Posted on 11/13/2014 3:44:49 AM PST by Kaslin
As Democrats continue to lick their wounds from the beating they took on Nov. 4, many liberals are shocked, appalled, and depressed. Yet, they are hopeful that 2016 will present opportunities to retake the majority, but a lot of uncertainty remains. For starters, we have two years until the next election; that’s an eternity in politics. But, for now, the field doesn’t look terribly bad for Republicans. At the same time, we could see Kay Hagan and Mary Landrieu, who appears to be heading for defeat in the Louisiana runoff, return to Washington (via Politico):
The GOP has a bigger cushion than expected for its new majority, probably 54 seats. More veteran senators may stick around to preserve safe seats. And some vulnerable incumbents will have committee chairmanships that could pump up their profiles.
…
The most vulnerable Democrats this year were up in very red states; the most endangered Republicans in 2016 will, with the exception of Illinois, be defending seats in purple terrain.
…
Democrats are already eyeing several 2014 losers — or likely losers — to give it another go in 2016. Among them are [sic] Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) to challenge Republican Sen. Richard Burr, or Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu to run for Republican David Vitter’s Senate seat should he be elected governor.
So far, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, and Arizona are pegged as the most competitive for the 2016 cycle.
One state that could be a loss for Republicans in 2016 is Pennsylvania. Republican Sen. Pat Toomey is unpopular–and in a presidential year; Democratic turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh could–like most GOP candidates statewide–sink him. He needs to hold the line in the collar counties around Philadelphia–Delaware, Montgomery, and Bucks–in order to survive, especially in Bucks County, which he won in 2010. His 2010 rival, former Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak, has signaled his intentions to run against Toomey again.
Yet, Harry Reid could possibly be shown the exit by the incredibly popular Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, who recently cruised to re-election with 70 percent of the vote.
As for the House, well, that looks like it will be in Republican hands for a very long time (via NYT):
Whatever doubts existed about the Republican grip on the House should now be gone.
By picking up at least a dozen House seats in the elections last Tuesday, the Republicans cemented a nearly unassailable majority that could last for a generation, or as long as today’s political divides between North and South, urban and rural, young and old, and white and nonwhite endure.
Democrats might well reclaim the Senate and hold the presidency in 2016. But any Democratic hopes of enacting progressive policies on issues like climate change and inequality will face the reality of a House dominated by conservative Republicans. The odds that the Republicans will hold the Senate and seize the presidency are better than the odds that Democrats will win the House, giving the Republicans a better chance than Democrats of enacting their agenda.
After all of the remaining races are resolved, the G.O.P. will finish with about 249 seats. The Democrats would need to flip 32 seats to reclaim the chamber, but just 10 Republicans hail from districts with a Democratic Cook partisan voting index, a statistic to measure how far a congressional district leans toward the Republican or Democratic Party, compared with the national average. Because so many Republicans represent conservative districts, the G.O.P. might even retain the House in a “wave” election, like the ones that swept Democrats to power in 2006 and brought Republicans back to power in 2010.
BUT, we have to remember that nothing is permanent in American society; Democrats dominated the House for over four decades before the 1994 Republican wave left them in the minority. All things come to an end, so Republicans better not blow it.
As for the Senate races, things could get interesting if Republicans nominate a solid candidate for president.
Republicans are in their end zone and in reach of a game winning touchdown and the democrats are hoping for a fumble or an interception to send the game into overtime. We can’t let them have either.
Brilliant ! Run Hagan and Landrieu in 2016 against stronger GOP opponents !
The democrat party has changed radically especially the last 10 years. During this time, they cloaked their radicalism with their hatred of GWB, their accomplices in the media, and for the last 6 years, placing all of their hope and identity in a man who has now turned on them. They have adopted policies that the majority of Americans don’t want.
And who are the dems leaders? Reid, Pelosi and a host of like minded statists. Never say never, but it may take a while for the voters to look at them again.
Democrats are not going to get elected in Louisiana for quite a while-especially Landrieu!
