The Republicans Are in Big Trouble: Mid-term elections prediction for 2014
There has been a lot of talk in the last few weeks about whether the Democratic party will take back control of the House of Representatives in 2014, or if somehow Boehnor and his gang of "Do Nothing" Republicans will still control that house of Congress in 2015.
After spending the last 6 months watching how the GOP party would react to Mitt getting his ass walloped in last year's Presidential election, it has become obvious by now that the Republican party doesn't have a clue how to hold on to power in the House next year.
With only 26 seats separating the Democrats and the Republicans in the House, the Republicans' tenuous hold on control of the House depends on their ability to pass some kind of legislation that will ensure they are re-elected to office next year. But, simply passing more "Repeal Obamacare" bills that will not even be taken up in the Senate, assures that the Republicans will be useless during this current session of Congress.
Unless Boehnor can figure out how to get bills passed into law without compromising with the Senate, his fate is sealed.
He will be the Speaker responsible for the biggest "Do Nothing" House of Representatives in over 80 years.
Of course, Boehnor thinks that he can simply point at the Majority Leader of the Senate and blame Harry Reid for his ineptness to get any laws enacted.
And while that may pass as a viable excuse in the lame district in Ohio that Boehnor comes from, it isn't going to work in the other 232 districts the other Republicans in the House come from.
If only 14 seats flip next year, Nancy Pelosi will be the one who will wind up holding the gavel in the House of Representatives.
And although 14 seems a rather small number, rest assured, that is all she needs to wrest control from Boehnor.
Personally, I think the number will be more than 45, but even if only 25 seats flip, then the result will still wind up with Pelosi being the one in control of the House.
The Senate is a different animal entirely.
Currently as it stands now, there is a majority of 53 Democrats in the Senate and 2 Independents, who usually caucus with the Democrats.
They are being held up by only 45 Republicans in the Senate, who have filibustered more often than any party ever has at any time in the entire 224-year history of this country.
Make no mistake about it, those 45 Republican yahoos have cost this country billions of dollars in lost tax revenues already this year, by thwarting the creation of any new jobs here in the United States.
There are 35 Senate seats up for grabs next year.
The mid-term elections of 2014 will decide who sits in Senate seats that are currently held by 21 Democrats and 14 Republicans.
The way I see it, the Democrats have a unique opportunity to not only keep control of the Senate, but to also reach the "filibuster-proof" number of 60 in next year's election.
The 4 most vulnerable Republican Senators are:
Susan Collins in Maine, who claims she is a moderate.
Tim Scott in South Carolina,who was just appointed to his seat this year.
Mitch McConnell in Kentucky.
The seat left open by Mike Johanns in Nebraska, who chose not to run for re-election after only 1 term in the Senate.
Add those 4 seats, where the Democratic party has definitely been making progress in the last decade, and just 1 more Republican Senate seat from any other state, to the Democratic side of the balance sheet in the Senate . . . and Harry Reid will have the 60 votes he needs to break any ridiculous filibuster that the Republicans may want to try and have in 2015.
This will result in a Senate in 2015 that is made up of:
And since the 2 Independents usually side with the Democrats, that will give the Democrats an edge of 60-40 in the Senate.
The GOP filibuster game is done.
The video screen for the Republican's ridiculous Senate game will flash, "Game over."
The mid-term elections are just 17 months away.
That's less than a year and a half.
And since early voting begins in October in most states, that narrows down the time remaining to the mid-term elections to only 16 months.
For a summary of the makeup of Congress, you can go to this link and download the PDF --
And if you would like to play "who wins the Senate seat in 2014", you can go to this link, and make your own predictions who will win the states that have elections coming up in 2014 for the Senate next year --
is proving the counterfactual that things would have gotten better, sooner, if more things Obama wanted had passed in Congress. I hope they can make that happen.
wanted. Anything is better than nothing. They did nothing. The question is not 'is what they did better than what we wanted to do' the question is 'is doing nothing better than doing something'.
