Nightmare Senate Scenario for Dems

[Skill and Chance]

Basically, it will probably stay ugly for Dems outside of presidential elections until the midterm electorate gets about 10% more diverse.  I'm not even sure that a 2006 style midterm with a GOP president with underwater approvals is possible in our world. 

[Keystone Phil]

Frighteningly plausible. Hell, Toomey and Johnson could pull it out.

I'd like to see what a Johnson/Hillary Clinton voter looks like.

Maybe similar to a Gore/Santorum voter in 2000?

Santorum was a populist and friendly with the unions.
Johnson is a hardcore tea-partier that has nothing to show during his first 4 years as a senator other that partisan attacks and gridlock.

He was friendly with some unions and not an overall populist at all. Rick says stuff about blue collar workers and is vocally socially conservative and the political nerd class goes into analytical overload by labeling him an economic leftist/BIG GUV REPUB!!! Yeah, he opposed NAFTA but look how he voted on other free trade agreements. Look at how the guy took on the mission of pushing Bush's partial privatization of Social Security (as a Sentor representing Pennsylvania).

[KCDem]

Frighteningly plausible. Hell, Toomey and Johnson could pull it out.

I'd like to see what a Johnson/Hillary Clinton voter looks like.

Maybe similar to a Gore/Santorum voter in 2000?

Santorum was a populist and friendly with the unions.
Johnson is a hardcore tea-partier that has nothing to show during his first 4 years as a senator other that partisan attacks and gridlock.

He was friendly with some unions and not an overall populist at all. Rick says stuff about blue collar workers and is vocally socially conservative and the political nerd class goes into analytical overload by labeling him an economic leftist/BIG GUV REPUB!!! Yeah, he opposed NAFTA but look how he voted on other free trade agreements. Look at how the guy took on the mission of pushing Bush's partial privatization of Social Security (as a Sentor representing Pennsylvania).

Ok bro, we get it. No need to get too excited down below at the prospect of screwing those of us who work for a living.

[Devils30]

I think a somewhat  popular Hillary Clinton in 2018 can get enough white voters to split the generic vote 50-50 and limit Democratic losses. Indiana, North Dakota, Montana and Missouri are also much more elastic than Arkansas, Louisiana and Georgia. The Senate really should be a natural GOP controlled branch. They have an advantage with small states unlike the House which can be un gerrymandered.

[Holmes]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I dunno, a lot of states in 2010 went Republican when they logically should have went Democratic after 2008, so...
[/quote]

Why? 2010 was a midterm under a Democratic Presidency. Losses were to be expected, even if the size might not have been anticipated prior to Scott Brown's victory. If 2018 is also a midterm under a Democratic presidency, it'll probably look like 2010/2014. If it is a Republican midterm, Democrats might enjoy a small pickup.
[/quote]

At this time after the 2008 elections, nobody expected Democrats to lose Senate and Governorships in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts (2009)... Democrats were supposed to get above 60 seats after 2010, but that didn't work out.

On the other hand, after 2010 nobody expected Democrats in 2012 to win Senate races in Indiana and North Dakota, and to hold Montana.

So making guesses about the 2016 and 2018 elections is kind of pointless at this point.

[Mister Mets]

It's possible, but unlikely.

The advantage for Democrats is that it's unlikely that the same party will have an awesome 2016 and 2018.

The party that does well in 2016 Senate races will likely win the White House, which means they'll probably not have a great midterm. That said, Republicans did so badly in 2012 that it won't take much to pick up seats in 2018. Democrats will be defending 25 Senate seats. Republicans can win only a third of the races, and they'll pick up three seats.

[Mister Mets]

Basically, it will probably stay ugly for Dems outside of presidential elections until the midterm electorate gets about 10% more diverse.  I'm not even sure that a 2006 style midterm with a GOP president with underwater approvals is possible in our world. 

It should be. Demographics haven't got less favorable for Democrats, except in the sense of Obama voters changing their minds.

2018 with Hillary will be ugly, but I don't see any way there wouldn't be a net gain for the Democrats in 2016.

Not that difficult -- NV is a 50/50 proposition at best, and CO is definitely vulnerable. None of the Republican seats look like they will be gimmes, like MT/WV were this year. Democrats are definitely heavily favored to take seats in 2016, but it's the way Republicans were heavily favored to gain seats in 2012 -- the chance of it not occurring exists.

And under a Republican Presidency, 2018 could be a net loss of seats too. Only MO looks like a really certain GOP pickup, and in a good Democratic year it's plausible y'all could gain AZ and NV and hold your vulnerable Northern seats.

Bennet ain't losing if Hillary is winning the state.

He could be a candidate for Veep.

