Nate Silver: Senate may tip for GOP in 2014

[apples and oranges]

Statistician Nate Silver predicted Monday that the GOP will likely have 50 to 51 Senate seats after the 2014 midterm elections, potentially enough to reclaim a Democratically-controlled body since 2006.

“A race-by-race analysis of the Senate, in fact, suggests that Republicans might now be close to even-money to win control of the chamber after next year’s elections,” wrote Silver at the FiveThirtyEight blog Monday.

Silver’s prediction comes after former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer announced Saturday that he will not run for the state’s open Senate seat in the upcoming midterm. This is a blow to Democrats who saw Schweitzer as the best chance to hold a seat occupied by Democrat Max Baucus since 1978, who will retire at the end of this term.

I really don't think this nation can survive another GOP go-round. Let's not forget that almost everything that's wrong with this country is a result of GOP policies. I'm begging everyone to not only vote next year, but to get at least 2 apathetic friends to vote with you.

[DonCoquixote]

1. part of the plan

the GOP knows only we can lose things now, but we tend to love shooting ourselves rather than aim at them,

[MADem]

2. And if that happens, "WE"--and by "WE" I also mean the people who spend their days here saying how

shitty everything related to the Democratic Party is--will be the ones to blame.

Talk about having something to REALLY cry about....

[cthulu2016]

5. Yeah... losing the Senate will be the fault of whoever you don't like on DU.

I would guess that DU posts you don't like will swing as many senate seats as DU posts starting with vowels or DU posts with an odd number of recs.

None.

[MADem]

10. You need to really work on those reading skills, there, skippy.

You try reading it again--I'm not heaping all the blame on the untoned shoulders of the professional complainers hunched over their keyboards here (and you'd see that if you read what I wrote before you snarked, but you just couldn't help yourself)--I'm simply saying they SHARE the blame.

OK, slowly now--I've even bolded the key word for you:

And if that happens, "WE"--and by "WE" I also mean the people who spend their days here saying how

shitty everything related to the Democratic Party is--will be the ones to blame.

Talk about having something to REALLY cry about....

I bring dozens of people to the polls for EVERY election. Local, state, national--makes no matter to me. If the polls are open, I'm all over the place, getting people to 'em. That's how I do my bit.

If everyone "did their bit" instead of having your lousy attitude, it would help. All of us--not just the ones who get off their asses and work to get Dems elected, but people like me who drive, who do a little precinct walking, who will even smile and dial on occasion, as well as the professional "sky is falling" whiners who never met a Democrat they seem to like, yet spend all day on this Democratic board--if ALL OF US worked, for a change, to deliver a midterm victory, maybe we'll get one. We need everyone working in all fifty states--all elections.

I guess we don't need to count on YOU, though!

You've got that lackadaisical thing DOWN, bro! We've got ourselves a professional cynic, here! Who reads too fast to grasp the point being made!

How "kewl" is that...?

[rhett o rick]

13. Why do you and "The Group" avoid like the plague some threads?

Like this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262702 ?

Or this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262111 ?

Or anything to do with Sen Warren?

Do you guys coordinate?

[MADem]

22. What are you insinuting, in a rather UGLY and UNCIVIL fashion?

What group? What coordination?

You really need to grow up. Posts like yours, with veiled accusations (you didn't participate in this diatribe of a thread, or that one.... ergo you are SUSPICIOUS) make DU suck.

Shame on you.

FWIW, I played a small but nonetheless contributory role in GOTVing for MY Senator, Senator Warren. I did some smiling and dialing for her AND I drove dozens of EW voters to the polls on election day.

What did you do to help get her elected?

[rhett o rick]

65. I just find it curious that some subjects seem to be verboten to those

that are very active in posts of character assassination.

I was not aiming this at you, in fact I asked you because I feel you are here to honestly speak to issues. I see you post in threads that discuss the TPP, the Keystone Pipeline, fracking, Sen Warren.

But you are right. I should just ignore those that seem to be here to disrupt. I already have a bunch on ignore.

[MADem]

68. I find it curious that you fancy yourself the gatekeeper of where people "need" to go on DU.

If you aren't "aiming this at" me, it's a very curious way you have of showing it. Your previous post was nothing but bald-faced accusation. I was frankly a bit taken aback. I am not part of a wolf pack or a crew, I am me, and I have opinions--like we all do.

