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

[Donerail]

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.

DWS wouldn't beat Rubio but you're still willing to put her up there.

[MATTROSE94]

I think that the Democrats will probably regain the Senate in 2016 if the lose it in 2014. Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey and Mark Kirk are done already and Kelly Ayotte, Roy Blunt and Marco Rubio will be joining them soon.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In all likelihood, yes.

[MATTROSE94]

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

My prediction map is actually quite similar to your's with a few exceptions. I have the Republicans defeating Harry Reid and Michael Bennett and holding the seats in Indiana and Arkansas and the Democrats defeating Rand Paul and Rob Portman and picking up John McCain's and Chuck Grassley's seats if the decide to retire.

[nclib]

Does Potatoe's map, include a Dem winning in OK and KS. Surely that's a typo.

As for the poll, yes likely.

[Free Bird]

That would depend on how the Presidential election shapes out.

This times a thousand. If it is a good GOP year, I could actually see them keep control, even if Kirk, Toomey, or Johnson lose. This could happen by taking out Reid and Bennet.

[Devils30]

Don't rule out the possibility of an open Arizona seat flipping if its Hillary against a mediocre GOP candidate. Obviously WI, IL, PA will be Dems top targets while FL, NC, OH, NH could be flipped as well.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2016, we should net 4 seats. IL,WI, and PA as well, with  KY,LA or FL if there are open seats. Hopefully, 55-57  votes and 3 moderate females Murkowski, Ayotte, Collins will be the balance between a GOP fillibuster.

[Never]

2016, we should net 4 seats. IL,WI, and PA as well, with  KY,LA or FL if there are open seats. Hopefully, 55-57  votes and 3 moderate females Murkowski, Ayotte, Collins will be the balance between a GOP fillibuster.

Ayotte is not going to break a filibuster for the Democrats under any circumstance. I guarantee that 110%, especially if you are saying that she will get re-elected in 2016.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Murk and Collins are on record though on judges in attempt to break fillibuster. Let me say having dems in WI, IL and PA, as well as NH, CO and NV will ensure a Dem prez in 2016.

[Donerail]

Murk and Collins are on record though on judges in attempt to break fillibuster. Let me say having dems in WI, IL and PA, as well as NH, CO and NV will ensure a Dem prez in 2016.

Also, I believe you are mistaken in believing that Democrats elected to the Senate would guarantee that the election of a Democratic presidential nominee. Rather, the reverse has been shown to be true. Obama carried various senators to victory through his reelection, and it is clear that those senators did not help him. In 2012, he carried Tim Kaine to victory in VA, Bill Nelson to victory in FL, Sherrod Brown to victory in OH, and Tammy Baldwin to victory in WI, among others. However, the fact that Republican Dean Heller held on to his Senate seat that same year did not cause President Obama to lose the state of Nevada. All in all, these examples indicate that Obama affected the races downballot more often than not.

Connie Mack IV carried Bill Nelson to victory in Florida. Brown also stomped Mandel. You might be able to give Obama's coattails the credit in Virginia and Wisconsin, but in a lot of those it was awful candidates (on, since you bring up Nevada, both sides) and statewide factors that influence Senate races. If I understand OC's point correctly, he's saying that having strong Democrats running in those states will complement the presidential campaign's organization and make them more likely to pick up that state.

[SWE]

Don't rule out the possibility of an open Arizona seat flipping if its Hillary against a mediocre GOP candidate. Obviously WI, IL, PA will be Dems top targets while FL, NC, OH, NH could be flipped as well.

Given John McCain's approval ratings, I'd say Democrats odds of picking up Arizona would go down if he retired

[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.

Agreed.

It would be unlikely, but WA might be a state to watch if the Republicans are having a great night. Of course, Murray will win King County, but she needs a smidge more than just that. It's almost like Cook County for IL or the Kerry 2004 states: they bring the Democrat really close to winning, but in both cases you need just a few more voters. Murray is probably strongly favored, but if everything went right for a Republican candidate in 2016, they could win in Washington State.

The GOP had a "great night" and "everything going for them" in 2010 and with a midterm electorate which generally favors them more than a Presidential year.  Murray still won by 4%.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

The way I see it, 2016 is essentially reverse 2014. Republicans have two possible pickups, NV and CO, but they defend the rest of the seats, just as Democrats have KY and GA but defend the rest. It will probably be tougher for Dems though, unless vulnerable incumbents like Toomey and Johnson start retiring (quite unlikely, they are younger and healthier than the senators who are retiring this year). However Kirk, Johnson and Toomey are arguably weaker than Begich, Pryor, Landrieu and Hagan. I would say the floor for Democrats in 2016 is probably R+1 or no change in a positive R year, losing NV and possibly CO while taking IL or WI, and upwards to D+7 or 8 in a good year for Dems, losing none and taking IL, WI, PA, FL, NH, MO, NC and maybe AZ or OH.

