Can't believe that we don't have a thread for this yet, so here we go.

To start us off, 538 released their senate forecast today. Given there's no real betting market anymore seems like the best bit of data we have.

Nate's conclusion? Essentially 50-50.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nate-silv...taking-senate/

Republican light vs Republican crazy

vote 'merrica

I don't have anything better, but it's pretty weak of nate to just qualitatively assess each race then add that up.

Don't think that's what he did.

Looks to me like that's exactly what he did

For whatever reason, midterms never generate much interest, even among us politards. Which is a shame considering how important they are. This one could be a nail-biter too, with respect to whether or not Dems get control of the Senate.

Outline:

House:

The generic ballot is roughly a tie. However, this represents upside potential for Republicans because a) they narrowly lost the popular vote last time, so an even a tie would be an improvement and b) as Nate said in that article, such polls measure registered voters, and especially in midterm elections Republicans tend to have a turnout advantage. However at the moment, significant swings look to be unlikely, probably a single digit net change. This is partially due to the "sorting" of the House: most members now represent districts fairly safe for their parties at the Presidential level, a stark contrast from just a few years ago when there were lots of Democrats representing quite Republican districts (and to a lesser extent, Republicans representing Democratic districts). It's partly gerrymandering, partly the greater nationalisation of local races.

Senate:

Read the 538 article linked to above, but cliffs: the 2014 races were last contested in 2008, a strong Democratic year, so Democrats would likely lose seats even in a neutral year just out of regression to the mean. Six Democratic seats (two open and one with an appointed Senator) are in Romney states and all are toss-ups or Republican favoured. There are also a few more vulnerable Democratic seats in purple states. In contrast, there are only two Republican seats (KY and GA) that look to be in any real danger.

Governors:

In contrast to the Senate, these were (except NH/VT) last up in 2010, a strong Republican year, so the Democrats have more upside potential. There are a lot of incumbents up though, and incumbent governors rarely lose. In spite of this, there are a few governors in deep danger, and they're mostly Republicans. So expect Democratic gains, but in the low single digits.

And the lack of politics to discuss in general.

So, the consequences of the GOP taking the senate are mainly:

1. The next 40 votes to repeal Obamacare actually get vetoed rather than not coming to the floor in the senate.

2. lol if Obama wants to appoint anyone to anything.

Practically it doesn't change much. I suppose you could argue that it creates a surge of momentum going into 2016.

Although after thinking about it for a bit it could kill immigration reform... although that is basically a zombie bill right now anyways.

That surge of momentum didn't mean much in 2012, and in all likelihood, that was a much bigger surge than this will be.

One of the main factors is the seats it locks in for the next six years. That could mean the difference between a GOP or a Dem Senate in 2016 or 2018, where it could be difference between unified and split control. It has influence beyond that still, where having incumbents puts you in a better position come the 2020 re-election of this class.

For those purposes, the actual flipping isn't important, only winning as many seats as possible.

If I was a Republican thinking about running for President I would not be too excited about an all GOP Congress. Best case is that the Senate becomes a slightly better face of the party. Worst case is the Senate doubles up on House stupidity.

Dems have got to be pretty big favorites to hold/retake the senate in 2016. It'll be a presidential year, the GOP will be defending seats from its massive 2010 surge, and the dems will likely only need to net one or a few seats, if any.

Today's WaPo has an article suggesting that R will have a hard time in 2016. Fa more R seats will be at risk than D.

Seems right to me.

Gridlock through 2022 seems like a massive, massive favorite to me and has for years. Id guess between now and then its something like 80-85% split government the whole way, 5-10% Republicans control government at some point, 0-5% chance Democrats control government at some point (I think R's structural House advantage>>D's structural presidential advantage right now)

Hell, give the Republicans all of Congress. They'll just be higher profile with the crazy, emboldening the nutjobs and handing '16 to the Democrats.

Yup, it's basically the reversal of this cycle and 2012.

It's because republicans vote during the midterms and democrats don't. That's not a new thing.

This, and also the Dems are defending gains from a tremendously successful 2008 in which they won senate seats in red states. We're not at an equilibrium where the party affiliations of all senators in all states maximally align with their states' most likely party preferences, and we may never be.

move this hijack

I'm looking forward to watching the races where the Tea Party ousts an electable Republican and replaces them with a Sharon Angle/Todd Akin type who costs them the election. 51-49 Dem majority would be a real laugh riot IMO.

51-50 with the VP tie breaker would be even better, especially if a tea party crazy costs them a winnable state.

This isn't supported by anything.

Yes, Obamacare is an albatross for Democrats right now.