Can Republicans win the Senate in 2014?
Are the conditions favorable enough to make Republicans odds-on favorites to gain six seats and win the Senate majority? Not quite. Six seats are a lot to gain, and Republicans are at risk of nominating subpar candidates in a number of races. But it would not take all that much to tip the balance toward them.
Our initial snapshot of the 35 Senate races follows below. For each race, I have estimated the rough probability that Democrats and Republicans will hold the seat after the 2014 election. …
Summing up the possibilities across all 35 Senate races yields a net gain of four to five seats for Republicans, just short of the six they would need to win back the majority.
However, the margin of error on the calculation is very high at this early stage. Keep in mind that in each of the last four cycles, one party (Democrats in 2006, 2008 and 2012; Republicans in 2010) won the vast majority of the competitive races. If Republicans swept all the “lean” and “tossup” races, they would gain a net of eight seats from Democrats, giving them a 53-to-47 majority in the 114th Congress. If Democrats swept instead, they would lose just one seat and would hold a 54-to-46 majority. Considering the uncertainty in the landscape, estimates from betting markets that Democrats have about a 63 percent chance of holding their majority appear to be roughly reasonable.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
No Senate without the tea parties and the Ronulans.
platypus on February 21, 2013 at 9:19 AM
It’s all about the nominees.
So, no, in other words.
KingGold on February 21, 2013 at 9:19 AM
NOPE! out without the TEA Party who can see right through their BS.
Jayrae on February 21, 2013 at 9:20 AM
If the GOP establishment doesn’t alienate the Tea Party to the point where they go third party or stay home, then yes it is very possible. 2010 saw the GOP pick up 6 seats(7 if you count Scott Brown). I’d argue there’s a far greater chance of a GOP-controlled Senate come January 2015 than a Democrat-controlled House.
Doughboy on February 21, 2013 at 9:22 AM
If the GOP could regenerate the Tea Party wave of 2010, I agree they have a shot at capturing the Senate.
As it is, though, I expect the Republicans to continue losing Senate seats and I think the GOP also stands a good chance of losing the House too. I find victory exceeding unlikely with the purges mixed in with the huge amnesty push.
Doomberg on February 21, 2013 at 9:25 AM
Like Mitch McConnell, Scott Brown, Carly Fiorina, et al.
HondaV65 on February 21, 2013 at 9:32 AM
If we do not the blame will fall squarely on the people that STILL refuse to get INVOLVED.
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors”. Plato
If that old fart can get it right, why can’t the rest of us?
DannoJyd on February 21, 2013 at 9:32 AM
FIFY, and you are exactly right. Now if we can just get more Americans to participate…
DannoJyd on February 21, 2013 at 9:34 AM
Then why don’t you dial up your Ayatollah boys in the establishment and tell them to quit running candidates like Snottie Brown and Carly Fiorina – or, if they INSIST on running them – then please don’t flush 10 MILLION DOLLARS down the toilet on each of them only to come up with a big loss.
HondaV65 on February 21, 2013 at 9:34 AM
No, and I see them losing the House as well.
ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 9:35 AM
I’ll be looking for the Ron Paul supporters at the MIGOP Convention in the hopes of getting them more involved with the TEA Partys. I’ll be pointing out to them that their lack of participation in 2012 hurt themselves as much as anyone.
DannoJyd on February 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM
Obviously – we conservatives GOT INVOLVED in 2000 and again in 2004 because we elected an entirely Republican government.
What did it get us?
Medicare Part D / No Child Left Behind / Increasing debt and deficits and …
An economic meltdown.
So that should blow the myth entirely that “WINNING” will solve our problems – it won’t.
The only thing that will solve the problems is to elect the RIGHT people and you can’t do that until you throw out the old garbage.
HondaV65 on February 21, 2013 at 9:38 AM
The Republicans will never be in power again unless they confront the fact the Democrats with the help of the Unions are stealing elections… and do something about it.
Axion on February 21, 2013 at 9:40 AM
Yes
tommy71 on February 21, 2013 at 9:42 AM
Maybe we should ask FoxNews, Ann Coulter and other establishment douche bags. They were spot on in November.
MoreLiberty on February 21, 2013 at 9:43 AM
There is an open seat coming up for election in Massachusetts and the GOP can’t even put up a candidate.
They just surrendered on it.
NeoKong on February 21, 2013 at 9:44 AM
Ssshhh…truth is treason in the empire of lies.
MoreLiberty on February 21, 2013 at 9:44 AM
Exactly right, and you cannot throw out the garbage by sitting in a comfy chair, thus I WILL be going to the MIGOP Convention tomorrow so as to throw out some garbage.
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors”. Plato
Thank you for giving me a reason to make that point again.
DannoJyd on February 21, 2013 at 9:46 AM
They don’t really want to fight anymore. They seem to just want to lounge around and enjoy the benefits being the official “opposition” party.
Doomberg on February 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM
It happens. The Dems did it against John Thune in 2010. Dude ran unopposed in that election. At least the GOP will field a candidate in MassachusettEs.
I’m actually ok with conceding that race if it means the party and its PACs will spend their campaign funds wisely in winnable races. You’re not gonna win 100 Senate seats, but you sure as hell can and should win the ones in red or purple states in the midterm election of an incumbent President’s 2nd term.
