political mathematics favors (R)s in 2012

[franksolich]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/03/political-math-favors-gop-to-retake-senate-in-12/

Political Math Favors GOP to Retake Senate in ‘12

If Republicans are pleased with their gains in Congress today, just wait until the next election when Republicans will be well positioned to take a majority in the Senate.

A total of 21 Democratic senators are be up for re-election in 2012 in what will be a politically difficult climate for many of them. In contrast, just 10 Republicans face reelection in 2012.

Many of the Democrats who face re-election won their first elections in the Democratic wave of 2006. Some of those senators will face an electorate that is much different than it was when they were first elected to office.

Good analysis.

[Ptarmigan]

John Kasich won in Ohio and if a President carries Ohio, it seals the deal.

[GOP Congress]

I'd be a bit careful on such predictions, at this time. The problem is that now the dems, along with the media will do everything they can to blame the mess (caused by the dems) on the Republican congress. They will use this reasoning to try to get the public to blame the GOP. Indeed, they will continue to PURPOSELY destroy certain things JUST for the EXPLICIT PURPOSE of blaming the GOP.

On the same token, ANY positive attributes of legislation that the tea partiers will create will be appropriated by Obama. Just like Jerry Brown sounded like he was running like Ronald Reagan instead of, well, Jerry Brown, Obama will use the successes that the GOP brings and state that it was his and the Dems who did it. So now we have a double whammy to watch for.

The KEY...and it's a HUGE key... is for the constituents to CONSTANTLY COMMUNICATE with their constituency. They must not just legislate, but they must also EDUCATE their consituency on the actual problems and issues that are being faced. They have to realize that everyone BUT the conservatives will be doing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to derail the GOP members in congress. For instance, they may stall a budget, then blame the GOP for stalling the budget.

What heartens me is that we have a strong undercurrent of conservatively principled members of Congress. Keep in mind that being elected is not a MANDATE. Essentially, you just passed the job interview and got hired. The TRICK is to perform so that you will be rehired. One of the advantages of winning as a conservative is that the votes that got you the victory are less malleable, as long as you stay true to conservative principle. Finally, the conservatives MUST be the ones to run the show from our side.

I'm sorry, it seemed I got a bit off track from the original premise of the thread. But it actually ties back in. Here is the list of candidates for the Senate:

Democratic incumbent elections (21)
Dianne Feinstein: California
Tom Carper: Delaware
Bill Nelson: Florida
Daniel Akaka: Hawaii
Ben Cardin: Maryland
Debbie Stabenow: Michigan
Amy Klobuchar: Minnesota
Claire McCaskill: Missouri
Jon Tester: Montana
Bob Menendez: New Jersey
Jeff Bingaman: New Mexico
Kirsten Gillibrand: New York
Kent Conrad: North Dakota
Sherrod Brown: Ohio
Bob Casey, Jr.: Pennsylvania
Sheldon Whitehouse: Rhode Island
Jim Webb: Virginia
Maria Cantwell: Washington
Joe Manchin: West Virginia
Herb Kohl: Wisconsin

Independent incumbent elections (2)
Joe Lieberman: Connecticut
Bernie Sanders: Vermont

Republican incumbent elections (10)
Jon Kyl: Arizona
Richard Lugar: Indiana
Olympia Snowe: Maine
Scott Brown: Massachusetts
Roger Wicker: Mississippi
John Ensign: Nevada
Bob Corker: Tennessee
Kay Bailey Hutchison: Texas
Orrin Hatch: Utah
John Barrasso: Wyoming

(Note: the 2010 election actually had nearly the opposite scenario; that is, far more (R) seats than (D) to defend. In short, this time around winning more than 35% of the seats is the break-even point, as opposed to the 64% last time around, which we still exceeded by 4 or more seats)

[franksolich]

Something's wrong with that list--and I've seen the exact same error in other lists on the internet.

People are leaving off E. Benjamin Nelson (D-Nebraska).

Which is pretty much okay, as he's either going to retire (he's no spring chicken, and Nebraska as a general rule doesn't have seriously geriatric senators such as Jr. from Vermont or Inouye from Hawaii), or be defeated for re-election.

Nelson is the classic example of why, if one is a conservative, it's better to vote for an (R) who's a liberal, than a Dem who's a conservative.

When it comes down to brass tacks, or the bottom line, a conservative Dem will always go along with his liberal party, while a liberal (R) will always go along with his conservative party.

On things other than the bottom line, there's plenty of room for one to go his own way.

Better an Olympia Snowe than a Ben Nelson, if one is conservative.

[Wretched Excess]

it was the other way around tuesday, which makes the GOP gains in the senate really extraordinary.  in fact, after the big obamagastic victory, the talking heads pointed to the midterms as the final nails in the senate republicans' coffin -- to the extent that we weren't already dead and buried.

what a difference a taste of the extremist liberal agenda makes.

[BattleHymn]

Frank,

Do you really think Nebraska will give Nelson the boot?

I was hoping you'd have a reassuring word to share.  I know little to nothing about Nebraska politics. 

[franksolich]

Frank,

Do you really think Nebraska will give Nelson the boot?

I was hoping you'd have a reassuring word to share.  I know little to nothing about Nebraska politics. 

Yeah, we would.....that is, if he runs again, which isn't a "given."

In fact, given his age, I'd say that's not much of a "given."

As I mentioned, Nebraska isn't in the habit of electing old men.

But if he were to run again, he'd get beaten.

This isn't material to your question, but it needs addressed.....again.....

A lot of non-Nebraskans express a wish that Nelson would change parties, becoming an (R).

That's never going to happen; Nelson is a true-blue born Dem, destined to live all his life a Dem.

No matter how uncomfortable the Dem bosses can make a maverick, Nelson's always going to be a Dem.

[BlueStateSaint]

And, with the Senate still being in Dem hands, the Dems still own whatever happens in DC.  I'm certain that there will be a rush of things that will go through the Senate, in the "lame-duck" session, that were in fact passed by the House and tabled by the Senate.  The votes of those up for re-election in 2012 will be heavily scrutinized, and used against them in the 2012 campaigns.  Some of those Dems up for re-election know this, and will dig their heels in to prevent any of this onerous legislation from getting through.  I'm not counting on it, though.

President Haley Barbour may just have a fillibuster-proof Senate in 2013.

[delilahmused]

I think the people are too aware and too suspicious to let the media and dems frame the debate any more. They screwed the pooch when they attacked the tea party because they're regular people and most Americans know at least one if they don't participate in them themselves. So many things people didn't want (like health care) have been thrust upon us without the slightest attempt by the media to do anything but demonize those who oppose it. Then there's Arizona, the economy, etc. We can't afford to sit idly by anymore.

Cindie