Preliminary 2016 Senate Race Rankings - No Tossups
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:21:42 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Preliminary 2016 Senate Race Rankings - No Tossups
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Preliminary 2016 Senate Race Rankings - No Tossups  (Read 6487 times)
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,709
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 28, 2014, 10:37:56 PM »

Here's how I see the 2016 Senate map shaping-up; without "tossup" ratings


So, right now it looks like D+4.  Feel free to ask for a more detailed analyses on any of the races, or make your own maps!
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2014, 10:39:57 PM »

Why such confidence in Johnson's defeat; and is that based on the assumption that Hassan challenges Ayotte?
Logged
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2014, 10:47:08 PM »

Off the bat, Democrats pick up Illinois and Wisconsin.

New Hampshire and Pennsylvania will come down to environment and candidates. For example, I think Ayotte has to be considered a slim favorite if Hassan doesn't run or if the environment isn't toxic. Similar story for Toomey.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,709
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2014, 10:47:20 PM »

Why such confidence in Johnson's defeat; and is that based on the assumption that Hassan challenges Ayotte?

Johnson's definitely the most endangered Republican Senate incumbent, and Wisconsin has a strong Democratic bent in presidential years.  Its the Democrats top pickup opportunity, so I'm sure that whatever top-tier candidate the Democrats recruit to run in Wisconsin (my bet is on Ron Kind) will have no problem tying Johnson to the Tea Party agendas of Cruz and Lee.

Ayotte would be vulnerable against Hassan or either-one of New Hampshire's current House members.  Ayotte could have done very well in a Susan Collins-type mold, but she instead decided to go more conservative than she can probably get away-with in New Hampshire with a presidential race driving turnout.  
Logged
Flake
Flo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2014, 10:50:04 PM »



D+5 with Murkowski running as an Independent in Alaska.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,709
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2014, 10:52:47 PM »



D+5 with Murkowski running as an Independent in Alaska.

Roy Blunt (R-MO) is very vulnerable.  Do you have him running for reelection in this scenario?  Or does the Missouri GOP get a better candidate?
Logged
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2014, 10:53:43 PM »

I think Blunt was more vulnerable against a pre-Ferguson Nixon. I'm not quite sure now.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2014, 11:03:45 PM »

Flo's map except with Toomey winning.

I think that Murkowski, going by her antics this cycle, will run as a Republican.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2014, 11:04:48 PM »

Without toss-ups:



With toss-ups:




D+2 I suppose. A lot of this depends on retirements, especially with McCain, Reid, and Grassely who are getting older by the day. And we haven't discussed possible presidencies from Paul or Rubio.

Here's how I see the 2016 Senate map shaping-up; without "tossup" ratings

What do you mean "shaping up", nothing has happened yet.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2014, 11:10:55 PM »

Democrats gain 2 of IL, PA, WI, and 1 of FL, OH, MO, NH, NC. Republicans gain Nevada. (D+2)
Logged
Flake
Flo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2014, 11:15:59 PM »



D+5 with Murkowski running as an Independent in Alaska.

Roy Blunt (R-MO) is very vulnerable.  Do you have him running for reelection in this scenario?  Or does the Missouri GOP get a better candidate?

Yes, I think the Dems will nominate a weak or flawed candidate and he'll narrowly win re-election.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2014, 11:18:11 PM »

My two cents:

Likely GOP (To pretend to have ~100% certainty of events so far in the future is preposterous; I would say these are all >90% probability)
Every GOP seat not listed below

Advantage GOP (60-90% confidence)
Arizona
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Ohio


Tossup
Colorado
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin


Advantage DEM
Nevada
Illinois

Likely DEM
All unlisted DEM seats

Expectation: D+3
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2014, 11:28:07 PM »
« Edited: September 28, 2014, 11:36:11 PM by wormyguy »

Alabama: Safe R
Alaska: Lean R due to primary/third-party uncertainty, otherwise Safe R
Arizona: Safe R with McCain, Likely R without
Arkansas: Likely R, or Tilt R if Beebe runs
California: Safe D
Colorado: Lean D
Connecticut: Likely D
Florida: Likely R with Rubio, Tilt R without (I'd put it at pure tossup if that were allowed!)
Georgia: Likely R
Hawaii: Safe D
Idaho: Safe R
Illinois: Lean D
Indiana: Likely R
Iowa: Likely R with Grassley, Lean D without
Kansas: Safe R
Kentucky: Likely R
Louisiana: Safe R
Maryland: Safe D
Missouri: Likely R
Nevada: Lean D
New Hampshire: Lean R
New York: Safe D
North Carolina: Likely R
North Dakota: Safe R
Ohio: Likely R
Oklahoma: Safe R
Oregon: Likely D
Pennsylvania: Tilt D (would put pure tossup)
South Carolina: Safe R
South Dakota: Safe R
Utah: Safe R
Vermont: Safe D
Washington: Likely D
Wisconsin: Tilt R
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2014, 12:12:14 AM »

Since you said no toss ups, I put "tilt" ratings where I would normally put toss ups.

