How many Democratic Senators will Lose Their Seats?

One third of the Senate is up for re-election in Fall 2014 (Senators serve 6 year terms, and every 2 years 1/3 of them are up for re-election). In non-presidential years the party in power (in this case the Democrats) usually though not always loses some seats.

Of the seats currently up for re-election 21 are held by Democrats. How many of those 21 seats will Democrats lose?

How psychic are we?

Note Republicans need a net gain of 6 seats to gain control of the Senate.

I'd be impressed if this is within 3 Senators of being correct this far from the election.

biochem wrote:One third of the Senate is up for re-election in Fall 2014 (Senators serve 6 year terms, and every 2 years 1/3 of them are up for re-election). In non-presidential years the party in power (in this case the Democrats) usually though not always loses some seats.

Of the seats currently up for re-election 21 are held by Democrats. How many of those 21 seats will Democrats lose?

How psychic are we?

Note Republicans need a net gain of 6 seats to gain control of the Senate.

It's not the seat counts that matter for prediction, it's the swing to loose.
Meaning that you might get a small swing and lots of seat changes, or a hefty swing and no changes.
Not to mention that's there's bound to be some states where the senator could piss on the flag and not loose, or get support from Jebus himself and not win.

That said, not enough to give the republicans the senate, but not by much.

I voted 9+.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking but I expect there to be major, major shifts in the attitude of the electorate.

Obama's job approval rating was seriously weakening before the last debt limit debacle. (I call it a debacle because the debt limit was raised without any serious restraints on spending). The Republican appeared to be the big losers. However; the specific issue that the TEA Party Republicans were focusing on was a demand for a delay in the implementation of Obamacare. They lost the House vote. However; because conservative Republicans had made an issue of Obamacare, Obama was unable to delay implementation as he has done repeatedly. The problems with the websites are just the first, least catastrophic consequences of Obamacare. Just wait until the American people realize that they are loosing their right to choose their doctors and control over decisions on medical care. To add grievous insult to injury, people will discover that their medical records are being accessed by law enforcement as snow happening to war veterans.

People will get pissed off enough to notice that in spite of the marginal decline in the official unemployment numbers, the true level of employment taking into account the massive decline in workforce participation rate and underemployment (skilled workers who formerly had full time employment now working menial, part time jobs) is abysmally high. Some analysts put the true US unemployment rate at over 30%. It has been five years now so blaming President Bush for Obama's economy is no longer an effective tactic.

On top of all of these problems, the feces is going to hit the fan on foreign relations and military issues. We have a rising risk of nuclear proliferation (Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey will get nukes if Iran demonstrates it's nuclear capability. Brazil and Argentina are at risk of going nuclear). We may even get a nuclear 9-11.

My oldest son is what many of you would call reactionary. However; the mood on his college campus is that while it has been fun to take time off from the responsibilities of the real world to may be go to college or just sit in their parents' basement in their pajamas surfing the net,
the last half dozen years of chronic youth unemployment son longer acceptable. Even the once starry eyed youth are beginning to realize that Obama is destroying their future.

Even America's woman (whose workforce participation rate is at an all time low but their birth rates have plummeted too) are beginning to realize that Obama does not "measure up" to their fantasies.

I predict and hope that the 2014 election will be a profound, political shift.

If the election were held today, the Democrats could possibly lose 9+ seats. Obama's (and by extension his party's) approval ratings are at rock bottom levels. The only people who approve of him now are his core constituents and he would have to be filmed live on CNN dismembering a small puppy to lose their support. However, the benefit of being at rock bottom is that there is no place to go but up. Obama is utterly incompetent at managing the executive branch. However, he is a master at election campaigns. Soon he will shift from governance to campaign mode, his strength. So although I think the losses in November will be severe, I think he will be able to mitigate some of the damage that he has caused and they won't be nearly as severe as if they were held today.

Thing is elections are decided by the undecided, and I believe that they are genetally wary of giving one party too much power, ie: both houses. Especially if they believe the republicans are favorites for the White House.