I post on topics that interest me. I don't read every post, particularly those in GD, because it moves too fast and I usually access the board through LATEST THREADS or MY SUBSCRIPTIONS. I do speak my mind and if I hold a strong view I won't hide my light under a bushel, but it doesn't ruin my day if people don't agree with me--the world would suck if everyone had the same view about every single thing.

[rhett o rick]

72. You are right of course. I will have to learn not to let it bother me.

And again, I am not aiming this at you because I know that you arent afraid to discuss issues. I have to use the ignore feature more.

[JVS]

71. +1

[last1standing]

8. Do the politicians who go back on promises and the Democratic platform share none of the blame?

None? Really?

[MADem]

11. Get off your behind and work for the politicians you want to see win.

Don't sit here and cry to me, like it's "their" fault because people voted for them.

I put my personal efforts where my mouth is, and I've done it for quite a few years now.

[last1standing]

14. So you can "cry to me" that it's the fault of those who complain about these politicians...

But I can't do the same?

Perhaps I need to get off my butt and work for better politicians (which I do) and you need to get off your butt and learn that there are two problems here, not just the side of the argument you don't like (which you apparently haven't).

[MADem]

19. There is only ONE problem here, in the short term--and that is 2014, the OP topic.

If we don't hold the Senate and make gains in the House, we're in "continued stalemate land."

That will make the professional complainers and the GOP happy. The former will stew in a great big greasy pot of "Toldjaso" and the latter will gloat. The rest of us who give a crap about Equality, Choice, Immigration Reform, Gun Control--all the signature issues--will suffer.

If you work for better politicians, you're putting in the effort. Why take umbrage if the admonition doesn't apply to you, personally? Don't put your foot in the shoe if it doesn't fit.

[last1standing]

23. I took umbrage because I also complain when politicians break promises.

And I think that the ability to complain when they do so is one of the greatest things about being an American. When Obama says he will protect Social Security then turns around and puts it on the block as a bargaining tool, he deserves my complaints. When Sen. Carl Levin (a man I greatly admire and have worked for three times) blocks civil prosecution for military sexual abuse crimes, he gets my complaints as well.

The ability to call out our leaders is what makes this country so much better than Russia or China. I won't fault anyone for using it - not even a teabagger.

[MADem]

25. Do it, then. Call them out on it. You don't need my permission.

And FWIW, e-mail is the way to go, but it is best to coordinate with a staffer to get the sense of your complaint in front of them. The principal will probably never see the thing but the staffer will relay the best parts. If you know the email address of a senior staffer that can expedite matters.

I do understand the concept of compromise. I don't like it when my ox gets gored, but I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, either (to mix metaphors roundly).

We'll have no one to complain to who gives a shit if we are represented by a Republican Senate. I hope Nate Silver is wrong on this one, but he hasn't been so far--we need to turn this ship around, and get our act together.

[last1standing]

31. I wasn't asking your permission, I was responding to your post denouncing complainers.

This is a discussion forum, not an electronic soapbox. We're here to share ideas and discuss issues.

As for compromise, I'm all for it but in the political sphere compromise rarely happens in the middle, it happens where the pressure on each side is most bearable. My feel it to be my job as a citizen is to help make sure that pressure moves the balance to the left, not the right. Complaining, which you complained about in your original comment, is not going to move the balance.

That doesn't mean we should sit at home and do nothing but whine about how things aren't exactly as we want them. We need to both whine and work. That goes for the short term and the long term.

I hope Nate Silver is wrong as well. As he admits, there are many, many situations that could cause his numbers to be faulty this far out. Will the teabaggers nominate insane candidates like Mourdock and Akins? It seems likely they will. Will Reid back down from yet another filibuster threat causing even more people to believe the Democrats have no spine. It seems likely that could happen as well. There are so many contingencies at this early date that I'm surprised Silver even offered this prediction.

[MADem]

37. I can handle "whine and work" but I'm not seeing much of that here.

I can't believe how many posts there are in this thread insisting that there is "no difference" between the Dems and the GOP. There's a HUGE amount of difference, and if you are a minority, a woman who wants to exercise her right to choose, a foreign born, US raised child of undocumented parents, or a member of the GLBT community, that difference is pretty damn obvious.

