Monday, December 14, 2009

Could the Republicans take the Senate in 2010?
Mike Rappaport

I think it is possible for them to take the House, but the Senate would be much harder.  From a comment to Megan McCardle's site: 

Let's assume that the GOP holds all of their seats (which according to recent polling looks likely), then the GOP would have to run the board (and get very lucky with candidate recruitment). But if the right candidates are chosen by the GOP and if the Dems continue their current trajectory, the following Dem held seats could be at risk.

California (Boxer), Arkansas (Lincoln), Nevada (Reid), New York (Gilibrand), Connecticut (Dodd), Illinois (No incumb.), Delaware (No incumb.), North Dakota (Dorgan), Colorado (Bennet), Penn (Specter), and then potentially Indiana (Bayh). Which would be 11 which would equal a majority for the GOP.

No of course, EVERYTHING would have to work in the GOP's direction for that to happen, but this is basically what happened for the Dems in 2006 & 2008 with Senate seats.

Well, that would be something.  Of course, it is not really necessary for them to take the full Senate, even if they only win 30 seats in the House rather than the 41 needed to take it.  Just getting to 45 Republicans would be enough to stop most bad stuff.  

Here is something realistic to hope for -- that is, it is quite plausible that it could happen, even though it is not necessarily the most likely occurrence -- the Republicans take the House and they take 7 Senate seats.  That would be all that is needed.  House Republican investigations of the Obama shenanigans and an easy filibuster of any crap the Democrats push in the Senate. 

That's what I am hoping for.  But as they say, "hoping ain't getting."  We shall see.

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Could the Republicans take the Senate in 2010?
Mike Rappaport


This is simply not going to happen - baring really precipitous drops in D popularity over the next 10 months. A one in a million chance, I'd say.

Now, several of those seats flipping is not unlikely, if the Ds continue as they are.

Posted by: krome | Dec 15, 2009 10:34:05 AM

I can see a range of results from a modest improvement to taking effective control of both houses. It all depends on the economy. I do think that Obama, in 2012, will be a good deal stronger than his party in 2010, both because of his personal resiliency and the difference in the two electorates (see subsequent post).

Posted by: mike livingston | Dec 15, 2009 2:36:45 PM

BTW where are your other bloggers? Did the Liberal Police catch them?

Posted by: mike livingston | Dec 15, 2009 2:37:49 PM

I love roots. Seeing the beginning of something that becomes a conflict helps me understand the whole tree, so to speak. For example, Obama said the interests of the community are more important than are individual interests. That is a root! That tells us individual interests conflict with community interests in some way. Now, we know community has no brain or heart, so someone must decide what is in the interest of community. In our case, that would be elite like Obama, Pelosi and Reid, and their immediate helpers. Then, the opposite is individual freedom to make decisions, which worked well in America resulting in a free market. But, that means too many uninformed, unintelligent individuals. Those in the ranks of the elite few who expect to rule look on the many in community as stupid, unable to foresee future events and solve problems at hand. They feel their calling is to make sure individuals do not decide what it right or wrong for them, their families and communities closest to them. Whenever you see one of those elite being interviewed and worshipped by interviewers, you hear them make statements that sound arrogant and demeaning to the average man and woman. In addition, you see the same arrogance in media and academia, which is where the elite in government come from. The private sector is made up more of non-elite and small business folks, who are seen as having no intelligence. Hear what they say, then measure it against this root.

Posted by: Clay Barham | Dec 15, 2009 5:06:45 PM

delaware has no incumbent, but the current holder of the seat (kaufman) is widely known to be a placeholder for joe biden's son beau (current del attorney general, now that he's back from the jag corps in iraq). the only real possibility of a republican switch on that seat would be (will be?) if mike castle (current del rep) decides to run for the senate.

i'm not sure what beau biden's choice will be. he's got a good shot at the seat now. i think, however, he would defuse a lot of the potential animus about hereditary senate seats if he were to finesse castle's run for the senate by going for the house. castle's relatively old and had some fairly serious health issues around the last election. if beau spends some time in the house, i suspect that in 6 years (or less if castle's health problems resurface), he could move to the senate w/almost no competition.

that is because delaware has little internal competition; it seems that incumbency has an even greater effect here than elsewhere. once you're elected, you're in for life. unless another of the lifetime politicians decides to run against you (re: carper vs bill roth).

Posted by: yet another rice alum | Dec 15, 2009 5:17:06 PM