[Flake]

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.

what about Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Map will follow prez map Hillary def generic GOP 272-266

Kind/Feingold def Johnson WI
Duckworth/Madigan def Kirk IL
Sestak/ Kane def Toomey PA
Carol Shea-Porter/Hassen def Ayotte NH
Bennett def Ken Buck CO

[moderatevoter]

Lol Kathleen Kane. I doubt she still have a chance after Kanegate.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

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.

what about Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald

At that point he'd either be a first term Governor which would essentially rule him out of the running, as he'd be jumping from one campaign to the next, or fresh out of a defeat, and probably wouldn't be up to a second campaign in four years.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Brunner and Tim Ryan will fight it out in primary. I am hoping that this will be our 57th seat after Ayotte. Hopefully it will be competetive. We don't need OH, but game over if we succeed.

[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.

Agreed.

It would be unlikely, but WA might be a state to watch if the Republicans are having a great night. Of course, Murray will win King County, but she needs a smidge more than just that. It's almost like Cook County for IL or the Kerry 2004 states: they bring the Democrat really close to winning, but in both cases you need just a few more voters. Murray is probably strongly favored, but if everything went right for a Republican candidate in 2016, they could win in Washington State.

The GOP had a "great night" and "everything going for them" in 2010 and with a midterm electorate which generally favors them more than a Presidential year.  Murray still won by 4%.

So, you're claiming that the most recent midterm is the best Republicans could ever do in Washington state? I doubt that. In the 1994 midterm, the Republicans generally performed much better on the West Coast than in 2010.

In a reverse of 2008, in which Obama presides over a flailing economy and the Democrats have a lackluster candidate or vice-presidential nominee, while the Republicans were strong nationally, Murray would probably lose by about 1-2 points. As of today, it doesn't seem as if this is likely to occur in 2016, but it isn't out of the question.

I say so because the political environment in Washington State has changed significantly since 1994, which actually was the last time a Republican won a Senate race in Washington State.  And that was by a two-term GOP incumbent, Slade Gorton, running for reelection in a heavily Republican favored environment.  You are now talking about defeating Patty Murray, a four term Democratic incumbent, in a Presidential year in a state which has become considerably more Democratic (at least at the statewide level) over the last 20 years.  Back in the early and mid 1990s, the GOP actually held 3-5 (out of 10) statewide political offices.  Today they own 1 of 10.

Furthermore, the last time a Republican candidate for President won Washington State was 1984 and the last time the state was seriously contested at the Presidential level was 1988.  Democrats in Washington running statewide have long performed better during Presidential years due to the partisan statewide lean here.  It is part of the reason why Democrats have held the governor's mansion since 1984 -- our gubernatorial races happen during presidential years.  
Murray's last race in a Presidential cycle was 2004 and she easily beat 5-term congressman George Nethercutt in what was a pretty good year for Republicans nationally.  Within the context of Washington State politics, it isn't realistic to assert Murray could face a worse environment in 2016 than 2010.

Who is the WA GOP going to run against Murray?  With McKenna defeated they have no one of significance.  

[TX Conservative Dem]

Isn't the Washington Supreme Court elected statewide too ?

[Ogre Mage]

Isn't the Washington Supreme Court elected statewide too ?

Yes but those races are nonpartisan.  With the recent retirement of Jim Johnson there are no true conservatives left on the Court.  All the Justices now run from the centrist-to-liberal spectrum.

It's a diverse Court from a demographic perspective.  6 of the 9 Justices are women, one is a Latino man and the newest Justice, Mary Yu, is Asian and openly gay.  She was appointed to fill the vacancy left by Johnson and will run in a special election this fall.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Has anyone seen the Washington Post "Election Lab" Senate predictions??

They give Cotton in AR a lower percentage chance of victory than Land in MI.... What?!

Hagan also has a 81% chance of victory in NC..... righttt.

McConnell 97% chance of being reelected. Ok.

Take a look at this monstrosity yourself, I can't take it seriously:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-tran/politics/election-lab-2014

[windjammer]

Has anyone seen the Washington Post "Election Lab" Senate predictions??

They give Cotton in AR a lower percentage chance of victory than Land in MI.... What?!

Hagan also has a 81% chance of victory in NC..... righttt.

McConnell 97% chance of being reelected. Ok.

Take a look at this monstrosity yourself, I can't take it seriously:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-tran/politics/election-lab-2014

This is what happens when a site has 0 knowledge and just trusts skewed polls.

[free my dawg]

Hagan at 81%?

I can't even laugh at this. I mean I'm probably the biggest Brown hater on this site but he's got a hell of a lot better than 9% chances to win.