General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums2014 Will Be A VERY Bad Year For The Democrats.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not happy to report this. If the GOP crazies in the House are any indication, we're gong to be looking at tough times ahead. But the reality is that after some careful analysis, I believe that the GOP will take control of the Senate in 2014.
Here is why: No other issue has historically brought Republican voters to the polls like gun control. I gotta think that after Bush, many Republicans stayed home, being demoralized by the mess Bush left in his wake. How many stayed home, I don't know. I also suspect that not many Republicans were inspired to go to the polls voting for a guy like Romney.
Additionally, we have to realize that Obama is one hell of a fine campaigner. His team revolutionized how elections are done. But we saw in 2010, when that team wasn't in place, the Democrats suffered major losses.
This is why I think it was a massive strategic blunder for Dems in the Senate to push gun control. With the GOP controlling the House, it was impossible to get any gun control legislation passed. And while many care about gun control, priority polling has found that only 4% of voters believe that gun control is the most important issue. There may be 90% support for gun control, but it is weak support. On the flip side of the coin, the pro-gun folks are very dedicated to that issue.
I should note that Senators serve 6 year terms, and only one-third of the Senate is up for election every 2 years. This means that if there is a major shift in power in the Senate in one election year, than 6 years later, another major shift can happen. 6 years before 2014 was the 2008 election, where Democrats in the Senate won a two-thirds majority.
Given all this, we need to look at how the Senate elections will break down. We need to ask ourselves three questions.
1) How many Republicans and Democratic Senators are retiring, and what states are they from?
2) How many Republican incumbents will be defending their Senate seats in blue states?
3) How many Democratic incumbents will be defending their Senate seats in red states?
Let's take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2014
On the Republican side, only 2 Republicans will be retiring, in Kansas and Georgia. Both states are solidly red. These open seats will likely stay red. Every other Republican incumbent will be defending their seats from very red states, with the sole exception of Susan Collins of Maine.
And here is where things get bad. On the Democratic side, Democrats will be retiring in Montana, South Dakota, Iowa, Michigan, West Virginia, and New Jersey. These will be open seats, so no one will have an incumbent advantage.
Democrats will be defending their Senate seats in Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia.
Democrats will be defending other seats as well, but these are solidly blue states, which I doubt will flip.
What this means, however, is that there is very little chance that the GOP will lose very many Senate seats in 2014. However, Democrats could lose as many as 10 Senate seats. Republicans only need to pick up 4 seats to retake the Senate.
This is why I say that pushing gun control in the Senate was a very bad idea. It had zero chance of passing the House, and it would create a ton of risk for Democrats. A ton of risk and zero payoff is a bad gamble to make in politics. And if you think the GOP crazies in the House are bad now, imagine what they'll be like without a Democratic Senate to block their insanity.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
still_one
(98,883 posts)
bigtree
(94,213 posts). . . snowed in Minnesota last week. Gotta check my gutters.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Hell, we got 5" of snow YESTERDAY in Minnesota.
bigtree
(94,213 posts). . . snow in April! What will happen to Mrs. Krebsbach's early start on her tomatoes?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)in the Twin Cities. Some other areas of the state have had more, others less.
bigtree
(94,213 posts). . . and I like snow.
April (snow) showers! Hope it gets better. 
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)But the unexpected sometimes happens.
I would like to offer my apologies for my votes for Sens. Mike Johanns and Deb Fischer. I cannot understand how they could not support a small measure of comfort to the American public and Nebraskans by expanding something as simple as background checks. I will be more cautious with my vote the next time.
RockaFowler
(7,429 posts)Didn't someone say this about 2012, too??
90% of Americans want Background Checks. 90% of Democrats voted for it. 90% of Repukes voted against it.
