2026 Senate Races (GOP Targets/Defense priorities)

8,408 Views | 92 Replies | Last: 5 hrs ago by Teslag
K2-HMFIC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

Sure…





I was under the impression this was a different poll than Des Moines…

However, the larger issue here is that nationally the GOP has some serious issues and is competitive in states they should be running away in.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
K2-HMFIC said:

flown-the-coop said:

Sure…





I was under the impression this was a different poll than Des Moines…

However, the larger issue here is that nationally the GOP has some serious issues and is competitive in states they should be running away in.


His point is maybe it's not wise to believe polls.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seems obvious but the TDS haze is thick these days. Maybe humidity and the Saharan dust blowing in.
K2-HMFIC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Teslag said:

K2-HMFIC said:

flown-the-coop said:

Sure…





I was under the impression this was a different poll than Des Moines…

However, the larger issue here is that nationally the GOP has some serious issues and is competitive in states they should be running away in.


His point is maybe it's not wise to believe polls.


It is an absolute mistake to look at polls as some sort of exact predictor of the future.

However, polls are useful to project trends and direction.
JDUB08AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Go look at polling in the 2018 midterms. Nelson would have won Florida. Tester would have won Montana. Donnelly would have won Indiana.
BTKAG97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Broseph said:

I see a lot of polls with dems favored. That doesn't look positive.

Why? That's been SOP every election cycle since, at least, 2008. It's hard to trust the accuracy of a poll more than 30 days out from an election.
Jessy255
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In the 2018 midterms, Republicans suffered significant losses in House contests, yet still managed to increase their Senate representation by two seats.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Like the trend in November 2024 that Kamala was going to be the next POTUS? That trend?

Sometimes a broken clock is right. Most of the time it is not.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jessy255 said:

In the 2018 midterms, Republicans suffered significant losses in House contests, yet still managed to increase their Senate representation by two seats.

Trump exhaustion was a real thing at the time. Derangement had set in on the left and moving to the right. But plenty on the right were simply exhausted of Trump and the MSM attacks on him and were thinking house would provide some check on them.

Using similar rhetoric now. Booker is all in on Trump is a threat to democracy and that winning the house and senate in 2026 is the only way to ensure Trump can take no further action as POTUS.

You know, separate but equal except when Dems control a branch then that branch is most superior to all others and if they do not comply then they will be stacked, packed, impeached, et cetera.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
flown-the-coop said:

Like the trend in November 2024 that Kamala was going to be the next POTUS? That trend?

Sometimes a broken clock is right. Most of the time it is not.


Works the other way too. In 2022 every poll showed a sizable red wave. Never happened. Polls are simply worthless now. Even in determining trends.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agree. I am actually (and surprisingly I know) hopeful and even a bit confident that Rs hold the House and make gains in the Senate.

Summer of America 250 has a long way to go, gas has a long way to drop, and the campaigns for November are just now getting started.

Rs are LOADED with plenty of fodder to through at the Dems. Platner has plenty of company out there.

In fact, the Dems are putting together a disaster of a slate of candidates like Rs have been known for. Giddy up.
K2-HMFIC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

Like the trend in November 2024 that Kamala was going to be the next POTUS? That trend?

Sometimes a broken clock is right. Most of the time it is not.



What polls showed that????

For real…
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Almost all of them

https://www.270towin.com/2024-presidential-election-polls/national
K2-HMFIC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Teslag said:

Almost all of them

https://www.270towin.com/2024-presidential-election-polls/national


Bud…these are national polling averages…not state by state breakouts.

Most state polls had Trump winning the electoral college.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://www.270towin.com/2024-presidential-election-polls/

State polls had Trump losing Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania tied (with 11 of 15 state polls taken in November giving Penn to Harris).


Those 3 give the election to Harris. They were wrong.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Correct. And Democrat-communists, lest we forget, were very excited about a fraudulent poll in Iowa showing Harris ahead as well.

55 is more plausible than ever, and the communist Dem candidates in NY in the House will give more momentum/ammo to the GOP to campaign with in battleground senate races nationwide. The chair of the House Hispanic Caucus lost too.

Dems worked to import the third world for peepaw's whole tenure and it is backfiring on them spectacularly now.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
El Sayed seems to have cemented his lead in the commie primary in Michigan, and has advocated for violence/'hate speech'. Good redstate piece on this particular scum bag;
Quote:

In an article that I read right HERE at the local paper, Finley opines in an Op-Ed with the title The First Amendment is not a shield for violence, and I have to admit I was a bit shocked.
Quote:

The Democratic candidate for Michigan's open Senate seat is selling the idea that the First Amendment covers violence and vandalism, if done in the name of a political cause.

I'm a free speech absolutist. I don't think hate speech should be recognized as its own category of expression. Americans should be free to say the most awful things without legal consequence.


Americans ALL THE TIME say stupid things, and I wholeheartedly agree with him on that. We should be allowed to sound as stupid as we choose to, and there should not be any crime in that.
But...
Quote:

But El-Sayed, in defending the University of Michigan pro-Palestinian activists named in a federal indictment for crimes committed to protest support for Israel's war in Gaza, is arguing the defendants are being prosecuted for their views rather than their acts.
Spray painting messages across a private home, as the protesters did to the houses of UM officials, is not free speech; it's vandalism.

Your words, within reason, should not be an automatic ticket to getting arrested. I think people wiser than moi have opined that it constitutes a thought crime, which is still not a crime at all. Yet if words lead to action, or if there are no words and just action, that absolutely should be punishable.

That is a bit tricky to maneuver around. Sayed has not been charged in any of these incidents, but he is also not, from what I've seen, reprimanding the people who've done things such as this.
The ice would be getting thin for most folks, I believe.

However, in some of the latest polling on the race between Republican Mike Rogers and the (leading) Democratic challenger Abdul El-Sayed, the race is neck and neck. This actually is a race which will not be decided until November of this year, and it is looking like it might be too close to call this far out.

This should be winnable in November, though it will cost $$$ to do so and rely on a somewhat honest election in a blue state. RCP has him up 2 on Rogers in the general, but not a lot of polling.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fox has a good poll for Collins (below is a hysterical democrat lamenting as much):

ETA: the GOP edge on fundraising/spending (and now coordination advantage thanks to scotus) is going to start having an impact now imho:

GA, MI, and NC should get much more $$$.
K2-HMFIC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:

Fox has a good poll for Collins (below is a hysterical democrat lamenting as much):

ETA: the GOP edge on fundraising/spending (and now coordination advantage thanks to scotus) is going to start having an impact now imho:

GA, MI, and NC should get much more $$$.

Random thoughts...

I think NC is a foregone conclusion it will turn blue and we need to cut our losses.

MI absolutely needs a major cash infusion regardless of who's on the ticket against Rogers.

GA - I can't see Ossoff losing...Collins just doesnt come across as a great candidate...

ME - Collins needs to keep it up here...she's ahead but lacks enthusiasm on the campaign...we need some help getting turn out.

And whoever is saying Talarico's campaign is imploding is high...
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think Cooper is going to face more headwinds than many expect, and NC isn't the most expensive state to run ads.


Respectable takes though I think similarly Talarico in particular is going to have a tough time driving turnout/growing his share of independents etc.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
K2-HMFIC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BMX Bandit said:




I'm increasingly bearish on the Dems ability to pull the Senate…they've got a DSA problem and they don't know what to do about it.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

And whoever is saying Talarico's campaign is imploding is high...


It's not imploding but there's a clear momentum **** for Paxton in the past couple of weeks as Republicans come home and people find out who and what HIV+ Talarico is.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.