Senate seats in play in 2016

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We already been over this, this race is tossup, the rating of Lean R, is misleading.  We have a 50/50 chance at this race.

And I will believe, not a PPP, but a Quinnepiac poll, when is due.

This is my dream map scenario in 2016

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

This is my dream map scenario in 2016

I think we'll pick up Florida and/or North Carolina before Ohio.

[MATTROSE94]

We already been over this, this race is tossup, the rating of Lean R, is misleading.  We have a 50/50 chance at this race.

And I will believe, not a PPP, but a Quinnepiac poll, when is due.

This is my dream map scenario in 2016

That actually looks like a plausible 2016 Senate map, though I believe that the Democrats have a much better shot at picking up Florida, North Carolina and Arizona than they do in Ohio.

[Württemberger]

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.

Sorry, but Hillary won't crush the Republicans in Pennsylvania in a competitive election. Also remember Rick Santorum in 2000: He won in PA even though Gore defeated Bush in PA by a big margin.

[Brittain33]

Württemberger, this has been hashed out on other threads. Santorum's opponent was from the wrong part of the state and completely broke coming out of the primary, so he wasn't even considered a real candidate by voters in SEPA who split Gore-Santorum that year. Also Santorum hadn't yet acquired his image as a complete gay-sex-obsessed buffoon that doomed him in 2006.

[Württemberger]

Württemberger, this has been hashed out on other threads. Santorum's opponent was from the wrong part of the state and completely broke coming out of the primary, so he wasn't even considered a real candidate by voters in SEPA who split Gore-Santorum that year. Also Santorum hadn't yet acquired his image as a complete gay-sex-obsessed buffoon that doomed him in 2006.

Ok, then what about Arlen Specter? He survived both 1992 and 2004.

[Keystone Phil]

Württemberger, this has been hashed out on other threads. Santorum's opponent was from the wrong part of the state and completely broke coming out of the primary, so he wasn't even considered a real candidate by voters in SEPA who split Gore-Santorum that year. Also Santorum hadn't yet acquired his image as a complete gay-sex-obsessed buffoon that doomed him in 2006.

Santorum was still polarizing and Klink won comfortable victories out west, which Schwartz or Foley wouldn't have won (at least not Schwartz). Schwartz wasn't going to get 54% of the vote in Allegheny (which had roughly 240,000 more votes cast than Montco, where Santorum got 54%, by the way).

So they would have do better in the SE, yes, and that's a big deal but don't act like Santorum wouldn't have gained in other areas.

All this means is that winning in PA in a GOP wave by two points doesn't mean you're finished in your re-election bid. And Toomey has advantages that Santorum didn't have even when he wasn't considered super controversial.

Württemberger, this has been hashed out on other threads. Santorum's opponent was from the wrong part of the state and completely broke coming out of the primary, so he wasn't even considered a real candidate by voters in SEPA who split Gore-Santorum that year. Also Santorum hadn't yet acquired his image as a complete gay-sex-obsessed buffoon that doomed him in 2006.

Ok, then what about Arlen Specter? He survived both 1992 and 2004.

That's a completely different case. Not a fair comparison at all. Specter obviously had better standing with Dems and overall moderates.

[Brittain33]

All this means is that winning in PA in a GOP wave by two points doesn't mean you're finished in your re-election bid. And Toomey has advantages that Santorum didn't have even when he wasn't considered super controversial.

Well, I agree that a) Toomey's close win in a Republican year doesn't necessarily mean he'd lose with a more D electorate after six years have passed, and that b) Toomey lacks the kind of problems that pulled down Santorum in 2006. I do think that senate votes are much more nationalized than they were in 2000 (although the trend was certainly there then) and I expect it will pull down Toomey if the election unfolds as I expect. But that is not inevitable and I wouldn't be surprised if he's still a senator in 2017 with a President Clinton.

[Orser67]

This is probably my dream scenario. Would require a wave (of course), some strong recruitment, and a probably a few retirements.

[pbrower2a]

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

Do you understand what a 28% approval rating really means for an incumbent Gobernor or Senator? Even if it is an outlier (which is possible) it is inconsistent with "likely to win re-election". That is almost Corbett '14 territory.

