How many senate seats will the GOP pickup in 2014?

I guess we'll see.

 

Ill have to wait until i see my candidates and their platforms but as of right now im leaning republican for my vote. I think most of my family is now leaning that way as well. So this is about a good 20 votes that went from democrat to republican right here.

 

Only when the libs open their eyes will they see.......

 

To gain *any* seat? That's silly. They'll pick up a seat, it's basically guaranteed. The issue is that it's almost as surely guaranteed that the GOP will not pick up enough seats in total to hold the Senate.

If you need further evidence, I think it's 4 of the open seats in Montana, SD, and West Virginia, which for the most part are heavy Republican country. The Republicans not picking up a single one of those seats would be like having Republican senators in New England who don't lose a single seat. What you're proposing, that they don't gain any seats, is extremely unlikely.

The thing is that, while the Republicans will probably net a small two or three gain in the Senate, the Democrats will still have control in the Senate and the Republicans in the House are likely to lose seats. But, they have a fair edge in numbers and could afford to lose dozens of seats. It's not totally unimaginable for them to lose the 2014 house elections. Although it's likely the Republicans will lose seats in the house, they will probably still maintain control.

 

Anyone that thinks the GOP is going to lose seats are delusional. The GOP WILL pick up Louisiana,Arkansas,South Dakota,West Virginia almost for certain. Chances are very good in Montana too. North Carolina is also up for grabs. Then you have races that could be subject to something,like Minnesota,Michigan,Colorado(where Dems are on the run for gun control),Massachussetts(where Markey is weak). Dems have a better chance at losing the senate than gaining the house.

 

Given that the topic is Senate seats in 2014, and your location is Dayton, Ohio, it's funny that you think your 20 votes mean anything at all.

 

Sorry I was simply asserting my vote for any office be it gov. rep, and even the next presidential in 3 years. But go ahead and attack swing voters. The republicans dont even need to earn our votes when you people prove your arrogance.

 

What "you people?" I think swing voters are great, but they only matter in an actual election. I believe the political landscape is going to be very different in 2016 than it will be next year. In fact, the 2014 elections will influence what happens in 2016, so it's tough to predict swing voters' behavior that far out.

 

Then perhaps my first post "ill have to wait and see my candidates and their platforms" has meaning after all.

 

It's very hard to say a year out.

My guess, is that if the current paradign continues, they're likely to lose seats.

No doubt the poltical consultants are swarming around the potentially vulnerable seats.

Seats where a tea partier got elected in 2010 or 2012, and whom the establishment has decided it has had enough of.

These will be seat that Democrats have a crack at, as long as they run a moderate or a conservative.

I seriously doubt that the GOP will pick up seats in the House.

Right now, the momentum is moving in the opposite direction.

Of course, if Democrats were smart, they'd manufacture an instant grass roots group like the GOP did when it stole the tea party brand from Ron Paul and used it to energize the Bush dead enders.

But I don't see that happening.

The sort of political cynicism that produced Sarah Palin and the astoturf tea party of 2010 just isn't in the Democratic party's genes.

 

The political analyst, Larry Sabato (whose personal views may be characterized as center-left; but who, nonetheless, impresses me as a serious and fair-minded political analyst), recently suggested that the Democrats are likely to retain 50 seats with the midterms, whereas the Republicans are well-positioned for 48 others, with the races in Alaska and Arkansas (one in each state) rated as tossups: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cr...utdown-republicans-sort-through-the-wreckage/

Although it is much too early to suppose that this outcome is etched in stone, I would not be at all surprised if it were to end up something like this.

 

This may be little more than wishful thinking. If history is any guide--and it is usually a very good one--the party in power in the Oval Office typically loses congressional seats in the midterm elections, during the president's second term.

I would imagine that the partial government shutdown of October 2013 will be largely forgotten (or ignored) by most independents in November 2014; and that ObamaCare will play a very large role in these elections.

Whereas Democratic cheerleaders may hope that the ACA is widely embraced by the American public, and will actually help the Democratic brand, that scenario strikes me as rather doubtful; to the contrary, I would imagine that it will prove to be something of an albatross around many Democratic politicians' necks in 2014...

 

I would like to see the republicians retain control of the house and gain a 55/45 majority in the senate. We might then see Obama having to compromise which he has so far refused to do. We don't need another Obamacare fiasco.

 

Predictability, I don't hold that view.

It is historically true the the party in the White House loses seats in the mid term elections in a President's second term, but that is not an ironclad rule.

In Bill Clinton's second term, the GOP lost seats in the mid terms, owning almost entirely to the public's disgust wit the tactics of the GOP and its cynical insistance on provoking a Constitutional crisis over a man lying about a blowjob.

By contrast, the rule held in George W Bush's second term, and the public expressed its disgust with Mr Bush's war, the way it was being mismanaged and a host of other things.

Statistically, the mid term losses of second term presidents tend to my much lower than the losses in first term mid terms. This was true of Reagan and Truman (although not of Eisenhower).

The ACA will work.

By the time everyone has to sign up, people will have had to go out and figure out how it actually works. The media certainly isn't going to do the job of telling them, and Fox and its allies will continue to misrepresent it and lie about it for as long as anyone will listen. Already, the scope of people listening to the right wing scare tactics is narrowing.

Most people will find that they are better off, as I have.

And that will be something the President can campaign on.

 

Which seats? Proof please.

 

Here's why Republicans lose:






Not only should people remember that on Veteran's Day, they should and will remember that on all Election Days.

 

I found the first two-thirds of the above post fairly analytical; so, although I disagree with your basic conclusions, I do respect the thought process contained therein.

But I find the cheap shot at FNC to be disheartening--it reads more like the product of a mere rant than serious analysis--and likewise, the passing reference to "right wing scare tactics," absent any supporting evidence.

Like you, I actually find myself "better off"--well, slightly so, anyway--under the current law, since my own healthcare-insurance plan remains substantially unchanged; but some (preventative) doctor's visits are now covered without the need to pay any coinsurance.

Nonetheless, I find this very large expansion of the social contract to be disturbing--to say the very least...