« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

To 51.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  September 14th, 2010 at 10:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The short version is… it’s doable.

Barely.

I’m using this map to do the calculations, by the way: it’s already adjusted DE & NH to Likely Democrat and Tossup, respectively (which looks accurate to me, although the latter at least is volatile and speculative).

  • We start at 41.
  • First wave is everything of ours legitimately at risk (FL, KY, LA, MO, NC, NH, OH). Just to be on the safe side, subtract NH, for the time being and until new polling comes out reflecting the new situation (PPP’s does not actually tell you what the poll numbers were). The rest are reasonably safe at the moment. Net 40.
  • Second wave is our more or less guaranteed pickups (AR, IN, ND). Net 43.
  • Third wave is races where it’s reasonable to bet that we’re going to pick up seats (PA). Net 44.
  • Fourth wave is toss-up territory (CO, IL, NV). We absolutely must get all three; NV is the riskiest, but Angle’s still in there and messing up Reid’s day. Assuming all three, Net 47.
  • Fifth wave is where this gets hairy (CA, CT, WA, WI, WV). We’ll need four of those to hit 51. Of them: CA, WA, & WI look fairly good right now, but the Democrats will firewall those states, if they firewall no others. CT’s McMahon has a good campaign team and lots of money, and she needs both. WV’s Manchin is surprisingly weak in his Senate bid, but he’s got home-field advantage.

Conclusions?   …Well, it’s going to be easy to get to 46.  Deceptively not-impossible to get to 48.  51 is going to be hard.  The good news is that NH may not actually be affected by whatever changes take place, which will make the fifth wave a heck of a lot easier to deal with: three of five is better than four of five.  But note that even then I have to assume a sweep of the fourth wave in order to get to the fifth.  I also have some slightly annoyed things to say about the state of the NY-SEN races, but we’ll let that slide for the moment.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • smitch61

    We will still have more up there than we do now, regardless if we take control. Be damn hard to shove their BS down our throat. We concentrate on the house. Besides, at least with Castle gone that is one less dem vote.

  • fpete13527
  • JadedByPolitics

    I have every confidence in WE The People to put the big spenders out of business!

  • onemovoter

    The NRSC said they will not be supporting O’Donnell in the fall campaign. Said they will leave it to any other groups that are supporting her.

    Pittyful

  • cordpt

    I’m hoping they don’t need to do anything more dramatic than this.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    No threadjacking. This post is for discussing how to get to 51 this fall. If you don’t want to talk about that, write a diary.

  • Irish

    . . it became ALLOT harder.

  • katnandu

    Time for serious money bombs! Forget the RNC!

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    From either side.

  • Brian_Roastbeef

    PPP seemed to have some encouraging statements for Lamontagne the other day. Although, I haven’t seen numbers, they stated that Ayotte only performed one point better vs. Hodes than he did. Meanwhile, Lamontagne has better favorability numbers. I’m thinking that he will end up being just as strong of a candidate in the general election as Ayotte.

    Although, I can understand calling it a toss up while waiting for more polling to come out, I think this is at least Lean GOP…

  • GopTiger

    Raese has an excellent shot in WV. He can credibly say that voters who like Manchin but dislike Obama (probably the swing vote) need to vote for him so they can have the best of both worlds.

    That way, Manchin stays as governor, but Raese is sent to DC to teach Obama a lesson.

  • JSobieski

    will have a big impact on how these Senate races ended up. Do we know when that is going to be unveiled? I heard Hannity’s radio show on this topic, but don’t remember the specifics.

    Nationalizing the election is a must do.

  • redtillimdead

    We need to invest in WV now since DE is effed up. We must win these:
    NV, IL, PA, ND, AR, IN, CA, WA, WI, WV, and CO. There is now only 1 seat margin of error. Thanks guys.

  • smagar

    I’m taking it as a given that, if the Ds hold the Senate, they’ll pack the federal judiciary with as many young, healthy liberals as they can over the next two years. Look for elderly liberal judges at all levels (especially Ginzburg) to “get the message” and retire now, while Obama can fill their seats. If I were Pat Leahy, that’s what I would do.

    But, as for the other perks of controlling the Senate—control of legislation, control of the calendar—can’t we mitigate those advantages if we control the House, and the federal pursestrings.

    With Obama in power, we weren’t going to pass any meaningful legislation anyway. Perhaps, control of the House will be enough to freeze Obama and the Dem Senate in its tracks.

    Moe’s breakdown is sobering.

