|
So, basically, the Democrats have to win every race currently leaning dem, and either two of three tossups while holding NV or losing NV and winning all three tossups. This will get them to 50 seats, which if Clinton wins the presidency, will be enough to take control of the Senate; otherwise, they'll need several more seats in order to make up for everyone who will want to be bipartisan and work with President Christie or whomever. And then two years after that, the Republicans win five seats and we're back to where we started. Am I reading this correctly?
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
Gee, it sure would have been nice to not have lost the Alaska, North Carolina, Iowa, and Colorado seats just now. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
If anybody cares, Begich finally conceded.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
This may be a silly question, but why do the Democrats have so few good candidates, in so many states? I keep hearing about how the Dems in Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin, etc., have a weak bench that's costing them a lot of races they could otherwise win. Why? And, is anything being done to ensure that they don't have this issue in the future?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 18:32
|
|