General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Senate Map Flips in 2016
The Senate Map Flips in 2016
After securing control of the Senate Tuesday, Republicans are already staring down a daunting map for 2016, Roll Call reports.
The majority of the Senate battleground in the next election cycle will be fought on Republican turf, with the GOP defending 24 seats to the Democrats 10. There is more trouble for the party beneath those raw numbers; only two Democratic seats are in competitive states, while more than half a dozen Republican incumbents face re-election in states President Barack Obama carried at least once.
Huffington Post: Heres the Democratic route back to Senate control
MORE:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/06/senate-2016_n_6109472.html?utm_hp_ref=politicshttp://politicalwire.com/2014/11/06/senate-map-flips-in-2016/
http://atr.rollcall.com/senate-races-2016-outlook-republicans-democrats/?dcz=
Our wonderful Democratic Party leaders and their highly paid grifters...err...I mean "consultants" and "strategists" will find some way to fuck it up.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I think people don't understand how bad the map was for Senate Democrats this year. Not only were we fighting on Republican turf in many places, but there were so many open seats, due mostly to senators retiring. Right now, there are no open races in any of the states that we would hope to turn from red to blue in 2016.
And it's very difficult to unseat incumbents once they are ensconced. I doubt that here in Illinois we will be able to unseat Republican Mark Kirk, given the demographics of downstate conservative voters and moderate suburban Republican voters, and given that he has a very heartfelt medical story to use for sympathy votes. We'd need to have a superlative candidate to do that.
So at this moment, I'm not holding my breath for a reversal in 2016. But I'll try like hell to make it happen.
global1
(25,253 posts)I know he says this is his last job - but isn't it possible for him to go back to the Senate? If he can't or doesn't want to - how about Michelle.
Either one I believe would handily defeat Mark Kirk.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)pstokely
(10,528 posts)nt
frazzled
(18,402 posts)from going to the Republican billionaire.
The city of Chicago went nearly 80% for the Democratic governor, Pat Quinn. Suburbs went half and half, more or less, and the rest of the state ("downstate" went for the Republican.
kentuck
(111,102 posts)Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and maybe,
North Carolina, Kentucky, Florida, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Arizona.
pstokely
(10,528 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 6, 2014, 10:11 PM - Edit history (1)
Whoever takes the WH probably takes the senate also. Many of those are are teabaggers elected during with low turnout. There could be up to 10 senate seats in play. I wouldn't expect a sweep by either party.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)So if we can win in 2016, we should be able to expect a net gain of Senate seats, and House seats as well.
pstokely
(10,528 posts)probably depends on the margin of victory, a narrow WH win by either party probably won't get much senate seats
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)The larger the margin, the longer the coattail
CANDO
(2,068 posts)It's not out of the question, but there has to be a ton of negatives for the Republicans to be ousted in this state.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Possibly enough there to pick up enough seats to get a slim majority in the Senate, but not much more. And that won't be easy unless some of the repub Senators retire.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)roamer65
(36,745 posts)That ought to be interesting.