Senate control after 2014, 2016, and 2018 Senate elections

[GaussLaw]

I know there are three other options (D/R/D, D/R/R, and R/R/D), but they all seem so absurd given the Senate maps and the "Add option" button isn't working for me. 

Anyways, I know this is assuming a lot in advance, but what would your best guess be right now?

I tend to trust Silver, so I think the GOP will just eke it out and get 6 seats in 2014, lose the Senate in 2016, and have a roaring comeback in 2018 (Hilary Clinton midterm may be 2010 redux).  So I pick R/D/R.

[SWE]

D/D/D or D/D/R, depending on the party of the president elected in 2016

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

I think this year will be a squeaker for Dems, but they'll probably hold it by at least 50 or 51 seats. Easy gains in 2016, and in 2018 Dems will definitely lose seats, but I think most of the incumbents are strong. Lose FL if Nelson retires, some red state Dems on shaky ground (Tester, Donnelly, Heitkamp, McCaskill) but if Dems have 56 or so seats after 2016 they should be able to pull a 2014 and hold it with another slim majority.

[Orser67]

2014: I think Dems will hold on by a couple seats, but the GOP could also plausibly take a 55/45 majority.

2016: Dems should pick up at least a couple seats. Unless the GOP wins the vast majority of competitive races in 2014 and 2016, the Dems should control the Senate after 2016.

2018: Really depends on who is President and where the Senate stands after 2016, but Republicans should pick up at least a couple seats.

[bballrox4717]

D/D/D or D/D/R, depending on the party of the president elected in 2016

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We are much better straits, than earlier this year. But, midterms are tough. Should we hold senate this yr, I think for the rest of decade.

[Never]

R/D/R.

The Republicans will probably win 6-8 seats in 2014, lose at least 4-5 (and control of the Senate) in 2016 if Hillary Clinton wins, and then the Republicans will do great in 2018. They could pick up 5-6 seats, or more if there are enough vulnerable Democrats in conservative states and open seats in swing states. They might defeat Democratic senators in MT/ND/MO/IN/WV, and they could make a play for seats in FL/VA/OH/WI. I really think Virginia could end up being a major target for the Republicans in 2018 if they haven't had a statewide victory between now and then, so a lot of resources might be put into that state; along with Virginia, the biggest races to watch would probably be Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, and Florida.

[publicunofficial]

2014: Democrats hold onto majority, albeit a slim one (50-52 seats).

2016: Democrats make modest to decent gains.

2018: Complete toss-up, depends on how big the gains in 2016 are, who is President, how their first 2 years in office fair, ect. I expect Republicans to take at least 1-2 seats (McCaskill seems like a goner if she doesn't retire, but we said that about 2012), while Democrats probably take Nevada and make a decent attempt at Arizona.

[badgate]

The current Dem majority will last past 2020.

[Never]

2014: Democrats hold onto majority, albeit a slim one (50-52 seats).

2016: Democrats make modest to decent gains.

2018: Complete toss-up, depends on how big the gains in 2016 are, who is President, how their first 2 years in office fair, ect. I expect Republicans to take at least 1-2 seats (McCaskill seems like a goner if she doesn't retire, but we said that about 2012), while Democrats probably take Nevada and make a decent attempt at Arizona.

NV/AZ might be very competitive in 2018 if a Republican is elected to the presidency in 2016, but I don't see how the GOP would lose both of those seats if Clinton is President, given that midterms generally do not favor the party holding the White House. Regarding MO, McCaskill might want to see if she can obtain a position in the next Democratic President's cabniet in order to remain on the national stage, but given that the Clintons and McCaskill have animosity, that might not be possible. If McCaskill jumps ship from this seat, it would probably be the first Republican pickup of eletion night in '18.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We have heard that story all the time that the party in power usually do poorly in midterms. 1962, 1998, 2002 were the exceptions. The Dems did well in 2006 and GOP did well in 2010 due to economic turmoil. Should we hold onto senate, the midterm curse may be broken Clinton isn't Obama. And we have a new milliniem generation that are ready to keep the Dems empowered.

The endangered Dems, should we not have a filibuster proof maj in 2016, in 2018 are IN and ND. But we very well may offset that loss should King retire and winning NV.

[Never]

We have heard that story all the time that the party in power usually do poorly in midterms. 1962, 1998, 2002 were the exceptions. The Dems did well in 2006 and GOP did well in 2010 due to economic turmoil. Should we hold onto senate, the midterm curse may be broken Clinton isn't Obama. And we have a new milliniem generation that are ready to keep the Dems empowered.

The endangered Dems, should we not have a filibuster proof maj in 2016, in 2018 are IN and ND. But we very well may offset that loss should King retire and winning NV.

