Talk Elections

How many Senate seats do the Democrats pick up in 2018? Do they pick up Arizona, Nevada, Texas, and maybe even Utah?

They will almost certainly lose seats in 2018, given the map.  The big question is whether or not Republicans can get a filibuster-proof majority.

Probably one, maybe two if they're lucky. But they will still probably experience a net loss.

I honestly can't see the GOP netting eight.

Yeah, not gonna happen with Trump as President.  If Dems can hold the net loss to two or three, they should be quite happy.

I don't know. Some analysts think that the GOP could have a supermajority in the Senate in 2018. They can pick up OH, MO, IN, MT, WV, ND.

I don't think Ohio will flip with Trump as President.  Trump will also allow Tester, Manchin, and Heithkemp independently without the weight of a Dem President.  Donnelly and McCaskill, however, I see as almost sure losers.

My guess right now is 1, but it'll almost certainly be 0-2 (not as in net gain, but how many individual seats held by Republicans that they manage to pick up.)

Nevada and maybe if it is a good night Arizona. Everything else is basically off the table for pickup opportunities, except for possibly Texas(still a stretch). Though I expect Democrats to loose Indiana, Missouri and probably North Dakota at the very least.   

Can we "forget the map" Brown is not likely in danger in OH or Machin in WV or Tester in MT just cause Trump won those states doesn't mean they are in trouble case in point Obama wins Mass by like 20 in 08 then in 10 Brown wins Kennedy's seat there isn't a transition. In all likely hood the dems are looking at 2-3 seats in trouble in MO, IN, and ND as the people there are not overly popular while the GOP has 2 seats in trouble NV & AZ (maybe 3 with UT but that's due to third party rumblings)

I tend to agree.  I think the Democrats will do way better than people are expecting in 2018.

Counting King and Sanders as if they are Democrats (because they caucus with them and very, very often vote with them), there are 25 Democratic-held seats up and only 8 Republican seats up in 2018. I think it as inevitable that Democrats will have a net loss of seats.

I really don't think the Republicans will pick up 8 seats,  that's pretty much unheard of for a President's party midterm.

I would say the median of likely results is R+4 (this comes from a result where every state votes exactly as they did presidentially, but you add 5% to the Democrats to simulate a midterm backlash), and any result gets progressively less likely the further from that you deviate.

Incidentally, the same method gets you D+30 in the House, which is a (very) narrow takeover. Would be hilarious watching Speaker Pelosi interact with a huge, once-in-a-generation Republican Senate majority (would be the largest since pre-Reagan if the 2018 result is R+4). And the Trump White House, of course.

Assuming this is just gain without factoring in losses, 1-2. I think Democrats will probably pick up Nevada and/or Arizona. 0 is sadly more likely than 3.

They're not "safe," but where are Republicans getting these 8 seats? I guess the five Romney states plus OH and WI bringing them to 7, but then they have to pick up one of PA, FL, VA, and NJ (I think those are the only others that are really in play, although some others might flip if it's a real wave). And they need two of those if Democrats get NV.

So I'll admit that it's possible. But I'd say it's pretty unlikely. I'd say the "big question" is whether they can lock Democrats out of a realistic chance to win the Senate in 2020. (They basically did the equivalent in 2016.)

LOL.

If it's a Democratic year, they'll only lose net 5 because they pick up Nevada. ^^

I think the big question is not how much people hate Trump, but how polarized people are. It's possible that even in an absolute Democratic tsunami year, people in WV and MO and places like that simply aren't willing to vote a Democrat to federal office. However it's also possible that that isn't the case. We'll wait and see, but my point is that Trump's popularity or lack thereof is not the only factor at stake here.

They'll probably lose a few seats, if they're lucky they'll hold even.

I agree, I think polarization has increased so much over the past 10-15 years that certain states are going to be insulated.
I think it's quite possible that Trump's approval could be 25% as of November 2018 (I suppose it can also be 50%, and one can't predict the future but 25 is more likely), but that 25% could be concentrated in a few states, some of which have Dem senators up for re-election.

From -1 to +1

The Democrats gain 8 seats through wizardry, completing the trend of Class 1 to 1000% Democratic

My expectation at this early stage is a net of 0 or -1 - Dems flip NV and AZ but suffer their own losses.

Though DKE posted rumblings that Wagner might not run... in which case, good news for Air Claire

This seriously feels like 08 (oh the GOP can't do anything in 2010 look at the map blah blah blah) Seriously in an anti-Trump year the map will mean nothing the dems for all we know could they could win AZ, NV, UT (due to third party), and TX (due to Ted not being liked) if Scott Brown can win in 2010 in Mass I don't see why a Dem in 2018 couldn't win in Texas

I think the next Democratic statewide victory in Missouri will come from suburbs not rural areas. I would not be shocked if St Charles County voted for a Dem (even if barely) in the next statewide Democratic victory.  Ste Genevieve is probably the only rural county that would vote for a Democrat in a statewide victory.  But one has got to wonder if it is easier to flip rural voters in the lead belt or exurban voters in St Charles. You could really argue the former might be true because as you look at maps and election swings rural voters tend to swing a lot more.

Anyway, Wagner should run. She would be favored to over take McCaskill and I would be interested to see if Democrats could compete in an open MO-02 without a Democrat in the White House. Even this year, it was quite a split ticket district. Plus in 2010/2014 and 2016 there was always a State Senate seat that Democrats won within the district and they were all seen as sort of consolation prizes. 

Also if Trump implodes the fact that Wagner unendorsed Trump, even if briefly, could help her cause to be honest. Of course it is one of those issues that could very much go either way for her.

