Every race is different.
Berg is a weaker candidate than anyone imagined. Sand is worse as this is his fourth attempt. And Heitkamp is apparently stronger than anyone thought.
MT, WI, and VA are all doable but I have concerns that NM is too blue.
Agreed. Berg has to do more to stand out as a Conservative. Just being the neighborhood nice guy isn't enough. He is effectively being primaried from the right by Sand.
Some of it may not be all his fault as his time in the House was too short to accomplish much.
Yes, every race is different, but Senate elections tend to go in the same direction (usually the lion’s share of pickups go to the same party—to the Dems in 2000, 2006 and 2008, to the Republicans in 2002, 2004 and 2010). Besides, Berg is a pretty basic Republican and Heitkamp is nothing special and a pretty basic Democrat, so the general mood is probably a big part of the equation. I have to assume that the sample in that ND poll would have placed Romney well ahead of Obama, so voters’ rejection of Obama’s policies may not be affecting their view of other Democrats, even when they’re also liberal and/or have supported Obama’s agenda. If Heitkamp beats Berg, it would be shocking if Rehberg beats Tester in next-door MT, and I wouldn’t be too bullish on some of the other races.
I’m not panicking yet, but I had Berg penciled in for a 58-42 victory, which would be consistent with a Rehberg 54-46 victory over Tester in MT, a Mourdock 54-46 victory in IN, a Heller 53%-47% victory in NV, a Mandel 52-48 victory in OH, an Allen 52-48 victory in VA, a Wilson 51-49 victory in NM, etc. With Heitkamp polling at 47%, I have to question whether I’ve misread the national mood and whether Democrat Senate candidates won’t be facing as bad of an environment as I had assumed.
If Republicans can’t win a Senate seat in N. Dakota no matter who the candidate is short of a felon, then this nation is in serious trouble.