David Leonhardt figures that, “while the 2014 election is certainly is not the most important of our lifetimes, it is important in some stealth ways”:
Even if no major legislation is likely in the next two years, the people elected this November will be in the Senate for another four. The 2014 elections could well mean the difference between a Democratic Senate and a Republican Senate in 2017. (The map is more favorable to Democrats two years from now than this year.)
Imagine a Washington in 2017 in which President Marco Rubio and a Republican House want to cut top tax rates sharply — but Senator Bruce Braley, an Iowa Democrat who squeaked out a win in 2014, is part of a 51-member Democratic Senate caucus that stands in the way. Or imagine that President Hillary Clinton wants to push an immigration overhaul — but can’t get any momentum behind a bill in either a Republican-led Senate or House.
Nate Cohn maintains that “there’s plenty of time for Republicans to take the lead as undecided voters make up their minds”:
In most states, the Democratic candidates are still stuck in the mid 40s or even low 40s. Most undecided voters probably disapprove of President Obama’s performance. In the red states, a vast majority of the undecided voters probably voted for Mitt Romney. If the national generic ballot numbers are right, those voters probably prefer that Republicans control Congress as well.
This would be the easiest explanation. The Republicans could take a lead in states like Iowa, Colorado or even North Carolina as undecided voters make up their minds. It would give the G.O.P. an advantage commensurate with their edge in the generic ballot, especially in the red states.
Charlie Cook reads tea leaves:
The political environment is so bad, the playing field is so tilted in favor of Republicans, and the midterm election electorate has started to favor Republicans so much so that there are simply many more routes for Republicans to get to 51 seats than there are for Democrats to keep 50. Winning every purple state and picking off a state in enemy red territory obviously can happen, but it usually doesn’t with the other dynamics we see in play.
Cillizza chimes in:
In a series of poll released last week in places like Arkansas, Kentucky and even North Carolina, President Obama’s job approval rating never crested 40 percent. In the first two states, he was in the very low 30s. Ask any Democratic consultant what their side’s biggest problem is heading into November and they will tell you Obama. Ask any Republican consultant what their side’s biggest advantage is heading into November and they will tell you Obama. Bipartisanship! The reality is that for people like Pryor, Landrieu and Alaska’s Mark Begich, overperforming the president of their party by 15 or more points is a very tough thing to do. That’s true — to a lesser extent, but still true — for people like Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, Bruce Braley in Iowa and Mark Udall in Colorado. The tough thing for Democrats is that it’s getting dangerously close to being too late for a change in Obama’s approval numbers to have a real impact on the political dynamic in their state.
Update from “one politically independent, liberal-to-libertarian man’s point of view from North Carolina” – a great description of a typical Dish reader:
I haven’t been polled, but if I were, I guess I would be counted as an “undecided” voter. Put bluntly, I find the race between Thom Tillis and (the incumbent) Kay Hagan as repulsive as it is boring. Tillis is running against President Obama, and Hagan is running against the NC legislature (of which Tillis is the outgoing speaker of the House). An outsider could be forgiven for not realizing that they are both running for a seat in the US Senate.
There was a time when I would find the arguments of my (mostly liberal) friends about the implications of who controls the Senate a compelling reason to hold my nose and vote for Hagan (again), but I just can’t bring myself to do it this time around. As much as I abhor nearly everything Tillis stands for, I have yet to hear Ms. Hagan articulate a single positive accomplishment that I should care about in the job she’s had for nearly six years.
There was also a time when I could have happily registered a protest vote for a candidate like Libertarian Sean Haugh, who clearly doesn’t want the job (the persistent problem with Libertarian candidates is that they aren’t actually interested in doing the jobs they seek) because at least his YouTube videos are entertaining. His electoral prospects (or rather, the lack thereof) don’t bother me, but campaigning as performance art (however much I share his sentiments and genuinely enjoy his delivery) is not something that I think merits encouragement.
But … if I vote for anyone at all, it will be for Haugh, if only because he’s the only candidate that voting for won’t leave me wanting to take a shower. More likely, I will write in “none of the above” and devote my attention to more local races, where my vote might matter (marginally) more.
If this is where someone as politically engaged as I am (I’ve voted in just about every election since I turned 18 in 1995, including ones for things like school board and sales tax referendums) finds himself, you know the system is fundamentally broken.
The Dish 