Silver's comments weren't a hard and fast prediction, they simply suggested a possibility based on which way the wind is blowing. That's enough for me to be concerned, though, even though he is probably doing a little "working the brand" with his remarks.

[last1standing]

43. You and I see this issue from opposite ends.

I would rather read the complaints as I believe they help move the spectrum of politics to the left, whereas you would rather not read the complaints as you believe they dampen motivation to vote for Democrats. Perhaps we're both right and the two things cancel each other out.

Regardless, I believe the vast majority of us do vote and work for Democrats to the best of our ability.

[MADem]

47. I think that many of the complainers don't do anything BUT complain.

It's not that I "don't want to read them," it is that I tend to not take seriously anyone who tells me, with a straight face, that there is "no difference" between the GOP and the Democratic Party. That's either a clueless analysis or some serious trolling. And when they never get off their best intentions and do any work for candidates, I just have to consider the source. I'm afraid there are more than a few "sources" here who love to spread negativity, doom and gloom, and who never have a good thing to say about any Democrat for any reason. I find that curious and tiresome.

I hope we do have a majority here that are concerned enough to see the difference between candidates who want women to have equal pay for equal work, and those who think that it's OK to pay them less, or that a "minimum wage" should be an optional thing. I think more people should realize that even an imperfect plan to provide health care is better than no plan. I should hope that most people here are supportive of civil rights for all, are worried about how voting rights are being abrogated in some places, and are concerned about those sorts of issues.

Some days, though, I wonder.

[last1standing]

50. Perhaps it's frustration.

No, the Democratic party is not as bad as the republican party but our party has moved greatly to the right in the last thirty years. That's very frustrating for many who remember a time when union support was expected and universal health care meant a system that really did cover everyone, not a system that leaves tens of millions still uninsured.

Yes, there have been improvements under Obama, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is dead, international relations have generally improved, we have mostly withdrawn from Iraq and are in the process of leaving Afghanistan. Yet, there have been many slights by this administration against the left wing and many move to the right that make it very hard to remember the advances made. I don't know that anyone would disagree with that regardless of how strongly they support the president.

All that said, I believe it's healthy to blow off the steam now so that when the time comes to vote there's a better chance these people will do so, and even work for the Democratic candidate. I also think it's healthy to call them out with reminders of what has been done to improve the nation. I don't think it's healthy for either side to personally attack the other with insults or snide comments. These do little other than cause the other party to solidify their position and that can be dangerous. Unfortunately, I see more of that kind of thing than not, lately.

Long post, much shorter: If we continue the discussion we'll likely win, if we hurl abuse at each other we'll likely lose.

[freshwest]

73. I have the same feeling. Those who relentlessly denigrate the only viable opposition to total GOP

Last edited Tue Jul 16, 2013, 10:19 PM - Edit history (1)

domination in 2014, not having learned a thing or maybe not even suffered from the effects of Democrats staying home in 2010, are the cause.

The Democratic Party is a big tent and that's the only way it wins, not pandering to just one part of itself, ignoring the rest. There are groups demanding 'their way or the highway' which means they'll hit the road and not vote.

Dividing us by pointing each other's faults and never offering a solution, except that those who some will always say aren't good enough, is exactly the plan of those who want the GOP status quo expanded. Not using an effective organization to combat them, is suicide.

When I see a lot of this going on and trashing the Democratic Party or its leaders for not giving into one group and telling the others who vote and work for change regularly in a flawed system, I combined an analogy about enthusiasm.

Say, you want to sell your car to someone, or maybe a collection of progressive ideas, so to speak. You constantly harp on what is wrong with your vehicle when talking online or in person. You tell everyone what is wrong with the on board computer (leaders) and all the times it got you half way up the mountain, but needed some more coolant.

It did what it was represented to do in the long run, but not in the style wanted, how embarrassing it was.

Or the door is jammed, or the tires are worn out. But you say you're just giving criticism, just being honest in your point of view. You consider yourself to be doing the buyer or voter a favor, all daily diatribes on how horrible and what is wrong with your car or organization.

However, you won't do the repair work, and have no way to get things better for the buyer. You have no alternative to make it the sleek high-performance vehicle you wanted to have. Does anyone think the car buyer or voter is going to buy it?

No, no more than intended by the media, who is your rival and does have a very dangerous car for sell, but you never hear a bad word about it. As FDR built a national Democratic majority, there were concentration camps, Jim Crow laws, lynching, segregation and other forms of discrimination.

