2018: DOAs and Retirements

[publicunofficial]

Since trying to predict the political environment in 2018 when we don't even know the environment for 2016 is outrageously stupid, but here's some probable retirements:

-Orrin Hatch
-Bill Nelson
-Tom Carper
-Dianne Feinstein
-Joe Manchin
-Claire McCaskill
-Bernie Sanders

[henster]

I think Heitkamp could end up being very formidable and popular, Tester has his brand but will likely be running against Zinke, I think McCaskill is done she will put up a fight but the likely R candidate (Wagner) will beat her, I think Ds convince Nelson not to retire and Pam Blondi runs and turns out to be a disaster a Kathy Harris 2.0, Donnelly starts out as an underdog but against an unimpressive opponent he has a chance. Kaine(Rigell), Brown(Kasich), Baldwin(Duffy/Ryan), Heinrich(Martinez), and Casey(Gerlach) all are favorites but strong candidates in those states could put those races on the radar. As for the Rs I think Flake and Heller are the most vulnerable and the only possible D pickups.

[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?

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.

I could easily see Toomey and Hillary winning Bucks County as well (in fact, I'd argue it's the most probable scenario), same for Hillary and Kirk carrying Lake. But Dems don't need those counties to win statewide. Bucks is no longer the bellwether it was back in 2000/2004. In 2008 it was 3 points more Republican than the state as a whole, in 2012 it was 4 points more Republican. In the 2010 Senate race it was 4 points more Republican, and in the 2014 gubernatorial race it was a whopping 6 points more Republican (though Cawley may have had an impact on that). Granted, a Democrat who is winning a relatively comfortable (~5 points) victory statewide will carry Bucks, but I don't expect that for Sestak. I expect it to be an extremely narrow race in either direction, which would mean Toomey carries it regardless. As for Illinois, Quinn won in 2010, a midterm with lower turnout than 2016 will have, despite losing Lake by a hefty margin. Carrying it would be essential to Blanche Kirk, but not to defeat him.

Pryor was also supposed to have a personal brand that would get him to significantly outperform a generic D. Instead he got Blanched. Obviously there's some exceptions to the polarization (such as Collins and Manchin), but I'm not convinced that Republicans are exempt from it in a year when there's a strong Democrat at the top of the ticket. The fact that Republicans couldn't carry a single Obama state Senate seat in either 2008 or 2012 with the sole exception of Collins, seems to back up this assertion.

[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?

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.

Yeah, please find where I said anything like that. I'll wait.

[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.

I could easily see Toomey and Hillary winning Bucks County as well (in fact, I'd argue it's the most probable scenario), same for Hillary and Kirk carrying Lake. But Dems don't need those counties to win statewide. Bucks is no longer the bellwether it was back in 2000/2004. In 2008 it was 3 points more Republican than the state as a whole, in 2012 it was 4 points more Republican. In the 2010 Senate race it was 4 points more Republican, and in the 2014 gubernatorial race it was a whopping 6 points more Republican (though Cawley may have had an impact on that). Granted, a Democrat who is winning a relatively comfortable (~5 points) victory statewide will carry Bucks, but I don't expect that for Sestak. I expect it to be an extremely narrow race in either direction, which would mean Toomey carries it regardless. As for Illinois, Quinn won in 2010, a midterm with lower turnout than 2016 will have, despite losing Lake by a hefty margin. Carrying it would be essential to Blanche Kirk, but not to defeat him.

Pryor was also supposed to have a personal brand that would get him to significantly outperform a generic D. Instead he got Blanched. Obviously there's some exceptions to the polarization (such as Collins and Manchin), but I'm not convinced that Republicans are exempt from it in a year when there's a strong Democrat at the top of the ticket. The fact that Republicans couldn't carry a single Obama state Senate seat in either 2008 or 2012 with the sole exception of Collins, seems to back up this assertion.

You miss the point. Counties don't decide elections, tracts of voters do. The type of voters who will split Hillary/Toomey in Bucks are also in Chester. Say Hillary loses Chester by a couple of points, but Toomey wins it by like 10%, very plausible, maybe even probably. Suppose then that Hillary wins Montco by 12% to 15%, but Toomey only loses by a single digit margin. It is also fairly probable that Toomey outruns the ticket in the Lehigh Valley.

[coloradocowboi]

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.   

I'm not trolling, so please don't take offense, but 2018 won't be a Republican wave for one very obvious reason: Hillary Clinton is not black.