Turnout is of course actually important, but in 2010 the issue was regional not national and pretty easy to address really.
the trouble is that after big elections like 2012 there is a lull and many Dems drift away. We need to be actively working our districts NOW. The GOP is very dangerous and 2014 will be a difficult one.
but I do know that the Democrats aren't going to pick up a Senate seat in South Carolina. Not going to happen, no way, no how.
might be asking a lot. IMO, its unlikely all three will flip. And Susan Collins is pretty well liked in Maine, which likes moderates. Unlikely a Dem wins that seat unless Teabaggers primary her.
. . a moderate.
In order for her to win her primary, she will have to run way to the right.
And if she does that, just in order to win her primary, she will be toast in the General election in the fall.
People may have short memories, but these days, they also have the internet.
And the internet changed the way politicians have to run for office now.
The YouTube channels help catch otherwise careful politicians saying dumb things all of the time.
There are more registered Democrats living in Kentucky than there are registered Republicans in that state.
Not only that, but Mitch McConnell was only 4 points ahead of Ashley Judd in polls taken just 2 months ago . . . and Ashley hadn't even announced that she was running for the Senate.
Plus the fact that Mitch only has a 33% favorable rating in his own state!!
You can't be the Minority Leader of the party in the Senate and expect to be re-elected just for saying "we don't want to discuss that" every single time an issue is brought to the Senate floor.
And yet, that is what all of those filibusters are all about.
So, McConnell is not secure in his re-election bid, at all.
As for South Carolina, they are the only state where both Senators are up for re-election next year.
Frankly, I'd like to see Lindsay Graham go down in flames.
But, I think there is a better chance that the new Senator, the one that just got there, will be thrown out of office.
He's a poser.
Chuck Hagel is from Nebraska.
I don't know why people from Nebraska wouldn't see that as a good thing for their state, since he is willing to work with President Obama as the Secretary of Defense.
Nebraska is not in the South, so they don't operate the same way there as the Tea Party faction members do in other states.
Just like the ones from the South or Texas.
I do not share the OP's wild optimism for Democratic gains in Congress in 2014. I think we are looking at a small loss of seats in both houses, unfortunately.
For reasons that totally escape me, Susan Collins is very popular in Maine, with approval ratings near 70%. I would be surprised (and that's an understatement) to see her lose to either a Tea Party challenger, or a Democratic opponent in the general election.
The fact that we have a Tea Party governor is simply a result of a three-way election. There are too many Tea Party types here (even in this liberal college town there are a number on my street), but compared to some places, the percentage is small. But, then again, Maine Republicans did choose LePage over several more reasonable Republicans in the last gubernatorial primary. So maybe there's a chance - that's the only way a Democrat could win this seat, if s/he was running against a Tea Party candidate.
If the Democrats could pick up just a couple of seats in the Senate, I think we would see Susan Collins voting with the Democrats more often, as she did with the background checks bill. Under the reign of W, I don't think she voted even once with the Democrats, and how she retained her reputation as a moderate is beyond me.
But, as other Mainers have been suggesting, her seat is safe.
there`s to many people who still aren't any better off than they were during the last election. the oligarchy will be dumping hundreds of millions into up for grab states and districts.
if the democrats don't take back the house our country is totally fucked.
If we show up, we will take the House, gerrymander and all....
I'm with you all the way on the zero tolerance for the voter suppression contingent. They have gotten on my last nerve. Some of them have already shown up in this thread.
If Dems don't show up, we lose. If electable Dems don't run or aren't supported, we lose.
they will stay in complete control of Congress and state governments until the districts are drawn with integrity by nonpartisan panels.
They really have rigged the game in a big way.
The 2010 elections are going to haunt us for a decade.
of time and energy. Dems would have to outperform Republicans by 20-30% to overcome the gerrymandering. 10% they could do, but, 20-30% is nigh impossible.
Even the conservatives are disgustipated at the obvious lying crap tossed out by their so-called "leaders" and talking heads.
The Repubbies have completely blown their cred with their enduring record of lies and negativity. Chickens are coming home to roost.
They usually do the same thing we do though ...vote party line ...right or wrong.
it seems that just enough blue dog senators can be depended upon to join the Republicans in obstructing anything progressive.