  • IJB

    If you include WV & CT, but for the moment not DE, there are 11 Dem seats ‘in play’. If we win 9 of 11, we’re at 50. Win 10 of 11, you’re at 51. Win all 11 (maybe doable in a “wave” year), you get to 52.

    If you throw DE back in, there are 12 Dem seats ‘in play’ (could conceivably get you to 53).

    If we can get either (or both) of OR or NY-B SEN ‘in play’, there would be up to a total of *14* Dem seats in play.

    So, is 51 “doable”?
    Yeah. It is.

  • cordpt

    Tilt R
    CO
    IL
    Toss-up
    NH
    NV
    WI
    CA
    Tilt D
    WA
    CT
    WV

    I think these 9 seats will be at play. We’ll need 7 of them. Not happening.

  • GopTiger

    The NRSC did not say they would never support O’Donnell. What they said was they would need to see O’Donnell prove her viability in the polls before they started supporting her. This makes perfect sense. I’m sure the NRSC isn’t going to support the GOP candidate for Senate in Maryland or Oregon either (same issue-electability).

  • GopTiger

    The NRSC did not say they would never support O’Donnell. What they said was they would need to see O’Donnell prove her viability in the polls before they started supporting her. This makes perfect sense. I’m sure the NRSC isn’t going to support the GOP candidate for Senate in Maryland or Oregon either (same issue-electability).

  • IJB

    See below.

    And quit ya bellyachin’!!
    This is still totally doable.

  • izoneguy

    The GOP establishment is crumbling.

    The time to strike & make a difference is now.

    Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    We’re here to win elections. If you don’t want to do that, leave.

  • http://www.2010blog.net jsanzone

    Would, by your model (which is convincing and accurate), be most useful in CA, WA, WV, and WI. They need to go on the offense there, and eschew the temptation to engage (and potentially backfire) in places like KY, PA, IL. Drain the Democrats where it would hurt them the most, states like California and West Virginia, and theoretically pickups in NV, IL, and CO would be more or less, a given.

    A rising tide lifts all boats, &c.

  • IJB

    Quit your Eeyore routine, or take a break. For your and *our* sake.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Now it’s merely hard.

  • Tbone

    You wrote the wrong post for the comments. From now on, please try to post what the people are commenting on.

  • Bill S
  • GopTiger

    At what point do you think the DNC writes off Pennsylvania?

    After watching the Buck and Bennett debate, I think Buck is a shoe-in. Like Rubio, I suspect we will see him start to pull away soon. And when that occurs, they will write off CO.

  • Doc Holliday

    you know they only lend money to people who don’t need it. I don’t know, I thought we spent money to help the candidates viability.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …until I see some sign of improvement in either. Obviously, we need to support all of our primary winners, but the election’s in a month and a half. If they’re not going to claw their way up into competitiveness the way that Angle or McMahon have, they’re not.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    :scrunched up face:

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAH.

    Dagnabbit, Tbone, don’t make me laugh.

  • minncon

    Yet, it got done… let’s go kick some butt!!! Bravo!

  • SteveLA

    Moe

    Realize this diary is on the Senate, would you or Neil consider doing same sort of count on the House?

    I don’t think it will be terrible to only take control of the House because I don’t think Obama will pull a Slick Willy and triangulate to the middle, plus Senators tend to not be that much of the go along to get along sort especially to a President who has little power base. Besides if the ground swell to the R side is strong, it may carry into 2012.

    In CA we are going to dump Babs, so that’s one good thing.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    They have a (losing) Governor’s race and nine at-risk House seats there to worry about, too. Drop Sestak, those seats go critical, and we go a goodly way towards rebuilding a House majority right there.

  • cordpt

    When have I talked our chances down to make you sick?

    Anyway, that was my assessment. I suppose the reason Moe wrote this post was exactly to get people to honestly discuss the issue of who’s going to control the Senate for the next 2 years considering the current state of the races. That’s what I’m doing. If you can’t deal with it, maybe you should follow your own advise and take a break.

  • GopTiger

    There are alot of races-ALOT. I’m not going to blame the NRSC for trying to spend the money wisely instead of chasing windmills. Just like with Oregon, Maryland, Vermont, and Massachussetts, if the candidate catches fire, support them-if they don’t, why waste the money.

    O’Donnell supporters need to start donating now. I respectfully suggest you put your money where your mouth is. Erik and the RedState gang do! If you honestly think she should be in the Senate, donate tonight.

    O”Donnell has less than 50k in the bank as of a few days ago; Coons has almost a million. She needs your help now.

