General Discussion

babylonsister

(171,070 posts) Tue Nov 6, 2012, 05:50 PM Nov 2012

NRSC lowers Senate expectations

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/06/14974369-nrsc-lowers-senate-expectations?lite

NRSC lowers Senate expectations
By Steve Benen
-
Tue Nov 6, 2012 3:30 PM EST

As it stands this afternoon, Democrats maintain a Senate majority of 53 seats (technically, 51 Democrats and two independents who caucus with them). For Republicans to retake the majority in the chamber, they'll need a net gain for three seats if Romney/Ryan wins, or four seats if Obama/Biden wins.

Politico's Mike Allen asked the National Republican Senatorial Committee about its expectations.

"Given the uncertainties of any cycle -- from an unexpected retirement to the challenge of running in tough states like Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada -- we always believed we'd likely have to net 5 seats to win the majority and that, despite the outsized expectations by many in Washington, history wasn't on our side. Only two times in the last 40-plus years -- 1980 and 2008 -- has either party picked up 5 or more Senate seats in a Presidential cycle.

"Nonetheless, despite some additional unexpected setbacks, we're going into Election Day with an opportunity to add to our 2010 gains - and in what certainly appears to be a non-wave election, that's not a bad position to be in."

One doesn't have to read between the lines much to see that the National Republican Senatorial Committee does not expect to win a Senate majority this year. But what's striking in this quote is the notion that, as far as Republicans are concerned, they've "always" believed "history" wasn't on their side in 2012.

That's simply not true. After the 2010 midterms, given the number of seats Democrats had to defend, coupled with the number of incumbent Democratic retirements, it was practically a foregone conclusion among Republicans that they'd reclaim the majority.

Half-hearted spin notwithstanding, that this now appears unlikely has to be a crushing disappointment for the GOP.

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NRSC lowers Senate expectations (Original Post) babylonsister Nov 2012 OP

Typical Geekspeak: a 'non-wave election'. I hope it's more of a wave than the RNC types codjh9 Nov 2012 #1

We have a shot at increasing that majority don't we? truebrit71 Nov 2012 #2

By speaking of "Presidential cycle", they really limit the data points karynnj Nov 2012 #3

codjh9

(2,781 posts)

1. Typical Geekspeak: a 'non-wave election'. I hope it's more of a wave than the RNC types

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 05:55 PM

Nov 2012

are expecting, ha ha.

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)

2. We have a shot at increasing that majority don't we?

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 06:02 PM

Nov 2012

Especially if we beat the rapeublican candidate in Indiana..no?

karynnj

(59,504 posts)

3. By speaking of "Presidential cycle", they really limit the data points

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 06:24 PM

Nov 2012

The Republicans ignore that the Republicans lost 6 seats in 2006. In fact, that year is the root of why this year was likely to be very hard for the Democrats because we won in every remotely purple (or blue) state.

Not to mention - whether the states are easy or hard, they had to net exactly 3 to get 50 and 4 to get 51. They are spinning pretty hard. This was a lost opportunity due to the tea party. They were the reason Snowe left - and King will win that seat. In addition, both MO and IN should have been easy. So, yeah, it's harder if you throw three states away. (After throwing 3 away in 2010 - DE, CO and NV) Had they done as well as possible in 2010, they would have started at 50 - and if Lugar and Snowe stayed in, we would have needed 3 pickups to even be at 50 and that would have been tough.

Reply to this discussion