What is possible with such a low approval rating for an incumbent ?

1. He could be enmeshed in a scandal.
2. He could be a bad ideological fit for his state.
3. He might be failing at the job.
4. The political winds are changing, and not to his benefit.

We can rule out #1 -- scandal.
#2 -- he barely won during the Tea Party wave in 2010, and with a different electorate less amenable to the Hard Right, he loses. Pennsylvania is slightly-D, so a Republican has to be very good to get re-elected.
#3 -- he has wisely avoided the limelight, but it is questionable that he has done anything for Pennsylvania. It may be to his credit that he has stayed away from the pork barrel -- but it is bad for political survival.
#4 -- possible, but I can't see the evidence for it to my satisfaction yet.

An earlier PPP poll (late November) showed him with a 36% approval rating, which is not quite so abysmal -- but it is poor.

He has inordinate work to get re-elected. Just about everything has to go right for him to get re-elected.   He will need

(1) an unusually-weak opponent
(2) a political climate much like 2010 or 2016, which is asking for much
(3) successful legislation with his name on it
(4) a major scandal involving the Democratic Party (especially the President)
(5) copious funding of his electoral campaign

Putting money on the Toomey campaign could quickly become a waste of money, and it would be perceived as such quickly. The Republicans have 23 other incumbent Senators to defend, and he will be among the three with races that they can most afford to lose. They are not going to risk the re-election of Kelly Ayotte to protect Pat Toomey, especially if they see Senators Kirk of Illinois and Johnson of Wisconsin going down to defeat.

[Free Bird]

28% approval and lots of anonymity . This sacred poll you keep citing has 37% not having an opinion.

[Keystone Phil]

While I'll still continue to question the accuracy of this one poll, I do have a theory about the high percentage of "no opinion" respondents in polls about non-long time or non-high profile members of Congress.

Consider this: in this hyper partisan atmosphere of the last seven years or so, I feel as if a plurality of people just don't have an opinion unless you're one of the big time national players. The Cruz's, Warren's, Paul's, Sanders' of the world really suck the air out of the room now. If you're not using their tactics, you're not getting the headlines or the passionate responses. And it's not even necessarily true that Senator X elected in 2010 is unknown (though, in comparison to the people I named, it's possible). He or she might just not generate enough excitement for the average voter to have a strong opinion.

I don't care if you like or dislike the person in question here; you can't say he's anonymous. I just think it's boiling down to a difference in how people view their elected officials in this world dominated by whoever is constantly on 24-7 cable news or whoever is hot on social media.

[pbrower2a]

While I'll still continue to question the accuracy of this one poll, I do have a theory about the high percentage of "no opinion" respondents in polls about non-long time or non-high profile members of Congress.

Don't worry; there will be more polls. Quinnipiac polls Pennsylvania often. Q is more R-leaning than PPP... and if the poll showing Toomey with an approval rating of 28% is an outlier, then that will be rendered irrelevant. But 28% has to be a monstrous outlier. Show a credible poll with Toomey with  more than 40% approval and I will change my assessment.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senator Toomey will be running for re-election in Pennsylvania. Ted Cruz, Elizabeth Warren, Rand Paul, and Bernie Sanders will appear in Pennsylvania largely for fund-raising events. Senator Toomey is wise to not expose his firm belief in plutocratic oligarchy (he was President of the right-wing Club for Growth, basically a John Birch Society for Corporate America) as a 'loud' Senator. He could be more of a Big Player in American politics if he doesn't breathe fire until he is re-elected should the Republican Party be fully entrenched in American politics. He wisely bides his time.

Creating excitement? It depends upon the sort of excitement. When fear is bigger than the thrill one lets up on the gas pedal or cuts short the mountain climb. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Silver's model showed Senator Russ Feingold, whom I happen to like, in severe danger of being defeated in 2010 -- and he was defeated. If Senator Pat Toomey can be pinned to belief in cheap labor, tight cartels, and brutal management as cures for economic distress then he goes down. He does not have time in which to redefine himself as a moderate.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The use of the filibuster was a poor method in which G O P gained power, by saying Reid got nothing done.