That waryness will probably limit any aignificant changes this comming election.

While I concede that the awful democrats may loose a seat or two, the Tea Party idiots have screwed up congress so bad that there own party cant take advantage those loses without throwing away several seats of there own. If the 33 or 34 races started more evenly divided, the democrats would gain seats, but with twenty one of the 33 or 34 seats already democratic a loss of one or two net might occur.

Truman was successful in labeling his opponents as a "do nothing congress". That congress was much more productive than the current disaster which is setting all time records for futility.

I have never voted for a democratic presidential candidate, but neither will I ever support any candidate at any level that has Tea Party support. I am not alone and the Republican party is hoping not to loose too many seats in the House while they pray for some modest gains in the senate.

I have never voted for a democratic presidential candidate, but neither will I ever support any candidate at any level that has Tea Party support. I am not alone and the Republican party is hoping not to loose too many seats in the House while they pray for some modest gains in the senate.

The Republican candidates have a bit of a tightrope to walk. Tea party members are VERY angry and HIGHLY motivated and thus have an influence on the Republican primaries that outweighs their numbers. Their core positions also have widespread support among a large percentage of Republicans in general in a less extreme form than the tea party: government is out of touch, spending is out of control, the government debt is too high, fiscal responsibility, limited government etc.

On the other hand the tea party is too purist. Those who don't conform PERFECTLY are targeted. There is also widespread disagreement regarding their overly confrontational tactics. Confrontation has it's place as a political tactic, but if one wants to get anything done when one is 1 of a 100, one must also be skilled in persuasion and compromise.

So Republican candidates who want to win must be careful not to make the tea party an enemy or insult the widely supported core ideas but at the same time insulate themselves from the overly purist versions of the ideas and from the overly confrontational tactics. Easier said than done. But a skilled politician should be able to manage it.

And while I disagree with the purity of his positions and his overly confrontational tactics I AM very glad that the tea party is represented in the Senate by Senator Cruz. He gives them the ability to have their positions be part of the process and although he doesn't have enormous influence, he does have some and he can get them some of what they want. It is not good for societal stability to shut out a group as activist as the tea party is from being able to influence the government from within. If people as angry and motivated as the tea party are forced out, than they will be driven to express their ideas in a much less socially acceptable manner and having a very motivated, very angry group in this position will not end well for any of us.

I am still mystified about why the TEA party is being demonized for the failings of Congress.

It is the Democrat controlled Senate that failed to honor it's Constitutional mandate to pass a budget for four years.

Is there anyone who still thinks that the TEA party was wrong to link increasing the debt limit to a delay of implementing Obamacare or at least modifications?

ksandgren wrote:While I concede that the awful democrats may loose a seat or two, the Tea Party idiots have screwed up congress so bad that there own party cant take advantage those loses without throwing away several seats of there own. If the 33 or 34 races started more evenly divided, the democrats would gain seats, but with twenty one of the 33 or 34 seats already democratic a loss of one or two net might occur.

Truman was successful in labeling his opponents as a "do nothing congress". That congress was much more productive than the current disaster which is setting all time records for futility.

I have never voted for a democratic presidential candidate, but neither will I ever support any candidate at any level that has Tea Party support. I am not alone and the Republican party is hoping not to loose too many seats in the House while they pray for some modest gains in the senate.

[quote="namelessfly"]I am still mystified about why the TEA party is being demonized for the failings of Congress.

Is there anyone who still thinks that the TEA party was wrong to link increasing the debt limit to a delay of implementing Obamacare or at least modifications?



Me for one. As far as I'm concerned as I pointed out last year, the Republican Party as backed by the Tea Party committed treason in the budget debates by bringing our ability to pay already outstanding debts to a halt. I may not like Obamacare, but tying the ability to pay existing debts to turn back a law that was passed and signed in my recent lifetime caused chaos and was to me treason. If they ever (probably after your grandchildren are dead)get control sufficient to repeal it, great. But to bring the financial markets to a halt over a political tif like that brings them down to Iran's level.