Senate ranking thread : looking ahead at 2012

[Antonio the Sixth]

A few time after the 2008 election, Nate Silver started his Senate rankings : he ranked all the Senate seats up in 2010 based on their estimated likeliness to change hands. I think the forum could make something similar for the 2012 elections. What we would do there is to mentions the seats (open or incumbents) which we expect to switch parties in 2012, and those where we think such situation is possible.

I've also included a poll, so that after posting our rankings we can select the seat swing we expect based on those predictions. The poll will remain open for about two years, and since the situation will certainly change by this time, you can change your vote each time you want. Let's see how good we are at forecasting !

[nkpatel1279]

Potential Democratic Pickups in 2012.
MA(Brown-R) and NV(Ensign-R) are probally going to lose re-election to a top tier Democratic challenger.
ME(Snowe-R) if she retires or gets teabagged.
Potential Democratic Loses 2012
FL-if Nelson retires and Top Tier GOP ie Connie Mack IV runs.
MO-McCaskill-D against a Top Tier GOP challenger.
MT-Tester-D against Rehberg.
NE-Nelson-R
ND-If Conrad-D retires.
OH-Brown-D against a Top Tier GOP challenger.
VA-Webb-D
WI-if Kohl-D retires and a top tier GOP Paul Ryan Runs.

[dmmidmi]

Of course this is ridiculously early, but here's what I see so far...

Could Change Hands
Maine (Snowe)
Michigan (Stabenow)
Pennsylvania (Casey, Jr.)

Maybe a Republican pickup here, but not that likely.

Even Chance of Changing Hands
Connecticut (Lieberman)--does this really count, since he already caucuses as a Democrat?
Florida (Nelson)
Missouri (McCaskill)
Ohio (Brown)
Virginia (Webb)

Dems could get swept here I guess, but I'm not really counting on that happening.

A Good Chance of Changing Hands
Massachusetts (Brown)
Montana (Tester)
Nebraska (Nelson)
Nevada (Ensign)

If all four change hands, this is a wash.

Retirement Watch
Delaware (Carper) - Even if he retires, I still doubt it would change hands.
Hawaii (Akaka) - If he retires, it depends on what Laura Lingle does.
Wisconsin (Kohl) - It will depend on what Paul Ryan and Russ Feingold do.

So, anywhere between two and five seats. I'll go with GOP+3 for right now.

[Verily]

Ensign will resign, not lose.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

It's so hard to predict anything. Remember the never ending Democratic trend people hailed in 2008? Could the Dems be up to 65+ Senate seats in 2010? That worked out well.

[Torie]

Lugar announced today by the way that he is running for reelection. He is 78.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Ensign will resign, not lose.

I doubt it. He will probably lose the primary to Heller (or Sharron Angle if the Dems are lucky!).

[Mjh]

Lugar announced today by the way that he is running for reelection. He is 78.

Then Indiana should be safe R unless Lugar is primaried and replaced by someone like Christine O'Donnell/Sharron Angle.

[Psychic Octopus]

I would say a Republican gain of four or five at this point, from which seats I am unsure. It is adjusted for error, calculating in the potential loss of Snowe. I think the GOP will gain Missouri, Nebraska, Montana, Michigan, Wisconsin (Kohl retires; Ryan runs) and potentially Ohio. Florida and Virginia I am iffy about; I don't know how well Nelson is doing, and I am unsure about Webb's status. Democratic pickup opportunies are Nevada, Maine, and Massachusetts, although all three are flipping only a very lucky year, considering how much they dominate the cycle.

So, I think the GOP will assume control of the Senate in 2012, albeit narrowly.

[Mr.Phips]

This all depends on whether Obama gets reelected.  If he is reelected, Democrats hold the Senate.  If not, Republicans take over. 

[RIP Robert H Bork]

The Republicans will take 2-4 seats, depending on whether Obama gets re-elected. Given the huge amount of seats that the Democrats need to defend (23, compared to just 10 for the Republicans), the Democrats are almost certainly going to suffer a net loss even if Obama gets re-elected.

[redcommander]

The Republicans will take 2-4 seats, depending on whether Obama gets re-elected. Given the huge amount of seats that the Democrats need to defend (23, compared to just 10 for the Republicans), the Democrats are almost certainly going to suffer a net loss even if Obama gets re-elected.