The fact is that in midterms, parties in power lose seats more often than they gain seats. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Bush Jr. were all very different presidents, yet they were all still outliers in that they managed to see their party to gains in the House and Senate. Hillary might very well do the same, but we would have to see how she does as President before making that judgment. If the Republicans gain the Senate in 2014, I don't see how the Democrats would end up with a filibuster proof majority. The Dems could get up to 56-58 seats, but I think that would be their ceiling in 2016.

I'm not sure how the millenial generation is going to support Clinton more than Obama. This cohort could support both individuals about the same, as I think that Obama was tailor-made for this generation, while Clinton would be respected by the millenials, the same way that Eisenhower was respected by America in the 1950s.

The millenial generation might very well stay Democratic for life, but what about the next generation that starts between the late 1990s and 9/11 and goes on to a few years from now? They might be very conservative, as they could be reactive to the liberalism of the forerunning generation. If a generation like this turns out, guess when they start voting? 2018. Now, I admit that the generations might not turn out exactly as I predict, but we must recognize that the Millenialls won't always be the young voters and that we might see some political changes in the youth demographic very soon.

[IceSpear]

D/D/R

[LeBron]

2014:
We're likely to lose South Dakota, West Virginia, (maybe) Arkansas, (maybe) Montana, (maybe) Colorado, and (maybe) Louisiana, so as long as we hold one of those maybe's and hold the rest that will at the very least be lean D or likely D (AK, NC, MI, IA, and NH), Democrats will hold the Senate after 2014 with what I'm predicting to be 51 seats to Republicans 49 seats assuming Angus King stays with the Democrats and thus the majority.

2016:
Obviously, Democratic control stays and I think we'll just come short of a filibuster majority. We would really have to run the table and Hillary would have to run against a terrible Republican opponent, but at the very least, we should take PA, IL, and WI (essentially 2006's Chafee, Santorum and DeWine). Among OH, NC, FL, NH, MS (if Nixon runs), AR (if Beebe runs and Boozman retires), AZ, UT (if Matheson runs), IN (if Bayh runs), GA (if Isakson retires), IA (if Grassley retires), we should be able to pick off an extra 4 of those to be fair both ways because at this point, a lot of those seats are speculation on who runs/retires. So add those, and Dems would have a 58/42 majority after 2016; just short of the 60 needed.

2018:
Unless Republicans do take the Senate in 2014 or Dems make only moderate gains in 2016, Dems will likely hold the Senate in 2018, to. It will really depend on the President in power and the state of the economy, but the GOP will pick up seats because one, it's a midterm and two, it's the 2006 class of Senators and we made even more gains in 2012. Donnelly and Heitkamp will be the main targets and could be goners as well as going after Tester, McCaskill, and Manchin (or Tennant or Tomblin depending on if Manchin vacates the seat to run for Gov), Brown, Baldwin, Nelson, but as long as we can avoid a lot of retirements and Republicans don't do a clean sweep with a plausibly weak Democratic majority, then we'll hold the Senate.

[morgieb]

2014: Dems barely hang on, but I think it's 50/50.
2016: I'll be very surprised however if we don't control the Senate after 2016. Republicans would need two very good cycles to hold the Senate.
2018: Too early to call, depends on the President and the nature of 2016. I think we're more likely to win 2016 than not at this stage, so I'll say the Republicans pick up the Senate assuming this hypothetical.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

New poll released that Obama's overall approvals is positive over his negatives. They aren't 50 percent but that is positive sign for us to maintain the senate. I also believe the senate, we must give King enought of a cushion so he isn't tempted to jump shop. Hopefully 51 or better.

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-45058

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

D/D/R.

2014: Democrats narrowly hold Senate while Republicans pick up 4-5 seats. We pick up SD, WV, MT, and AR, and possibly one of LA, AK or NC. Either way, probably a narrow hold.

2016: No matter what happens in 2014 Democrats either hold or take back the Senate. They pick up WI, and IL, and have a good shot at PA, FL, NH, MO and maybe NC and OH. (It's too early to tell at this point, depends on how the yet-to-be-determined presidential race goes)

2018: Republicans should see slight to moderate gains here. If a Democrat (HRC) wins then we could expect close races and quite a few pickups in IN, ND, MO, MT and WV if Manchin goes for gov. In this case Republicans probably take the Senate. With a less popular Republican incumbent, there would likely be 0-1 gains for either party. The odds are stacked against the Democrats in this class, but they could probably take NV and AZ in a good year. In a scenario like this the House would be the one to watch.

