2018: DOAs and Retirements

[Free Bird]

With Boxer basically unofficially confirming "yeah I'm done" I think we more or less know the 2016 scene, I want to discuss 2018 a bit. Who is dead on arrival, and who retires?

[Vega]

I think it honestly depends on who's President, and if the Democrats can turn out their voters.

[Free Bird]

I think it honestly depends on who's President, and if the Democrats can turn out their voters.

Let's set a scenario then. President Clinton as you all seem to believe, and a 53/47 R senate. Kirk lost to Madigan and Johnson to Feingold, but Sandoval has unseated Reid. How about retirements?

[PAK Man]

Here's who I'll bet retires:

Dianne Feinstein (she already says she's running for reelection, but the election is still four years away)

Bill Nelson (to me, he seems most likely to step down at this point)

Bob Corker (there's been speculation that he'll retire to run for governor when Bill Haslam is term-limited and Haslam, in turn will run for Corker's seat)

Orrin Hatch (he's already said he won't seek reelection)

Joe Manchin (if he decides not to run for governor in 2016, he definitely won't seek reelection in 2018)

[Del Tachi]

This might be a bit of stretch, but I think that Sherrod Brown is the Kay Hagan of 2018:  A favored incumbent in a purple state who goes down unexpectedly at the end due to the size of a GOP wave. 

As for retirements, I'll say Feinstein, Nelson, Corker, Hatch, Carper, Whitehouse and Sanders. 

[Vega]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Bill Nelson won't run again. Let's see how Florida Democrats screw this race up.

[Free Bird]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Bill Nelson won't run again. Let's see how Florida Democrats screw this race up.

By nominating Checkpoint Charlie

[Talleyrand]

The 5 Democrats in Romney seats will probably end up in similar positions to their counterparts this year.

McCaskill will lose badly to Ann Wagner.

Donnelly will probably go down heavily too.

Manchin, Tester, and Heitkamp might be able to put up fights, but they'll be major underdogs.

[Del Tachi]

The 5 Democrats in Romney seats will probably end up in similar positions to their counterparts this year.

McCaskill will lose badly to Ann Wagner.

Donnelly will probably go down heavily too.

Manchin, Tester, and Heitkamp might be able to put up fights, but they'll be major underdogs.

Yeah,  then if 2018 turns out to be analogous to 2014 in any way we're looking at possible Republican pickups in PA, VA, FL and WI.  That's an R+9 year, and with a 53R/47D composition that means that the GOP is well-positioned to have a filibuster-proof Senate majority to end the decade.

[IceSpear]

The 5 Democrats in Romney seats will probably end up in similar positions to their counterparts this year.

McCaskill will lose badly to Ann Wagner.

Donnelly will probably go down heavily too.

Manchin, Tester, and Heitkamp might be able to put up fights, but they'll be major underdogs.

Yeah,  then if 2018 turns out to be analogous to 2014 in any way we're looking at possible Republican pickups in PA, VA, FL and WI.  That's an R+9 year, and with a 53R/47D composition that means that the GOP is well-positioned to have a filibuster-proof Senate majority to end the decade.

So you think there will be three Republican waves in a row? Keep dreaming.

[Del Tachi]

The 5 Democrats in Romney seats will probably end up in similar positions to their counterparts this year.

McCaskill will lose badly to Ann Wagner.

Donnelly will probably go down heavily too.

Manchin, Tester, and Heitkamp might be able to put up fights, but they'll be major underdogs.

Yeah,  then if 2018 turns out to be analogous to 2014 in any way we're looking at possible Republican pickups in PA, VA, FL and WI.  That's an R+9 year, and with a 53R/47D composition that means that the GOP is well-positioned to have a filibuster-proof Senate majority to end the decade.

So you think there will be three Republican waves in a row? Keep dreaming.

We've had two in a row.  With Hillary Clinton poised to win in 2016, I still don't think Democrats will have found a solution to their GOTV problems and 2018 could thus easily turn into another wave.   

[Mister Mets]

I think Feinstein, Nelson, Hatch and Sanders retire. A few others are possibilities. It'll probably happen more with Democrats, because I expect the party to stay in the minority.

Angus King is a potential retirement. I've noticed it happens with Governors, and he's a proud independent in his 70s.