It will still take $$$ and lots of shoe leather to kick GOP ass and make them pay for their shenanigans.
At this point four years ago, there were editorials about the death of the GOP. We saw what happened about a year and a half later.
Let us not forget that for the last three House elections, there are districts that have specifically elected Rethugs to thwart whatever direction President Obama would have wanted to take the country. They got really alarmed after he did win in 2008, and they're just as alarmed that he got re-elected. No matter what happens to the economy, or the world at large, they're going to be out there.
The senate seat in Maine is not up for grabs (safe R). Susan Collins was able to breeze to reelection in 2008. Likewise, the senate seat in South Carolina is safe R.
The two seat that is remotely up for grab is in Georgia and Kentucky. Mitch McConnell is unpopular and open seat in Georgia.
Also, Republicans control a lot of redistrictings in 2010 so a lot of seats in the House won't likely flip.
get 58 Democratic Senators with no Blue Dogs we might have a chance to defeat the filibuster. With only 58 each has a lot of power to go with the Republicans. Look at the background check bill. Democratic Senators dont look anxious to win. I think some like to lose to the REpublicans. They consider it a win-win. Their sponsors are happy if the bills dont pass and yet they can tell their voters they did their best. If the Democratic Senators were serious about breaking the filibuster, they could have changed the rules. The Republicans will if they get the majority. We need 58 solid Democrats.
they could hold on to the House and even expand their hold if they did one simple thing.
The corporate media claims people like KKKarl Rove and other RepubliCON strategists are just sooo great that they have them on their shows almost exclusively. Yet none of these so called smart GOP strategists have figured out the one thing that would guarantee the GOP would keep the house.
That one thing is pass legislation that would create about 50,000 good paying middle class jobs. They don't even need to create enough jobs to put the 100 million people of working age that don't have jobs back to work. A mere 50,000 would be enough to point at and would demonstrate they could create more if.... reelected. If they would just create some decent jobs they would be in like flin. Instead they waste all their campaign monies on lying and cheating and conning the voting Americans.
showcasing gopers such like issa who has now declared war on the wh. he has called carney a liar, go figure huh. he is trying his damnest in tying pres o to irs by of course altering the facts and corporate media is allowing him to do it.
at this point in time, I do see an opening in dems picking up seats in senate and taking the house back. instead of the corporate media focusing on the real america and its people all they focus on is the 1-2%. people are getting tire of it.
our side tends to sit on the sidelines while the other side tends to always vote- and vote with a vengeance. However, it remains to be seen just how energized the right will be this time around as opposed to 2010 when the "Tea Party" was at his zenith in terms of energy and *enthusiasm*. They have receded in popularity since 2011 and lost seats in 2012. I'm somewhat worried about the Senate where we are losing some pretty high-profile/solid Dems but, hopefully, best case is that we can at least maintain a majority in the Senate and pick up some more House seats. I have a feeling that it may not be a blowout on either end but that we may lose a little ground but basically maintain the status quo. OTOH depending on how these *scandals* shake out and how far the Republicans decide to ride them, who knows? So far, nothing has come out implicating President Obama in any wrongdoing and, judging by 1998 when the Republicans actually DID find something they could pin on President Clinton, they were still seen as overplaying their hand by impeaching him and lost seats as a result. Chasing after these phony Obama *scandals* without producing any tangible evidence of wrongdoing could produce a more potent backlash.
Last edited Sun Jun 2, 2013, 04:35 PM - Edit history (1)
The Republicans' biggest problem is that they have finally been exposed for what they truly are. And, more importantly, more people are actually taking notice.
If they are stupid enough to pin their 2014 hopes to these "scandals" they will damage themselves for a generation. Folks are already inclined to consider them as out of touch and obstructionists when it comes to making progress in solving the nation's problems. As this summer and fall turn into winter and spring, if they are still babbling about the so-called Obama scandals, people who normally pay no attention to politics will turn on them in a big way.
All of that being said, it is, as Proud Liberal Dem says, all about turnout. If we as a party, and particularly the White House, learned our lessons by getting our butts kicked in 2010, we will be steering the election-year buzz and playing offense. In 2010, we sputtered and stammered and lost all control of the national dialogue months before Election Day.