A major problem making predictions four years out is that there are a lot of unknowns. People will have scandals. Some will leave the Senate for good reasons. It's likely that there will be some primary losses. Right now, we seem to have the default expectation that every incumbent will run for reelection.

Frighteningly plausible. Hell, Toomey and Johnson could pull it out.

I'd like to see what a Johnson/Hillary Clinton voter looks like.

I'd imagine they'd be interested in resumes. HRC as Secretary of State/ first lady. Johnson as manufacturer.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Leaving off PA as an opportunity state in 2018 is a big mistake. Anybody who thinks that Casey enjoys being Senator is out of his mind and a retirement is rather possible. In which case there are a number of GOP candidates that top the list of being solid competitors (Gerlach, Meehan, Dent, Cawley, Tim Murphy, just to name a few).

Frighteningly plausible. Hell, Toomey and Johnson could pull it out.

I'd like to see what a Johnson/Hillary Clinton voter looks like.

Maybe similar to a Gore/Santorum voter in 2000?

Santorum was a populist and friendly with the unions.
Johnson is a hardcore tea-partier that has nothing to show during his first 4 years as a senator other that partisan attacks and gridlock.

Santorum's record in 2000 was his support for welfare reform and tax cuts. When it is said he was friendly with unions, that doesn't mean that union leaders and Santorum would be locking arms. The leadership probably despised him. It means that he could get union members to vote for him even though he was a conservative (very much so socially) and also more often then not economically as well, against the wishes of the union leadership. This was because of his origins, and his rhetoric combined with the use of certain less central issues (minimum wage for instance. Toomey does the same thing, but his is reversed using small sub issues on the social side like guns and DADT repeal to move to the center, whilst voting 96% ACU).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's possible, but unlikely.

The advantage for Democrats is that it's unlikely that the same party will have an awesome 2016 and 2018.

The party that does well in 2016 Senate races will likely win the White House, which means they'll probably not have a great midterm. That said, Republicans did so badly in 2012 that it won't take much to pick up seats in 2018. Democrats will be defending 25 Senate seats. Republicans can win only a third of the races, and they'll pick up three seats.

The map is not the biggest determinant as we have seen, it can limit (2010) or enlargen a wave (1980), but the fundamentals still control things. However in this situation, it is not like the GOP has anything left to lose in Class 1 as Dems have gained seats every cycle since 1994.  There are five double digit Romney states with Democrats (MT, ND, MO, IN, and WV) and five more sitting in winable swing states (FL, VA, OH, WI, PA if Casey retires). UT, WY, TX, TN, MS and NE are safe, AZ is surely likely GOP in a lower turnout midterm, leaving only NV (and Dean Heller is hardly a push over).

Since Wicker cannot be NRSC chair in 2018 as he is up (that is a rule no?), I hope that Moran is put back in charge again. Ensign came back for a second stint in 2008, though largely because no one else wanted the blame for that cycle.

[IceSpear]

Frighteningly plausible. Hell, Toomey and Johnson could pull it out.

I'd like to see what a Johnson/Hillary Clinton voter looks like.

Maybe similar to a Gore/Santorum voter in 2000?

As we all know by this point, it ain't 2000 anymore. And I doubt Wisconsin Dems will nominate a candidate as weak as Klink.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I fail to see how in any scenario that has the Democrats retaining the White House in 2016, that they don't also take back Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin once their voters who don't bother coming out for midterms show up.  Alaska, Arizona (only if McCain doesn't run), North Carolina, and Ohio would also be possible Democratic gains in that case.

A Republican filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2018 requires at a minimum that the Republicans win the White House in 2016.  Even then, it is unlikely.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Also, unless the Republican president thwarts his party's extremist agenda he is never going to have 50/50 approvals. The Democrats will almost unanimously hate him, just as much Republicans hate Obama, and they will be motivated this time to go to the midterm polls.
Polarization works in two ways you know.

Look at how the guy took on the mission of pushing Bush's partial privatization of Social Security (as a Sentor representing Pennsylvania).

And look what happened to him two years later.

[Keystone Phil]

Look at how the guy took on the mission of pushing Bush's partial privatization of Social Security (as a Sentor representing Pennsylvania).

And look what happened to him two years later.

Right. What does that have to do with what we're discussing here though? Please stick to the topic or at least the point you tried to make.

[Mister Mets]

I fail to see how in any scenario that has the Democrats retaining the White House in 2016, that they don't also take back Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin once their voters who don't bother coming out for midterms show up.  Alaska, Arizona (only if McCain doesn't run), North Carolina, and Ohio would also be possible Democratic gains in that case.

