Let's use this thread to discuss 2012 House & Senate Races.

Saw this today

Safe money is still on the GOP retaining the House, and they have a strong opportunity to seize control of the Senate.

Let's go....

This is how RCP has the races which I think is pretty close to how I would have it.

45 Safe Dem - 47 Safe Rep

Contested Senate Seats
Florida: Ben Nelson vs. Connie Mack III - Nelson +3.5
Massachusetts: Scott Brown vs. Elizabeth Warren - Warren +0.3
Michigan: Debbie Stabenow vs. Pete Hoekstra - Stabenow +10.0
Missouri: Claire Macaskill vs. Sarah Steelman - Steelman +1.0
Montana: Jon Tester vs. Danny Rehberg - Rehberg +2.0
Nevada: Dean Heller vs. Shelly Berkley - Berkley +1.0
Virginia: Tim Kaine vs. George Allen - Kaine +2.0
Wisconsin: Tammy Baldwin vs. Tommy Thompson - Thompson +7.0

Note: In cases where there was no RCP average I just took the latest poll listed.


If this is how the senate races ended today we would end up with a tie. There is a lot of room in between now and then though and I think that success for either party will end up on the following;
1) Money is going to play a big factor
2) The Presidential Race is going to play a big factor

A few points one way or the other and you could be looking at a landslide.

I find it hard to care about congressional seats. I don't want more crazy social conservatives getting elected, but at the same time, wtf did dems do when they had the house, senate, and white house?

Meh

I like congressional races because you actually get diversity in the candidates as opposed to the top of the ticket you only get people who play to the base of your party. For instance I doubt a lefty populist professor from Harvard could run competitively in any red state.

I reluctantly have to agree here. One of the Dems biggest collective problems is they lack a set of balls. They were elected in 2006 on the hopes of ending the Iraq war, along with a set of other goals to reverse the country. They did very little, caving at every opportunity.

With that said, I love watching all the little battles that go on across the country, and how bigger battles can affect downticket races. It can be fairly fascinating to watch the politics and campaigns unfold in some districts.

I couldn't have been happier, at the time, with how 2006 played out. It was insanely exciting watching some upset victories and watching Rs scramble to explain away the rout.

I think you remember 2006 like I remember 2010.

They meant the Michigan House.

One of the Democrats issues is that their party is a much bigger tent than Republicans. When the Democrats won in 2006 they had like over 40+ Conservatives in the house and probably another 50+ Moderates. So It's much harder to pass bills when there are many more diverse opinions. Republicans in the house are pretty monolithic in how they vote right now. You have a small group of Moderates and a libertarian wing, but the vast majority of Republicans in the house right now are Solid down the line conservatives.

Helping the Republicans out is a solid edge in redistricting once again, like 2000. This time they have done a better job of consolidating their gains unlike in 2000. Democrats picked the worst possible year to explode.

I don't think redistricting is helping Republicans as much (still a little) this time around. Dems are going to make big gains in California, Texas, Illinois and I'm sure some other places but those mitigate for the most part the redistricting in the southern states.

Safe to say this guy's GOP run in the AZ-4 is over

What makes him more unelectable the gay part or the Mexican part?

the GOP part

I am seriously shocked and surprised by this.

why so?

Anyone from Mass. following the senate race over there? How are people taking to Liz Warren? She seems like she could walk in an be one of the best senators. I'm really pulling for her.

When he is not busy disposing of hookers bodies, Craig James also has time to remind you that gays will have to answer to God

Pony Express

The Warren/Brown thing could go either way. She's never been elected to anything and has never run a campaign, but she's got huge support for the Dem machine. She's trying to position herself as the candidate for the middle class, but she's got some big-ass fundraiser in Hollywood coming up. Brown's got a $12 million war chest already. It is going to be a brawl.

Mack is pretty much Eddie Murphy in "The Distinguished Gentleman." He's getting hit from all sides, or left and right at least, about his lack of experience, character/morals, and style. He's treading water based on the fact that everyone thinks he's his father. Bent on having his and Mary's handlers use them to destroy the US Government as much as they possibly can before anybody figures out they don't know what the hell they're doing (or rather, have no intention of representing their constituents {can't really speak for Bono-Mack}) Nelson doesn't trend as poorly as is asserted at times, and the "elder statesman" of Florida actually does back, cosign and pass legislation. Lemieux has been beating Mack up so bad I don't think either of them has any stones for the general. imo imo imo

I agree, though Ron Suskind seems to think Warren is what Obama was supposed to be... and I do like her a lot, but that's prolly cuz I find her wildly sexy!

isn't she part of the 1%?

That matters?

I got a memo that says 1%er's are the cause of all that's bad. Is this not true?

there were 2 polls within the last week in MA, one has Warren +3, one has Brown +9