Alaska: Likely R - Since Murkowski will actually be on the ballot next time, it's hard to see her losing, but in a potential three way race it could be possible.
Arizona: Lean R - If McCain doesn't retire, he'd get beaten in the primary anyway.
Arkansas: Lean R - If Mike Beebe runs it's tilt D. But if he doesn't it's likely R. So I split the difference.
Colorado: Tilt D - What happens with Udall this year will speak volumes for Bennet. Fortunately for Bennet, he will benefit from presidential year turnout.
Florida: Tilt R - Lean R if Rubio doesn't run for president, but it's looking like he will.
Georgia: Lean R - Likely R if Isakson runs, tilt R if he retires and Dems get Nunn to run again.
Illinois: Lean D takeover - Hard to see how Kirk survives considering he barely beat a horrible opponent in a GOP wave year. He has no groundswell of popularity, he got hammered for lying about his war record in 2010 and won clearly as the lesser of two evils, not as an above the fray moderate. That said, Dems could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here by nominating another horrible candidate (it's Illinois after all).
Indiana: Lean R - Coats could retire, even if he doesn't it's possible he could be beaten. Ellsworth would've given him a tough race in a non wave year.
Iowa: Likely R - Assuming Grassley doesn't change his mind. If he retires, tilt D.
Kentucky: Likely R - Whether or not Paul runs for president. Though Steve Beshear running would make it tilt R.
Louisiana: Likely R - Too much in flux here to say anything, but Dems have slim odds.
Missouri: Tilt D takeover - Roy Blunt is not popular at all, and Hillary should do much better here than Obama. It feels weird putting it as tilt D, but yeah, no toss ups.
Nevada: Tilt D - So much depends on who runs. Democrats would be best without Reid, and Sandoval would put the Republicans in control if he ran (lean R minimum). In generic D vs. generic R, the Democrat has the edge though.
New Hampshire: Tilt R - This will be hotly contested, but NH is quirky enough that Ayotte could survive even in a good Dem year.
North Carolina: Tilt R - I think Burr survives by the skin of his teeth, even if Hillary narrowly wins the state.
Ohio: Lean R - Portman could be primaried, which would make this tilt...R I guess? This race should be competitive, but Portman starts with the edge.
Oregon: Likely D - Safe if Wyden runs for re-election.
Pennsylvania: Tilt D takeover -  Toomey will be in huge trouble during a presidential year with higher turnout. Since I have to pick a winner, I'm giving it to Sestak by the skin of his teeth.
Wisconsin: Lean D takeover - Johnson will probably be a one termer. He's done basically nothing he needs to do to get re-elected in a blue state. His only hope is another Republican wave dragging him over the finish line or a crappy opponent.

Everything else is safe. Overall net seats is D+4.
Logged
Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort
Joshua
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,710
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2014, 12:25:06 AM »

If the Dems play it right, they could make major gains in 2016.

Easy pickups:
WI, PA, IL

Nominate the right candidate/barring campaign and candidate gaffes/Presidential turnout levels, they could knock off:
NC, FL, OH, NH, MO

As always, AZ and GA will give the (debatably false) impression they could be competitive.

Beshear or Beebe could pull a Tommy Thompson, but I don't think they will run (or win if they did).

Nevada is really the only state Dems would likely lose. CO if Bennet implodes, but it seems safer in a Presidential year.

This is the most "purple" senate class, so it'll take a wave to get serious movement, which obviously it is too far out to tell and probably not going to be a 2006/2008 year for Dems. It's most likely to be neutral in my opinion.

P.S. Will Jim Matheson run for Governor or Senate??
Logged
user12345
wifikitten
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,135
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2014, 08:59:35 AM »



D+5 with Murkowski running as an Independent in Alaska.

Roy Blunt (R-MO) is very vulnerable.  Do you have him running for reelection in this scenario?  Or does the Missouri GOP get a better candidate?