With a Republican President, no Democrat is DOA, although a few will be vulnerable.

With a Democratic President, Baldwin, McCaskill, Heitkamp, Tester would be DOA. Donnelly and Manchin would likely have tough campaigns. Brown, Heinrich, Casey and Kaine would be vulnerable, especially in a landslide cycle.

There aren't any DOA Republicans, although Flake and Heller could have trouble.

[Nichlemn]

No-one is DOA this far out, or even close. Almost no Senator ever is. The only DOA I can think of in recent history is Roland Burris, but he was appointed (controversially). 

[IceSpear]

The 5 Democrats in Romney seats will probably end up in similar positions to their counterparts this year.

McCaskill will lose badly to Ann Wagner.

Donnelly will probably go down heavily too.

Manchin, Tester, and Heitkamp might be able to put up fights, but they'll be major underdogs.

Yeah,  then if 2018 turns out to be analogous to 2014 in any way we're looking at possible Republican pickups in PA, VA, FL and WI.  That's an R+9 year, and with a 53R/47D composition that means that the GOP is well-positioned to have a filibuster-proof Senate majority to end the decade.

So you think there will be three Republican waves in a row? Keep dreaming.

We've had two in a row.  With Hillary Clinton poised to win in 2016, I still don't think Democrats will have found a solution to their GOTV problems and 2018 could thus easily turn into another wave.   

If Hillary wins in 2016, Republicans will have their work cut out for them simply to hold the majority, much less enter with it being 53-47. The only way I see them entering in with that number is if they had a great year, which would also mean a Republican probably won the presidency. In which case, the Republicans still probably pick up seats in 2018 due to the fact that Democrats are already nearly maxed out in that class, but probably not a huge amount.

I do agree we could see a 2014-esque wave in 2018 if Hillary wins though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As I said in another board, I would not be surprised if Hillary won with a Republican Senate majority, and even a rather secure one like 53 or 54 seats.

[IceSpear]

As I said in another board, I would not be surprised if Hillary won with a Republican Senate majority, and even a rather secure one like 53 or 54 seats.

That's extremely unlikely. The same factors working against red state Democrats (increased polarization, decrease in split ticket voting) will also work against blue state Republicans. If Republicans break even in the Senate, Hillary almost certainly lost. You can make the argument that the Republican incumbents are unnaturally strong in 2016 (I don't see the logic behind it since most of them haven't been tested statewide outside of a low turnout Republican wave, but I digress), but people were saying the exact same thing about Pryor and Landrieu in 2013/2014. How did that turn out again?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Feinstein and Carper really need to go.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As I said in another board, I would not be surprised if Hillary won with a Republican Senate majority, and even a rather secure one like 53 or 54 seats.

That's extremely unlikely. The same factors working against red state Democrats (increased polarization, decrease in split ticket voting) will also work against blue state Republicans. If Republicans break even in the Senate, Hillary almost certainly lost. You can make the argument that the Republican incumbents are unnaturally strong in 2016 (I don't see the logic behind it since most of them haven't been tested statewide outside of a low turnout Republican wave, but I digress), but people were saying the exact same thing about Pryor and Landrieu in 2013/2014. How did that turn out again?

It is more a indictment against the type of coalition Hillary would put together. Indies, women, plus some old conserva dems and of course boatloads of former Republicans in suburbs. Professional Republicans, willing to work accross the aisle threaten much more ticket splitting then was possible with Obama's coalition. I can easily see Toomey and Clinton both winning Bucks county at the same time and same goes for Kirk in Lake County.

If anything Landrieu and Pryor serve to prove my point. Suppose Hillary improves in both those states for instance, does anyone think that it would translate down ballot? The reason for this is because also that Clinton if the election were today, has a persona that is popular beyond her Party and therefore, she will outrun her own Party. That means the swing votes decide the game and they are just as finicky as ever. A good but more extreme example is Cuomo who had appeal beyond his Party, though unlike Cuomo she is not hated within it. Also, save for ILL, none of those states are direct comparisons to Republicans winning in close Presidential states.

[morgieb]

As I said in another board, I would not be surprised if Hillary won with a Republican Senate majority, and even a rather secure one like 53 or 54 seats.