A Republican filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2018 requires at a minimum that the Republicans win the White House in 2016.  Even then, it is unlikely.

The links between presidential elections and Senate races aren't always as clear.

It's possible that Democrats keep the White House while losing Florida. So that might help Rubio.

It's also entirely normal for candidates for Senate to run behind or ahead of the party's nominee for President. Incumbency is generally worth a few points. In 2012, Democratic incumbents won senate elections in several states Romney carried: Missouri, Montana, and West Virginia. Meanwhile, a Republican incumbent won in Nevada. Scott Brown lost by seven points in a state Romney lost by 23, so he still ran well ahead of the presidential ticket.

Also, unless the Republican president thwarts his party's extremist agenda he is never going to have 50/50 approvals. The Democrats will almost unanimously hate him, just as much Republicans hate Obama, and they will be motivated this time to go to the midterm polls.
Polarization works in two ways you know.

Look at how the guy took on the mission of pushing Bush's partial privatization of Social Security (as a Sentor representing Pennsylvania).

And look what happened to him two years later.

Republicans are better suited to opposing Presidents. A party that is philosophically in favor of reducing spending is tougher to negotiate with.

[Skill and Chance]

I fail to see how in any scenario that has the Democrats retaining the White House in 2016, that they don't also take back Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin once their voters who don't bother coming out for midterms show up.  Alaska, Arizona (only if McCain doesn't run), North Carolina, and Ohio would also be possible Democratic gains in that case.

A Republican filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2018 requires at a minimum that the Republicans win the White House in 2016.  Even then, it is unlikely.

The links between presidential elections and Senate races aren't always as clear.

It's possible that Democrats keep the White House while losing Florida. So that might hurt Rubio.

It's also entirely normal for candidates for Senate to run behind or ahead of the party's nominee for President. Incumbency is generally worth a few points. In 2012, Democratic incumbents won senate elections in several states Romney carried: Missouri, Montana, and West Virginia. Meanwhile, a Republican incumbent won in Nevada. Scott Brown lost by seven points in a state Romney lost by 23, so he still ran well ahead of the presidential ticket.

Also, unless the Republican president thwarts his party's extremist agenda he is never going to have 50/50 approvals. The Democrats will almost unanimously hate him, just as much Republicans hate Obama, and they will be motivated this time to go to the midterm polls.
Polarization works in two ways you know.

Look at how the guy took on the mission of pushing Bush's partial privatization of Social Security (as a Sentor representing Pennsylvania).

And look what happened to him two years later.

Republicans are better suited to opposing Presidents. A party that is philosophically in favor of reducing spending is tougher to negotiate with.

None of this changes the fact that a total of one Republican senator was elected in a state Obama won in 2008 (Collins) and 2012 (Heller).  So I would start off expecting no more than one Democratic state Republican to survive in 2016.  Now its entirely possible that 2016 turns into reverse 2008 and Kirk ends up being the only GOP senator in a state the Democrats win.  That was basically my scenario.  But that sets up 2018 very differently.  It's nearly impossible to gain seats in a midterm when your party fully controls the federal government- JFK and FDR were the last to accomplish this.  If the Republican president narrowly averts a nuclear war or achieves 10%+ middle class income growth, more power to him/her.  2020 would be the real opportunity to claim a GOP supermajority, whether by defeating Clinton or re-electing a GOP president and winning a bunch of Obama states.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2016 is a lot like 2014. A decent year Hilary is set to help Dems pickup IL, WI, PA, and NH.  But, AK, NC, FL and OH are also vulnerable and with a strong VP candidate we can hold NV and CO.  The Dems may pick up anywhere between 2-6 seats.

And also, 2018 isn't so bad either, there are gubernatorial seats that the GOP are term limited in.  We should do very well in IL, MD, and ME and tossups in WI, MI, OH and FL, which may bold well. And Hilary is more political astute than Obama was, and will do everything she can to not let the G O P recapture the senate again.

Gains in AK, IL, PA, Wi and FL are very duable and with loses in 2018, MO and WVA is duable by the GOP.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Asigning a numerical limit on something occuring based partially off of 2008 (when the economy was collapsing) and 2012 where Republicans were taking on incumbents in most all Obama states makes little sense. Thompson and Allen did not run campaigns that were such that would have allowed them to win whilst Romney lost their states, but both the background to do so and could have done so had they operated differently. That is especially the case with Thompson.

