Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2008 and 2012 had a different presidential turnout than 2004 and 2000. We can't assume 2016 is going to be the exact same. Obama attracted certain groups to turn out more, while McCain and Romney caused a lot of conservatives to stay home. This whole presidential election = good for Democrats has only happened under Obama/McCain/Romney. 2004 was a great year for Republicans and was a presidential year.
I'm guessing their internal polls show she has no chance - her biggest (and only) Plus was her Chairmanship of the Energy Committee .... which Harry Reid manipulated by a retirement/promotion/Ambassadorship. It lost him a Blue Senator in Montana and didn't save Mary.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pulled their money out of Kentucky from Grimes (she is pretty bitter about that) and sent it all to North Carolina to try and save Hagan. They lost both seats.
Awe. Poor Demo's, lost their asses ... er ah "seats," seats.
Bwahahaha. It's getting harder every day to imagine the Democrats retaking the Senate in 2016. Especially after 8 long, long years of a failed Democrat President.
Yes. The American people, I think, may be finally waking up to just who these people are and what they're up to, and they don't like it.
I think the Dems 2016 prospects in the Senate will come down to how close to center the Rs hold. If Ted Cruz becomes the face of the Senate there could be issues.
B.S. There is noting about Ted Cruz that could cause "issues."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrpeatie
Also 2016 does have potential for Dems- we've had many elections in the last 20 years now that shifted 5-6 seats. 94, 06, 08, 10, 14.
Illionois and Wisconsin will definitely flip Dem in a presidential year. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire have huge potential for Dems. And NC and Ohio could be tight- Hagan only lost by two in an R tidal wave. Florida could be an opportunity if Rubio makes a run at the Presidency instead. So there are the seats before we even get to scandal plagued incumbents or someone dying in office. And if you look at both sides of the aisle you cannot deny that someone is always on the brink of death or conviction- that is how the Dems picked up the Alaska seat in 08.
What makes you so sure of your predictions? Based on what?
2008 and 2012 had a different presidential turnout than 2004 and 2000. We can't assume 2016 is going to be the exact same. Obama attracted certain groups to turn out more, while McCain and Romney caused a lot of conservatives to stay home. This whole presidential election = good for Democrats has only happened under Obama/McCain/Romney. 2004 was a great year for Republicans and was a presidential year.
Conservatives did not stay home in 08 & 12, there really is no evidence to back that up. Also Presidential turnout being better for Democrats than Midterms is something that goes back further than Obama. Granted, exceptions do exist, 2004 was one as was 2006. However, even 2004 was several points more Democratic turnout wise than 2010 or 2014 was.
Turnout might not exactly be like 2008 or 2012, but its going to be closer to that than 2010 or 2014 was.
Just poking fun. Sort like the libruls did after '12 Prez results. Quit with the seriousness, already. That is, unless, it is your job. In which case, carry on. Everyone deserves to make a living, if they want and put forth the effort to be valuable. See. All in fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Different electorate from a Presidential race to a Midterm, so I doubt it helps all that much. Keep in mind Walker won his recall five months prior to Election Day in 2012, however that didn't help Romney or Former Gov Tommy Thompson . Romney lost to Obama by 6.94%, ironically almost the exact inverse of Walker's victory five months earlier (Walker won by 6.80% in his recall). Former Gov. Thompson was running for an open Senate seat, lost to then Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin by 5.55%.
So five months after Walker won his recall, Wisconsin voters also voted to re-elect Obama and send a liberal lesbian from Madison to the Senate. The higher Presidential Turnout resulted in a different electorate than the ones that voted in the recall five months earlier, and a different electorate that showed up in 2010 and 2014.
Gaining one Senator, doesn't make a difference now. Which GOPer is in line to get her Energy Committee?
Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska will be the new Chairman of the Energy Committee. She has a more serious interest in it (knowledge also) that Mary ever would have.
Mary Landrieu did nothing to promote the Keystone Pipeline OR any other Energy legislation until she was running for office. Turns out that the voters noticed that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
See. All in fun.