Shame on us if we allow that to happen again.
Which is to say, no.
But, here's a link to it, just the same --
If you click on a DU member's nickname, it will take you to their journal, (in case you didn't know that).
I think it's also fair to add that billions in investment by corporations has yielded a result that is far more damaging to themselves than if they had left politics alone in the first place.
Defense contractors in particular have harmed themselves to the tune of a trillion dollars, and it is a virtual guarantee that they will seek to make some of it back by reducing political payouts to their Republican candidates, who were too stupid to stay bought (it was the President's Debt Committee ruse that did that).
The 2014 election is shaping up to be very different from the last mid-term election of 2010. In addition to the already increasing democratic momentum, the accelerating pace of the Great Republican Die-off, and the reduction in corporate political donations, there is also the economic recovery which we are already enjoying as a result of the expiration of tax cuts for the rich, and the fact that Republican gerrymandering can no longer keep pace with Republican-caused demographic shifts as more and more Americans fall into the underclasses.
The big problem now is how to motivate Democratic voters in rural and suburban districts without President Obama on the ticket. I think the answer to that is for the President to campaign alongside Congressional candidates, and to make the election a de-facto up-down vote on the President's policies.
Looking beyond that to the general election of 2016, I think it's entirely possible that the GOP is going to confuse the silence of death and destitution with the silence of disinterest, and blow that election preaching to a dead audience. It is a predictable result of the reberverating tragedy of the Bush Era.
It will be interesting to see how the Republican candidates deal with the lack of bread next year for not coming through for their corporate sponsors this year.
There is no shortage of suckers out there and disinterest would have to go several layers deep to keep second- and third- tier interests from jumping into the money-vacuum. If Citizens United is not dramatically altered, there may be several cycles of moneyed interests getting burned, jumping out, and being replaced by others willing to play a hand--it may be endless.
But money, it turns out, can only steer perception when people are not financially stressed. Republicans went out of their way to financially stress a vast majority of Americans, and it actually worked in their favor from 2008-2010.
After that their behavior started disproportionately harming their own constituents--all Republican Wal-Mart workers, as a front-page example, are now threatened whenever a Republican publicly tries to cut food stamps. It's a lot tougher to delude someone when the result takes food from their children.
It's a flippin' travesty that it had to come to this. Unforgivable--and I hope former Republican voters manage to remember that.
believe they should keep it.
Conservative Democrat passing Heritage Foundation retread policies is not going to cut it.
... with which Republicans vote, I don't see improvement.
The Democrats have a chance to improve the odds by offering something to the vast mass of potential voters who typically stay home, but that would mean supporting some true progressive policies - serious increase in the minimum wage, strengthening and expanding Social Security, Medicare for All, legalizing marijuana, etc.
Sadly, the Democratic leadership will instead move further right, 'cause "compromise", or some other such bullshit.
The available additional votes are on the left.
Our so-called "Democrats" NEVER have a Majority, even when they do. These "Democrats" will NEVER pass REAL progressive/Liberal Legislation, because it would make the GOP mad!
It is much different than the OP's predictions.
For what it's worth he is predicting that the Republicans will pick up 4.6 seats in 2014. Of course that would not be enough to take control but it would get them close and it's a much different scenario from what you are predicting. For instance you list Tim Scott as vulnerable yet Nate has him with a 95% chance of retaining his seat. He has Collins with a 75% chance and McConnell with a 90% chance. So based upon Nate's stellar record of making predictions like this I think that your predictions are way off base and perhaps just wishful thinking.
Nate has not made a recent prediction about the House. Right after the November election he predicted that the GOP would retain control. However Larry Sabato predicts a net pickup of one House seat for the Democrats in 2014, far short of what they will need for control.
I am aware that Sabato has been accused of a conservative bias but his past predictions have also been very accurate.
While Nate likes to think that he is the only one who can make predictions, I will predict today that Nate will change his predictions before next year.
He will come more in line with my predictions later on.
The reason I waited for 6 months before I made my predictions, is because 6 months is a reasonable length of time to more accurately gauge what the Republican response to President Obama's huge win in 2012 would be.