The Democratic Party was the party of the Dixiecrats who left when it became more inclusive. To enable progressive agendas, one needs an effective tool. There is no other being offered to carry through the traditional ideas of the Democratic Party in expanding equality.

So, when people tell us how evil Obama and the Party is, it's no longer about persons or the party. If we cannot convince ourselves there is a difference, after having watched the convention last year, and seen what Obama and the Democrats have done to make those dreams come true, it's more than clear we don't really value those dreams. For some of us, we can't afford not to.

To deny or refuse to give credit to a party that cares about progressive ideals, or equality, or anything else, by saying 'they are all the same,' denies the agenda we say we believe in. Just imagine how it sounds to a voter when you tell them how lousy the Democratic Party is all day long? They would be crazy to vote for a Democrat if they listened to you.

Then to come and complain those same voters didn't remove that Teabag senator or congressman or mayor you say that you hated, is just disingenuous, IMHO.

[MADem]

76. Day-um! That is a BRILLIANT analogy!!!

We've gotta do the maintenance and gas the old heap up every now and again--otherwise, we're walking and eating GOP dust.

[freshwest]

77. Thanks, I'm glad it made some sense. IMO, it's get with it or get this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017132304

I've been arguing with these screwballs for years. They will carry this stuff out, and they are not going away.

It's time to stop living off past victories and realize these guys mean exactly what they say. Just mocking twon't do any good. They have answers for that, too. These guys are in deep and for the long haul.

And... sorry to bust a smug myth of the left... They are not 'voting against their own interests' as many like to say.

Close down that public school, fire and police departments, social services, post office; sell off public infraastructure, hand it over to corporations and take public lands; we think that's terrible and no one would want to have that happen.

Sorry to burst that bubble, but they already got their hands out and the contracts have been signed to get a lower wage but they'll get the work from the more skilled people that happen to be in public secotr work. It is right wing populism at its best.

And they are impervious to the screams of those displaced, as they've built a religious, social and business model that keeps them happy as Mussolini knew it would in Italy.

We have to speak up for what we believe, if we do, and work on it, like the people at the DNC last year. To many of us that is a beautiful vision and it is attainable thorugh our party, so why don't we hear about it? Why aren't those ideals being discussed, fleshed out to see how they would come to pass?

Huh?

There is real world hurt that the baggers and libertarians are putting on us across the country. Serious stuff is going on, we don't have time to hide behind the cowardice of cynicism.

JMHO.

[MADem]

78. OMG that link---gaaaah!

I think our party isn't perfect, but the baby (who shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater) is cute and earnest and well meaning--we just have to help show the baby the way!

[Marie Marie]

3. I can't even entertain that thought.

The United Corporations of America. Wonder if the Tea Party is ready to chant: UCA! UCA! UCA!

[Lancero]

54. I'm confused...

I thought that UCA meant the United Christians of America?

Well, then again... I suppose both would apply.

[msongs]

4. question is do dems really have a distinct brand that is effectively promoted by leadership>

doesn't seem to be, repubs are always on the attack and dems just play defense. weak leadership at the higher levels and too much like repub lite.

[apples and oranges]

7. Sure, if you consider gun control, reproduction rights, civil rights, pay equity... a distinct brand

You don't see the distinction?

[MADem]

12. Don't forget Equality....but hey, the gripers will INSIST that there's no difference.

And they also won't get out there and help, either.

It's easier to complain than to work.

I see the distinction, and thank you for pointing it out so succinctly.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

39. If "gun control" is a winning issue, go for it. n/t

[mick063]

6. As long as Democrats embrace Republican policy

They are certain to lose.

They will not get people out to vote with corporate ass kissing. Obama's big crowds were there because of a hope for "change".

It really is quite simple.

You have to offer an alternative.

[apples and oranges]

9. Let me guess: The answer is to give republicans MORE power?

That makes so much sense!

You have to offer an alternative.

Have you been paying ANY attention at all? JFC!!!

[mick063]

15. Yes

I have been paying attention. It is why I have just about given up on that "change" that was promised.

Let the Republicans piss off the country. That is the only way we will get real change. Obviously, change won't happen from pseudo Republicans with a (D) by their name.

