Senate seats in play in 2016

[Orser67]

With the big three election predictors having all put out their predictions, and with many of the incumbents having announced their intention to run for re-election, I'm interested to hear what Senate seats people see as potentially competitive in 2016.

Which seats do you think the "conventional wisdom" is wrong about?

[SPC]

Empirical evidence demonstrates that there is little distinction between Tossup and Leans or Likely and Safe, especially this early in the cycle. I am pretty much in agreement with Sabato and Rothenberg, whose ratings are identical after that adjustment. Cook underestimates the likelihood of Democrats winning Florida or Ohio against incumbents untested in reelection. Iowa would ordinarily merit inclusion, but Grassley has repeatedly proven an ability to win landslides in presidential years.

[IceSpear]

Since you asked "decent chance", I'm excluding any possibility that would require a retirement, primary loss, or getting an extremely good recruit. That leaves:

AZ, CO, FL, IL, IN, MO, NH, NV, NC, OH, PA, WI

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

NH,CO,PA,NV,WI and IL

OH, NC, AZ, AK, and FL will come late if there is a Democratic wave.

NH is gonna be the tipping pt race.

[Xing]

AZ, CO, FL, IL, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, and WI are pretty likely to be in play, at least initially.

GA, IA, and KY could be if Isakson, Grassley and/or Paul decide to retire.

AK could be if Murkowski gets primaried again.

IN and MO are only plausible in a Democratic wave.

[Orser67]

I'd say:

Will be competitive: Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania

Very likely to be competitive: Colorado (D), Nevada (D), New Hampshire

Probably at least somewhat competitive: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Arizona (which is my choice for where the predictions are most wrong)

Could be competitive, but could easily fall off the map: Alaska, Missouri, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Iowa

Possibly competitive in very favorable circumstances: Louisiana, Arkansas, Washington (D), Connecticut (D), Oregon (D), Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota

Completely safe: AL, CA, HI, ID, KS, MD, NY, OK, SC, VT

Empirical evidence demonstrates that there is little distinction between Tossup and Leans or Likely and Safe, especially this early in the cycle.

Can you point to an article or paper that makes this claim?

[MATTROSE94]

Probably only Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada.

[SPC]

I'd say:

Will be competitive: Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania

Very likely to be competitive: Colorado (D), Nevada (D), New Hampshire

Probably at least somewhat competitive: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Arizona (which is my choice for where the predictions are most wrong)

Could be competitive, but could easily fall off the map: Alaska, Missouri, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Iowa

Possibly competitive in very favorable circumstances: Louisiana, Arkansas, Washington (D), Connecticut (D), Oregon (D), Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota

Completely safe: AL, CA, HI, ID, KS, MD, NY, OK, SC, VT

Empirical evidence demonstrates that there is little distinction between Tossup and Leans or Likely and Safe, especially this early in the cycle.

Can you point to an article or paper that makes this claim?

I've looked myself at the Senate races that have been placed in those respective categories in the last few elections. Leans flip just as frequently as Tossups, and upsets happen with Safes just as often as with Likelies. For example, let's look at Sabato's February 2013 ratings:
All 5 tossups and the Leans R went to the GOP, the Leans D split 2-2, and one Likely D flipped.

But that was a Republican wave. Let's see what happens when the pendulum swings the other way:
Tossups split 5-2 D, Leans D went 6-0 D, Leans R went 2-0 D, and one Solid R flipped.

And another Republican wave:
Tossups split 8-4 R, both Leans R stayed R, and 3 Safe D flipped.

And another Democratic wave:
Tossups both went D, as did all three Leans D, Leans R split 3-2 D, and one Likely/Safe R flipped.

One more Democratic wave:
Tossup went 4-0 D, Leans R went 2-1 R, Leans D went 8-0 D, and two Likely/Safe R flipped.

In aggregate, Tossups split 15-15 between the two parties, Leans R split 7-6 for the Republicans, and Leans D split 19-2 for the Democrats. I guess this corroborates suspicions that Sabato is Republican friendly in his assessments.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

At this point I'd say that Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are the most competitive.  But new states could be added to this list, or others taken off, depending on who runs.

[DS0816]

There is an interconnection in North Carolina (1972), Ohio (1992), and Wisconsin (1976): Same-party carriage at presidential and senatorial levels.

The Democrats have no business not flipping Illinois. No Republican has won a U.S. Senate race in a presidential year from this former bellwether, now Democratic base, state since Richard Nixon's 49-state re-election in 1972. (Nixon won on such a grand scale that he even won a Republican pickup from a heavily Democratic Cook County.)

The Democratic Party, if they were smart, would stop sacrificing one U.S. Senate seat, to the Republicans, from the party's base state Pennsylvania. (Arlen Specter is gone for some time! Pat Toomey is not strong as Specter was.)

