them from the local R control. county and lower.

They are pretty corrupt at those low local levels. No one watches them. Everyone focuses on the Federal gov. while the local R-gerrymandering is out of control.

[Kablooie]

28. And the rogue states have freedom to change voting rules any way they want at the last minute now.

I predict we will see a slew of extremist rule changes that will prevent many populations from voting.
They won't appear until right before the election and they will be declared illegal but long after the election is over.

[Sunlei]

29. we americans need a new system to vote and out of state control totally

Also think it's ridiculous to still cut states down to tiny mapped voter districts like it's the 1820s.

[Rochester]

31. Don't despair

We'll do the best we can, and try to make gains in the House also. Worst case scenario, Obama gets to use his veto pen.
In 2016, all those Senate seats that the Republicans picked up in 2010 will be up for election again. Some of the will be vulnerable, and Democratic turnout is better in a presidential election year anyway.

[BlueDemKev]

33. I've been thinking the same thing

In 2016, we should be able to recapture some of those Senate seats we had no business losing in 2010--namely PA, IL, and maybe WI. However, it is unlikely we'll be able to win back AR, ND, or IN. Those states are blood red and are not likely to vote out a GOP incumbent in favor of a Democrat.

Therefore, if we have, say, 50 or 51 seats after 2014, we'd probably only be able to get as high as about 53 after 2016. Not easy to govern with that small of a majority, especially if the Rethugs control the House. Remember, the Senate confirms or rejects Supreme Court nominations. That's a VERY CRITICAL and cannot be forgotten during the course of the next ten years as two liberal judges and two conservative judges rapidly moving towards retirement age. Ginsburg is already 80, and Breyer, Kennedy, and Scalia are in their late 70s.