62 seats in the Senate remains a possibility.

[TheBigotBasher]

The last time that the Senate Seats up for re-election in 2010, was 2004. The peak of the Bush "with me or against me" popularism.

For the Republicans to gain more seats from the Democratic Party in 2010 they would have to poll better than they did in 2004. This, despite the hiccups is NOT happening.

Ma proved to be a wake up call for all of the Democratic Party. The Barack Obama that swept the Nationand gained the confidence of peoples from across the World came back out to fight.

There are important lessons from Ma. Primarily, for Democratic candidates it must be not to take any election for granted. The Republicans were a sleeping monster in 2008. In 2009 the Tea Party crowd helped to wake them as a potential force of opposition, but the tea parties distrust the Republicans as much as they distrust the Democratic Party. Even more so. They have driven the Republican Party to new levels of extremism. Their budget proposals, which should be hung round all of their necks takes America back to the 1930s. Scrapping Social Security. Ending Medicare. These are not popular proposals. Palin talked of death panels. Well from the Republican budget proposals it is clear that they want the elderly and sick to just die. To paraphrase a UK politician, If the Republicans win I warn you not to be ordinary. I warn you not to be young. I warn you not to fall ill. I warn you not to get old.

By all means, every person on the planet who fears the extremists running the Republican Party even getting a sniff of power should speak about the Republican proposals.




Nate Silver put it better than I possibly could

If I aggregate my estimates from the individual races, I show Republicans picking up an average of 4.60 Democratic seats, but also, Democrats picking up an average of 2.65 Republican seats, for a net Republican gain of 1.95 seats.

But this is very important: the average is somewhat noninformative here, as these races do not operate independently from one another. It is somewhat unlikely -- though certainly not impossible -- that Republicans will pick up 4-5 Democratic seats and Democrats will pick up 2-3 Republican seats. If the national environment continues to improve for the Republicans, for example, perhaps they'll pick up six or all seven of the seats that are basically toss-ups or better (everything from Illinois upward), and perhaps put another race like California or Wisconsin into play, while defending one or all but one of their own seats.

On the other hand, if conditions improve for the Democrats, perhaps they can hold their losses to 2-3 seats (say North Dakota plus one or two from the group DE/NV/CO/AR) while picking up Missouri, perhaps two from the OH/KY/NH group, and one from the NC/FL/LA group. In that case, Democrats could hold at 60 seats or even improve their numbers to 61-62.

There are an unusually large number of Senate races in play this year and as such there is an unusually large amount of uncertainty surrounding the outcome. It also bears remembering that, although I remain quite pessimistic about what will happen to Democrats in the House, the Senate playing field is intriniscally more favorable to them. The Senators who are up for re-election this year are those who were elected in 2004 -- a good cycle for Republicans. And while Democrats were hurt by their retirements in North Dakota, Delaware, New York, Illinois and probably Colorado (they were helped by Chris Dodd's retirement in Connecticut), the Republicans have created opportunities for them with the retirements in Missouri, Ohio, New Hampshire and perhaps Florida (they were helped by Jim Bunning's retirement in Kentucky). If the 2006 senate class were up for re-election this year, Democrats would potentially face very substantial losses, but fortunately for Democrats they aren't.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/2010-senate-races-present-rewards-but.html

The Senate remains in play. The Democratic Party must regain its desire to govern and win.

[Clio the Leo]

1. I like that attitude....

.... come on Sen. Brown .... help your party show America that going BACK to the GOP is NOT the way to go.

[Betty Karlson]

31. O yes, I agree!

62 seats, here we come (excluding Joe Lieberman as we go along).

[Dr.Phool]

46. Then, if we only had 65 seats, we could pass something.

[thunder rising]

2. The DK poll of the republican party says all you need to know about how to win

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/2/832988/-The-2010-Comprehensive-Daily-Kos-Research-2000-Poll-of-Self-Identified-Republicans

crosstabs has more questions:

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437

[Avalux]

3. How can that be? Chris Matthews said just today, chances are good Dems will lose the Senate.

You know; gloom and doom, the Democrats are in disarray and all that stuff. ;)

[TheBigotBasher]

4. You have to ignore those who are talking the Party down.

It will be self defeating to listen to them, even if they are on our own side, which nominally Matthews is.

It used to be said when America sneezes, the World catches the flu. As a result of the Republican caused economic collapse, America caught the flu and many once powerful Nations are on life support.

America returning to the GOP, when not only have they not learnt anything from the last 8 years, they think the solution is more extremist policies, would be a crime against humanity.

America needs to get back to work. The rest of the World needs America back working. America can not and must not be a spent force switching the lights off, like Colorado Springs.

[Jennicut]

6. And the media has to sell some kind of story. 2007 and 2008 were about beating up on

Repubs, they are bored.

[TheBigotBasher]

7. Then get good media out.

The President meeting with Republicans was a brilliant media move. More of that is needed. The media likes "sexy stories". Health care should not have taken as long as it did. It took too long and as a result opponents sounded better on tv.