The Democrat road back to the majority is the same as the Republican road to majority was: a disastrous presidency. So we need to make sure that we select the right candidate for 2016.
So you’re going to support Joe Sestak?
Two years to actually get votes on the record rather than being supressed by Reid. And every vote against the will of the people need to be used against them in the next election regardless of “party”.
Bummer with Toomey on gun control. I agree, there is NO WAY to recover from it. All a Democrat has to do is get a bit to his right on the issue and it’s over, and there is a LOT OF ROOM to do that, given what Toomey did.
Sucks to lose a seat like that - maybe get a Primary challenge going?
“...or Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu to run for Republican David Vitter’s Senate seat should he be elected governor.”
(snicker, snicker)
What’s wrong with Senator Landrieu just staying in her own Senate seat? I’ve never heard of a Senator giving up his/her seat to run for the OTHER Senate seat in the same state. All Mary has to do is win on Dec. 6th and she’ll have 6 more years in her own seat.
(snicker, snicker)
The quiet little issue that no one talked about nationally was gun control. Sandy Hook FORCED the Democrats hand and they got BURNED, badly. The NRA can rant and rave about the Dems taking away peoples’ guns, but when Democrats actually try to do it, then people get their backs up. The Hispanics that I work with in Texas are all (or mostly all) gun owners, and they intend to KEEP THEIR GUNS, and they voted that way (i.e., 45% of Hispanics voted Republican in Texas last week). The Dems are FINISHED.
If the Republican leaders let Obama get away with amnesty, Democrat thugs will have a permanent majority and we will be under permanent oppression.
I think Ron Johnson is a lot more vulnerable than Pat Toomey. Sestak is on the hard-left. GOP won’t let him in.
Reid will be 76 in two years. He looks and sounds very tired. Sandoval is a fresh, young face and he’s Hispanic. If he runs, Sandoval has a great chance of unseating Reid. But Reid has a powerful NV machine, so it will be competitive.
Toomey is in trouble. With a good opponent, he goes down, unless the Rat nominee for president is so weak, voters in Phila. stay home.
Manchin may decide it’s in his best interests to run for WV governor. He’s a nobody in the Senate. If he does, his seat wold probably be a GOP pickup.
I think they could do it IF they were to ditch all of their wacko, kook, extraneous issues (climate change, war-on-women, an abortion in every pot, diversity-uber-alles, 100 calorie school lunches, etc.) and focus soley on Economic Populism.
After eight years of recession the public is going to be desperate for ANYBODY to show the way out. Their policies like boosting the minimum wage won at the ballot box. The public is all kinds of hungry to see Wall Street types sent to jail. The majority repeatedly tells pollsters that they feel like they’re getting SCROOD (whether they are or not is immaterial...they will vote on FEELINGS) If Dems could focus narrowly and aggressively on THAT, they might win.
Fortunately controlling all of their interest group verticals would be like herding cats. I doubt they have the discipline to do it.
I know that people talk of Texas becoming more liberal. And that is based on the big Hispanic vote in Texas. But I noted in election results that a big percentage of Hispanics in Texas vote Republican. Sounds like Hispanics in Texas are different from Hispanics in California and other states in their politics.
For sure. As well,As for the Senate races, things could get interesting if Republicans nominate a solid candidate for president.IMHO it would be unlikely we would go wrong with Scot Walker. I don’t favor Ted Cruz only because he has no executive experience; governors are historically so much better candidates than Senators are that no senator has ever unseated a sitting POTUS, and only one senator - Warren G. Harding in the wave election of 1920 - has defeated a governor running for POTUS.But competence is not the only consideration; the difference between President Reagan - a former governor who also could disassemble and assemble ideology blindfolded - and Governor Dukakis or Governor Romney could scarcely be more stark. So in addition to a good governor who knows why as well as what needs doing, I would be enthusiastic about a Senator Ted Cruz as the VP nominee. Because VP is not an executive position. I would be just as enthusiastic to see him elevated to SCOTUS at the first opportunity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.