Sunday, April 24, 2011

Massachusetts and Nevada seen as critical for Democrats in 2012

.....“The Democrats should be absolutely obsessed with this race,’’ said Jeffrey Berry, Tufts University political scientist. “Yet there doesn’t seem to be a national urgency.’’.......

..........But if Democrats take both Nevada and the Bay State, Republicans would need to practically run the table in other close races to win a Senate majority, a steep, uphill path to power. Senate Democrats hold a 53-to-47 advantage over Republicans, including the two independents who caucus with the Democrats.

“Massachusetts and Nevada . . . are the two important places where they absolutely must put the seats in play,’’ said Stuart Rothenberg, publisher of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, which tracks political races. “Democratic insiders know if they can play offense in some places and pick off one or two Republican seats that just makes it a whole lot easier to hold the Senate.’’
The full story is HERE.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Many keep criticizing Brown as being to moderate/liberal. It's Massachusetts. Better him than a Kennedy.

He does what he has to do there to keep the seat Republican.

Anonymous said...

RINO!

ellie said...

Brown is doing an excellent job representing all the good people of Mass. A far right would never win, and there is not a good enough reason to even try. Brown can win re election.

Nevada is even tricker. We could have taken Reids seat away, but we had a very flawed candidate in Angle. She was seen as crazy - and she is quite extreme, imo - and that turned off even some GOP voters who voted for Reid because they could not vote for Angle. Now, Sandoval has the opportunity to appoint a senator, who has a short time to make a good impression. My guess is he keeps Angle totally out of any equitation, and gets someone in who can win the election in 12, AND if that person is Heller, someone who can retain the house seat when it comes up in 12. Angle is not that person. Keep her local, and under control. We have enough loose cannons in congress now.

Revolution 2010 said...

Those that criticize Brown, remember it's better 50-60% of agreement is better than 0% with a Democrat.

Anonymous said...

i agree with ellie and revolution 2010:) too many conseratives do not understnad the differecnce between the states and what being a senator is actually all about! a senator's job is to first represent his/her constituates! .....and like i have said before...too many conservatives automatically call a republican that lives in a liberal/demacratic state a rino if they get elected into politics there. in that thinking no conservative can go into public service if they don't live in a conservative state. not very logical thinking here, huh? conservatives that get elected in a liberal state help the conservative cause by slowing the progressive agenda or like mitt did in mass. took the health care issues that the libs wanted to do with a government take over and was able to route it through the private sector instead, which is a consevative way of doing business! so...had he not been conservative with good leadership abilities they would have had a truely socilized medical health care system! so yes, conservatives that get elected in liberal states do good, even if they just chip away at the liberal policies! so get real conservatives!