Nate didn't even wait 2 months before he made his predictions.
And since time is on my side, knowing what I know now, I stand by my predictions.
My predictions are based on more data, after much more time had passed.
Even though there is quite a bit of time before the mid-term elections, the Republican strategy is very apparent now -- do nothing, and blame Harry Reid.
That won't work.
So, unless the Republicans change course and do something different, like appeal to someone other than rich, white men -- which up to this date in time, they are unwilling to do -- then these predictions will still hold true in 16 months.
16 months is not a lot of time, and I don't think there will be any big change coming from the Republican party this year.
So, after another 16 months of gridlock and malaise from the Boehnor House, ceterius parabus, I don't think Boehnor will still have control of the House in 2015.
Boehnor said he was going to create jobs in 2010 when he became the Speaker, yet here it is 3 years later, and he still hasn't passed a Jobs Bill.
That's going to look even worse in 16 months.
People don't get rewarded for doing nothing.
Last edited Mon Jun 3, 2013, 04:59 AM - Edit history (1)
for Democratic candidates is there is no party momentum on calling out the republican actions described above. Until there is a persistent and constant mantra from the left strong enough to force the network media to cover it, it will go unnoticed, and the silly talking points of the right will dominate and run the election. The democratic message should be as focused like Bloomberg's mayors for gun control. Obama also needs to push a specific economic recovery bill for jobs, infrastructure (goods to market) and trade protection. This will give candidates something to run on. If the democrats in the senate and the house at least announce a plan for these things, they won't even need to rely on an Obama idea. They won't even need to bring it to the floor. They just need to run increasing their voice in both chambers. If Truman could do it for himself, I don't understand why it couldn't be done on a larger scale now. The republicans did it successfully in the 90's with false promises. It's not the republicans who need the benefit of branding, it's democrats. It should not be that difficult. We have the ideas, facts, and history to back it up.
your comment for future reference after the election.
The election will not be about obstructionism or about successes and failures.
It will be about nasty little lies and distortions in 30 second bites.
One that comes immediately to mind is Obama saying he wants to cut social security....that will surely be among the greatest hits of the 2014 election. IMO the chances of the Dems regaining control of the house is are slightly better thans me winning the power ball lottery.
between the historical patterns and the gerrymandering, i can't see more than nominal gains in the house at best.
the senate is not looking good at all, especially with lautenberg's passing. if christie can find a strong replacement, we're in even more trouble.
majority, but not the filibuster proof number. He does a good job of breaking down the races considering it's so early. He hasn't come out with anything i've seen on the congressional races. Even msm isn't helping us. There was an article on HuffPo today talking about what a great job Walker, Snyder, Scott and the Penn Governor are doing. They do mention Scott and the Penn Gov being vunerable but they give credit for the jobs and better economy to Walker and Scott.
The 'Class 2' column on the link below are the ones up for re-election.
Senate, latest predictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2014#Latest_predictions
House, predictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2014#Pre-election_analysis_and_selected_results
with the passing of Senator Lautenburg at least until a special election is held in which we can hopefully regain the seat. The Senators who are in their 80s and 90s and die in office put the party in a peculiar place with having to defend their seats on such short notice. Whomever wins the special election has to turn around and run again next year for a full election. That's two election cycles that need to be funded to hold a Senate seat which takes money away from other areas.
In terms of your numbers for the Senate, there is no way the Democrats will reach 60 with the two independents. We will be extremely lucky if we hold the same number we have. Remember there are quite a few more Democrats retiring than Republicans and quite a few more seats held by the Democrats that are up for election then there are Republicans.
The House really is the wildcard though. I can tell you with 100% certainty the Oregon House delegation will end up staying 4-1 D.
According to Wikipedia the count is:
Unless these numbers are off (which they could be) we need 17 seats (218 is the majority). I think that is possible (much more so than 60 in the Senate). It won't be easy though.
Conservative sycophants, or worse, of mediocre intelligence at best, will continue to control all three branches of the federal government.
Political Parties may change faces... But to what good?
The collective character will remain unchanged, and the ruling class will win again.