If Dems lose the Senate in 2014, will they win it back in 2016?

[Bojack Horseman]

If the GOP wins the 6 seats needed to take back the Senate, do you think Democrats will win it back in 2016? I think that if the GOP wins 6 or 7 seats in 2014, the chamber will go back to the Dems two years later because A. The entire Class of 2010 is up for re-election. If Republicans hold a 51-49 or 52-48 majority, Democrats can win back the chamber by defeating the most obvious Blue State Republicans: Mark Kirk, Pat Toomey, and Ron Johnson.

[ElectionsGuy]

Very likely yes. If GOP wins the senate in 2014, chances are its a narrow majority, 51-49 or 52-48. There are certainly 3+ seats in 2016 that are very vulnerable for the republicans, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of them keeping it in 2016. Unless people like Kirk, Toomey, Johnson retire, the senate will be tightly controlled no matter what.

[SWE]

Almost guaranteed

[windjammer]

Possibly

[Cranberry]

Yep.

[TX Conservative Dem]

That would depend on how the Presidential election shapes out.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Dems will have the edge as far as Clinton, should she make a go. If the GOP does manages to pick up the Senate Johnson and Kirk are gonners. And we have 50/50 chance elsewhere in MO, Pa and Fla to recapture the senate..

[Heimdal]

I consider that very likely. Even if the GOP takes the Senate his year, their majority will be 51 or 52 at best. In 2016 they will have to defend several seats in blue states and swing states.

This is a consequence of the 2010 and 2012 Elections. If they had nominated more competent candidates than Akin, Mourdock, Buck, Angle and O’Donnell they might have had 49 or 50 Senators at this point. Then they would be favored to win the Senate this year, and keep it for a long time.

[Supersonic]

It's early days, but with a favourable map, likely narrow GOP Senate majority and presidential turnout, it's odds on they take it back.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Then Republicans win it back again in 2018.

[Mister Mets]

Depends.

Republicans are currently expected to pick up seats in Montana, West Virginia and South Dakota, and to lose no seats.

If they do very well, you could add to that the two open seats in Iowa and Michigan, as well as seats in three of the Romney states (Louisiana, Alaska, North Carolina, Arkansas) and one of the incumbent seats in a purple state (New Hampshire, Colorado.)

That's likely the Republican ceiling (although it is worth noting that parties sometimes exceed apparent ceilings). That would give the party 54 seats. It's possible Angus King would caucus with them, but he would be an unreliable selection in January 2017.

The most liberal state with a Republican Senator is Illinois. There are purple state Republican incumbents in Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The most likely competitive race with a Democratic incumbent would be in Nevada.

Part of it would depend on what Republicans do with control of the Senate, and how that affects their popularity.

If control of the Senate comes down to one or two seats, Democrats would be favored since they've shown an ability to peel off purple state incumbents, and to do well in open races in conservative districts. Although it also depends on the approval rating of the party. If Obama's at 40%, Republicans might gain seats.

4 seats is likely to be too much.

[Randy Bobandy]

They will not lose the Senate in 2014.

[Mister Mets]

If the Democratic nominee (probably Clinton) wins in 2016, then the Republicans will probably end up with about 47-48 Senate seats, but if the Republican presidential nominee wins, I could see them holding on to their majority despite having senators in unfriendly territory. I think that it is a bit rash to automatically assume that the Republicans will lose the Senate in 2016 just because they face a difficult map. The Democrats had a superb year in 2006, and then picked up two more seats from that same Senate class in 2012. Simply put, I think that whichever party wins the presidency will probably have a Senate majority.

I'll also agree with Mister Mets that the Republicans could conceivably pickup seats in 2016. Right now, it looks like Nevada and Colorado are the best targets, but if the election ends up being 2008 in reverse, I could even see one of the Republican congressmen from Washington state defeating Patty Murray.  

I'll note that Republicans picking up seats in 2016 is an unlikely scenario on par with Democrats picking up seats in 2012.

It's possible if Obama's approval rating was really low and/or the Democratic candidate (and it would probably have to be someone other than Hillary Clinton) ran an atrocious campaign.