Start a revolution from the voting booth, without lifting one violent finger. One way or another change must happen. Either an ugly, dramatic, "marching in the streets" political revolution as a result from Republicans being in charge or an inspiring, peaceful political revolution with real Democrats in charge.

No more half assed shit for me.

I'm going all in, one way or another. Give me more fake Democrats and I will abstain from voting the national offices.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

41. Do you ever wonder why people think that throwing insults at you will cause you to overlook events?

[MADem]

17. As long as "Democrats" embrace negativity and don't GOTV, they are certain to lose.

I would suggest the following to people like that:

Bring three people to the polls with you. Tell everyone you know to do the same. Talk up the D candidates, explain how important things like reproductive choice, equality, immigration reform, etc., are, and how the GOP is NOT THE SAME on these issues, never have been, and never will be.

It really IS quite simple--if these "Democrats" can't see that there are basic differences in the party platforms, they simply are NOT paying attention.

[reformist2]

16. It's waaay too early to be making predictions on 2014.

[Kablooie]

59. Probably not for Silver.

Of course it's not really a prediction, just an indication of how things lean right now.
It could change, but with Obama pissing everyone off it may not.

[davidpdx]

18. The thought of having a Republicans House and Senate makes me nauseous

I know my senator will be reelected comfortably. There is a 99.9% chance none of our House Congressional delegation will change. We'll still end up with only one Republican and that is Greg Walden.

[4now]

20. That is what he said last election

That is what they all said last election.

[PSPS]

21. With Obama's reliably persistent dismissal of his base, 2014 will be like 2010.

[Cha]

28. l am part of Obama's Base and we will be out working

for Dems in 2014. We will GOTV.

Everyone else can just whine on the internet.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

40. Yes.

[Triana]

24. Already posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023263248

What a dismal prospect.

[Art_from_Ark]

48. The trend is against the Democrats

Unless the Democrats pull a rabbit out of their hat, they will have a tough fight to gain or even hold seats. The historical trend, going back to at least 1910, is for the party in the White House to have a net loss of House/Senate seats in the mid-term elections. That is, in the past 26 mid-term elections, the party in the White House has had a net gain of seats in only 3 of those elections-- 1934, 1998, and 2002.

In 1934, FDR gained seats due to the backlash over Republicans blocking key components of his New Deal program.
In 1998, Clinton gained seats due primarily to backlash over the ridiculous impeachment circus.
In 2002, bu$h gained seats due to the specter of 911 still fresh in people's minds.

The mid-terms have different factors in play. For example, only 1/3 of the states have Senatorial elections, meaning that the highest national office on the ballot in most states will be US representative. If the representative is unopposed, or has a weak opponent, it will have a negative impact on voter turnout, barring some pressing local issue(s).

So, the biggest draw for many states could be the race for the governorship. And even if someone votes for a Democratic governor, it does not necessarily mean that they will vote for a Democratic Senator and/or representative, or vice versa. For example, in 1968, the state of Arkansas voted for 1) a progressive Republican governor, 2) a liberal Democratic Senator, 3) 3 Democratic and 1 Republican Congressmen, and 4) a racist Presidential candidate. In 2002, the state voted for a Republican governor and a Democratic Senator. The die-hards in most cases voted straight ticket. It was mostly the centrists who split their votes between parties.

[Dawson Leery]

84. Sabato projections says the Democrats are

going to gain 3 seats in the house at this time.

[Art_from_Ark]

87. It would be nice if the trend could be bucked next year

It seems pretty early to be making predictions about November 2014, though.

[hrmjustin]

26. That is a shame about SChweitzer!

I hope Nate is wrong on this. We should remember that 2012 looked like a great year in the senate for the GOP and the dems gained seats.

[Cha]

29. Yeah, I hope Nate's wrong on this, too..

it could happen that way. More incentive for those who want a Democratic Majority in the Senate and the House to get busy.

[hrmjustin]

32. I want to see Mitch go down.

That is what I want out of life.

[Cha]

33. That will be a sweet sweet thing.. I'll

be optimistic about that!

[hrmjustin]

35. Well he is not liked in the state so the dems could win. Dems do win state wide offices, as the dem

candidate has done. It will be hard but if Mitch is Mitch I am sure he will give the Democrats some ammo to use against him.