I get the math now
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)
spanone
(141,542 posts)
Pisces
(6,225 posts)
do they get paid for this stuff?
tridim
(45,358 posts)Manny will be here soon to provide plenty of backup.
unblock
(56,188 posts)the thing about many of these single-issue politics is that the votes you lose were never yours in the first place.
doesn't much matter if they're angrier when they vote republican than they were the last time they voted republican.
true, their anger might translate into more campaign contributions, but there are so many factors on that front, including offsetting contributions from those who support gun legislation.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Well, you have convinced me! 
Try again, Karnak the Great.
Alva Goldbook
(149 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but this is April. By November, how much will this matter?
Plus, I am not sure of your data here
"Democrats will be defending their Senate seats in Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia."
Wisconsin? No, Tammy Baldwin just got elected in 2012 and is not up until 2018. Feingold got defeated in 2010 and the next race is 2016.
So far, Wiki has no word on Roberts retiring from Kansas.
Plus, I find it odd that you say "Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia" that "but these are solidly blue states, which I doubt will flip."
But now, I guess when you said that, you were talking about the "other" states, like Minnesota, Illinois, Hawaii, and Vermont. It would have helped if you had listed them, so we could make our own judgement about "solidly blue". BTW, Democrats lost in Illinois and Wisconsin - solidly blue states in 2010, but won in red states like North Dakota and Virginia in 2012.
Alva Goldbook
(149 posts)poor wording on my part. I didn't mention the solidly blue states, like Illinois, because I doubt that seat will flip. I'm not saying that Arkansas is a solid blue state.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)
Demonaut
(10,074 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Demonaut
(10,074 posts)but again, troll accusations are not to be given lightly
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)plans seeded early...a la Mitch McConnell, that sly old manipulative fox
Demonaut
(10,074 posts)
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I think the OP makes a sensible, compelling and worrying point, and does so politely.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,951 posts)I think that the political risk of opposing any and all forms of gun control has gotten bigger, particularly in the wake of Newtown. Toomey-Manchin was a genuine bipartisan effort that, while not going as far as most of us would like, still represented a sensible approach to reducing the ability of people whom might have a tendency to use guns unlawfully to get them. It's the NRA and its supporters whom are increasingly on the wrong side of this issue and looking "out of touch" IMHO.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)And disillusioned. I can't tell you how many Repugs I know simply cannot believe Obama was re-elected. They had been brainwashed that his election was some fluke and that it would be "corrected" last year. Some of them are even starting to wonder if they've been lied to - as I've been trying to tell them for years. 
Alva Goldbook
(149 posts)No matter what anyone thinks of their politics (Obama's always been FAR too conservative for my tastes), we have to stand in awe of what an absolutely amazing campaigner Obama is. I knew as soon as he got the nomination that he was going to be a 2 termer. Romney was just a freaking horrific campaigner. The man could put a coke head to sleep.
mnhtnbb
(33,337 posts)Alva Goldbook
(149 posts)There is a political calculus one has to make. For instance, you can push for something that might not win, if it helps you win in the long term. For instance, if it was any other election coming up, the Dems could have pushed to legalize gay marriage nation wide. Even if they lost that vote, it would help achieve that goal eventually. It would also help to change more people's attitudes on that issue.
Prior to the 2010 elections, Democrats should have pushed for raising taxes on the rich. Even if they lost that vote, it would have helped them at the polls.
But that isn't the case here. Dems can win on the gun control issue on the state level, but not the federal level. When it's all risk and zero payoff, it's a dumb move to make.
Let me also say that this is very much a rights issue. People really don't like their rights being messed with. It's one thing to debate expanding rights (like gay marriage), it's quite another to take a right away (like Prop 8 in California). That makes people very angry. Whether it be voting rights, or reproductive rights, or union rights, or gun rights.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Paladin
(32,354 posts)
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Just kidding.
Thanks for sharing your fatalistic views. I don't share them.
Julie
DinahMoeHum
(23,598 posts)Thanks for playing.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)NOT!
John1956PA
(4,952 posts)The OP analysis of the Senate seats up for grabs in 2014 is noteworthy. However, I do not believe the gun control issue will constitute an overriding factor in deciding those races. There many issues in our favor, and we have to work to get out the vote.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)2005 and only about 30 posts? Suddenly motivation hits hard to participate at DU and not only this op but the numerous responses?