[Kevin]

2014-Republican's gain majority in the Senate. I believe that the GOP will at least win seats in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Montana and South Dakota. Which gives the Republicans a majority of 51-47(assuming that King follows through with his threat to caucus with the GOP)

However, it's plausible that if things become truly bad for the Democrats that they could lose Michigan, Iowa, and Colorado(if not more states) giving the GOP a 54-44 Majority.

2016-It's hard to make calls here since it's so far out. However, the Democrats could at the very least pick up Senate seats in Wisconsin and Illinois if Hillary really does win the Presidency. If so has larger coat tails GOP Senators in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania could go down as well. Although I have a hard time seeing that happen since both PA and NH have a history of ticket splitting in favor of the incumbent. Ex. PA reelected both Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum between 1992-2004 despite voting for Democratic Presidential candidates. I also don't see Rob Portman as vulnerable as things stand right now.

Democrats could pick up seats in North Carolina and Missouri as well depending on D strength that year and the quality of the candidates they put forward. While Iowa, Arizona, and Georgia could be ripe targets in the event those GOP incumbents retire. Same with ether Kentucky or Florida should Rand Paul or Marco Rubio opt to run for the Presidency.

While in the event that 2016 is favorable to the GOP-Republicans could pick up seats in Nevada and Colorado.

2018-We haven't even gotten past 2014 yet. Again why are we predicating this far out?

IF HRC does win the White House there is a good chance should could experience the midterm slumps that BHO has. I think at the very least Donnelly(D-IN) Heitkemp(D-ND), McCaskill(D-MO) Tester(D-MT), Baldwin(D-WI), and Brown(D-OH) would be pretty vulnerable in a GOP year. As all of these Senators represent Red states who got lucky in 2012( Donnelly, Heitkemp, McCaskill)or alternatively are poor fits for their states(Baldwin and Brown).

If Nelson(D-FL) or Manchin (D-WV) retires then their seat(s) would be a prime GOP pickup opportunity too.

Also if it is a strong GOP year I could see Kaine(D-VA), Casey(D-PA) or potentially Menendez(D-NJ)/ Stabenow(D-MI) as vulnerable too.

While the only seats I could see the Democrats picking up in 2018 if the GOP regained the White House is Heller(R-NV) and potentially Flake(R-AZ). Since they have already maxed out their gains for the 2012-18 cycle.

[Del Tachi]

2014:  GOP takes control 52-48.

2016:  In a national GOP wave, the GOP only loses Wisconsin and Illinois while picking-up Nevada, resulting in a net loss of one seat.  GOP retains control 51-49.

2018:  The Republican president's popularity is in the tanks, and the Democrats are able to defend all of their seats up in 2018 while making inroads in Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, and Nebraska.  Democrats take control 53 - 47.

I did this to show that a R/R/D, is not "absurd" at all and may even be one of the more likely outcomes in my opinion. 

[ElectionsGuy]

R/D/R

[free my dawg]

2014:  GOP takes control 52-48.

2016:  In a national GOP wave, the GOP only loses Wisconsin and Illinois while picking-up Nevada, resulting in a net loss of one seat.  GOP retains control 51-49.

2018:  The Republican president's popularity is in the tanks, and the Democrats are able to defend all of their seats up in 2018 while making inroads in Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, and Nebraska.  Democrats take control 53 - 47.

I did this to show that a R/R/D, is not "absurd" at all and may even be one of the more likely outcomes in my opinion. 

Corker isn't losing, and Fischer has so far been the definition of Generic R.

They're more likely to pick up Utah than beat either of them.

[Del Tachi]

2014:  GOP takes control 52-48.

2016:  In a national GOP wave, the GOP only loses Wisconsin and Illinois while picking-up Nevada, resulting in a net loss of one seat.  GOP retains control 51-49.

2018:  The Republican president's popularity is in the tanks, and the Democrats are able to defend all of their seats up in 2018 while making inroads in Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, and Nebraska.  Democrats take control 53 - 47.

I did this to show that a R/R/D, is not "absurd" at all and may even be one of the more likely outcomes in my opinion. 

Corker isn't losing, and Fischer has so far been the definition of Generic R.

They're more likely to pick up Utah than beat either of them.

Tennessee will probably be an open seat, and Deb Fischer will be vulnerable because Nebraska has always had a flirtation with Democratic candidates. 

[Suburbia]

I see 2014 being a GOP majority in the Senate with pickups in AR, WV, MT, SD, LA, AK
In 2016, the Democrats picking up WI, PA, IL, and maybe NC.
In 2018, the Republicans may pick up: WV, IN, MO, MT, WI, not ND (Heitkamp is tough to beat IMO).

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

D/R/R

[NHLiberal]

D/R/R

You think Democrats will keep the Senate in 2014 with a terrible map but lose it in 2016 with a great map?