[Initech]

30. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

[steelmania75]

34. Great, more gridlock.

I'm still very upset that even when the Dems had total control, they still wanted to "compromise" with the GOP on health care and stimulus, and now the health care bill is a mess with key provisions being delayed and red states deciding not to go with it.

[trublu992]

36. Isn't there some shot at North Carolina since the Gop crackdown seems to be backfiring?

[ceonupe]

46. I'm from NC

And yes that may be Kay Hagans only hope.

The polls still don't look good for her here.

However if the state legislature keeps up the crazy then her chance improve alot.

A lot of NC's Democratic Party's fall has to do with corruption back room deals and old school politics of being in power and getting drunk off it. Instead of ridding the progressive wave sweeping thru nc in 2008 the state party was destroyed in 2009 by scandal and 2010 caught flat footed. 2012 just built on that .

[BainsBane]

38. That's what they said for 2012

In fact they said the Dems couldn't hold on to the Senate.

[apples and oranges]

42. Nate's predictions have been spot on

I'm not sure which "they" you're referring to, but Nate has been right every cycle.

[BainsBane]

44. Not this far out. Even he would concede that. He creates models that

factor probability. The closer to the election, the more accurate they are.
His model had the GOP winning the Senate too prior to about Aug of 2012.

Why are you so anxious for this to be true?

[snot]

45. Agreed. I'm frankly floored--how can it even be close? What are people thinking?

[apples and oranges]

51. Once again. What a lot of people here don't understand

is the power and influence that sites like this have. That power should be used constructively, because it sets the tone for the silent majority of liberal Americans who also happen to be casual voters. When the left decides to get behind an idea or concept, the the people follow. That's how Barack Obama was elected. That's how Trayvon Martin's killer was finally arrested.

On the flip side, when the left decides that Obama and democrats are the enemy, the casual voter steps back from the process and decides not to bother voting. Does that mean we shouldn't be able to discuss issues openly? No. People just need to realize that millions of people are forming opinions based on what's being said on these blogs and discussion forums.

Here's an example of how the NSA situation could have been handled. Instead of shouting about how you were betrayed, Obama = Bush, and Snowden will be murdered by the CIA, wouldn't it have been more constructive to start an information campaign to help Americans understand why the Patriot Act should be repealed? The first way is negative and only leads to more republicans gaining control, the second way is empowering and positive.

[Blue_In_AK]

57. He's missed a few.

He was sure Ethan Berkowitz was going to take out Don Young here in 2008, which he didn't even come close.

[GiaGiovanni]

49. Does Nate have any suggestions about how to change the trend?

Or is this just an ironclad prediction?

[BellaKos]

52. In that case, I need to know how to get out of the country. n/t

[MFM008]

53. I just hope

this prediction is as good as when he said our Seattle Seahawks were going to the superbowl. THAT was painful enough.

[diane in sf]

55. God forbid. I'll be working to make sure this doesn't happen.

[LearningCurve]

56. Seems a bit early even for Nate Silver

I have lots of respect for Silver, but given what I understand about his methods, it seems there is insufficient data to work with at this point.

[Kablooie]

58. I feel no push from Democrats anywhere but lots of steam from Repiblicans.

And history indicates there are better than even odds that the next president is Republican.
It looks like Obama may end his presidency being in disfavor with everyone including his past supporters. This would set the stage for the historical norm of a a Republican following a Democrat.

Of course during the next presidential term several liberal SCOTUS may retire which would allow a slam dunk conservative court leaving us to live out the rest of our lives in conservative heaven and liberal hell with no way out.

I wish Democrats would get some real fire under them but they are too busy trying to please the same corporate overlords the conservative kowtow to to really shake up the boat.

I don't see any silver linings yet.
I sure hope one appears befor it's too late.

[Skittles]

60. it could be his way of telling Dems to start acting like Dems

yes INDEED

[Historic NY]

61. +1

It obvious we didn't learn from 2010, and stayed home

Divide and conquer strategy of the GOP.

[Dawgs]

62. So says the luckiest man in the world. n/t

[WinkyDink]

63. Well, WTH not?! We're "a kinder and a gentler nation" now!

[Safetykitten]

64. Nate Silver knows nothing. He is a hack. Am I doing this right?

[WinkyDink]

69. "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?"

[librechik]

66. Mission Accomplished--get ready for "free speech zones" part 2

with added vaginal probes, shackles and kangaroo courts! and more!