The results will be tied in with the presidential outcome; meaning, which party wins the presidency. I would anticipate that about 25 to 27 states will deliver same-party carriage at both the presidential and senatorial levels. That played out over the last three election cycles. The rate is about 80 percent.

[pbrower2a]

Arizona and Iowa have vulnerable seats in the event that the very old Republican Senators in those States retire or are forced out due to failing health. This is more actuarial fact than political fact. Carl Levin chose to retire in 2014.

Portman (R-OH) is vulnerable to a primary challenge. He wins if he gets past that challenge. Murkowski (R-AK) has gotten past one primary defeat to run as an independent -- once. It was tough... but she has done little for the moderates who voted her in. Begich could defeat a tea-bag nominee this time.

The surest Senators on the way out will be Kirk (R- IL...out of place -- see Scott Brown a few years ago), Johnson (R-WI... a non-entity), and Toomey (R-PA...an extremist in a State which might vote one in once but not a second time). Rubio is (R-FL) about as weak a Senator as there could be.  Burr (R-NC)... maybe a one-and-out. Isakson (R-GA) faces some of the more impressive losers of 2014 as possible opponents.

The one Republican winner of 2010 in a liberal-leaning state (Ayotte, R-NH) looks strong so far.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Arizona and Iowa have vulnerable seats in the event that the very old Republican Senators in those States retire or are forced out due to failing health. This is more actuarial fact than political fact. Carl Levin chose to retire in 2014.

Portman (R-OH) is vulnerable to a primary challenge. He wins if he gets past that challenge. Murkowski (R-AK) has gotten past one primary defeat to run as an independent -- once. It was tough... but she has done little for the moderates who voted her in. Begich could defeat a tea-bag nominee this time.

The surest Senators on the way out will be Kirk (R- IL...out of place -- see Scott Brown a few years ago), Johnson (R-WI... a non-entity), and Toomey (R-PA...an extremist in a State which might vote one in once but not a second time). Rubio is (R-FL) about as weak a Senator as there could be.  Burr (R-NC)... maybe a one-and-out. Isakson (R-GA) faces some of the more impressive losers of 2014 as possible opponents.

The one Republican winner of 2010 in a liberal-leaning state (Ayotte, R-NH) looks strong so far.

I don't see Hilary Clinton losing New Hamsphire, even Ayotte may lose in a Clinton win.

Maggie Hassen has been governor, and survived the wave, and Ayotte indicted Obama on being weak on Isis, after midterms which was simply false.

She can be defeated.

[moderatevoter]

Murkowski (R-AK) has gotten past one primary defeat to run as an independent -- once. It was tough... but she has done little for the moderates who voted her in. Begich could defeat a tea-bag nominee this time.

Ok.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Richard Burr is running for a third term. He was first elected in 2004 and won re-election in 2010. Would you mean two-and-out?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Lean D NV,CO,IL
Pure tossup NH, PA, WI
Lean GOP OH, AK, NC and FL
Solid GOP AZ and IA

[pbrower2a]

Murkowski (R-AK) has gotten past one primary defeat to run as an independent -- once. It was tough... but she has done little for the moderates who voted her in. Begich could defeat a tea-bag nominee this time.

Ok.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Richard Burr is running for a third term. He was first elected in 2004 and won re-election in 2010. Would you mean two-and-out?

I guess so.

[pbrower2a]

With a 28% approval rating according to PPP, Pat Toomey (R-PA) is in obvious danger of losing his Senate seat.  He gets only 44% in matchups against non-politicians and comparative unknown candidates... and in view of the 28% approval he will have a difficult time going above 44%.

[Cape Verde]

One important thing is that historically, the Presidential Election did not give us much hint about the Senate result. In 1972, 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 elections, the party that won the White House failed to increase their number of seats in the Senate. 

[DS0816]

One important thing is that historically, the Presidential Election did not give us much hint about the Senate result. In 1972, 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 elections, the party that won the White House failed to increase their number of seats in the Senate. 

Following 2000, and beginning with 2004, there have been around 25 to 27 states which carried for the same political party at both the presidential and senatorial levels. It's an emerging pattern which basically says that people are conscious of the two major political parties. They are delivering same-party outcomes. Numerous states, in 2012, saw the margins for same-party winners very closely connected (five percentage points or less). California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin spring to mind. (There may have been additional states.)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

NH,CO,NV, WI, PA and IL are the tipping point races, to name a few that will mimick the presidential election in 2016.

We have shifted to a new paradigm that no longer, like we saw in 2014, just because you have blue collar democrats in working class states, are they exempt from the realignment.