The benefit of the incumbency would be likely be enough for Republicans to carry most of the seats they gained in 2010.

Mark Kirk's in the most trouble, as Democrats have a strong bench in Illinois. Much depends on whether he can get people to think of him as more of a moderate than a Republican.

[RogueBeaver]

Quite possibly, but then 2018 - 25 Dems, 8 Pubs.

[Potatoe]

Yes, I mean, Johnson and Kirk are up, that could win back the Senate if the Republicans get 51-49 in 2014, not to mention Rubio, who could run for President, and if he does, West is probably the most likely to get Nominated, and he would lose if Schultz or someone else entered, and there's a possibility of Paul's seat being more contested if he runs as well, Chandler could run.

Here's a best case Scenario in 2016 (For the Dems [for me at least])

Democratic Net gain of +9

Ron Johnson is defeated by Russ Feingold
Roy Blunt is defeated by Jay Nixon
Dan Coats is defeated by Evan Bayh
Kelly Ayotte/Charles Bass is defeated by Carol Shea Porter
Mark Kirk is defeated by Lisa Madigan/Tammy Duckworth
Pat Toomey is defeated by Joe Sestak
John Boozman* is defeated by Mike Beebe
Richard Burr is defeated by Clay Aiken/Bev Perdue/G. K. Butterfield
Marco Rubio/Allen West is defeated by Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[bballrox4717]

If the Republicans are only winning red states in 2014, then yeah, the Democrats should in theory take it back. The Republicans need a couple wins from Land, Gardner and Brown as well as Sandoval running against Reid to even bring to a 50/50 shot.

[SWE]

Yes, I mean, Johnson and Kirk are up, that could win back the Senate if the Republicans get 51-49 in 2014, not to mention Rubio, who could run for President, and if he does, West is probably the most likely to get Nominated, and he would lose if Schultz or someone else entered, and there's a possibility of Paul's seat being more contested if he runs as well, Chandler could run.

Here's a best case Scenario in 2016 (For the Dems [for me at least])

Democratic Net gain of +9

Ron Johnson is defeated by Russ Feingold
Roy Blunt is defeated by Jay Nixon
Dan Coats is defeated by Evan Bayh
Kelly Ayotte/Charles Bass is defeated by Carol Shea Porter
Mark Kirk is defeated by Lisa Madigan/Tammy Duckworth
Pat Toomey is defeated by Joe Sestak
John Boozman* is defeated by Mike Beebe
Richard Burr is defeated by Clay Aiken/Bev Perdue/G. K. Butterfield
Marco Rubio/Allen West is defeated by Debbie Wasserman Schultz

The Dems best case scenario involves losing Ohio?

[Potatoe]

Yes, I mean, Johnson and Kirk are up, that could win back the Senate if the Republicans get 51-49 in 2014, not to mention Rubio, who could run for President, and if he does, West is probably the most likely to get Nominated, and he would lose if Schultz or someone else entered, and there's a possibility of Paul's seat being more contested if he runs as well, Chandler could run.

Here's a best case Scenario in 2016 (For the Dems [for me at least])

Democratic Net gain of +9

Ron Johnson is defeated by Russ Feingold
Roy Blunt is defeated by Jay Nixon
Dan Coats is defeated by Evan Bayh
Kelly Ayotte/Charles Bass is defeated by Carol Shea Porter
Mark Kirk is defeated by Lisa Madigan/Tammy Duckworth
Pat Toomey is defeated by Joe Sestak
John Boozman* is defeated by Mike Beebe
Richard Burr is defeated by Clay Aiken/Bev Perdue/G. K. Butterfield
Marco Rubio/Allen West is defeated by Debbie Wasserman Schultz

The Dems best case scenario involves losing Ohio?

Portman is fairly popular, doesn't seem to have pissed off the Tea Party all that much, is not focused on running for Prez (Which would make his seat more competitive), though, this is probably not the best case Scenario, since both Arizona and Kentucky stay blue.

[SWE]

Yes, I mean, Johnson and Kirk are up, that could win back the Senate if the Republicans get 51-49 in 2014, not to mention Rubio, who could run for President, and if he does, West is probably the most likely to get Nominated, and he would lose if Schultz or someone else entered, and there's a possibility of Paul's seat being more contested if he runs as well, Chandler could run.