Republicans are gaining more than 4 seats. I would say they are in the range of 7-10 based on sheer numbers and no enthusiasm gap next time around. Candidate recruitment will also be better (As we have seen so far in Nebraska and Montana). 

[Mr.Phips]

The Republicans will take 2-4 seats, depending on whether Obama gets re-elected. Given the huge amount of seats that the Democrats need to defend (23, compared to just 10 for the Republicans), the Democrats are almost certainly going to suffer a net loss even if Obama gets re-elected.

Republicans are gaining more than 4 seats. I would say they are in the range of 7-10 based on sheer numbers and no enthusiasm gap next time around. Candidate recruitment will also be better (As we have seen so far in Nebraska and Montana). 

7-10?  Obama would have to lose as bad as Jimmy Carter in 1980 for that to happen.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Man, this is about impossible to do without knowing anything about who's retiring and who isn't.

Still ... ummm ... I'll say the Dems gain 1, net.

[Skill and Chance]

Man, this is about impossible to do without knowing anything about who's retiring and who isn't.

Still ... ummm ... I'll say the Dems gain 1, net.

I sense sarcasm here.  If it's not sarcasm, you must be anticipating a reversion to nothing less than a 2008 environment.

[Mr.Phips]

Man, this is about impossible to do without knowing anything about who's retiring and who isn't.

Still ... ummm ... I'll say the Dems gain 1, net.

I sense sarcasm here.  If it's not sarcasm, you must be anticipating a reversion to nothing less than a 2008 environment.

If the environment is enough for Obama to get reelected, it could very well be a 2008 environment. 

[Nichlemn]

Man, this is about impossible to do without knowing anything about who's retiring and who isn't.

Still ... ummm ... I'll say the Dems gain 1, net.

I sense sarcasm here.  If it's not sarcasm, you must be anticipating a reversion to nothing less than a 2008 environment.

If the environment is enough for Obama to get reelected, it could very well be a 2008 environment. 

The environment in "popular incumbent President" cycles seem to be different than "unpopular incumbent President" cycles (for the non-incumbent party).

[InquilineKea]

At this point, most economists seem to be predicting a slow recovery. Employment will definitely be a lagging indicator, but I don't see people becoming significantly more angry about this since there are no forecasted increases in unemployment.

Anyways, on average (assuming that the presidential race ends up 50-50), increased turnout will help Dems (since it means that more young ppl and minorities vote). But in very red states, it might help the GOP (from the number of people who would only vote for president). Anyways, turnout increases in down-ticket races once you label senators as "for or against" the president.

There will definitely be some retirements down the line (since there have always been retirements in past elections). And some of the retirements will be as surprising as Bayh's. It's hard to predict retirements, but my hunch is that "not having a family" (being widowed counts) will reduce the chances of a retirement. E.g: Byrd's wife died, so his only companionship probably came from the Senate and so he wanted to die in the Senate.

> 70% pickup:
NE (Nelson is doomed)
MO: MO is definitely turning red and McCaskill has very low approvals. Her only chance is if Talent gets teabagged (which I don't think will happen). GOP might go at the Governor's seat but they have a thick bench here.
MA: Dem turn-out will definitely increase and they will get a decent challenger. Plus, challenger can make the narrative all about controlling the Senate (in which case the incumbent's popularity can't even help him). Brown's votes will definitely be overanalyzed from both sides.

>60%:
ND: Conrad was popular, but we must remember that Lincoln also was very popular until it came down to the Obamacare votes. Also, Pomeroy was also quite popular.

50-50:
MT: Tester still surprisingly popular at a very bad time for Democrats. BUT, Democrats are term-limited for governor here, so GOP might prefer that.
WI: depends on Kohl retiring. Not sure if Paul Ryan would want to sacrifice influence/seniority at this moment though.
OH: Brown's definitely unpopular and Obama isn't well-liked in OH. So it all depends on the challenger. I'd put a 50-50 bet on the GOP here.
FL: even Bill Nelson is leading challengers now. but it could easily change.

< 50%:
ME: Snowe will probably lose primary, but she can easily win through becoming independent or pulling a Murkowski. Also, chances are that she'd split Democrat votes more than GOP votes.
MI: Stabenow isn't very popular, but the republican might easily be worse. Also, Obama will definitely attract young voters and Detroit minorities.
VA: Webb is leading Allen. And I don't think he'll even need to campaign much. So if Webb wants to continue, the seat is his (he'll benefit from Obama turnout). But if Webb retires, it might be difficult (not sure if reminding voters of "macaca" will help this time; Allen doesn't seem to be changing on that).