  • natlanthem

    Seriously? The only thing that can KEEP us from getting 51 is the cowardice and pity party behavior I am reading tonight. You mean, with democratic control being so OBVIOUSLY AWFUL, many of you can’t see flipping enough seats? Grow some bigger ones, gang … or borrow them from the Alaskan Cajones Exchange.

    Campaign on the difference … the four basic components of conservatism plus the critical elements of the local situation. Drive home the HopeyChangey “successes” the Dems should be held accountable for. Point out the absolute terror of foreign policy under amateur reins that can only be controlled in the Senate.

    Lord, if you can’t get to 51 this year, YOU are the problem, not the candidates. Sheesh.

  • Brian_Roastbeef

    If you have WI, and CA as Toss-up, then you really should have WA there as well… In which case we would need the “Tilt R” (CO, IL) as well as the 5 toss ups (NH, NV, WI, CA, WA). That would leave the 3 “Tilt D’s” (CT, WV, and DE) as the opportunities for something to shift that gives us breathing room.

    It isn’t easy, but the fact that we already have ND, AR, IN, PA pretty much locked up, means that it certainly isn’t impossible. I still think NH should also be “Tilt R.” Lamontagne is a strong candidate and the primary wasn’t really nasty as far as I know. I think he’ll bring people together as much as Ayotte would.

  • cordpt

    I need very good news out of CT, WA and WV to go back to hard but doable. That’s more important than seeing improvements on races that are already toss-ups (as it would make more difficult for Dems to get a firewall strategy right).

  • Doc Holliday

    I will make my own decisions. I donate to candidates I also find other ways to help them.

  • jpshinn

    I really have a hard time seeing Babs Boxer holding her seat in California. She has alienated so many people and I in fact saw a commercial tonight in which she took credit for helping pass legislation to help wounded vets. I almost threw up on the spot.

    I realize that nothing is certain but she is perhaps the most vulnerable she has ever been.

  • GopTiger

    I can’t help thinking that come early October, if Sestak is still down in the lower 40% range, that folks like Murray, Feingold, Manchin, Blumenthal, Boxer and their teams will start demanding the millions that might be spent in Pennsylvania.

    Besides, Sestak can always be an official in some obscure department like the original game plan called for in the first place.

    I do suspect that at some point Obama’s team starts calling the shots. They will write off the House and try to salvage the Senate. Come October, I don’t think the House is even going to be part of their equation.

  • cordpt

    I tend to agree with you, but I was more comfortable with Ayotte because she’s been under the fire of Binnie, Hodes and Lamontagne for months and was still polling strongly. Nobody has attacked Lamontagne so far, he’s somewhat vulnerable (I remember him running on raising taxes when he was candidate for governor, for example), so I’ll like to see how he reacts to being under fire.

    Washington: When it comes to polling WA, I trust Elway over any other pollster. If they’re seeing a 9 points gap, I’ll go with them. They’ve a record of being right in WA even when going against the majority of the other pollsters.

  • IJB

    Aside from Neil’s Swingometer, and Cook and Rothenberg’s lists (not to mention CQ/Rollcall’s IMHO biased map!), fivethirtyeight has a useful House model/projection thing going now too. I think Nate is under-counting our chances in a number of House districts, but his list (and map) over at fivethirtyeight are good starting points, IMHO.

  • cactusjack

    the candidates they support and larder keep losing, and these candidates they have *questions about* keep winning, the primaries? And has it occurred to them that certainly more than 50% of these *insurgentes* such as Lee, Rubio and Buck are *going to get elected* and when they get to DC are going to be majorly p****ed off? At, like, guess who? Honestly they don’t seem to realize they (NSRC) are treading (politically speaking) in the path of the Bourbons of Versaillies, do they?

  • chipbennett

    I’m banking on us pulling the upset in WA.

    I think we’ve got an even-or-better chance in WV.

    I think we have a non-trivial chance in CT, but McMahon’s momentum needs to gain some serious traction, and soon.

    Pick-’em in CA, but I think it’s our true wave-year upset.

    I also think Ron Johnson defeats Feingold in WI.

    Races to put a ton of money into (in order)?

    WA, NV, CA, WV, CT

  • LisaDe

    I don’t care what their names are, I don’t care what state they are in. Whether I like them personally or not. No matter if I think they are flakes. Once a week, every week until November, every single last one of our Republican Senatorial candidates will recieve a small donation from me. I will give what little I have to the ones who are struggling first, no matter what, we must control the senate. We need to get it together now.

