Will the Republicans retain the Senate after the 2016 Elections?

[Mehmentum]

There is also the factor of Manchin who with the right Dem Prez candidate could pull off a win in 2016, might play it safe and defect to GOP and lock in the win.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=202072.0

Besides, he'd never survive the GOP primary.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Too early to say for certain, but assuming AK and LA go for the republicans, this seems to be the sort of majority that can withstand 2016's map. While I still don't see the republicans winning more than 1 of Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, I can easily see them gaining CO and NV, maybe even WA/OR/CT with retirements or excellent candidates. There are other opportunities for the democrats, but the math may simply not add up:

54-46 (Current, assuming AK & LA wins)
54-46 (lose PA, WI, gain CO, NV)
So, at this point, the democrats would have to sweep MO, NC, FL, NH, and OH (4 of the 5 if Dem wins the presidency), or make up for it with a surprise in AZ, GA, IA (these three probably all require retirements), AR (very doubtful), LA (very doubtful) or KY (very doubtful). So, while the pathway is there, it's not an easy pathway to follow at all.

And of course, even if democrats manage to get a slim majority, they'll probably lose it in 2018, when Heitkamp, Tester, Donnelly and McCaskill are VERY vulnerable, and another collection of democratic seats (VA, WI, NM, OH etc.) have a lesser degree of vulnerability, with democrats only major opportunity being in NV (defeating Flake is far easier said than done in a midterm).

[Maxwell]

I feel like Dems would have to have Hillary Clinton v. Ben Carson in order for the dream 2016 to come true (as revenge for Republican's dream 2014).

[IceSpear]

Depends on who wins the Presidential Election.

This, and how competitive it is. I'm going with "no", since it's very possible the GOP will overreach in the next two years and cause backlash, but it's a complete shot in the dark this early.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I've never been fond of that mentality, but I'm starting to think that we really need a Republican to take the WH in 2016. That's the only way Democrats can rebuild some strength everywhere else (especially in State governments, where the 2020 redistricting will be decided).

Agreed, winning back Congress will be a lot easier as revamped party being built from the ground up for the people rather than one with another 3rd-way corprocrat like Hillary in charge.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Depends on who wins the Presidential Election.

This, and how competitive it is. I'm going with "no", since it's very possible the GOP will overreach in the next two years and cause backlash, but it's a complete shot in the dark this early.

The GOP massively over-reached on the debt ceiling a year ago, and paid dearly with their negative 9 seat loss in the Senate.

[Del Tachi]

Democrats gaining 5 seats in a presidential year with a Democratic incumbent would be an anomaly.

Republicans hold the Senate narrowly, even if Dems can get a 3rd term in the White House, and we could be looking at somewhere near a filibuster-proof majority come 2019.


Well, I guess it wouldn't be an anomaly but it would be akin to this.

[retromike22]

Duckwerth? who is that?

Tammy Duckworth

[Simfan34]

I doubt it.

[ShadowRocket]

Depends on who wins the Presidential Election.

Agreed. Though I think the GOP may be a slightly favored to hold it at the moment. In large part due to them having been able to pad their numbers this year and 2016 possibly being a relatively neutral year politically. Not to mention, I expect them to nominate someone who comes across as at least as credible for President such as Jeb, Christie, or Walker and not one of the firebrands.

Though if Hillary wins and has coattails, that may all go out the window.

[Frodo]

With 54 seats in the bag (and perhaps a couple more with defectors), it is highly likely they will hold on to the Senate through 2020.   If they had won less, I would definitely agree that we would see Democrats controlling the Senate after 2016. 

[IceSpear]

With 54 seats in the bag (and perhaps a couple more with defectors), it is highly likely they will hold on to the Senate through 2020.   If they had won less, I would definitely agree that we would see Democrats controlling the Senate after 2016. 

Defectors? King and Manchin already said they're staying with Dems.

[Frodo]

With 54 seats in the bag (and perhaps a couple more with defectors), it is highly likely they will hold on to the Senate through 2020.   If they had won less, I would definitely agree that we would see Democrats controlling the Senate after 2016. 

Defectors? King and Manchin already said they're staying with Dems.

Yes, you're right.  I just read the articles on them... 

[Mister Mets]

Probably.

The number of competitive seats in 2016 is exxagerated, especially since so many of the Republicans will have the benefit of incumbency.

The only really liberal seat is in Illinois, where the Republican is a moderate with a compelling story (Went back to work after a severe stroke).

The rest of the Obama states with Republican incumbents are areas where Republicans are usually competitive.

And Republicans have an excellent pick-up opportunity in Nevada, where the Governor who won with over 70% is interested in joining the Senate.

Democrats have a shot, but Republicans seem favored to keep their losses fairly low.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Probably.

The number of competitive seats in 2016 is exxagerated, especially since so many of the Republicans will have the benefit of incumbency.

The only really liberal seat is in Illinois, where the Republican is a moderate with a compelling story (Went back to work after a severe stroke).

The rest of the Obama states with Republican incumbents are areas where Republicans are usually competitive.

And Republicans have an excellent pick-up opportunity in Nevada, where the Governor who won with over 70% is interested in joining the Senate.

Democrats have a shot, but Republicans seem favored to keep their losses fairly low.