[Del Tachi]

Alaska - only if Murkowski retires or is ousted by a Tea Partier and/or Begich decides to give it another go

Colorado - GOP would be smart to stick to playing defense only, but if they go on offense then CO is the most likely seat they'd target after NV

IL - Will obviously be a very competitive state (it could become the race of the cycle, IMO), but I think that Kirk is a strong enough campaigner/incumbent that he'll be able to create a decent amount of Clinton/Kirk voters in the monied Chicago suburbs to eventually eek out a narrow victory

IA - I think Grassley will walk back his commitment to seeking another term and if he retired a candidate like Culver or Vilsack could lock this one up as a Democratic pickup

MO - The Missouri Democrats certainly have a shallow bench, but Roy Blunt is the epitome of GOP politician turned corporate sellout and that won't fly well in the Show-Me-State if Democrats can properly exploit it.  Look for Blunt to have primary problems as well.

NH - Will be competitive for obvious reasons, but I think that Democrats would be better to focus elsewhere as Ayotte's a pretty good fit for the state.  Hassan could make the race interesting but I doubt she goes down the rabbit-hole.

NV - This will probably be the race of the cycle.  Even against Sandoval I think Reid has a lot of fight left in him and will end-up winning.

NC - Look for Blunt to retire.  In that case I think the GOP taps Renee Ellmers with the Dems going with Stein or Foxx.  I don't think Hagan's interested in getting back to the Senate.  A Stein/Ellmers matchup would be very close, narrow advantage to Stein.

PA - Toomey's vulnerable, and it looks like Sestak will be the Democratic nominee.  I think Sestak comes up short again though.

WI - Johnson's a goner.  Ron Kind will head to the Senate in 2017

Democrats will pick up seats, but it won't be enough

[moderatevoter]

NC - Look for Blunt to retire.  In that case I think the GOP taps Renee Ellmers with the Dems going with Stein or Foxx.  I don't think Hagan's interested in getting back to the Senate.  A Stein/Ellmers matchup would be very close, narrow advantage to Stein.

Burr already confirmed he was running for re-election.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Alaska - only if Murkowski retires or is ousted by a Tea Partier and/or Begich decides to give it another go

Colorado - GOP would be smart to stick to playing defense only, but if they go on offense then CO is the most likely seat they'd target after NV

IL - Will obviously be a very competitive state (it could become the race of the cycle, IMO), but I think that Kirk is a strong enough campaigner/incumbent that he'll be able to create a decent amount of Clinton/Kirk voters in the monied Chicago suburbs to eventually eek out a narrow victory

IA - I think Grassley will walk back his commitment to seeking another term and if he retired a candidate like Culver or Vilsack could lock this one up as a Democratic pickup

MO - The Missouri Democrats certainly have a shallow bench, but Roy Blunt is the epitome of GOP politician turned corporate sellout and that won't fly well in the Show-Me-State if Democrats can properly exploit it.  Look for Blunt to have primary problems as well.

NH - Will be competitive for obvious reasons, but I think that Democrats would be better to focus elsewhere as Ayotte's a pretty good fit for the state.  Hassan could make the race interesting but I doubt she goes down the rabbit-hole.

NV - This will probably be the race of the cycle.  Even against Sandoval I think Reid has a lot of fight left in him and will end-up winning.

NC - Look for Blunt to retire.  In that case I think the GOP taps Renee Ellmers with the Dems going with Stein or Foxx.  I don't think Hagan's interested in getting back to the Senate.  A Stein/Ellmers matchup would be very close, narrow advantage to Stein.

PA - Toomey's vulnerable, and it looks like Sestak will be the Democratic nominee.  I think Sestak comes up short again though.

WI - Johnson's a goner.  Ron Kind will head to the Senate in 2017

Democrats will pick up seats, but it won't be enough

I think you are underestimating Clinton's support in PA, she is crushing Jeb or Romney.  But, until we have a Quinnepiac University to confirm the PPP poll, I think we are gonna win PA

As far as OH, CO and NV, I think Mike Coleman can oust Portman, in case we lose Reid.

I hope Bennett, Coleman, Hassen, Duckworth, and Sestak and Kind win.

[pbrower2a]

The 28% approval rating for Senator Toomey could conceivably be an outlier. But how much? If some other pollster comes up with even so much as "39%", then he is clearly in trouble.

He has a very right-wing voting record, and it will be used against him by any Democrat.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The 28% approval rating for Senator Toomey could conceivably be an outlier. But how much? If some other pollster comes up with even so much as "39%", then he is clearly in trouble.

He has a very right-wing voting record, and it will be used against him by any Democrat.

He is a proud supporter of the second Amendment, but the one bill that included anything with the gun lobby, his persuaviveness was clearly ineffective, and thus the Manchin-Toomey background check bill was defeated.

I think we can win this one, even if Sestak is the only one running.

[Keystone Phil]

Pbrower and OC in a serious contest on who can out stupid the other. Could Pbrower really be bested by a robot? Stay tuned.