I don't think this poster is pessimistic (as described above). I think something else.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)
Rochester
(838 posts)But holding the Senate won't be impossible, and having Joe Biden as tie breaker only helps.
We can try to retake the House, too.
Alva Goldbook
(149 posts)I suspect that we could see a 50/50 split in the Senate, but Christ, I don't want things to get so close that someone like a Lieberman could go independent and hand things over the Republicans.
wet.hen88
(64 posts)Being from Georgia, I shudder every time I see or hear that word. And here, its hard to avoid...the two G's go together too easily...Georgia IS Gerrymandering and Gerrymandering IS Georgia. We never! have choices anymore!
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I had written out most of a long exposition (and outlined the remainder) on why we are currently looking to be no worse than 50/50 with the split going to the Democrats covering every 2014 race...but then I read your post again and realized that you know nothing, Alva Goldbrook, if you think even half those races don't already heavily-favor the Democrat and fail to account for the inevitable cyclical GOP-candidate implosion that costs the GOP what should be a safe seat or pickup...like Akin and Mourdock and Angle and...
so I deleted it. No need wasting keystrokes.
Alva Goldbook
(149 posts)That is probably a little premature at this date, at least until each party has their nominees picked. The GOP could screw up too, and push for real crazies like Angle, O'Donnell and various other "witches", 
but that's dependent upon whether the GOP has learned their lesson yet. On the one hand, my understanding is that Jim DeMint was behind a lot of those candidates, pushing the NRSC to fund their campaigns. DeMint isn't going to be around any more to influence the NRSC to do this. On the other hand, the GOP never seems to learn from their mistakes, ever.
But this worries me. Historically, when the issue is the economy, it favors Democrats. Democrats have an easy time winning elections when we're in bad economic times like we were in 2008. Just as Republicans, for reasons that seem to defy logic, seem to have an easier time winning elections in times of war. However, when the economy begins to recover, the Democrats lose the advantage on the economy, and I suspect by 2014, we'll be fully recovered from the 2008 crash.
zeeland
(247 posts)I am receiving many anti-congressional emails from people
I consider not particularly political. Both Dems and Repukes
with no emphasis on party, just disgust with Congress in general.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)But I have also seen the Gallop numbers he mentioned. 4% of those polled said Guns and Gun Control were the biggest issue facing us. Almost a quarter mentioned the economy in general. So the backlash, if there is one, against the Republicans, will probably be small. Especially if they pander to the ones who say the economy is the biggest issue with some insane bill that they can get some talking point traction on.
After the vote in the senate, I watched the news, and while the commentators and guests were outraged, I didn't see much in the way of outrage from the rest of the nation. I was forced to conclude that they didn't care. That's when I found those Gallop numbers, and it seemed fairly reasonable to assume that Guns were not going to be an issue this election. At least not unless some right winger's go nuts, one right after the other, and cranks up a few massacres. Statistically we get one a year or so, usually with plenty of time for people to forget or get over it. Short of one happening right before an election, I don't see Guns being the deciding issue.
So what can we do to expose the Rethugs? Obviously guns is a next to dead topic for the voters. That leaves the economy as the biggest issue according to the polls. We need to use that issue to push the Rethugs into exposing themselves as the vallie nt defenders of the 1%. We need to propose legislation that the Rethugs will not pass, so we can show the nation what they stand for, and who they stand for. I don't think a Minimum Wage bill is the answer. I'm thinking a massive reconstruction effort.
Replacing and Upgrading the existing infrastructure. New electric lines that are more efficient. New bridges and highway projects and new tax breaks to corporations to increase production of items domestically. Make it five percent of the cost of the item, and watch the greedy bastards tear the boards off of the closed factories. They pay more than that in shipping costs 9 times out of ten. We could do it, and the Rethugs would oppose, because it would increase the pools that the Unions can get organized.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Something that whips up the base but never actually gets fixed. 
