Senate seats in play in 2016

[pbrower2a]

Arizona and Iowa have vulnerable seats in the event that the very old Republican Senators in those States retire or are forced out due to failing health. This is more actuarial fact than political fact. Carl Levin chose to retire in 2014.

Portman (R-OH) is vulnerable to a primary challenge. He wins if he gets past that challenge. Murkowski (R-AK) has gotten past one primary defeat to run as an independent -- once. It was tough... but she has done little for the moderates who voted her in. Begich could defeat a tea-bag nominee this time.

The surest Senators on the way out will be Kirk (R- IL...out of place -- see Scott Brown a few years ago), Johnson (R-WI... a non-entity), and Toomey (R-PA...an extremist in a State which might vote one in once but not a second time). Rubio is (R-FL) about as weak a Senator as there could be.  Burr (R-NC)... maybe a one-and-out. Isakson (R-GA) faces some of the more impressive losers of 2014 as possible opponents.

The one Republican winner of 2010 in a liberal-leaning state (Ayotte, R-NH) looks strong so far.

[pbrower2a]

Murkowski (R-AK) has gotten past one primary defeat to run as an independent -- once. It was tough... but she has done little for the moderates who voted her in. Begich could defeat a tea-bag nominee this time.

Ok.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Richard Burr is running for a third term. He was first elected in 2004 and won re-election in 2010. Would you mean two-and-out?

I guess so.

[pbrower2a]

With a 28% approval rating according to PPP, Pat Toomey (R-PA) is in obvious danger of losing his Senate seat.  He gets only 44% in matchups against non-politicians and comparative unknown candidates... and in view of the 28% approval he will have a difficult time going above 44%.

[pbrower2a]

The 28% approval rating for Senator Toomey could conceivably be an outlier. But how much? If some other pollster comes up with even so much as "39%", then he is clearly in trouble.

He has a very right-wing voting record, and it will be used against him by any Democrat.

[pbrower2a]

Pbrower and OC in a serious contest on who can out stupid the other. Could Pbrower really be bested by a robot? Stay tuned.

Do you understand what a 28% approval rating really means for an incumbent Gobernor or Senator? Even if it is an outlier (which is possible) it is inconsistent with "likely to win re-election". That is almost Corbett '14 territory.

What is possible with such a low approval rating for an incumbent ?

1. He could be enmeshed in a scandal.
2. He could be a bad ideological fit for his state.
3. He might be failing at the job.
4. The political winds are changing, and not to his benefit.

We can rule out #1 -- scandal.
#2 -- he barely won during the Tea Party wave in 2010, and with a different electorate less amenable to the Hard Right, he loses. Pennsylvania is slightly-D, so a Republican has to be very good to get re-elected.
#3 -- he has wisely avoided the limelight, but it is questionable that he has done anything for Pennsylvania. It may be to his credit that he has stayed away from the pork barrel -- but it is bad for political survival.
#4 -- possible, but I can't see the evidence for it to my satisfaction yet.

An earlier PPP poll (late November) showed him with a 36% approval rating, which is not quite so abysmal -- but it is poor.

He has inordinate work to get re-elected. Just about everything has to go right for him to get re-elected.   He will need

(1) an unusually-weak opponent
(2) a political climate much like 2010 or 2016, which is asking for much
(3) successful legislation with his name on it
(4) a major scandal involving the Democratic Party (especially the President)
(5) copious funding of his electoral campaign

Putting money on the Toomey campaign could quickly become a waste of money, and it would be perceived as such quickly. The Republicans have 23 other incumbent Senators to defend, and he will be among the three with races that they can most afford to lose. They are not going to risk the re-election of Kelly Ayotte to protect Pat Toomey, especially if they see Senators Kirk of Illinois and Johnson of Wisconsin going down to defeat.

[pbrower2a]

While I'll still continue to question the accuracy of this one poll, I do have a theory about the high percentage of "no opinion" respondents in polls about non-long time or non-high profile members of Congress.

Don't worry; there will be more polls. Quinnipiac polls Pennsylvania often. Q is more R-leaning than PPP... and if the poll showing Toomey with an approval rating of 28% is an outlier, then that will be rendered irrelevant. But 28% has to be a monstrous outlier. Show a credible poll with Toomey with  more than 40% approval and I will change my assessment.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senator Toomey will be running for re-election in Pennsylvania. Ted Cruz, Elizabeth Warren, Rand Paul, and Bernie Sanders will appear in Pennsylvania largely for fund-raising events. Senator Toomey is wise to not expose his firm belief in plutocratic oligarchy (he was President of the right-wing Club for Growth, basically a John Birch Society for Corporate America) as a 'loud' Senator. He could be more of a Big Player in American politics if he doesn't breathe fire until he is re-elected should the Republican Party be fully entrenched in American politics. He wisely bides his time.

Creating excitement? It depends upon the sort of excitement. When fear is bigger than the thrill one lets up on the gas pedal or cuts short the mountain climb. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Silver's model showed Senator Russ Feingold, whom I happen to like, in severe danger of being defeated in 2010 -- and he was defeated. If Senator Pat Toomey can be pinned to belief in cheap labor, tight cartels, and brutal management as cures for economic distress then he goes down. He does not have time in which to redefine himself as a moderate.

[pbrower2a]

Are we really going to still say Q is less accurate than PPP? After the disastrous cycle PPP just had?

PPP has a better model for a high-turnout Presidential election.

The harsh negative ads that GOP front groups flooded the media with may have confused people and discouraged them from voting. Those may be more effective in a midterm election.