  • IJB

    I still say, though, that the *most* important metric in CA (and WA and CT) is actually Obama’s Approve/Disapprove numbers – if Obama drops below 50% in any of those three states, I think the Dems’ candidates’ chances of winning these seats starts to plummet.

    Right now, I think Rasmussen still has Obama Approval at over 50% in CA, but he asks the question differently than most pollsters do, so it’s an open question if Ras is properly quantifying this issue.

  • GopTiger

    I think there is a tremendous amount of lethargy among Democrats.The same people waxing about Obama in 2008 are eerily silent now. This lack of enthusiasm will put Carly over the top (along with Whitman’s coattails as she cruises past Moonbeam).

    I think Dick Morris’ analysis is ultimately correct. The GOP is going to win all the close ones and a few not-so-close ones as well.

  • IJB

    [rolling eyes]

    It’s tedious dealing with people who throw themselves off bridges over a single poll result, esp. one that is a serious outlier not only with recent election results but with every other poll out from WA over the last couple of weeks.

    Tell you what – I’ll start worrying about WA when there are *three* polls showing Murray at 50%, and up 10%.

    Until that time, I’m not gonna bust a sweat over it…

  • IJB

    If the race really is about 51%-45%, she only needs to ‘swing’ about 3% more to her side to pull it off.

    I think that that’s within reach, esp. if Foley’s position in the GOV’s race continues to improve.

  • natlanthem

    Totally agree, LisaDe. It is not about winning, it is not about “show me electability first”. It is about progressive/liberal hate-filled socialists imprisoning my children in debt and statism. And I WILL fight for my children.

    Get over yourselves, people. This battle is NOW, and we should be proud of DE Republicans for bringing it to the socialists.

  • Doc Holliday

    just like the liberals in DC and NY who “don’t know anyone who voted for Bush”.

  • indylawyer

    With the conservative wave this year, any seat held by the Democrats should be viewed as a wasted opportunity. And it seems like all year we’ve seen a steady stream of seats become unexpectedly competitive.

    Does anyone see hope for the candidates in MD, VT, OR, HI, or either NY? Just looking at the states I’d note MD almost went GOP for Steele despite the Democrat wave in 2006, OR had a GOP senator until 2008, and VT and HI have GOP governors. So winning in those states is not impossible if we are fielding good candidates. Are we?

  • callawyn

    By Moe’s count in his original post here, he’s got to a possible 51 without counting NH or DE, in both of which the D was known for some time and the R not known for sure until today. Don’t write off either of those seats, especially NH, until at least 3 weeks from now and some fresh polls. So, there’s really a top end potential of 53. Unlikely to get all of course, but it makes 51 a reasonable number for a high end prediction.

    Look at it another way: Click the link to the RCP map. They show 34 R seats not up or safe and 22 seats ‘in play’ for a total of 56 potential R. Granted, NY and OR are extremely unlikely so that leaves 54 as their high end number for R. Now, pick 3 that you don’t think we’ll get (which ones we could debate ad nauseum) and we still end up with 51. So, yeah, multiple paths to 51.

    What to do now? Look at the RCP map again, the 22 seats they have in play, forget OR and NY, there are 10 seats they have as tossup or lean/likely D where we have a shot. Send money to all 10 of those candidates, and especially to those that have the highest hill yet to climb.

    Oh yeah, and bury the hatchet and unite behind O’Donnell. Nobody’s going to give you a pat on the back for being able to say ‘I told you so’ if you supported Castle and now O’Donnell loses in the general. You gain nothing but another socialist in the Senate. She can still win, so stop attacking her.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    50/50 at 15%

    The Delaware race fell from a toss up to a ~25/75 likelihood with O’Donnell winning tonight. 51+ also took a hit from the DE expectation drop.

    ?First wave ately at risk
          FL: 70/25/5
          KY: 80/20
          LA: 90/10
          MO: 80/20
          NC: 85/15
          NH: 60/40
          OH: 80/20
    ?Second wave
          AR: 95/5
          IN: 90/10
          ND: 95/5
    ?Third wave
          PA: 79/19/2
    ?Fourth wave
          CO: 70/30
          IL: 55/45
          NV: 35/65

    ?Fifth wave is where this gets hairy
          CA: 45/55
          CT: 25/75
          WA: 50/50
          WI: 50/50
          WV: 35/65

  • Doc Holliday

    it is because we are acting like fools. This is supposed to be our year, our time to stop Obama, yet we only fight ourselves and half of us are navel gazing.

  • smagar

    As I said on another thread, it’s only fair for the NRSC to spend as much money on O’Donnell as they planned to spend on Castle.