That's extremely unlikely. The same factors working against red state Democrats (increased polarization, decrease in split ticket voting) will also work against blue state Republicans. If Republicans break even in the Senate, Hillary almost certainly lost. You can make the argument that the Republican incumbents are unnaturally strong in 2016 (I don't see the logic behind it since most of them haven't been tested statewide outside of a low turnout Republican wave, but I digress), but people were saying the exact same thing about Pryor and Landrieu in 2013/2014. How did that turn out again?

That's not really the case unlike 2014. Only Kirk's state is blue, I guess Johnson, Ayotte and Toomey have a blue tinge but they wouldn't be really defying partisan gravity to win. Rest are either genuine swing states, or worse.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As I said in another board, I would not be surprised if Hillary won with a Republican Senate majority, and even a rather secure one like 53 or 54 seats.

That's extremely unlikely. The same factors working against red state Democrats (increased polarization, decrease in split ticket voting) will also work against blue state Republicans. If Republicans break even in the Senate, Hillary almost certainly lost. You can make the argument that the Republican incumbents are unnaturally strong in 2016 (I don't see the logic behind it since most of them haven't been tested statewide outside of a low turnout Republican wave, but I digress), but people were saying the exact same thing about Pryor and Landrieu in 2013/2014. How did that turn out again?

That's not really the case unlike 2014. Only Kirk's state is blue, I guess Johnson, Ayotte and Toomey have a blue tinge but they wouldn't be really defying partisan gravity to win. Rest are either genuine swing states, or worse.

And when you go state by state, the places where she stands the make the gains are amongst people who have a deep distrust of Democratic party they feel has abandoned them and will certainly vote Republican for Senate or House to check Hillary's excesses, or are former Republicans who long for the days of productive, sane Republicans. And save for Johnson, it is hard to argue that the other Republicans have not served as just that.

[Brittain33]

I can't count the number of times, going back more than a decade, that people extrapolated forward from good elections to a filibuster-proof majority a few elections down the road. I remember this for Republicans after 2004. It's only sort-of happened once and it took two consecutive waves.

[The_Doctor]

Before we make predictions, we should evaluate the economic mood of 2016. I think it'll be a very close election either way. Closest since 2000.

[The_Doctor]

Which means no pickups either way as both sides bring out their bases. I expect a 52 to 55 seat Republican Senate and a 240-250 seat Republican House.

[Del Tachi]

If we have an unpopular Republican president in 2018 though, I'm saying that Heller might as well be DOA. 

[Maistre]

As I said in another board, I would not be surprised if Hillary won with a Republican Senate majority, and even a rather secure one like 53 or 54 seats.

That's extremely unlikely. The same factors working against red state Democrats (increased polarization, decrease in split ticket voting) will also work against blue state Republicans. If Republicans break even in the Senate, Hillary almost certainly lost. You can make the argument that the Republican incumbents are unnaturally strong in 2016 (I don't see the logic behind it since most of them haven't been tested statewide outside of a low turnout Republican wave, but I digress), but people were saying the exact same thing about Pryor and Landrieu in 2013/2014. How did that turn out again?

It is more a indictment against the type of coalition Hillary would put together. Indies, women, plus some old conserva dems and of course boatloads of former Republicans in suburbs. Professional Republicans, willing to work accross the aisle threaten much more ticket splitting then was possible with Obama's coalition. I can easily see Toomey and Clinton both winning Bucks county at the same time and same goes for Kirk in Lake County.

If anything Landrieu and Pryor serve to prove my point. Suppose Hillary improves in both those states for instance, does anyone think that it would translate down ballot? The reason for this is because also that Clinton if the election were today, has a persona that is popular beyond her Party and therefore, she will outrun her own Party. That means the swing votes decide the game and they are just as finicky as ever. A good but more extreme example is Cuomo who had appeal beyond his Party, though unlike Cuomo she is not hated within it. Also, save for ILL, none of those states are direct comparisons to Republicans winning in close Presidential states.

Don't put too much effort into trying to reason with Mr. Spear. He seems to think that the all-powerful magical Hillary wave will translate into some sort of D+10 landslide that will recapture the house and then Hillary and her Democratic congress will spread milk and honey throughout the land.