< 25%:

NV: I'm sure Ensign will lose primary
NJ: Menendez isn't very popular, but it would take a very strong GOP challenger to do it.
PA: Casey isn't that popular either, but he seems to be a good fit for his state
CT: Lieberman will probably lose general (probably splitting the GOP vote more since he has highest favorables among republicans) and the Dems will prolly pick it up.
NM: Hispanics definitely aren't going to warm up to republicans the way things are now.
WV: Manchin definitely knows what he's doing.

I'd consider all others (including MN and WA) safe. WA-Gov is definitely more vulnerable than WA-Senate so most Republicans will gun for that.

So I forecast the GOP picking up 5-6 seats, with the Democrats picking up 1. So net of 4-5 seats.

[dmmidmi]

>60%:
ND: Conrad was popular, but we must remember that Lincoln also was very popular until it came down to the Obamacare votes. Also, Pomeroy was also quite popular.

I have yet to see anything to imply that Conrad is in any kind of re-election trouble, let alone a convincing argument that he's more likely to lose than not.

[nkpatel1279]

>60%:
ND: Conrad was popular, but we must remember that Lincoln also was very popular until it came down to the Obamacare votes. Also, Pomeroy was also quite popular.

I have yet to see anything to imply that Conrad is in any kind of re-election trouble, let alone a convincing argument that he's more likely to lose than not.

All Conrad has to do is hope for a Rightwing Teabagger GOP challenger. and argue that with the retirement of Dorgan and defeat of Pomeroy. Conrad is the most senior member of the ND Congressional Delegation. plus he is a Committe Chairman of Ag and Budget.

[phk]

GOP gains in Senate like +3 or +4.

Losses in the House like -10 to -15 for the GOP.

[InquilineKea]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure if a Teabagger would even be a minus in North Dakota.

Gaffes were one of the major reasons why Teabaggers lost. Race-based gaffes are particularly evicting. But North Dakota is very white, so people in that state aren't as prone to those types of gaffes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think people really care whether their congressional delegation is split or pure?

==

Yes, I'll adjust my forecast for Conrad if I see more polling. But Baucus (who is also quite senior) would be gone if he faced re-election in 2012. The signs are not very encouraging for many Dems in deeply red-states, simply because they all voted for "Obamacare" and other Obama policies. But Conrad might see Tester-like approval ratings of better. And of course, Conrad has seniority in a position that matters more to people in ND.

And of course, we must remember that Conrad and Dorgan easily won landslides in 2000 and 2004 (which were pretty good years for republicans). The difference here is how much voters hate them for voting for "Obamacare" and other Obama policies. That being said, merely voting for "Obamacare" might not be enough - Lincoln and Nelson did other things that made voters angry at them (or it might have simply drawn more attention to the fact that they voted for Obamacare).

[InquilineKea]

Might I also add that *maybe* Democratic incumbents in red states might do better in a legislature that's less democratic (since it's legislation of this kind that tends to alienate red-state voters) - of course it also does depend on how popular the democrats are, and in how their approval ratings change with time. Many of the incumbents in deep-red states had super-high popularity ratings just after the 2008 elections (as we see on FiveThrtyEight).

In general though, the electorate is far more polarized than it was 20-30 years ago, so the redness/blueness of a state seems to matter more now than it did back then.

[Badger]

The Republicans will take 2-4 seats, depending on whether Obama gets re-elected. Given the huge amount of seats that the Democrats need to defend (23, compared to just 10 for the Republicans), the Democrats are almost certainly going to suffer a net loss even if Obama gets re-elected.

And how well did similar math work out for Democrats in 2010?

[Skill and Chance]

The Republicans will take 2-4 seats, depending on whether Obama gets re-elected. Given the huge amount of seats that the Democrats need to defend (23, compared to just 10 for the Republicans), the Democrats are almost certainly going to suffer a net loss even if Obama gets re-elected.

And how well did similar math work out for Democrats in 2010?

It was much closer to even this past year.  Actually, when you include the special elections, the Dems had a 19-18 advantage.