Skip to footer

Who wins Senate in Election 2014? 3 reasons it could be mystery for weeks.

When Americans wake up after the Nov. 4 midterm elections, they still might not know which party controls the US Senate. Republicans need six seats to recapture control of the Senate, likely putting the GOP in charge of both chambers of Congress. Simple enough in an election year where President Obama’s approval rating is lower than a limbo bar, right?

Things may well turn out that way, but the end may not be known for weeks after Election Day. Here are three reasons why:

1. Failure to win a majority

David Tulis/AP
Democratic Georgia US senatorial candidate Michelle Nunn (r.) asks Republican candidate David Perdue about outsourcing jobs during an Atlanta Press Club debate at the Georgia Public Broadcasting studios Sunday.

  • By Francine Kiefer Staff writer

Both Louisiana and Georgia require a winner to get a majority (50 percent plus one vote). Right now that looks unlikely in both states.

In Georgia, where Republican David Perdue and Democrat Michelle Nunn are competing for an open seat, the RealClearPolitics average of public polls rates this race as a tie – with both averaging 45.4 percent of the vote. A libertarian candidate, Amanda Swafford, has 3.8 percent of the vote.

This seat is being vacated by a Republican, but Mr. Perdue, a businessman, has gotten in hot water for comments about outsourcing jobs. If neither of the front-runners crosses the 50 percent threshold, it’s on to a Jan. 6 runoff.

Same story, different circumstances in Louisiana. That state doesn’t have a primary. All candidates run on Nov. 4, and if no one gets a majority, the two top winners head to a runoff on Dec. 6. Right now, incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu is running ahead of Republican Bill Cassidy in a jumble of candidates. But a runoff looks certain. Senator Landrieu is far from 50 percent, and in this red state, where neither she nor the president is popular, a match between the two highly favors Mr. Cassidy.

1 of 3
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.