Doughboy on February 21, 2013 at 9:56 AM
I’m surprised the TEA Party hasn’t found another candidate to run for the Senate, but they HAVE been getting more people signed up…
http://massteaparty.org/activity/
DannoJyd on February 21, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Yes but not by bickering in public like small children and not by letting the media and the president get away with squat.
Speakup on February 21, 2013 at 10:08 AM
We shouldn’t care less. Moderate Republicans only give cover to leftists. It’s only important how many conservatives and libertarians are elected.
elfman on February 21, 2013 at 10:17 AM
If they do, you can rest assured that there will be a turncoat willing to change parties anyways.
astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 10:34 AM
You guys are insane. Harry Reid is the single most destructive force we have ever seen in American politics. Removing him from power is paramount right now. We can’t get rid of Barack Obama, but we can sure as hell get rid of Reid and then Obama can’t do any more damage. We would have done it in 2010 had it not been for your heroes O’Donnell, Angle, Miller, and Buck. Then you insisted on Todd and Mourdock and lost us two more seats in 2012.
I would think a little humility would be in order going into 2014. We have to find and back conservatives that are also non-insane and electable. We have to stop the ridiculous RINO-hunting of incumbents when the only real RINO left in the Senate is probably Susan Collins, and even she has been pretty solid lately. You guys keep defining “conservatism” further and further right and your room is getting smaller and smaller. Pretty soon there is only going to be room for Rand Paul in it. I fail to see how that is getting us anywhere.
rockmom on February 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM
It’s too early to tell. There’s a lot of spit-and-baling wire the Regime had in place to get through the ’12 elections that is falling apart. More is to come.
Sekhmet on February 21, 2013 at 10:48 AM
Gabriel Gomez is running for the open Senate seat. His parents immigrated legally from Colombia and he is a former Navy SEAL.
Wigglesworth on February 21, 2013 at 10:49 AM
We will see how much support he gets.
NeoKong on February 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM
In fact it was TEA Party candidates that won the day for us in 2010, not the GOP Establishment candidates and because they threw their support behind candidates like Romneycare Willard we lost BIG TIME.
Karl Rove Vs. the ‘Far Right’
Yep! I know who is to be blamed, and it is not the TEA Party candidates or the conservatives.
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors”. Plato
DannoJyd on February 21, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Probably the first smart thing they’ve done in some time. They’re not going to win that seat, so there’s no point in wasting one bit of resources on it.
As for taking back the senate, it’s doubtful. Pass amnesty and not only will they not take it back, the dems will like pick up enough seats to get to 60, and will come damn close to taking back the House.
xblade on February 21, 2013 at 10:57 AM
THANK YOU for sharing that with us. I found nothing when I searched for it.
DannoJyd on February 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM
I love how everyone names Massachusetts and California, two of the Bluest states in the country, as examples of how the GOP blew it by picking Senate candidates that weren’t conservative enough. Scott Brown won a low-turnout special election against a singularly terrible candidate, when Barack Obama was not on the ballot and control of the Senate was not on the line. It will be next to impossible to elect a Republican to a Senate seat from there again. They have run conservatives, liberals, and moderates there over the years and they all lost. People in Mass. are liberal and they want liberal Senators. Same is true in California. If there were anywhere near a conservative majority in either of those states we would see more conservatives in their state legislatures, and we don’t. Democrats have a veto-proof majority in the California legislature now.
We need to look at the red and purple states where we can pick up seats like we did in 2010 with Pat Toomey in PA.
rockmom on February 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM
OOPS! I forgot to include the link for Karl Rove Vs. the ‘Far Right’. My bad.
DannoJyd on February 21, 2013 at 11:02 AM
You also saw Mitt Romney losing by 8+ points.
Speaking of which, there’s a little matter of a wager you placed…
JohnGalt23 on February 21, 2013 at 11:03 AM
So we can get more RINO’s in the Senate that will vote with the liberal democrats? Nothankyouverymuch! You might as well as go vote the straight Democrat ticket.
DannoJyd on February 21, 2013 at 11:04 AM
That’s right! I told you to email me the day after the election: teejuss AT hotmail.com
And he did lose. By the way.
ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 11:16 AM
In the case of Akin, Tea Partiers were split between Steelman and Brunner, which you perfectly well know. Mourdock was the only real Tea Party mistake, and as the state treasurer he was hardly some loon off the street like O’Donnell.
Conservatives like George Allen, Connie Mack, Josh Mandel, Tommy Thompson, Linda McMahon, and Rick Berg, no doubt. You guys pissed away something like six easily winnable Senate seats and have the nerve to blame conservatives for your failures? Give me a break. The ones who should be showing humility is you.
No, you keep defining conservatism further and further to the left. The GOP is in currently favor of amnesty, higher taxes, more spending, and liberal social policies. What exactly is left for conservatives to vote for?
Doomberg on February 21, 2013 at 11:39 AM
So nominating people like Bob Dole, George Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney are products of “defining conservatism further and further right”? So “we” need a little humility in order to move left from that?
elfman on February 21, 2013 at 12:33 PM