Nate Silver is breaking hearts on the Left with his latest picks for the upcoming midterm elections. His complete guess at the moment has the Democrats losing control of the Senate by a couple of seats.

If Americans elected an entirely new set of senators every two years — as they elect members of the House of Representatives — this November’s Senate contest would look like a stalemate. President Obama remains unpopular; his approval ratings have ticked down a point or two over the past few months. But the Republican Party remains a poor alternative in the eyes of many voters, which means it may not be able to exploit Obama’s unpopularity as much as it otherwise might.

The funny thing about this is Nasty Nate, like everyone else on the Left thinks the reason the GOP is a poor alternative to the festering carbuncle in the White House is they are not agreeing with the festering carbuncle enough. Many of the TPA (The Poor Alternative Party) agree with him, but they will win despite their best efforts.

Generic congressional ballot polls — probably the best indicator of the public’s overall mood toward the parties — suggest a relatively neutral partisan environment. Most of those polls show Democrats with a slight lead, but many of them are conducted among registered voters, meaning they can overstate Democrats’ standing as compared with polls of the people most likely to vote. Republicans usually have a turnout advantage, especially in midterm years, and their voters appear to be more enthusiastic about this November’s elections. Still, the gap is not as wide as it was in 2010.

The problem for Democrats is that this year’s Senate races aren’t being fought in neutral territory. Instead, the Class II senators on the ballot this year come from states that gave Obama an average of just 46 percent of the vote in 2012.¹

Democrats hold the majority of Class II seats now, but that’s because they were last contested in 2008, one of the best Democratic years of the past half-century. That year, Democrats won the popular vote for the U.S. House by almost 11 percentage points. Imagine if 2008 had been a neutral partisan environment instead. We can approximate this by applying a uniform swing of 11 percentage points toward Republicans in each Senate race. In that case, Democrats would have lost the races in Alaska, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Oregon — and Republicans would already hold a 52-48 majority in the Senate.

It therefore shouldn’t be surprising that we continue to see Republicans as slightly more likely than not to win a net of six seats this November and control of the Senate. A lot of it is simply reversion to the mean.² This may not be a “wave” election as 2010 was, but Republicans don’t need a wave to take over the Senate.

Nate knows where his bread is buttered so he is going to throw his team a bone.

Jim Geraghty picked up on it and put his optimistic spin on it.

There’s not a ton to disagree with in this new assessment from Nate Silver — “Republicans Remain Slightly Favored To Take Control Of The Senate” — but I’m left scratching my head at his suggestion that the GOP’s Jim Oberweis  is more likely to defeat Sen. Dick Durbin in Illinois than Ed Gillespie is to beat Sen. Mark Warner in Virginia. Really? Really?

Durbin is bullet-proof in Illinois and Warner is probably safe too. Virginia is a coin flip state now, thanks to the army of Northerners that invaded Northern Virginia. Having spoiled their former states, they moved to Virginia because of the low taxes, freedom and normalcy. As expected, they immediately set about tearing it down by voting for the sorts of people that ruined their home state.

The bigger problem is The TPA Party is offering up a damp dishrag with nothing to offer the voters. Ed Gillespie is a permanent barnacle attached to the Leviathan. He has never had a job or done anything of consequence in his government service. He has been an open borders fanatic so he cannot take advantage of the one issue that seems to be working with voters. At least he scrubbed his website of open borders fanaticism, but that’s small beer.

That’s the problem with GOP, they really are the poor alternative party.

Republicans enjoy three near-automatic pick-ups of Democrat-held seats, in South Dakota, West Virginia, and in Montana, where incumbent Sen. John Walsh, dealing with a plagiarism scandal, is being urged to drop his reelection bid and/or resign from the U.S. Senate. Then there are three southern Senate Democrat incumbents who look vulnerable, but not quite toast yet: Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. Bill Cassidy, Tom Cotton and Thom Tillis all just need their home states to follow their GOP instincts.

Then there are the vulnerable Democrat incumbents in red or purple states outside the South: the not-yet-determined GOP bid vs. Mark Begich in Alaska, Cory Gardner’s bid against Sen. Mark Udall in Colorado, and former Sen. Scott Brown’s effort against Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire.

Perhaps this tier can include in Monica Wehby’s effort against Jeff Merkley in Oregon and Gillespie’s effort against Warner in Virginia, although Nate Silver obviously disagrees. (It looks like a really tough year for incumbent Democrat senators named Mark.)

Then there are two open seat races held by retiring Democrats in blue states where GOP women candidates are running surprisingly strongly: Joni Ernst taking on Bruce Braley in Iowa, Terri Lynn Land vs. Gary Peters in Michigan.

Then there’s the one Republican incumbent who needs to hold on, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. For what it’s worth, Silver sees an 80 percent chance McConnell holds on against Alison Lundergan Grimes.

Then there’s the one open seat race where a Republican is retiring in Georgia, where David Purdue needs to hold off Michelle Nunn.

That’s not exactly an electrifying cast of candidates.