The Democratic Party must learn they can not afford to waste time like that again. The attention span of the media is no greater than that of a gnat. It is time that the Party remembers that.

[Jennicut]

8. It is shorter then my 4 year old's. And that is not long.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Tweety really needs to stop pretending he is an expert in politics.

He might be an expert in swallowing but not much more.

[AlinPA]

35. Matthews is a loudmouthed slobbering fool. nt

[Enthusiast]

26. Towel Snappy can't wait for the day

when we have a new crop of his favorite political demographic - the Reagan Democrat.

[BlueIdaho]

5. For Democrats to win

They will need money and help. Your money, my money, our money - your help, my help, our help. If the republicans end up with an overwhelming victory in November we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

Its time to get busy.

[Enthusiast]

27. You don't think that little

gift from the SCOTUS will assist GOP candidates?

[Ter]

10. I want what you're smoking

Neither party has any chance at 62 seats.

[TheBigotBasher]

11. Just nicotine and confidence.

On the other hand, if conditions improve for the Democrats, perhaps they can hold their losses to 2-3 seats (say North Dakota plus one or two from the group DE/NV/CO/AR) while picking up Missouri, perhaps two from the OH/KY/NH group, and one from the NC/FL/LA group. In that case, Democrats could hold at 60 seats or even improve their numbers to 61-62.

[Ter]

12. Not gonna happen

While I doubt Democrats will lose the Senate, I think losing only three seats will be good news for us. It won't be 1994, but we will lose 3, 4-5 at most.

[TheBigotBasher]

13. You see no gains then?

Do you really think that the Republicans are safe in every seat they have up? Even McCain is playable. He has a tough Primary to fight and will e badly damaged by it.

[Ter]

45. We might pick up one seat

But it will be offset by losing three to five seats of our own. I can't see McCain losing Arizona. He'll escape the primary and should win reelection fairly easily.

[burning rain]

14. This.

The Senators who are up for re-election this year are those who were elected in 2004 -- a good cycle for Republicans.

Democrats need to make 2010 a successful Senate election year because in 2012 and 2014, our many freshmen from 2006 and 2008 will be facing their first reelections. The 2010 Senate election is for us what 1982 and 1984 were for Republicans. They needed to do well in those cycles to increase their chances of holding the Senate in 1986 after having gained 12 seats in 1980, but gained only one* in 1982** and lost two in 1984 despite Reagan's landslide win, thus setting them up to lose their majority, as they did in 1986.

It's also relevant that in 1986, Republicans managed the weird feat of losing more Senate (8) than House (5) seats, including the defeat of seven incumbent freshman Republican senators. This was largely due to Senate Republicans having been stupid enough to pass a 1986 budget freeze that included freezing even Social Security! The House never even took it up, and Republican senators were left twisting slowly in the wind. The takeaway for Democrats here is the need not to take votes that swing constituencies will see as screwing them.

------------------------------------------
* Even that gain was largely illusory for Republicans because it depended on the replacement of retiring Democrat-turned-independent Harry F. Byrd, Jr., who remained in the Democratic caucus and retained his seniority despite voting a conservative line (shades of Joe Lieberman), by the Republican Paul Trible.

** No doubt the biggest Senate election of 1982 was in California, where one of the all-time mean Republican SOBs, Pete Wilson, defeated the outgoing Democratic governor, Jerry Brown.

[cali]

15. no, I'm sorry, this is just pie in the sky

dems will lose seats in the Senate- which is what Silver says. they could possibly pick up Missouri and or NH, but ND is as certain a repuke gain as anything. Nevada looks poor. So does DE and FL.

[Change Happens]

23. We can elect Crist in Florida as a DEMOCRAT....nt

[impik]

16. Not after this congress. Bunch of spineless Democrats

[Independent_Voice]

17. My predictions, and I'm sticking to them...

Republicans pick up ND, DE, NV, CO, IL.

Democrats pick up MO, OH (if Brunner is the nominee), and NC.

A net gain of anywhere from +2 to +4 seats for the GOP. Not +6 or +7, and certainly not retaking the Senate majority, as the Talking Heads want us all to believe.

[AlinPA]

36. Add PA to the republicans' pick up list. No way that Specter will win here. nt

[Independent_Voice]

41. What if Sestak is the nominee? nt

[AlinPA]

42. If Sestak is our nominee, we win PA. But Obama, Rendell, Casey are supporting

Specter. That's hard to overcome. It is a mistake for them, they should change their decision fast.

[Independent_Voice]

48. In that case...

Since you'd know more about that particular race than I would, perhaps Toomey will pull it out over Specter -- although if he goes all Rick Santorum once he's in office, I'd predict Toomey will just be ousted again in 2016...maybe by Allyson Schwartz?

[AlinPA]

49. No question that Toomey is another Santorum. He's a teabagger and a worshipper

of Grover Norquist. It's hard to tell about 2016.

[Independent_Voice]

52. 2016 is definitely a wild card

I think who's on the presidential ticket in each party in '16 will end up having a huge effect on the bellweather states -- particularly the U.S. Senate races six years from now in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Nevada, and Arizona (not to mention how 2016 will probably be the year McCain finally retires, turning his vacancy into an open-seat race).