Yes, I think the Dems will nominate a weak or flawed candidate and he'll narrowly win re-election.
Do they really even have any good candidates to choose from?
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,784
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 29, 2014, 10:54:57 AM »

Pa,WI.IL,CO, NV Dem




Open seat in FL or AZ will give us 4
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2014, 11:17:41 AM »

Dems get Illinois due to high Chicago turnout (Senate needs a new candy man) and maybe Wisconsin if Feingold runs, and assuming Sandoval runs, Reps get Nevada and maybe Colorado if it is a good night with Paul also on the ballot, for D+1 (or even) but still Rep majority

Now to await the flame war
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2014, 11:21:41 AM »

Since you said no toss ups, I put "tilt" ratings where I would normally put toss ups.

Alaska: Likely R - Since Murkowski will actually be on the ballot next time, it's hard to see her losing, but in a potential three way race it could be possible.
Arizona: Lean R - If McCain doesn't retire, he'd get beaten in the primary anyway.
Arkansas: Lean R - If Mike Beebe runs it's tilt D. But if he doesn't it's likely R. So I split the difference.
Colorado: Tilt D - What happens with Udall this year will speak volumes for Bennet. Fortunately for Bennet, he will benefit from presidential year turnout.
Florida: Tilt R - Lean R if Rubio doesn't run for president, but it's looking like he will.
Georgia: Lean R - Likely R if Isakson runs, tilt R if he retires and Dems get Nunn to run again.
Illinois: Lean D takeover - Hard to see how Kirk survives considering he barely beat a horrible opponent in a GOP wave year. He has no groundswell of popularity, he got hammered for lying about his war record in 2010 and won clearly as the lesser of two evils, not as an above the fray moderate. That said, Dems could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here by nominating another horrible candidate (it's Illinois after all).
Indiana: Lean R - Coats could retire, even if he doesn't it's possible he could be beaten. Ellsworth would've given him a tough race in a non wave year.
Iowa: Likely R - Assuming Grassley doesn't change his mind. If he retires, tilt D.
Kentucky: Likely R - Whether or not Paul runs for president. Though Steve Beshear running would make it tilt R.
Louisiana: Likely R - Too much in flux here to say anything, but Dems have slim odds.
Missouri: Tilt D takeover - Roy Blunt is not popular at all, and Hillary should do much better here than Obama. It feels weird putting it as tilt D, but yeah, no toss ups.
Nevada: Tilt D - So much depends on who runs. Democrats would be best without Reid, and Sandoval would put the Republicans in control if he ran (lean R minimum). In generic D vs. generic R, the Democrat has the edge though.
New Hampshire: Tilt R - This will be hotly contested, but NH is quirky enough that Ayotte could survive even in a good Dem year.
North Carolina: Tilt R - I think Burr survives by the skin of his teeth, even if Hillary narrowly wins the state.
Ohio: Lean R - Portman could be primaried, which would make this tilt...R I guess? This race should be competitive, but Portman starts with the edge.
Oregon: Likely D - Safe if Wyden runs for re-election.
Pennsylvania: Tilt D takeover -  Toomey will be in huge trouble during a presidential year with higher turnout. Since I have to pick a winner, I'm giving it to Sestak by the skin of his teeth.
Wisconsin: Lean D takeover - Johnson will probably be a one termer. He's done basically nothing he needs to do to get re-elected in a blue state. His only hope is another Republican wave dragging him over the finish line or a crappy opponent.

Everything else is safe. Overall net seats is D+4.

Specter survived in 2004 and 1992 when PA went Dem. What's the difference? And Kirk is shown to be able to hold his own based on early polls.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,784
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2014, 11:28:00 AM »

Specter was a moderate GOPer and running against a badly funded candidate, Hubble.


Rauner, Scott Brown are moderates and may wind up losing.  The last poll had Madigan tied with Kirk. He also lost,a few steps since stroke.
Logged
Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort
Joshua
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,710
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2014, 11:43:31 AM »

Since you said no toss ups, I put "tilt" ratings where I would normally put toss ups.