    Having said that, it’s the NRSC’s job to elect as many GOP Senators as it can.

    The NRSC owes it to all of us who support it to spend its money wisely.

    If O’Donnell shows us something—by all means send her some meaningful financial support. Chris Coons sounds like a nice, fat target for some negative ads—-whaddya say, Tea Party Express?

    But if she doesn’t, I’d expect the NRSC to spend its money on races it can win—WV, WA, CA, WI off the top of my head.

    The NRSC certainly shouldn’t spend money in hopes that it won’t be called a haven for RINOs. There’s not enough money in the whole world for that.

  • smagar

    I’m trying to say that, if we don’t get to 51, it’s not apocalyptic, if we get control of the House—which we seem likely to do.

    I’m responding to the case you seem to be making in this article—chances of winning the Senate this year are slim. OK—that’s not the end of the world. If we use the power we gain in the House wisely, we should still be in pretty good shape.

    Relax, trooper.

  • IJB
  • zornorph

    And Ayotte surges into the lead! Thank God, this night might not be a total write off after all.

  • Finrod

    .

  • smagar

    I was trying to look on the bright side of things.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    I’m here for ‘veins in teeth.’ :)

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I see people quoting it but never testing it.

    It’s a tiny market. I see no reason to assume it’s useful.

  • Doc Holliday

    the market is too thinly traded that greatly affects the accuracy.

  • IJB

    …within about 24 hours of an election.

    Earlier than that? Probably not so much.

    But, AFAIK, no one has actually done a study on it.

  • IJB
  • Doc Holliday

    to 95 percent on election day, that happened after polls started coming in. Intrade is not as useful as people think.

  • callawyn

    They show 35 held or solid R with 5 leaning R for a total of 40.

    14 others in play for a total of 54 max possible R (they rate NY & OR as solid D).

    We need 11 of those 14 to make 51.

    By their estimate, these 14 are:
    9 tossup:
    CO, FL, IL, MO, NH, NV, OH, PA, WI
    5 lean D:
    CA, CT, DE, WA, WV

    But really, FL, MO, OH, PA are really already lean/likely or even solid R (Rubio will win).

    So, again, we need to win 7 of 10 competitive races to get to 51.
    These 10 need our help: CO, IL, NH, NV, WI, CA, CT, DE, WA, WV

    So stop griping that so-and-so in one of these races is not your ideal candidate. They are our candidates now, and need our help. If you’re not helping them, you’re helping the socialist they’re running against.

    I’m betting the DE odds will look significantly better after the next poll, until now Castle was the presumptive nominee.

  • redcometchar2010

    Investments in WA, CO, WI are musts, I would add WV because of the momentum and landscape. I only worry about CA because of how expensive it is. However, if we have the resources then definitely invest in CA, only if though.

  • smagar

    it would make for a pretty good battle slogan. And a great bumpersticker.

  • callawyn

    For a tiny investment, anyone can swing any race on there, screen shot it, and post: ‘hey look, intrade shows my candidate at 70% to win’. Silly.

  • congressworksforus

    … as much as I hate to say it.

    Why is no one talking about NE ?

    Does anyone not think Nelson is about to bolt the Dems ?

  • calgacus

    If we get 50 instead of 51 it is probably better anyway, then Obama can’t try to blame everything on Republicans. As long as we do well in 2012, we will be fine. Having 51 instead of 50 won’t help anway in terms of judges- Snowe and Collins will vote for whoever the Democrats put up.

  • septembergurl

    with Ayotte taking the lead. It’s totally doable. we will take the Senate in 2010 and at that time we will be very happy that it’s O’Donnell and not Castle in Del.

    Not so incidentally, this (tonite) is a huge win for one Sarah Palin, who sees her picks winning in NH and Del. September 14, when the histories of the 2012 Presidential race are written, will mark the time SP took the frontrunnerposition in the Presidential race.

    Let the games begin.

  • calgacus

    Oregon and New York are menaningless. I don’t think we have any chance in New York either. Nevada will be huge. Taking out Reid, and esp. replacing him w/ Angle will be devastating for the left. It will create a Civil War in the senate, between Durbin and Schumer.

  • calgacus

    Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado or Missouri. These are critical states, and are not locked up yet. I think we have a 50-50 shot in West Virginia, we will win if we can nationalize the election. In Connecticut, I don’t think we have much of a shot- McMahon has been losing every poll. Anyway, she can self finance. Nevada is a MUST-WIN. Getting Sharron Angle in the senate should be a major priority. I think Kentucky we will have in the bag. New Hampshire we will need to work on, but should win. Does anyone know if Fiorina is financing her own campaign at all? She has been better than I expected; I think she was the right one to support in the primary.

