http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_1...T=rollcall:e10143:80020084a:&st=email&pos=eam The Uneven Senate Landscape of 2012 (and 2014) By Stuart Rothenberg Republican won 24 of the 37 Senate contests last year, giving them a head start not only on winning a Senate majority in 2012 but possibly winning a 60-seat supermajority two years later. They will need to net 26 or 27 of the remaining 67 contests over the next two cycles to win a majority in 2014, or 36 of the next 67 to get to 60 seats during the next midterm elections. The Senate is always a different kind of numbers game than the House. With unbalanced classes, Senate control — to say nothing about a filibuster-proof majority — hinges on which party has more seats up for election in a particular election cycle. When one of the political parties has a huge election night, as Republicans did last year, it automatically gives that party an opportunity to take over the Senate, whether two years later or four. The 2012 Senate class includes 23 Democrats and only 10 Republicans, and the stunning imbalance means that Democrats will be on the defensive throughout the cycle unless the political environment shifts dramatically to their party.
I don't expect Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe to remain Republicans after 2012. IIRC, there are 32 seats up in 2012, 22 held by Democrats/Independents that caucus with Democrats and 10 held by Republicans. This budget deal included some guarantees to hold uncomfortable votes for swing state/red state Democrats in the Senate, such as health care and Planned Parenthood. It was done to hurt senators like Claire McCaskill (MO), Ben Nelson (NE), Bill Nelson (FL), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Jon Tester (MT), Sherrod Brown (OH), Bob Casey, Jr. (PA) and Joe Manchin (WV) all running for re-election. The Democrats may get a few pickups because John Kyl (AZ) and John Ensign (NV) are retiring and Scott Brown (MA) and Olympia Snowe (ME) are running for re-election in states with a strong blue shading.
I think Republicans are going to have some really hard times campaigning on a platform that calls for pretty drastic changes to Medicare. They're kind of stuck between a rock (the Tea Party movement) and a hard place (their traditional older voting demographic who like Medicare). It's simply impossible to please both constituents, although they are trying to walk that line by not proposing any changes to people over 55. It's just that the old folks hear "Medicare changes" and if it ain't more spending, they ain't happy. I suspect any cuts Democrats make in Medicare are going to look pretty tame by comparison. I could be wrong though. Anyway, I think this election will be a wakeup call for extremists on both ends of the spectrum. Both sides have spent so much time working themselves up into a lather about how evil the other side is...but next year I think we're going to see a compromise emerge on budgeting because it just has to. And the extremists are going to kick and stamp their feet that they were betrayed because they didn't get it their way, when that's just how our system of government works. You don't get your way a lot of the time, more so true the more extremist your positions are.
These aren't normal times. The problem with entitlements is that there's no slack in the line left. The money that should have been reserved for this population bubble has been spent. There's no room not to make drastic changes to entitlements to people under 55. You can't touch anything for those 55 and older; we have to stick to the deal we made with them because they don't have time to adjust. As extreme as the Tea Party's position is, it's the responsible one. We're fooling ourselves if we think we can tweak the system. We have two choices: dramatically change entitlements or lose the programs altogether.