. The people who care about it care a lot, everybody else really doesn't.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Because then we can understand why the Rethugs and the DINO's voted against the Gun Control Bill. Without those facts, without that information, we can't figure out our next move. Simply screaming shame on you hasn't gotten the population at large to agree that guns are an important issue. Yet, that seems to be our battle plan for the future on the issue. Instead, why not figure out what the people think is important, and then show them our ideals, our plans for that issue? You win elections by finding out first of all what the people think is the biggest problems facing us. Then you come up with a plan for those problems, and then you can win.
We can't win shit if all we do is denounce anyone and anything that doesn't agree with our views.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)The most popular politicians have always been the ones who showed they stand for something. It doesn't' really seem to matter that much whether the public actually agrees with the things the politician stands for.
The OP seems to be arguing that Democrats will have their best chances in 2014 if they are careful to stand for nothing at all.
I do not agree.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)And it's something Democrats have yet to learn.
I've seen it here in Canada ... I live in a conservative area...and our left-leaning politicians are a lot less 'wimpy' than Dems are. It seems here that the more forceful the liberal/leftist politician, the more the right wingers 'admire' him/her for sticking to his/her principles.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Voters vote for:
1. An incumbent who hasn't pissed them off, or lacking that
2. Somebody who credibly promises to get them stuff.
It's not that complicated.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)They held every seat and took 2 more from the GOP.
So, there's that.
whttevrr
(2,347 posts)
rrneck
(17,671 posts)have the attention span of a squirrel. The legislation no doubt made money for the NRA etc, but guns are not a big issue for the bulk of voters. The most it did is energize the right wing base, which is not good, and maybe discourage the left wing base a bit but given the political realities they aren't going anywhere.
In the end I doubt it will have much of an impact as long as they shut up about it.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Election 2014 is more than 1-1/2 years away. A LOT can happen in that time.
And BTW, "pushing gun control" is something that 90% of Americans want. You are completely fucking wrong. What a stupid, hysterical post.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)
Viking12
(6,012 posts)Alva Goldbook
(149 posts)
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Franken is strong in the polls and Democrats have been doing very well in this state recently while the Republicans have been crippled by scandal, serious financial mismanagement and poor electoral performance.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)WASHINGTON -- A new poll has New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte down a total of 15 points from her previous approval rating in a survey that followed her vote against requiring background checks for firearms purchases.
Ayotte's plunge underscores the changing politics around gun control and gun safety. In years past, lawmakers worried that a vote for gun control would bring the anger of the National Rifle Association. In the new reality, votes against gun control also carry a political risk, as the Ayotte (R) poll indicates.
A full three-quarters of New Hampshire voters support such background checks, along with 56 percent of Republicans, according to Public Policy Polling. A WMUR Granite State Poll taken in January and February found that more than 9 in 10 state residents supported implementing background checks at gun shows.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/kelly-ayottes-approval_n_3147834.html
Republicans are going to suffer for voting against even the most common sense, no brainer, vastly public approved measures ... IF we make them an issue in the elections.
Alva Goldbook
(149 posts)Voting against gun control in blue states will cost Democrats approval ratings. But this is only the case is the most blue of blue states.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Ayotte is now in negative territory (from positive).
Cuomo had plenty of capital to spare. Plus, his laws went 1000 times farther than the milquetoast background check bill against which she voted.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts) Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Alva Goldbook
(149 posts)2 9mm pistols and a very old 32 revolver. I am pro-gun. Gun violence does concern me, and I think we could end much of it by doing something to solve our problems with poverty, income inequality and ending the drug war. We ought to have a single payer health care system that includes dental and mental health, and everyone should get regular check ups.
When I was younger and had more time to volunteer for activist causes, I did a lot of work in homeless shelters. I can tell you first hand that every single person I met in homeless shelters were there because of untreated and often undiagnosed mental illness. The kind of suffering these poor people have to go through is unimaginable to most people.
