T Nation

Senate Slipping Away?


For the GOP?

We could argue for days about whether candidates like Christine O’Donnell, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock are being taken out of context by Libs and the “MSLM Machine”. The fact still remains that from a purely Political standpoint; these guys (mostly, if not all, Tea Party backed candidates) may cost the GOP the Senate.

The Tea Party has to be mentioned because of the narrow “Litmus Test” they are placing on Candidates that they back. The problem, as I see it, (and I think TB alluded to this in a thread once) is that Political Experience is not part of the “test”…which has led to some experienced, CONSERVATIVE Senators being beat in the Primaries.

Now…with the “Not Obama” momentum most likely leading to capturing the White House and holding the House…will it be enough to take the Senate, despite some Politically naive Candidates?

I’m really unsure.

Let’s discuss.

Mufasa

I am very far from convinced that Obama necessarily vacates the Whitehouse.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am very far from convinced that Obama necessarily vacates the Whitehouse.[/quote]

Based on all the information we have two weeks out, it is not looking good for the President.

Mufasa

Note:

There are other threads discussing “What they said/What they meant”.

The question I HOPE we can discuss here is:

“Will the “Not Obama” momentum be enough for the GOP to take the Senate”?

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“Will the “Not Obama” momentum be enough for the GOP to take the Senate”?

Mufasa[/quote]

No, and it never was.

Senate races aren’t presidential races.

No. Both will win.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“Will the “Not Obama” momentum be enough for the GOP to take the Senate”?

Mufasa[/quote]

No, and it never was.

Senate races aren’t presidential races.[/quote]

Can you elaborate a little more, CB? (Hey…I’m still learning!)

Mufasa

[quote]Sloth wrote:
No. Both will win.[/quote]

Sloth:

Do you mean Mourdock and Akin will win…BUT the GOP will not take the Senate?

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“Will the “Not Obama” momentum be enough for the GOP to take the Senate”?

Mufasa[/quote]

No, and it never was.

Senate races aren’t presidential races.[/quote]

Can you elaborate a little more, CB? (Hey…I’m still learning!)

Mufasa[/quote]

Here is a list of Governor elected in MA

http://www.masshome.com/governors.html

Here is how we vote for president

http://www.270towin.com/states/Massachusetts

They are two different races (senate and President) and I feel like most people would prefer one party to not control all three houses. Even when I was a ultra blue blood, I felt this way.

And to be honest, I would prefer Romney win & the Dems keep the senate. But hope beyond hope Liz Warren loses, lol.

I guess it comes down to, I feel people view the races differently.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
No. Both will win.[/quote]

Sloth:

Do you mean Mourdock and Akin will win…BUT the GOP will not take the Senate?

Mufasa
[/quote]

Hard to say. Either way, Mourdock and Akin won’t have much if any impact on other races. Mourdock will win, and I honestly think Akin will pull it off.

I think they both will win also.

I also agree that most people would probably be “okay” with different parties holding the House, Senate and White House.

Should be interesting.

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am very far from convinced that Obama necessarily vacates the Whitehouse.[/quote]

Based on all the information we have two weeks out, it is not looking good for the President.

Mufasa[/quote]

Mufasa: what about the swing states? Will you predict a Romney win even if the Ohio/Iowa poll averages hold at a narrow Obama lead on the eve of the election?

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am very far from convinced that Obama necessarily vacates the Whitehouse.[/quote]

Based on all the information we have two weeks out, it is not looking good for the President.

Mufasa[/quote]

Mufasa: what about the swing states? Will you predict a Romney win even if the Ohio/Iowa poll averages hold at a narrow Obama lead on the eve of the election?[/quote]

Good question, smh.

It seems like Florida, Ohio, Virginia (they make a lot of ships there!) and now Colorado seem to be going Romney’s way.

One thing to remember, though. My feeling is that a tie or “close” race is a “win for Romney” because of the “Enthusiasm Gap” favoring the “Not Obama” voter.

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am very far from convinced that Obama necessarily vacates the Whitehouse.[/quote]

Based on all the information we have two weeks out, it is not looking good for the President.

Mufasa[/quote]

Mufasa: what about the swing states? Will you predict a Romney win even if the Ohio/Iowa poll averages hold at a narrow Obama lead on the eve of the election?[/quote]

Good question, smh.

It seems like Florida, Ohio, Virginia (they make a lot of ships there!) and now Colorado seem to be going Romney’s way.

One thing to remember, though. My feeling is that a tie or “close” race is a “win for Romney” because of the “Enthusiasm Gap” favoring the “Not Obama” voter.

Mufasa[/quote]

Well said. We do agree on most of this. Florida has gone red as far as I can predict, and Virginia is on the verge. I do still believe that Romney has ground to gain in the midwestern states. This is a complete arbitrary guess, but I’m assuming that the enthusiasm gap will cover between one and two points in the pre-election polls. Maybe it will be huge and end up being more like 3 or 4, but that will probably surprise me.

TB…

Any thoughts?

Mufasa

I think it depends on the Democratic Senator and what kind of independence they have from the last 4 years. Even someone like Akin is threatening tio still win against McCaskill in Missouri, and it ain’t because Akin is anyone’s second coming of Thomas Jefferson.

The Senate, by design, is supposed to be occupied by moderates - not necssarily moderates in terms of political beliefs, but almost always moderate in tone, practice, and personality…cooler heads than in a potentially rambunctious House, elected by an entire state of voters, rather than a section.

In theory, Tea Party candidates - usually rookies who lack of moderate temperments - should find it difficult to win Senate seats, but the problem is that moderate Democrats have their forrunes tied to the last four years, and Obama required that these moderate Democrats forfeit their moderate bona fides to enable the Obama-Pelosi agenda beginning in 2008.

And now they have to pay for it, even against weak(er) candidates that they ordinarily shouldn’t lose to.

@Counting Beans

Since you live in Massachusetts who do you think will win between Sean Bielat and Joseph Patrick Kennedy 111 for Barney Frank’s congressional seat?

I always found it interesting that those two had very similar educational backgrounds and could make for an interesting race. Bielat: businesses, politics, law and management science (BA, MPA, MBA). Kennedy: business, management science (industrial engineering), public policy and law degree.

I thought this is one race that could deserve more attention.

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
@Counting Beans

Since you live in Massachusetts who do you think will win between Sean Bielat and Joseph Patrick Kennedy 111 for Barney Frank’s congressional seat?

I always found it interesting that those two had very similar educational backgrounds and could make for an interesting race. Bielat: businesses, politics, law and management science (BA, MPA, MBA). Kennedy: business, management science (industrial engineering), public policy and law degree.

I thought this is one race that could deserve more attention.[/quote]

Kennedy will win due to his last name. Any other person in the world with his resume would get smoked. His last name will propel him to a narrow win.