Alaska: Likely R - Since Murkowski will actually be on the ballot next time, it's hard to see her losing, but in a potential three way race it could be possible.
Arizona: Lean R - If McCain doesn't retire, he'd get beaten in the primary anyway.
Arkansas: Lean R - If Mike Beebe runs it's tilt D. But if he doesn't it's likely R. So I split the difference.
Colorado: Tilt D - What happens with Udall this year will speak volumes for Bennet. Fortunately for Bennet, he will benefit from presidential year turnout.
Florida: Tilt R - Lean R if Rubio doesn't run for president, but it's looking like he will.
Georgia: Lean R - Likely R if Isakson runs, tilt R if he retires and Dems get Nunn to run again.
Illinois: Lean D takeover - Hard to see how Kirk survives considering he barely beat a horrible opponent in a GOP wave year. He has no groundswell of popularity, he got hammered for lying about his war record in 2010 and won clearly as the lesser of two evils, not as an above the fray moderate. That said, Dems could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here by nominating another horrible candidate (it's Illinois after all).
Indiana: Lean R - Coats could retire, even if he doesn't it's possible he could be beaten. Ellsworth would've given him a tough race in a non wave year.
Iowa: Likely R - Assuming Grassley doesn't change his mind. If he retires, tilt D.
Kentucky: Likely R - Whether or not Paul runs for president. Though Steve Beshear running would make it tilt R.
Louisiana: Likely R - Too much in flux here to say anything, but Dems have slim odds.
Missouri: Tilt D takeover - Roy Blunt is not popular at all, and Hillary should do much better here than Obama. It feels weird putting it as tilt D, but yeah, no toss ups.
Nevada: Tilt D - So much depends on who runs. Democrats would be best without Reid, and Sandoval would put the Republicans in control if he ran (lean R minimum). In generic D vs. generic R, the Democrat has the edge though.
New Hampshire: Tilt R - This will be hotly contested, but NH is quirky enough that Ayotte could survive even in a good Dem year.
North Carolina: Tilt R - I think Burr survives by the skin of his teeth, even if Hillary narrowly wins the state.
Ohio: Lean R - Portman could be primaried, which would make this tilt...R I guess? This race should be competitive, but Portman starts with the edge.
Oregon: Likely D - Safe if Wyden runs for re-election.
Pennsylvania: Tilt D takeover -  Toomey will be in huge trouble during a presidential year with higher turnout. Since I have to pick a winner, I'm giving it to Sestak by the skin of his teeth.
Wisconsin: Lean D takeover - Johnson will probably be a one termer. He's done basically nothing he needs to do to get re-elected in a blue state. His only hope is another Republican wave dragging him over the finish line or a crappy opponent.

Everything else is safe. Overall net seats is D+4.

Specter survived in 2004 and 1992 when PA went Dem. What's the difference? And Kirk is shown to be able to hold his own based on early polls.

Nearly every incumbent holds their own in early polls.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2014, 01:40:57 PM »

Since you said no toss ups, I put "tilt" ratings where I would normally put toss ups.

Alaska: Likely R - Since Murkowski will actually be on the ballot next time, it's hard to see her losing, but in a potential three way race it could be possible.
Arizona: Lean R - If McCain doesn't retire, he'd get beaten in the primary anyway.
Arkansas: Lean R - If Mike Beebe runs it's tilt D. But if he doesn't it's likely R. So I split the difference.
Colorado: Tilt D - What happens with Udall this year will speak volumes for Bennet. Fortunately for Bennet, he will benefit from presidential year turnout.
Florida: Tilt R - Lean R if Rubio doesn't run for president, but it's looking like he will.
Georgia: Lean R - Likely R if Isakson runs, tilt R if he retires and Dems get Nunn to run again.
Illinois: Lean D takeover - Hard to see how Kirk survives considering he barely beat a horrible opponent in a GOP wave year. He has no groundswell of popularity, he got hammered for lying about his war record in 2010 and won clearly as the lesser of two evils, not as an above the fray moderate. That said, Dems could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here by nominating another horrible candidate (it's Illinois after all).
Indiana: Lean R - Coats could retire, even if he doesn't it's possible he could be beaten. Ellsworth would've given him a tough race in a non wave year.
Iowa: Likely R - Assuming Grassley doesn't change his mind. If he retires, tilt D.
Kentucky: Likely R - Whether or not Paul runs for president. Though Steve Beshear running would make it tilt R.
Louisiana: Likely R - Too much in flux here to say anything, but Dems have slim odds.
Missouri: Tilt D takeover - Roy Blunt is not popular at all, and Hillary should do much better here than Obama. It feels weird putting it as tilt D, but yeah, no toss ups.
Nevada: Tilt D - So much depends on who runs. Democrats would be best without Reid, and Sandoval would put the Republicans in control if he ran (lean R minimum). In generic D vs. generic R, the Democrat has the edge though.
New Hampshire: Tilt R - This will be hotly contested, but NH is quirky enough that Ayotte could survive even in a good Dem year.
North Carolina: Tilt R - I think Burr survives by the skin of his teeth, even if Hillary narrowly wins the state.
Ohio: Lean R - Portman could be primaried, which would make this tilt...R I guess? This race should be competitive, but Portman starts with the edge.
Oregon: Likely D - Safe if Wyden runs for re-election.
Pennsylvania: Tilt D takeover -  Toomey will be in huge trouble during a presidential year with higher turnout. Since I have to pick a winner, I'm giving it to Sestak by the skin of his teeth.
Wisconsin: Lean D takeover - Johnson will probably be a one termer. He's done basically nothing he needs to do to get re-elected in a blue state. His only hope is another Republican wave dragging him over the finish line or a crappy opponent.