[mick063]

75. Exactly what is needed to wake people up.

Half of America has an itch but doesn't know how to scratch it. The other half believes we simply have to take the bad for a tiny bit of good.

Both halves need to wake the hell up.

It won't happen with the "boiled frog" shift to the right. Of course the best scenario is to have real Democrats run for office. The second best option is to snap people out of it. A quick Teabillie slap in the face ought to do it.

For that reason, I leave the positions blank that offer Republicans with a (D) by their name.

[librechik]

85. yeah(maybe)but it's too late to do anything about it, thx to GOP Congresses and judiciary.

Us frogs are going to boil and have the bigger frogs block our escape.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

67. It was possible that the GOP could win in 2012

but they didn't- and we did better than expected too. Of course, we have seats from 2008 to defend next year- in places that might not have (easily) elected them without President Obama being on the ballot. GOTV!

[apples and oranges]

70. I'm a little surprised by the push back

What is it about?

Is it that you think Nate is wrong and that Democrats will win?

Or do you not want people to think getting out the vote next year is important?

Or is it that you want republicans to win because you're angry about a couple of issues that haven't gone your way? If so, who do you think would be harmed by republicans in control of the house and senate (and possibly the white house in 2016)? Most members of the congress and senate are millionaires, so losing will only hurt their egos. But how do you think regular people will get by without food stamps, unemployment, planned parenthood, medicaid, and medicare?

What on Earth is progressive about pouting like a child while paving the way for more right wing laws?

[0rganism]

74. "close to even-money", that's a relief

Here I was thinking the odds were more like 3-2 or 2-1 in their favor.

[stevenleser]

79. The Tea Party nutjob wing of the GOP will likely save us again. All it will take...

... is the nomination of a few wingnut Republicans in key races who again are anti-women's rights and anti-gay, etc., and we hold the senate again.

Freepers and other internet whack-jobs, we're counting on you! Go do your thing and try to prove that what people really want are 'true conservatives'!

[Le Taz Hot]

80. Here's an idea:

Democrats: Try running individuals that are FDR Democrats. Just for a change. I mean, honest-to-goddess, you couldn't POSSIBLY do any worse than the bozos you currently have. I'd like to remind the Party Loyal that Elizabeth Warren won because LIBERALS throughout the country donated to and worked for her campaign and she won back Kennedy's seat. She sparked excitement in people. People WANTED to vote for her, WANTED to work for her and people all over the country were fascinated by her candidacy. When the D's offer up Republican-lite, milquetoast, only-slightly-better-than-the-Republican candidates, don't be surprised if people stay home on election day.

And THAT'S how you maintain the Senate and win back the House.

[WillyT]

81. + 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

[Dawson Leery]

82. Silver is saying at this time (summer 2013) the GOP has a 50/50 chance to win the Senate.

At this point in 2011, the GOP was going to have 53 seats. In the end they had only 45.
Yes, Democrats are in a better position today than they were two years ago.

[Le Taz Hot]

83. How so?

Silver lays it out by state. What do you posit?

[Kablooie]

86. And remember the rogue states have complete freedom to change voting rules at the last minute now.

I have no doubt we will see a slew of extremist voting regulations appear just before the election which would dramatically decrease Democratic votes.

The changes may be deemed illegal but they wouldn't be able to be stopped until long after the election is over.

Considering this I think it's very likely that we will lose the Senate.

[Rstrstx]

88. One word: OBAMACARE

I think the 2014 election in both houses hinges on how well or poorly the individual mandate portion of Obamacare plays out next year. If people like it I think the Dems should do pretty well; if it is bungled then we could be in some deep doo-doo. So there, Nate can just shut off his computers until the late spring or summer of next year, these results are meaningless.

What I don't see playing a large factor in next year's elections is the NSA scandal, I don't think the Repubs will touch it given that much of it could probably be traced back to Darth Cheney. They would love nothing more than to able to pin it on Obama but their fingerprints are all over it. No, I think they're going to go all out and try to sabotage Obamacare as much as they can, and if they succeed they very well may get both houses. Obamacare came at a hugely tremendous political cost and we could still be feeling the aftershocks in 2014 if it gets off to a shaky start but I certainly hope that by 2016 it will have been in place long enough for the kinks to have been sorted out so that most people (the 99%) will like it.