Several of the 2016 incumbents have a history of running strong campaigns and correcting from mistakes as opposed to letting them continue (Rubio did so after his first quarter and after that, he went up like a rocket). The only one that doesn't is Johnson actually. Ayotte overperformed, Kirk held on in a very Dem seat in 2006 and 2008 (with Obama a top the ticket), Toomey managed to get the Lehigh Valley to vote for a fiscal conservative (and without the Santorum pro-labor flavored side issues) three times running. Rubio nearly got 50% in spite of a former Republican being on the ballot in a three way race and with having supported off shore drilling against the backdrop of the Gulf Oil Spill. Portman always out performed the ticket by several points in OH-02 and destroyed his opponent in the last three months in 2010. Likewise, Burr has taken his opponents to the cleaners in the last three months of two campaigns as well.

This is compared to Dole, Coleman, Smith (who ran as bad a campaign as Brown in 2012 if not worse) and the like? Partisanship is a reality, but assigning a hard rule about ticket splitting in 2016 based off of 2008 with its economic collapse and rather lackluster candidates is a bit of a stretch. Shift just a few points, maybe three and you have four Republicans winning in Obama states (Smith, Coleman, Sununu [it was like 52-46 no?] as well as Collins winning).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rubio, Murkowski, Johnson, Kirk, Ayotte and Toomey are rype for the picking if we have any chance of holding onto the senate in 2018, due to possible Claire McCaskill and Joe Manchin retirements.  Whereas Portman and Burr may withstand the Hilary coattails and win.  Likes of Madigan and Sestak will be also assisted by Clinton winning those states with 55-58% of the vote. 


So, any crossover appeal that Kirk and Toomey has may be bombarded by the Hilary Juggernaunt in IL and PA. And as usually Clintons do very well in FL, which may be the tipping point senate race, and I hope Gwen Graham gets into it and the same can be said  in AK.

[old timey villain]

GOP has a senate majority due to winning races in states during very good years, same with the dems in 2006 and 2008. There's no way they'll be able to hold onto those seats in blue/purple states forever. Just give it time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I fail to see how in any scenario that has the Democrats retaining the White House in 2016, that they don't also take back Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin once their voters who don't bother coming out for midterms show up.  Alaska, Arizona (only if McCain doesn't run), North Carolina, and Ohio would also be possible Democratic gains in that case.

A Republican filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2018 requires at a minimum that the Republicans win the White House in 2016.  Even then, it is unlikely.

The links between presidential elections and Senate races aren't always as clear.

It's possible that Democrats keep the White House while losing Florida. So that might hurt Rubio.

It's also entirely normal for candidates for Senate to run behind or ahead of the party's nominee for President. Incumbency is generally worth a few points. In 2012, Democratic incumbents won senate elections in several states Romney carried: Missouri, Montana, and West Virginia. Meanwhile, a Republican incumbent won in Nevada. Scott Brown lost by seven points in a state Romney lost by 23, so he still ran well ahead of the presidential ticket.

2010 was a very Republican year.  The Democrats retaining the White House in 2016 absolutely requires that it not be such a good year for the GOP.  2010 was a midterm election, 2016 obviously won't be and Democrats of late have done noticeably better in presidential election years because their base, for whatever reason, isn't as motivated to vote in midterms. Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were all Republican pickups in 2010 that were not won by very much.  Of course there will be some fluctuations in individual races that might save one of those four probable Democratic pickups if 2016 proves to be a year where neither party has the advantage.

[Keystone Phil]

And as usually Clintons do very well in FL

What does that even mean? Bill lost it in 1992 and won it by less than his national average in 1996. That's it.

[Maxwell]

Rubio, Murkowski, Johnson, Kirk, Ayotte and Toomey are rype for the picking if we have any chance of holding onto the senate in 2018, due to possible Claire McCaskill and Joe Manchin retirements.  Whereas Portman and Burr may withstand the Hilary coattails and win.  Likes of Madigan and Sestak will be also assisted by Clinton winning those states with 55-58% of the vote. 


So, any crossover appeal that Kirk and Toomey has may be bombarded by the Hilary Juggernaunt in IL and PA. And as usually Clintons do very well in FL, which may be the tipping point senate race, and I hope Gwen Graham gets into it and the same can be said  in AK.

lol

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The red states are the states that Clinton can improve on Obama's 2012 by 3%, that's why these states are critical for Dems to seize control of Senate. As far as NH and CO, a good VP pick can help Clinton in those states as well. I can see Clinton matching Obama's 2008 performance in NV and WI by winning those by 10 and IL and PA with 55-58%, and AK may be the Wildcard for a max net gain of 6 seats.

[Free Bird]

Murkowski ripe for picking. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you serious?

[Maxwell]

Murkowski ripe for picking. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you serious?

Murkwoski is extremely vulnerable in a Republican primary (practically DOA, if her approvals amongst Republicans don't improve), but if she makes that, there is not a single Democrat in Alaska who could beat her.