Crystal Ball: 5 reasons Senate control may not be decided on election day.

[Never]

In today's article from Crystal Ball, Kyle Kondik says there are five reasons why the control of the Senate might not be decided on election day.

First, a recount:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^ This possibility slipped my mind, but it seems all too likely considering how close many of the Senate races will probably end up.

Second, a Louisiana runoff:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^ I expected to see this possibility mentioned from the outset; it would be interesting to have to wait until December 6 to find out which party controls the Senate.

Third, Greg Orman's decision regarding which party to caucus with if he wins:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^ If Orman is genuinely undecided, things could get interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to see him push for concessions from both parties if the Senate were 50R-49D. Which party would cave in first though and get rid of their current caucus leader?

Fourth, Georgia's Senate race could end up heading to a runoff:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^ This was another likely scenario that seems to have been discussed to a degree on this forum.

Finally, the fifth reason that why might not know which party controls the Senate is because of a switch in the party identification of a current senator or multiple senators:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^ Out of the five possibilities listed in the CrystalBall article, this one seemed least likely to me. Even if a current senator switched parties for some reason, I would expect that it would happen after a party has already clearly taken control of the Senate.