If you don't believe that xenophobia has motivated Tea-Partiers to show up and vote against Obama you're living in a fantasy. The guy hasn't been a bad President, not to say that he's been a good prez either, but honestly the amount of outrage directed at him is outsized and is related to his race, that's a fact. A third of conservative voters think that he is a Muslim and almost as many don't believe that he is an American. The Tea Party and GOP have ingeniously manipulated this by using code words and phrases--Mike Coffman's "un-American" comment and Doug Lamborn's "tar baby" comment are two examples just here in CO.

Good luck trying to paint Hillary Clinton as "in bed with the enemy" though. She's a relatively conservative white grandmother from Chicago's upscale suburbs and married to America's most popular President in a generation. 2018 isn't going to be a wave.

[emcee0]

I really doubt Bernie Sanders would retire, considering how much of a force he has been for progressives.

[Free Bird]

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.   

I'm not trolling, so please don't take offense, but 2018 won't be a Republican wave for one very obvious reason: Hillary Clinton is not black.

If you don't believe that xenophobia has motivated Tea-Partiers to show up and vote against Obama you're living in a fantasy. The guy hasn't been a bad President, not to say that he's been a good prez either, but honestly the amount of outrage directed at him is outsized and is related to his race, that's a fact. A third of conservative voters think that he is a Muslim and almost as many don't believe that he is an American. The Tea Party and GOP have ingeniously manipulated this by using code words and phrases--Mike Coffman's "un-American" comment and Doug Lamborn's "tar baby" comment are two examples just here in CO.

Good luck trying to paint Hillary Clinton as "in bed with the enemy" though. She's a relatively conservative white grandmother from Chicago's upscale suburbs and married to America's most popular President in a generation. 2018 isn't going to be a wave.

That same president whose party was also clobbered in his first midterm

[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?

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.

I could easily see Toomey and Hillary winning Bucks County as well (in fact, I'd argue it's the most probable scenario), same for Hillary and Kirk carrying Lake. But Dems don't need those counties to win statewide. Bucks is no longer the bellwether it was back in 2000/2004. In 2008 it was 3 points more Republican than the state as a whole, in 2012 it was 4 points more Republican. In the 2010 Senate race it was 4 points more Republican, and in the 2014 gubernatorial race it was a whopping 6 points more Republican (though Cawley may have had an impact on that). Granted, a Democrat who is winning a relatively comfortable (~5 points) victory statewide will carry Bucks, but I don't expect that for Sestak. I expect it to be an extremely narrow race in either direction, which would mean Toomey carries it regardless. As for Illinois, Quinn won in 2010, a midterm with lower turnout than 2016 will have, despite losing Lake by a hefty margin. Carrying it would be essential to Blanche Kirk, but not to defeat him.

Pryor was also supposed to have a personal brand that would get him to significantly outperform a generic D. Instead he got Blanched. Obviously there's some exceptions to the polarization (such as Collins and Manchin), but I'm not convinced that Republicans are exempt from it in a year when there's a strong Democrat at the top of the ticket. The fact that Republicans couldn't carry a single Obama state Senate seat in either 2008 or 2012 with the sole exception of Collins, seems to back up this assertion.

You miss the point. Counties don't decide elections, tracts of voters do. The type of voters who will split Hillary/Toomey in Bucks are also in Chester. Say Hillary loses Chester by a couple of points, but Toomey wins it by like 10%, very plausible, maybe even probably. Suppose then that Hillary wins Montco by 12% to 15%, but Toomey only loses by a single digit margin. It is also fairly probable that Toomey outruns the ticket in the Lehigh Valley.

I understand that very well. I've always said that Toomey was most likely going to outperform the top of the ticket. The question is whether or not it will be enough to withstand the higher turnout and more Democratic electorate of a presidential election.

Again, in the last two presidential elections, only a single Republican has won in an Obama state (Collins). In the past two midterm elections, only a single Democrat has won in a Romney state (Manchin). Democrats have won several Senate elections in Romney states, but in presidential years. Republicans have won several Senate elections in Obama states, but in midterm years. Not that I'm suggesting all Obama-state Republicans will lose, but they're all in real danger of losing. Barring a sudden reversal of the country's polarization over the past 6 years, this trend will likely continue. And yes, I do realize that puts the Senate Democrats in deep trouble in 2018. In fact, if I had to place a bet today, I'd say the Senate goes D in 2016 then back to R in 2018.