Everything else is safe. Overall net seats is D+4.

Specter survived in 2004 and 1992 when PA went Dem. What's the difference? And Kirk is shown to be able to hold his own based on early polls.

Nearly every incumbent holds their own in early polls.

Then why are we quick to call them gonners? I get that their states are left leaning, but Heitkamp won when her state went overwhelmingly red? Or why did Brown only lose by high singles when MA went overwhelmingly blue? I'm pretty sure Toomey and Kirk are what loons would call RINOs, so moderacy is no issue. And who is to say that those early polls aren't genuine strength?
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2014, 02:49:48 PM »

Since you said no toss ups, I put "tilt" ratings where I would normally put toss ups.

Alaska: Likely R - Since Murkowski will actually be on the ballot next time, it's hard to see her losing, but in a potential three way race it could be possible.
Arizona: Lean R - If McCain doesn't retire, he'd get beaten in the primary anyway.
Arkansas: Lean R - If Mike Beebe runs it's tilt D. But if he doesn't it's likely R. So I split the difference.
Colorado: Tilt D - What happens with Udall this year will speak volumes for Bennet. Fortunately for Bennet, he will benefit from presidential year turnout.
Florida: Tilt R - Lean R if Rubio doesn't run for president, but it's looking like he will.
Georgia: Lean R - Likely R if Isakson runs, tilt R if he retires and Dems get Nunn to run again.
Illinois: Lean D takeover - Hard to see how Kirk survives considering he barely beat a horrible opponent in a GOP wave year. He has no groundswell of popularity, he got hammered for lying about his war record in 2010 and won clearly as the lesser of two evils, not as an above the fray moderate. That said, Dems could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here by nominating another horrible candidate (it's Illinois after all).
Indiana: Lean R - Coats could retire, even if he doesn't it's possible he could be beaten. Ellsworth would've given him a tough race in a non wave year.
Iowa: Likely R - Assuming Grassley doesn't change his mind. If he retires, tilt D.
Kentucky: Likely R - Whether or not Paul runs for president. Though Steve Beshear running would make it tilt R.
Louisiana: Likely R - Too much in flux here to say anything, but Dems have slim odds.
Missouri: Tilt D takeover - Roy Blunt is not popular at all, and Hillary should do much better here than Obama. It feels weird putting it as tilt D, but yeah, no toss ups.
Nevada: Tilt D - So much depends on who runs. Democrats would be best without Reid, and Sandoval would put the Republicans in control if he ran (lean R minimum). In generic D vs. generic R, the Democrat has the edge though.
New Hampshire: Tilt R - This will be hotly contested, but NH is quirky enough that Ayotte could survive even in a good Dem year.
North Carolina: Tilt R - I think Burr survives by the skin of his teeth, even if Hillary narrowly wins the state.
Ohio: Lean R - Portman could be primaried, which would make this tilt...R I guess? This race should be competitive, but Portman starts with the edge.
Oregon: Likely D - Safe if Wyden runs for re-election.
Pennsylvania: Tilt D takeover -  Toomey will be in huge trouble during a presidential year with higher turnout. Since I have to pick a winner, I'm giving it to Sestak by the skin of his teeth.
Wisconsin: Lean D takeover - Johnson will probably be a one termer. He's done basically nothing he needs to do to get re-elected in a blue state. His only hope is another Republican wave dragging him over the finish line or a crappy opponent.

Everything else is safe. Overall net seats is D+4.

Specter survived in 2004 and 1992 when PA went Dem. What's the difference? And Kirk is shown to be able to hold his own based on early polls.

Nearly every incumbent holds their own in early polls.

Then why are we quick to call them gonners? I get that their states are left leaning, but Heitkamp won when her state went overwhelmingly red? Or why did Brown only lose by high singles when MA went overwhelmingly blue? I'm pretty sure Toomey and Kirk are what loons would call RINOs, so moderacy is no issue. And who is to say that those early polls aren't genuine strength?

Toomey doesn't have the suburban Philly base Specter had.  Kirk hasn't done anything to hurt or help his chance in 2016 (though his health issues could still hurt him).   However, the Dems will have a stronger candidate (almost impossible not to) in a less GOP friendly environment than 2010 in a Presidential year.
Logged
Never
Never Convinced
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,623
Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: 3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2014, 03:19:59 PM »



A Democratic net gain of 1 seat, though of course more or less of a change could happen with so much time between now and 2016.


Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2014, 03:23:00 PM »

Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.088 seconds with 12 queries.