[quaker bill]

18. My prediction

In the current situation, 9 months out, the Repugs seem set for minor gains. By August, it will look more like a draw. By November it will be break even to minor gains for the Dems in the senate, with modest Dem losses in the House. In the House, we took seats we were very unlikely to win in 2008 because of the anti-repug tide. They will gain a few of these back, but surprisingly few.

People's memory of how sick they were of repug rule is still fresh enough to be useful. It just needs to be re-ignited.

[fujiyama]

19. Possibilities certainly don't indicate probabilities.

And Nate knows that better than anyone.

I could end up being a billionaire in ten years and marry a super model.

Not very likely, but possible.

I think Dems will be VERY lucky to hold on to the Senate. At this point, I'm hoping they can hold on to ONE house. On edit, I think this may go back to a 50-50 split in the Senate. Of the races listed above I think Dems will hold on to NY, CA, and maybe CT if they're lucky.

I'm not very optimistic about the rest. Ok, maybe Feingold stays. He was reelected in 04 with a 10% margin. Not sure who's running against him.

[Independent_Voice]

20. A question for all of you who are *SO SURE* the GOP will take back the Senate....

Please list the actual seats that you think will actually flip to give the Republicans a Senate majority (and under what circumstances), rather than making blanket proclamations about how the Democrats are screwed.

[old mark]

21. It is all possible if the Democrats decide they want to do it.

We need to get off our sorrowful asses, stop negative doom and gloom and back some democratic candidates. AND VOTE!!!!!
Any democrat who sits out this election might as well change their affiliation.

mark

[fujiyama]

22. Vote for whom though?

The likes of Bayh and Lincoln?

There are good Senators, but ass holes like those above are making any constructive policy implementation impossible.

[old mark]

29. Even an asshole Dem is better than a NO NO NO GOPer. nt

[rug]

24. But we need 67 to pass anything.

[Wardoc]

25. It is going to be ugly. The seven most vulnerable seats are blue right now. I think...

Reps might not take over the Senate, but I think a net loss of seven to eight seats is the most likely scenario, more if things don't improve soon. The first thing is keeping the spectre of the Senate Healthcare bill needs to be done away with. It is an unpopular bill because it is a crap bill and everyone knows it (especially independents). Start over or just drop it, but keeping it dangling or trying to pass it piecemeal is the worst possible situation as it keeps the issue prominent.

[AlinPA]

28. IMO, the unrestricted flow of money into republicans' campaigns from corporations will

mean a lot of senate seats for the republicans. About $5 Billions were spent on all races in the US during 2008 including local ones, and that number will probably be spent on the US senate races alone.

[timeforpeace]

37. Unrestricted into Democrats' campaigns also. Why does everyone ignore that?

[AlinPA]

38. Because corporations' issues are the issues that republicans will push:

eliminate the minimum wage, eliminate environmental laws, eliminate fair labor laws, eliminate food and drug testing, eliminate taxes on businesses......

[WI_DEM]

30. sorry but I'm a realist and the dems are not going to gain 3 seats

I'm also not one of those who think we will lose the Senate but we aren't going to gain ground either.

[iceman66]

32. The only way we could do that

is to actually pass a jobs bill and maybe even a health care bill DESPITE GOP obstructionism, and put the other party on the offensive.

Alternatively, make them actually fillibuster things like the job bill and financial regulation to make it clear to anyone paying attention whose side they are really on.

[TheBigotBasher]

33. That is the point.

Winning will take fighting for it. Exposing the Republicans for who they actually are.

[AlinPA]

40. Right, but the Democrats in congress, especially the senate will not fight. nt

[Deep13]

34. It would still fall short of the 80-vote ultra-majority. nt

[Kitsune]

39. The problem is that we're still saddled with a lot of DINOs

Until we get the Bought-and-Paid-For Caucus out of the Senate, nothing of value is going to actually happen.

[Yavin4]

43. I Think That The Democrats Are Going Get Wiped Out Wholesale In This Election

Call me a gloom and doomer all you want, but that's what is going to happen. The party was sabotaged by people like Max Baucus, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and others.

The economy will be no better than it is right now, and the Republicans will reap the benefit. Their supporters are angry and enthusiastic. Dem supporters are disillusioned and dispirited.

It may be worse than 1994.

[dorktv]

44. So what is the coherent national platform for the Republicans?

[DailyGrind51]

47. Does the DNC know this? They seem desperate for hope.

[ohiodemocratic]

50. You use a one-month-old graph

It represents Nate Silver's estimate on January 6th, which was 1 month ago, and two weeks before the Massachussets elections. Is there a recent estimate?

[golfguru]

51. Forget all polls....Forget all pundits...just look at

Jobs---Jobs---Jobs.

If job situation does not improve it will not be a happy Nov 3rd morning.
If job situation improves, it will be a very happy Nov 3rd morning.

It is as simple as that.