  • Doc Holliday

    the company’s market cap goes from $8 MM to $16 MM simply because someone buys $1,000 worth of stock on an uptick lol.

  • smagar

    According to Google, “veins in teeth” in Latvian is (drum roll…)

    V?nas Uz Zobiem!

    Seeing as we can’t pronounce it, I guess we’ll have to settle for the bumpersticker.

  • smagar
  • rdelbov

    to say Ovide 2012.

    Certainly a lock for the GOP nod. I suspect Kelly Ayotte and him will become best friends over the next two years.

  • http://KeepingTheRepublic.org boldliberty

    I’m here in Nebraska. No WAY! He’s radioactive, and he can only pray for some miraculous turn back to Dems in the next 2 years.

    Doesn’t matter. He is toast in 2012.

  • IJB
  • http://KeepingTheRepublic.org boldliberty

    Do NOT write off Delaware. This is THE YEAR for the anti-establishment types. Believe me, O’Donnell’s foibles are just not that significant this year. A year ago, sure. But now, there are LOTS of folks who see it as proving she’s one of the people…one of US. And I’m talking R’s, I’s, and D’s!

    This is driving the election this year. So, you can see it or you can deny it. But, please, don’t be the snob and just write her off the night of her SUBSTANTIAL victory!

  • SirGladiator

    We are in such an unreal strong position, a lot of people don’t even realize how strong it is. When you’ve got Democrats on the run in California, Washington, Connecticut, Delaware, Wisconsin, even their ‘popular Governor’ in West Virginia, I mean come on, if you haven’t figured out this is our year yet, I guess you probably won’t until election night :) .

    I disagree with any notion that 51 is ‘hard’ at this point, I also disagree with the changes to New Hampshire and Delaware. New Hampshire is likely Republican regardless of which candidate ultimately wins that (looks like Ayotte will) and Delaware is a toss-up at worst, I’m quite confident we win that but I know others arent so I’ll compromise at toss-up. But even without either of those seats, if you want to get really super duper crazy negative and imagine that we lose both of those, we STILL can win the majority because of so many other seats in major play. California is looking really likely now, same for Wisconsin, did you see that Primary turnout? Wow, what a difference between the parties, unreal, we are SO winning there in November. Even Washington, what a pleasant surprise that one turned out to be, I think we’re gonna do it there too. I’m VERY optimistic about Connecticut, people in both parties wrote Linda McMahon off early simply because they look down on wrestling and wrestling fans, but guess what? Regular folks LOVE wrestling, and guess what else they like doing? Voting! The WWE has had a ‘Smackdown the Vote’ project for many years now, their viewers are smart, family-oriented, and they vote. I’d be surprised if she ‘didnt’ win that race. West Virginia is a good example of a state we should normally win, but they’ve got a ‘popular Governor’ as their candidate. I think that only buys them time, it means they get to hold the lead for a while, but at the end of the day we win that one too. Im not as confident about that one as I am about Connecticut, but I like our chances in both.

    So the bottom line for me is, we’re on an incredible roll, look at the Primary results tonight, HUGE turnouts on our side across the Country, forget the big turnouts in Delaware and New Hampshire, if anybody wants to pretend those don’t count thats fine, look at Wisconsin, look at the fact that Gillibrand barely got more votes than the total Republican vote (considering how many people had been seeming to write that seat off, that seems like a reasonly good showing for the GOP, certainly proves we’re in the game there anyway, honestly I think we’ve got a real shot in that one), the INCREDIBLE turnout advantage in Wisconsin, and of course all that’s on top of the huge turnout advantages we’ve been having all year long in other states. We’re looking at historic gains this year, and there’s just no reason not to be optimistic about our chances to reach 51, I think its very likely indeed.

  • congressworksforus

    … becoming an ‘Independent’ and caucusing with the Republicans. (Why bolt if you’re not going to caucus with the other party…)

  • SIConservative

    I think both you and Moe have been too quick to pass judgment on Delaware. At this point, we should neither dismiss her nor assume that she’s viable. Let’s first take a look at the post-primary numbers and see if she does have a shot. Don’t rush to impose preconceptions on the race. Let’s take an objective look at the facts.

  • IJB

    I’d like to wait 2 weeks, and see where we are in DE then.

    My instinct is that it’ll now be a long-shot. But I’d like to see some numbers from when after the dust settles before I figure out how “long a shot” it’ll be.