Oh god. MUH INCUMBENCY.

All incumbents look safe this far out. Hello Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Mark Begich, MARK WARNER. (and just look at the '08 incumbents)

The last four or five election cycles, one party has swept nearly all of the competitive races. At this point I'd expect 2016 to be the same. Unless it's 2000 all over again, which I doubt because of the polarization now, one party will win or lose them all.

[KCDem]

Yes. Senate control is off the table until at least 2020. Maybe forever. The fact is Democrats can no longer win Senate seats in red states. That, combined with the fact that there are many blue-state Republicans, means Congress is gone for the foreseeable future.

[IceSpear]

Probably.

The number of competitive seats in 2016 is exxagerated, especially since so many of the Republicans will have the benefit of incumbency.

The only really liberal seat is in Illinois, where the Republican is a moderate with a compelling story (Went back to work after a severe stroke).

The rest of the Obama states with Republican incumbents are areas where Republicans are usually competitive.

And Republicans have an excellent pick-up opportunity in Nevada, where the Governor who won with over 70% is interested in joining the Senate.

Democrats have a shot, but Republicans seem favored to keep their losses fairly low.

After what we just saw happen to Pryor and probably Landrieu, you think incumbency is gonna save them?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes. Senate control is off the table until at least 2020. Maybe forever. The fact is Democrats can no longer win Senate seats in red states. That, combined with the fact that there are many blue-state Republicans, means Congress is gone for the foreseeable future.

There are 5 Romney state Democrats left in the Senate, but they're all from the 2012 class.

[Mehmentum]

Yes. Senate control is off the table until at least 2020. Maybe forever. The fact is Democrats can no longer win Senate seats in red states. That, combined with the fact that there are many blue-state Republicans, means Congress is gone for the foreseeable future.

In presidential years, Democrats have no problem winning red states.

[Devils30]

I'll say no, Hillary wins and Dems gain IL, WI, PA and manage to pick off one of FL, NC, OH, NH or an open AZ or IA. 50/50 Senate seems fairly possible with a to be determined vp breaking the tie. NC is a sleeper race because Burr is fairly weak and the white vote percentage Hagan got last night might do it in a presidential year. The GOP has a better chance if they play nice the next two years and the economic recovery is tbd as well.

[Mr. Smith]

I'm very cautiously still saying no because:

There's a higher turn-out and more youth,they vote for the Dems

The GOP is now on the defense of roughly the same number of blue states the Dems had red states this time. And most of the incumbents came in on a wave, so it's bullsh**t to play that card when it clearly didn't save the Dems here (almost did in Alaska and North Carolina though)

WI, PA, NH,and IL are all advantageous to the Dems inherently, and  OH and FL have a decent chances too.  That's 6 seats there

Jay Nixon or Koster could easily do the exact same thing to Roy Blunt that the blue avvies claim could happen to Reid, so that adds a 7th seat

And if Rand Paul is nominated for President and is forced out, Beshear can floor Kentucky, that's an 8th one

And finally if Chuck Grassley retires, any competent Democrat will probably mirror what happened to Bruce Braley, that's 9

And if things are insanely lucky Arizona will also turn (the latter only if McCain retires though) blue,not as likely as Iowa though.

So yeah, if everything plays out like this year in reverse, the Democrats have a ceiling of 9 seats,a floor of 4



But I still say this with caution because Fox News, other media buzzwords and sound-bites, and the possibility of Clinton turning into another Al Gore could render this all moot, also Obama will probably end up being just barely above Bush in ratings...and no Democratic presidential candidate will have an easy time with that.

And 2018 will probably go to the GOP again after that.

[Suburbia]

Slight yes.

[MATTROSE94]

Once the results from Alaska are finalized and after the Louisuana run-off election, I would expect the Republicans to have about 54 seats. In 2016, I would expect Mark Kirk, Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson and Kelly Ayotte to lose re-election, but I would also expect Harry Reid and Michael Bennett to lose as well. So in the end, the Republicans will still have about 52 Senate seats.

Who is in control of the Senate after the 2018 varies on who wins the Presidency in 2016. Either way, I would expect Claire McCaskill and Joe Donnelly to be defeated, as Missouri and Indiana have somewhat strong Republican candidate waiting in the wings such as Matt Blunt and Mike Pence. In addition, Joe Manchin has expressed interest in running for his old job as West Virginia in 2016, meaning his appointed successor (possibly Carte Goodwin or Natalie Tennent) will face a difficult re-election bid in 2018. With those races in mind, the Republicans start off with a 2 or 3 seat gain I'm 2018, putting them at about 54-55 Senate seats. If a Democrat is elected in 2016, I would also expect the Republicans to have an edge in the Senate seats in North Dakota, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia and maybe even New Jersey,Wisconsin, Washington and Minnesota. If all of the seats that I listed end up flipping Republican, they will have about 64-65 Senate seats.

On the other hand, if a Republican wins in 2016, I would expect that the Democrats will pick up Nevada and Arizona and potential Texas if things aren't going that well for the Republican President. At that point, the Republicans will have neither a net gain or loss of any seats in 2018 and thus keep their Senate majority.

[Mr. Smith]

Scratch that a ceiling of 10, Richard Burr could probably be defeated as well. North Carolina isn't completely solid red quite yet.