Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NPolitics1979

(613 posts)
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 10:45 AM Apr 2013

2014 US Senate Election- Republicans guide to regaining control of the US Senate and keeping it for

long term.
Anticipating possible losses in 2016
1)IL(Kirk-R or No Kirk-R) Madigan-D- assuming she does not run for Governor, or Hynes-D.
2)IA(OPEN-Grassley-R) Vilsack-D or Culver-D vs Latham-R
3)WI(Johnson-R) Feingold-D- assuming he does not run a the progressive alternative to Hillary-D, Kind-D.
4)PA(Toomey-R) Sestak-D or Kane-D
Republicans need to win 10 Democratic held Seats up for grabs in 2014.
1)WV(OPEN-Rockefeller-D) Capito-R
2)SD (OPEN- Johnson-D) Rounds-R
3)MI (OPEN- Levin-D) Land-R
4)MT(Baucus-D) Fox-R
5)AR (Pryor-D) Darr-R
6)LA(Landrieu-D) Cassidy-R
7)AK(Begich-D) Treadwell-R
8)NC(Hagan-D) Berry-R
Republicans will need to win IA(OPEN-Harkin-D) and MN(Franken-D) but thanks to King-IA and Bachmann-MN. both of those seats will remain in the Democratic collumn.
2018
Republicans need to win
ND-Heitkamp-D vs Cramer-R
MT- Tester-D vs Daines-R

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
2014 US Senate Election- Republicans guide to regaining control of the US Senate and keeping it for (Original Post) NPolitics1979 Apr 2013 OP
It's possible tabbycat31 Apr 2013 #1
Problem is we don't have enough democratic democrats. pangaia Apr 2013 #2
this is where I will agree to disagree tabbycat31 Apr 2013 #3
THANK you! nt jazzimov Apr 2013 #4
Agreed. BlueDemKev Apr 2013 #5
Thank you tabbycat31 Apr 2013 #7
I suspect you have more company thank you might think! CBHagman Apr 2013 #8
I'm actually writing a blog post about this subject tabbycat31 Apr 2013 #9
good point creon Apr 2013 #11
I live in a very BLUE state and a very liberal area and sometimes forget how lucky I am. Liberal_Stalwart71 Apr 2013 #12
Tell me how a Democrat as liberal as, say, Kucinich, gets ELECTED in red or even very purple states. RBInMaine Apr 2013 #6
Easy. His district--before it was redrawn--was quite liberal. That's how. Liberal_Stalwart71 Apr 2013 #13
I think we will have a very narrow majority in the Senate from 2015-2017 davidpdx Apr 2013 #10

tabbycat31

(6,336 posts)
1. It's possible
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:25 AM
Apr 2013

But I see 2016 as a good year for the Senate Democrats because they will take back seats that they would have won in any other year (2010 was HORRIBLE for the Democrats)-- PA, WI, IL

tabbycat31

(6,336 posts)
3. this is where I will agree to disagree
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 12:02 PM
Apr 2013

I used to be a PDA purity type person until I started working on campaigns for a living. I then realized that in some states or districts, a progressive is not an electable candidate (I've heard 'he's too liberal' ad nauseum when talking to voters). So if I have a choice between a Blue Dog and a teabagger in a rural, southern district, give me the Blue Dog (there was a thread last week on Democrats and the rural vote that brings this up).

BlueDemKev

(3,003 posts)
5. Agreed.
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 09:02 PM
Apr 2013

The blue dogs are a pain in the ass, but at least they'd vote for a Democratic house speaker. We can get more progressives in the Senate, as senators are directly elected by statewide popular vote, but the House, which will always have an inflated representation of the rural areas, getting a progressive majority there is extremely difficult.

tabbycat31

(6,336 posts)
7. Thank you
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 09:25 PM
Apr 2013

I feel like such a minority on DU for supporting blue dogs, but I also am very familiar with the districts. In some cases, I think some of the local Democratic parties are too progressive for their district.

There are two kinds of strategies in politics--- long-term and short-term. All campaigns are short-term and by the time there is a nominee, it's all hands on deck to get him/her elected. It takes long-term projects (see Jeremy Bird's Texas project) to change the electorate to favor more progressives. But in the short-term, find the most liberal candidate who can get elected by appealing to moderates.

CBHagman

(16,968 posts)
8. I suspect you have more company thank you might think!
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 09:54 PM
Apr 2013

It's possible you are hearing only from the most vocal, very like what the staff at offices of elected officials are used to hearing -- i.e., calls from the angry people.

I think it's self-defeating for Democrats to spend energy on putting together long lists of people who aren't pure enough -- and that's just within the party! With that type of attitude they can probably forget getting elected and then actually getting something done, except in very rare instances.

tabbycat31

(6,336 posts)
9. I'm actually writing a blog post about this subject
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 10:10 PM
Apr 2013

And I have not written in my blog since December 2010. That should sum up how it's a hot button issue for me. Since I seem to be very attractive to blue dog districts and candidates (who knows where I'll land this year, but I'm hoping to leave the state I'm in now) despite being a flaming liberal from the northeast. And I actually enjoy my time in blue dog districts. I miss my district from last year despite all the travel time I had there (the district is bigger than my state).

Even before a politician is elected to office, staff on campaigns hear probably what staff at offices do. I've been told repeatedly 'he's too liberal' (by registered Democrats!) and losing volunteers/donors because he did not vote the right way on X issue. (I've worked on slate races before and in both cases, volunteers would refuse to mention the candidate who did not vote his/her way, but would make calls for the running mates). Their purity tests caused major headaches for the staff. In those campaigns, I was junior staff and had to explain the numbers discrepancies to higher-ups, and they were not amused.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
12. I live in a very BLUE state and a very liberal area and sometimes forget how lucky I am.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 09:59 AM
Apr 2013

Yes, I wish there were more liberals like me, but it's just not the reality. Living and working in the D.C. area, it's easy to become insulated from the rest of the world.

We liberals need to understand that it will take some time to get progressives like us--LIBERALS like us--elected in places like Florida and North Carolina. It won't happen overnight.

Thanks for this. You have a perspective that I wish more people here on DU, and liberals in general, had.

 

RBInMaine

(13,570 posts)
6. Tell me how a Democrat as liberal as, say, Kucinich, gets ELECTED in red or even very purple states.
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 09:14 PM
Apr 2013

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
10. I think we will have a very narrow majority in the Senate from 2015-2017
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 07:25 AM
Apr 2013

With a 51-49 split meaning even less will get done than does now. My hope is in 2016 we can make some gains.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»2014 US Senate Election- ...