    And, frankly, the same goes for NY SEN as well…

  • barfarf

    I?m hoping they don?t need to do anything more dramatic than this.

  • IJB

    But I guess he’ll have fun trying to explain how the GOP won the Senate to all his Leftie minions on Election Night…

    (If the reference isn’t clear, check out his article linked to on RCP…)

  • clintonformccain

    What do I know? But, I’m sure having a tough time understanding how the voters being “mad and hell and not going to take it anymore” forecasts a win for the incumbent party establishment types in November. If anything, wins by the O’Donnells should be scaring the heck out of the establishment types.

    Oh, come to think of it, I guess it is..

  • mdredstater

    Correction first: we haven’t had a GOP senator in…well, I can’t even remember!! We have Mikulski and have had Sarbanes forever, then Cardin took his place after he retired.

    But can we usher in a new GOP senator? Absolutely! Tonight, we picked the best out of 9 candidates in Eric Worgotz; physician, small businessman and former county exec in Queen Annes Co. who, to a standing ovation during a council meeting, refused to raise property taxes in hard economic times, but instead challenged the council to make cuts and make it work.

    I admit that because registered Dems outnumber Repubs 2:1 in the state, that he’ll have to count a bit on low enthusiasm among Dem voters, but it CAN be done! I am a precinct captain in Howard Co. and I can tell you the volunteerism in our County has been unreal. In 2006 there were about 250 volunteers working to re-elect Bob Erlich. This year, with Bob running again, there were already 3,500 and that was back in July. Then I think it’s a matter of GOTV.

    All you prognosticators out there…don’t count out MD yet!

  • mdredstater

    Ooops. We “had” Sarbanes forever.

  • Adjoran

    How those resources are deployed will go a long way towards deciding the outcome. It’s like a game of chess, based on the strategy each side adopts.

    Although the Democrats still have a money edge overall as the incumbent party, the gap is narrower than usual, and we have the luxury of several candidates in big state races (and not just Senate, also gubernatorial contests which might normally draw a lot of resources) who can self-fund, which means the millions our donors would usually be sending to Fiorina, Whitman, Scott, and the others can be used in competitive races elsewhere.

    NRSC would be crazy to try to commit to support all candidates. There just isn’t the money for that, and would never be. Before they can make their case for help, they must show some strong fundraising ability on their own and enough strength in the polls to put themselves within reasonable striking distance. The election is only eight weeks away.

    Some of those candidates whose supporters have spent the year saying “screw the NRSC” should not expect to find themselves at the top of the priority list, either, unless they can demonstrate a real shot at winning a seat.

  • calgacus

    We are about a month and a half away. We need to focus on ones that could be winnable. New York and Oregon are not winnable. There a lot of important races; and we can not afford to ignore the ones that we appear to be winning so far, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, Kentucky.

  • jackhammer
  • cordpt

    I put a lot more stock into Elway because of their record in Washington. You just need to go back to 2008 – everybody was giving an advantage to Rossi over Gregoire… except them.

    I’m not throwing myself off a bridge and I couldnt’ care less about what his tedious for you. You really should consider stop reading other people who affect you that much.

  • mbauer

    but I’m going to suggest fivethirtyeight.com for analysis anyway. He shows our median outcome in the house at R 225, D 210 with a 2/3 chance of taking over the house. As election day draws nearer, if the polls stay the same, that model will increase the likelyhood of us taking the house and shift to a slightly larger gain (it’s not a s snapshot model, and gives a probability that all races revert to the mean).

    His senate model is slightly out of date after the primaries, and recent polling in FL. But it stands at 52 D 48 R with WV and CT off the radar still.

  • chipbennett

    Robin Carnahan had to run off to the family farm (where she probably hasn’t spent any appreciable time, much less actually worked, in years) to pretend to be “down home farmer Robin” in order to film some more attack ads against Blunt.

    Rumors are that her funding is about to dry up, too.

    And, really, she never actually ran a campaign – as in, telling us who she is, what she believes in, and where she stands on key issues – rather, she just ran a bunch of Blunt attack ads.

    Blunt broke 50% and a double-digit lead.

    Robin Carnahan is toast.

    (Now, if only I can get to say the same thing about her brother in MO-03.)

  • Warrior

    it’s about the arrogance. Remember how the RNC, NRSC and all the other “R” “leadership” teams take us to the woodshed when we criticize or are tentative in our support for RINO’s like Specter, Collins, et al.