As for the topic of this thread:

I would recommend that Democrats not get too obsessed with taking over the Senate. Very unlikely to happen. Chances are better in the House and Governorships. After eight years of Obama, Democrats are in an awful position in state governments. Try to win House Seats back, even potentially take the US House. Try to win back some legislative seats, win back some governorships, win County Offices to create a bench for future statewide races.

A county Treasurer elected in a medium size GOP-leaning county could be a statewide Treasurer/CFO/Auditor candidate in the future for Democrats. A new State Senator from a light-gop leaning suburb who is an attorney could be a future state Attorney General candidate.

As far as Utah Senate 2018, I hope it is interesting. Utah needs some exciting race. I do wonder if Matheson may change his mind to try to get in. But I think his current career could well hurt him. He does not seem to mesh well with Democratic House Members but perhaps he can get along better with Democratic Senators.

Relax.

I'm not sure if they'll pick up anything, but it's very likely that the Dems will lose seats- there's 8 Republican seats (MS, TN, AZ, NE, UT, NV, WY) and 23 Democratic seats up- 9 of which are probably safe for Dems (MA [although this is Warren, who is certainly vulnerable to a Republican since she won by a small margin], RI, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD, CA, WA) and 14 of which are in red states or battleground states (NH, PA, WV, VA, FL, OH, IN, MI, WI, MN, MO, ND, MT, NM) plus two independent seats (one in ME, which is more Republican than in 2012 and could go three ways and VT, which is Bernie Sanders who is definitely safe). If the Republicans don't lose any seats (if this happens, the only plausible loss is NV) and get every Dem seat not in one of the 9 safe states, they'd have a 66 seat majority in the senate.

Democrats pick up AZ and NV,
Democrats lose IN and MO, Hold onto FL,MI,MT,NJ,NM,ND,OH,PA,VA,WV,and WI.
0-2 seats

Huh? What? How do you figure? Do you mean only had 7 more votes than Kander in the entire St. Charles County? No way. Do you mean only 7 more votes than Kander in the MO-2 portion of St. Charles County (which would mean getting 15,701 more votes than Kander in the MO-3 portion of the county)?
I have not yet gotten the precinct-level report of the St. Charles County vote, so I haven't yet been able to analyze them like I have analyzed the St. Louis County precinct data. The latter is online but the former I have to buy from the County Election Authority's office.
Kander beat Blunt by about 6,800 votes in the MO-2 portion of St. Louis County, so I know what you mean about Blunt in THOSE suburbs, but I cannot fathom how you could say that about St. Charles County (my home for most of the first 40 years of my life).

Having a "%" behind a number makes a big difference in how we interpret a statistic!

Like I said, I have not yet bought the precinct-level report from the Election Authority's office, but when I do, I will analyze at the difference between MO-2 and MO-3 (in every race). As I vaguely recall from my analysis of the 2012 results, there was not much of a difference between the level of support for the GOP ticket between the two districts.

Anyone who thinks Donnelly, Heitkamp and McCaskill are done is clueless.

And anyone who thinks they will win easily just because Trump is president is beyond clueless. Especially McCaskill and Donnely.

And regarding MO: While I think McCaskill is terrible and extremely overrated, let's dispel with this fiction that Kander would be guaranteed to hold this seat for the Ds: Yes, he ran a good campaign last year, but the biggest reason he came so close was Roy Blunt running a terrible, Todd Akin-tier campaign and 2016 being a year of outsiders. I don't think any other Republican candidate would make the same mistakes.

We'll just have to wait and see, I guess. I have rated ND a Tossup and MO and IN Likely R (I was thinking about moving them to Lean R, but I just don't see it). The only way I see them winning reelection is if the IN or MO GOP nominate another Akin/Mourdock. It's far from guaranteed that Trump will have approvals in the 20s or 30s (like most Democrats here suggest) or that polarization will suddenly no longer be a thing just because a Republican is in the White House. Yes, big swings can happen, but let's not forget that even in 2014 Democrats didn't lose states like NH, MI, VA and MN (And in 2010, they were able to hold CO, NV and some other competitive races). I also doubt he will be THAT unpopular in solid red states like ND and MO. That being said, I'm not going to underestimate the incompetence of the MO GOP either.

Why is Heitkamp so loved here?

I think Hoeven has approvals in the 70s in ND, not Heitkamp. A Morning Consult poll (which generally shows good numbers for most Senators, though) had her at 50-35 in April 2016.

https://morningconsult.com/senate-approval-bernie-rubio-cruz/

And yeah, I really dislike her, but once people in those small states (where retail politics still matters) start believing that their Senator is a ":) nice moderate :)", it's hard to topple them. I could easily see Cramer blowing it, unfortunately.

If McCaskill can win by  a healthy margin she would  be an excellent Presidential candidate in 2020.

too far jimmie! too far!

One thing I learned after 2006, 2008 and 2010 is that it doesn't matter what color(red or blue) states are up for reelection as much as the political climate in 2018. Scott Brown won in MA in 2010 because of media driven pessimism. Mark Begich won in AK in 2008 on a wave of "democratic change." John Tester beat long time incumbent Conrad Burns in Montana of all places in 2006 given similar circumstances. I said 1-2 seats but who knows what things will look like in a year and a half.

I see the Republican party is already starting to overreach by passing tax cuts and trying to repeal Obamacare. If over 20 million people lose their healthcare and the budget deficit balloons again worse than it is now I don't see how the Republican party can recover. I'd also like to think that if Donald Trump shoots off his mouth their would be a referendum but that already happened and that boob got elected.

Montana is not a red state in Senatorial or statewide elections, so Tester beating Burns of all people was fully expected by everyone (in fact, you could argue that Tester underperformed in 2006). The Senate race in 2000 was very close as well.

The worst case scenario is a 54-46 R senate with losing IN and ND and possibly losing MO and or picking up NV. But that keeps the Senate in play for 2020 with CO, AK, IA and NC at stake