538 Senate Forecast

[Angel of Death]

It's here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So the Upshot is more bullish on Hillary but 538 is more bullish on Senate Dems? Strange.

[KingSweden]

Seems that 538's Senate forecast is closely tied to Hillary's performance, which seems reasonable

[Xing]

Interesting how they actually seem to factor in state fundamentals a bit more here, at least in the polls-plus model.

[Figueira]

Democrats are now barely ahead, but the map currently shows a Republican victory.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Any fellow dems close to panic mode? I know I am.

[Figueira]

Any fellow dems close to panic mode? I know I am.

In terms of Senate chances? Yes. I really hope the Democrats can turn things around.

[Xing]

Any fellow dems close to panic mode? I know I am.

Not me. Most of the competitive races will break to the winning party (the Democrats in this case) in the end. I'm confident of a Senate majority, though obviously having a bare majority in of itself doesn't mean much.

This, especially if Hillary wins by a decisive margin. Trump will be a big anchor on Republicans, and while some of them will be able to pull out a win, I would bet that a lot of the races which are currently close will break for the Democrats, if things continue going the way they are.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Any fellow dems close to panic mode? I know I am.

Not me. Most of the competitive races will break to the winning party (the Democrats in this case) in the end. I'm confident of a Senate majority, though obviously having a bare majority in of itself doesn't mean much.

This, especially if Hillary wins by a decisive margin. Trump will be a big anchor on Republicans, and while some of them will be able to pull out a win, I would bet that a lot of the races which are currently close will break for the Democrats, if things continue going the way they are.

I thought so too, but now we've seen Drumpf collapse in the polls, while at the same time the Republican candidates (at least in PA, NH and NV, of which Dems need to win at least 2 to have any chance of taking the Senate) have if anything gained ground. This might mean that if the Presidential race sees a regression to the mean (as most do), those Senate races could become lean-R.

[Maxwell]

I'm not that nervous about it - We have two seats locked away already, and then all we need is two or three more, and there are a lot lot lot of toss-ups that could get us there.

I'd rather be in the Dems position than the R's position, I'll put it that way.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Toomey is back ahead in the nowcast (plus, polls-plus is 51-49), and Ayotte has taken the lead in all three models.

The three models:
PP: 52% Democrats
PO: 50% Democrats (50.1%)
NC: 57% Republicans

NYT: 52% Democrats
HuffPost: 68% Republicans (71-72% if we proportion their 50-50 with their Trump odds)

Not sure why the Washington Post isn't doing this year when they were the most accurate in 2014.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not that nervous about it - We have two seats locked away already, and then all we need is two or three more, and there are a lot lot lot of toss-ups that could get us there.

I'd rather be in the Dems position than the R's position, I'll put it that way.

You might be right about that.

The really stressful thing to me is that, in recent Senate elections, all tossups have tended to break for the same party in the end (the only exception was actually 2010, when you had some genuine good news for Dems despite the overall losses). So it's very possible that we might end up picking up IL, WI and nothing else, while losing Nevada - just like it's possible that we take IL, WI, IN, PA, NH, NC and MO without suffering any loss. The stakes are really high and the odds are close to 50/50... not a comfortable situation for either side.

[Figueira]

The thing about the Senate, is that unlike electoral votes, the exact number of Senate seats matters. It would be nice to defeat Johnson, Kirk, Ayotte, and Toomey to get a bare majority, but it would be even better to defeat Johnson, Kirk, Ayotte, Toomey, Burr, Blunt, and Rubio. It provides a cushion to lessen any issues that happen in 2018 and make a 2020 comeback more possible.

So in that sense, I'm more nervous about the Senate than anything else.

Also I'm worried that since Clinton is so unpopular, some people might be voting for Republican Senate candidates to provide a "check" on the perceived likely new President.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also I'm worried that since Clinton is so unpopular, some people might be voting for Republican Senate candidates to provide a "check" on the perceived likely new President.

That actually might explain why Senate Democrats have fallen in the polls while Hillary has grown.

And that's terrifying.

[Figueira]

Also I'm worried that since Clinton is so unpopular, some people might be voting for Republican Senate candidates to provide a "check" on the perceived likely new President.

That actually might explain why Senate Democrats have fallen in the polls while Hillary has grown.

And that's terrifying.

On the bright side, it means that either (a) the presidential race will tighten and Democrats' Senate odds will improve, or (b) the presidential race will widen and the Democrats can focus more effort on Senate campaigns.

Fortunately, we have the media promoting the idea of a tight race so that should help.

(Yes, it is terrifying, but I'm trying to stay optimistic.)

[OSR stands with Israel]

How is Ayotte winning but not Toomey . NH is to the left of PA and Toomey hasnt made gaffes like Ayotte has. Though this is good news dems should win the white house the gop should win congress

[OSR stands with Israel]

if GOP can hold the senate this year i think they get 60 seats in 2018

[BuckeyeNut]

How the heck is Kentucky more likely to swing blue than Ohio? wut.

[Ebsy]

Why would I be panicking? Democrats are much more likely than not to take the Senate.

[Figueira]

Ayotte and Toomey are both at 50/50 basically. I think the difference between them is statistical noise.

60 seats in 2018? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet on it.

There were some very weird polls in Kentucky in March and June which skewed things. It would be nice to see some new polling, but I don't see Paul losing.

[Lachi]

Why is the model so fluid right now? one day the democrats have ~70% to take it back, the next, it's advantage Republican. It's really annoying me.

[Figueira]

Why is the model so fluid right now? one day the democrats have ~70% to take it back, the next, it's advantage Republican. It's really annoying me.

I think that new poll out of Indiana really changed things.

[Bismarck]

Why is the model so fluid right now? one day the democrats have ~70% to take it back, the next, it's advantage Republican. It's really annoying me.

I think that new poll out of Indiana really changed things.

Yep that was by far the worst poll for Trump in Indiana while at the same time Young has gotten to pure toss up levels.

[Figueira]

Why is the model so fluid right now? one day the democrats have ~70% to take it back, the next, it's advantage Republican. It's really annoying me.

I think that new poll out of Indiana really changed things.

Yep that was by far the worst poll for Trump in Indiana while at the same time Young has gotten to pure toss up levels.

I'm surprised that anyone is surprised about the Indiana poll.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Ayotte and Toomey are both at 50/50 basically. I think the difference between them is statistical noise.

60 seats in 2018? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet on it.

There were some very weird polls in Kentucky in March and June which skewed things. It would be nice to see some new polling, but I don't see Paul losing.

If Republicans keep their majority they need 9 seats to get to 60 and the map in 2018 is even more favorable then 2014.