    Now recall what they are always telling us: “We need their votes in the Senate.” “We need a big tent.” “Better an ‘R’ than a “D’ no matter what.” “We want diversity.” “We need to be inclusive.” And so on.

    But now that TEA PARTY candidates are winning through, all we hear from them is sour grapes, “WAAA! We won’t spend any money on O’Donnell! She may not be electable! WAAA! We’re taking our ball and going home!” Forget about the fact that much of their electability lies in the amount of money they can dig up to oppose the union/Soros/academia/media financed Dem candidates.

    I for one am sick of it. If I can stomach Specter, they can stomach O’Donnell. The day of the country-club, go-along-to-get-along, patrician, northeastern Rockefeller Republican IS OVER.

    Somebody needs to send a memo to Lindsey Graham and all the other slick-talking Repub elite. Don’t speak to us of your “experience.” Our country is headed for second-world status due to your “experience” and we’re sick of it. You can join us now or we WILL defeat you later. Wake up and smell the coffee – the wind is blowing against you….

  • mbauer

    We merely have to sweep the 6 toss up elections to get to 51 (heh)

    Which are CA, WA, WI, Il, NV, and CO.

    Even though Il, CA, and WA would be incredibly nice, winning the races where we have a conservative candidate running seems much more important.

  • IJB
  • http://www.rightproadvisors.com erinmist

    …the fact that many of these elections we’re seeing have much higher turnout than expected (as with DE last night) and that the “conservative” candidate is winning by larger margins than the polling is picking up. AK would be an exception to this, where the polling showed Miller with a larger margin than I think he actually carried, but it seems to me that many of these races….including DE…could be surprises given extremely high conservative turnout, and very low, depressed Democrat turnout.

    Any thoughts on this?

  • IJB

    I don’t forsee it being much longer anyway.
    We’re just not that into you.

  • luciusacius

    Check the last two years of Demented supermajorities in the Senate and large majority in the House. All they did was blame the ineffectual Republicans, even when it was mathematically impossible to obstruct the Dems. They don’t care about the truth and, their lies stick with an unfortunately large portion of the population. Hoping to avoid blame is a fools errand. OBSTRUCT NOW! Lets blow stuff up poloitically.

  • aesthete

    Also, isn’t WA closer to “tossup”?

  • IJB

    But the CA Senate race is pure “Tossup” right now.

    It’s very hard to beat a sitting incumbent Senator, especially one as entrenched as Boxer. The fact that it’s even a ‘Tossup” at this point says a lot about the national environment!…

  • cordpt

    It seems you have some issues dealing with contrary opinions. Maybe you should talk to someone about that.

    Anyway, here’s another poll on that WA race we were talking about:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/15/cnntime-poll-murray-holds-advantage-in-re-election-bid/

    According to CNN/Time/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday, 53 percent of likely voters in Washington State back the three term senator, with 44 percent supporting Rossi, who was the GOP gubernatorial nominee in 2004 and 2008.

    It seems that, once again, Elway was right. At least there’s another poll pointing out a 9 points gap. Maybe I was correct after all on putting my faith on them. I’ve been working on polls for decades, that helps to have a nose for which polls are noise and outliers and which ones will set trends.

    That said, with 2 months to go there’s still plenty of time to get back. I’ll be donating some money to Rossi tonight. Are you worried enough yet or do you really need that 3rd poll?

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    She addressed Boxer keeping the water turned off to the San Joachin valley where unemployment is well over 20 %, congressman Devin Nunes joined. On green jobs, she said they’d be fine except you can’t open a manufacturing plant in California due to all the restrictions.

  • chipbennett

    Looks like, at the moment, Ayotte is maintaining a post-primary lead in NH (51%-44%) – meaning we can start putting more confidence in a NH hold. That’s one state closer!

  • justfedup

    I agree with Sen DeMint. 51 doesn’t mean much if 3 of them are Snowe, Collins & Graham. Our work to restore the country is only beginning.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    Do ten point underdogs ever win in football?

    Actually, Doug Hoffman is a perfect example. You could sell him at 85 while the polls were open and we here were all expecting a win. Then as the votes came in, he dropped rapidly as he started out behind and soon it was clear that he wasn’t going to win. That’s what’s supposed to happen.

    Yes, the point estimate of a single bid or ask side has some range about it. But I think of the Intrade null hypothesis as there is no easy money to be made. (Albeit not in serious size, but it is still there for the trading floor types that play it like fantasy football.) If you think that you can reject the null hypothesis, then you should trade away & bank the free money.

    Anyway, your counter example has zero statistical basis as an argument.