Mental illness is a very serious problem in this country, and we do not do very much to solve it. It's a national disgrace, and I had hoped that if anything good could come out of a tragedy like Sandy Hook, it would be that the suffering of the mentally ill would be addressed. Sadly, that seems to have become low priority in favor of gun control that we can't get passed in the Senate.
Rex
(65,616 posts)to the idiocy of the GOP. They are the gift that keeps on giving.
eridani
(51,907 posts)What is going to kill the Democratic Party for 2014 and 2016 is Obama putting Social Security cuts on the table.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I think I'm going t enjoy it immensely. Watching them trying to gather up vote from people they hate. Like " wetbacks".
louis-t
(24,614 posts)but doing nothing so repugs can throw THAT in his face is a good thing?
pansypoo53219
(23,033 posts)
tularetom
(23,664 posts)The public is more or less divided on gun issues but one thing they aren't divided on is Social Fucking Security. And their perception is that Obama wants to take away their SS and the republicans want to stop him from doing that. And of course that isn't anywhere remotely near the truth but it's still what a lot of people think.
RagAss
(13,832 posts)yellowcanine
(36,777 posts)
Alva Goldbook
(149 posts)Look, if the GOP takes the Senate, how bad do you think the austerity is going to get? I live in the Washington, D.C. area. Like a lot of people who live here, most of my relatives work for the federal gov't. My wife works for Labor Dept. My father in law works for State. My uncle works for the CIA. My cousin works at the post office. My mother in law works for the FTC. If the GOP takes the Senate, and they go crazy with austerity, and my wife loses her job, I won't be able to afford to pay my mortgage. I'll be homeless. So on a personal level, yes, this worries me.
JPZenger
(6,819 posts)90% approval by the public of background checks to prevent criminals and the criminally insane from buying firearms?
The people who were upset by that proposal were never going to vote for a damn Democrat anyway.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)That issue is very popular with the public, and they will be reminded that Republicans voted against what the electorate overwhelmingly wanted.
Your assessment is FUD, pure and simple.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Your concern is noted.
ecstatic
(35,073 posts)I could be wrong, but based on what I've seen and heard from the moderate righties on TV. Those folks, like the rest of us, are still disgusted by what happened at Sandy Hook. They couldn't hold their nose to vote romney and they're damn sure not going to side with the crazies who believe everybody should have access to guns.
Jon Ace
(255 posts)
oldhippydude
(2,514 posts)BootinUp
(51,280 posts)it effects things.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)
Progressive dog
(7,598 posts)You might want to clean your crystal ball. Almost 90% of voters support the gun background check bill that the RW fillbustered in the Senate. My tea leaves say different.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)The minorities and young voters. Just like in 2010. That's the real problem, Democrats do not turn out in the mids like they do for Presidential elections and the Republicans come out the same for every election.
Unless the President and his team can convince those strict Obama voters to come out and vote for him "one last time" you can forget about it. The House is nearly impossible to get even with that boost and the Senate, unless the Republicans do the whole "run an absolutely insane person" thing again is probably lost as well.
That's the way it is and really, it's the price of being such spineless cowards in '09 when we could have drastically changed the direction of the country. Weak leadership and corporate sell outs in the Democratic Party set up this current situation. A continued slow but sure movement to the right, same as it's been for thirty years.
Gun control was a total waste of political capital. Particularly when you consider there was never a chance for anything meaningful to pass.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)90% of the country wanted it.
cali
(114,904 posts)the same prediction was made about dems in the Senate 2012. Yes, ostensibly it looks cloudy for dems, but the republicans keep putting up truly atrocious candidates. Will they do so in 2014? Entirely possible.
H2O Man
(79,011 posts)cluck-cluck-cluck ....
jmowreader
(53,168 posts)The People - well, most of them - believe in things like universal background checks. So do a majority of gun owners; it is a small percentage who think they need a hundred guns to protect America from the president.
The GOP no longer speaks to America.
quaker bill
(8,264 posts)proposing serious gun control was the only reasonable choice, and opposing gun control has become insane. All things political have their moment.