Here's a best case Scenario in 2016 (For the Dems [for me at least])

Democratic Net gain of +9

Ron Johnson is defeated by Russ Feingold
Roy Blunt is defeated by Jay Nixon
Dan Coats is defeated by Evan Bayh
Kelly Ayotte/Charles Bass is defeated by Carol Shea Porter
Mark Kirk is defeated by Lisa Madigan/Tammy Duckworth
Pat Toomey is defeated by Joe Sestak
John Boozman* is defeated by Mike Beebe
Richard Burr is defeated by Clay Aiken/Bev Perdue/G. K. Butterfield
Marco Rubio/Allen West is defeated by Debbie Wasserman Schultz

The Dems best case scenario involves losing Ohio?

Portman is fairly popular,

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/08/in-ohio-hillary-clinton-lead-shows-frustration-with-gop.html#more

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, if only he did something to piss off the tea party, like endorsing gay marriage or something

[Potatoe]

Yes, I mean, Johnson and Kirk are up, that could win back the Senate if the Republicans get 51-49 in 2014, not to mention Rubio, who could run for President, and if he does, West is probably the most likely to get Nominated, and he would lose if Schultz or someone else entered, and there's a possibility of Paul's seat being more contested if he runs as well, Chandler could run.

Here's a best case Scenario in 2016 (For the Dems [for me at least])

Democratic Net gain of +9

Ron Johnson is defeated by Russ Feingold
Roy Blunt is defeated by Jay Nixon
Dan Coats is defeated by Evan Bayh
Kelly Ayotte/Charles Bass is defeated by Carol Shea Porter
Mark Kirk is defeated by Lisa Madigan/Tammy Duckworth
Pat Toomey is defeated by Joe Sestak
John Boozman* is defeated by Mike Beebe
Richard Burr is defeated by Clay Aiken/Bev Perdue/G. K. Butterfield
Marco Rubio/Allen West is defeated by Debbie Wasserman Schultz

The Dems best case scenario involves losing Ohio?

Portman is fairly popular,

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/08/in-ohio-hillary-clinton-lead-shows-frustration-with-gop.html#more

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, if only he did something to piss off the tea party, like endorsing gay marriage or something

Even so, the Democrats need a credible challenger, who would that be? Strickland doesn't seem to care, Fischer'd be a joke, Brunner's a nobody, and I can't think of anyone else. I mean, Portman has to either be running for President or have a very good opponent for Republicans to lose the Seat.

[morgieb]

Depends. Most likely yes at this stage, but if 2014 is bad enough, there might be enough wriggle room for the GOP to survive certain losses.

Also 2016 could still be a very good climate for the GOP.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There is buyer's remorse on the part of Prez Obama, but I don't think the GOP has expanded outside the solid GOP south. The gov races in IL, MI, PA and FL and ME is proving that. The map is certainly in their favor but unless they can defeat Mary Landrieu, with Cassidy, who wasn't their best hope, they aren't picking up the senate.

As far as 2016, goes, it may very well repeat the 2014 gov cycle, IL, PA, and Wisc.

[Ogre Mage]

I could even see one of the Republican congressmen from Washington state defeating Patty Murray.  

That will not happen, especially not in a Presidential year in Washington State.  There is a reason why all of them declined to run against Murray in 2010, a year in which the GOP had perfect political conditions.  Murray would beat them just based on the King County vote alone.  The GOP congresscritters will not be able to separate themselves from the national GOP brand and their 2016 nominee, which will be toxic in a statewide Washington race.

[publicunofficial]

I could even see one of the Republican congressmen from Washington state defeating Patty Murray.  

That will not happen, especially not in a Presidential year in Washington State.  There is a reason why all of them declined to run against Murray in 2010, a year in which the GOP had perfect political conditions.  Murray would beat them just based on the King County vote alone.  The GOP congresscritters will not be able to separate themselves from the national GOP brand and their 2016 nominee, which will be toxic in a statewide Washington race.

Agreed.

[BaconBacon96]

Yes, yes it will.