I do want Reid to lose, if we can net four seats, that my map illustrates, with Ohio, should Mike Coleman oust Portman. But, we can play the same game that was used last time with Kirk, Toomey, and Johnson who blocked immigration and equal pay.

Reid should lose tmbecause of CRONIBUS passing a Democratic chamber.

[Maxwell]

Are we really going to still say Q is less accurate than PPP? After the disastrous cycle PPP just had?

[LeBron]

For Republicans:

Nevada - Reid's a fighter, and Sandoval, Heck and Amodei won't happen. The NV GOP might be lucky to get Krolicki or Hutchinson, but it's a tossup at best for them now when you factor in Reid's campaign and the state and the year.

Colorado - It starts at lean D, and I doubt the CO GOP will skate by again. They barely won that seat with a weak Democratic campaign there, turning the GOP candidate into a fake moderate hero, and a wave. Not to say that the GOP can't beat Bennet, but if I was NRSC Chair, I wouldn't put a lot of money into this race. It's still a loss even if it's just by 1 or 2 points by the Republican.

And that's it. They couldn't even win California, Washington or Connecticut in GOP midterm waves, so I highly doubt they'll win them in a Presidential electorate.


For Democrats:

Illinois/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania (obviously)

New Hampshire - New Hampshire Democrats have plenty of choices to pick from, though Ayotte will need to be weakened down a lot.

Ohio - Unfortunately Portman now has 100% Ohio GOP establishment support behind him, including some endorsements from mid-profile Ohio Tea Partiers who were considered potential challengers to him in the primary. Nonetheless, assuming Strickland or another more well-known Democrat doesn't run, Sittenfeld has shown to be a strong candidate and can run a strong campaign if he has the resources he needs to take on Portman.

Arizona - We still don't know yet when AZ will finally flip, but 2016 is a strong chance when the GOP nominee here will either be John McCain or a crazy Tea Partier. Just a matter of recruitment effort and campaigning here on the part of Democrats.

North Carolina - It will be among the races targeted, though it's very hard to see what happens here given every candidate including the Senator himself is unknown. Burr does have a weak record as Senator though and his two times he's been elected were in GOP years. He could definitely be taken down in a good Democratic year.

Florida - I'm only saying this because it's Florida in a Presidential year. I don't have any hope in the Florida Democratic Party. If they can't beat Rick Scott, then I don't know, but they'll probably find another perennial loser somewhere in their bench to screw it up.

Indiana, Alaska, and Missouri won't be in play unless Democrats get the best possible candidates here (Bayh, Begich, Zweifel). I dubt Bayh or Zweifel run, though I could see a "Childers" situation where Democrats encourage Begich to run given Murkowski's high vulnerability in the primary.

In Arkansas, Beebe already declined, though it's possible Boozman gets primaried. He's arguably the weakest GOP incumbent running in 2016. Georgia could become competitive, but I don't think it's in play two years out. We'll have to see if Broun challenges Isakson, and if any top-tier Democrat jumps in. And Iowa only becomes competitive if Grassley changes his mind.

The use of the filibuster was a poor method in which G O P gained power, by saying Reid got nothing done.

I do want Reid to lose, if we can net four seats, that my map illustrates, with Ohio, should Mike Coleman oust Portman. But, we can play the same game that was used last time with Kirk, Toomey, and Johnson who blocked immigration and equal pay.

Reid should lose tmbecause of CRONIBUS passing a Democratic chamber.

Coleman is one of the worst potential candidates Ohio Democrats could get. He could never beat Portman. His campaign for Governor back in 2006 flopped miserably after it was found out his wife and campaign adviser were arrested with DUIs and his "infamous" Glenn Beck Mifflon school incident, and he had to drop out in disgrace after Redfern and the ODP turned to Strickland. That and among all potential Democratic candidates, he's a very good friend of Kasich, who endorsed Portman for re-election. You see the problem there.

[JerryArkansas]

In Arkansas, Beebe already declined, though it's possible Boozman gets primaried. He's arguably the weakest GOP incumbent running in 2016.

On that, I don't think he is the weakest incumbent running.  He however does have a bit of a problem on his right.  If Ted Cruz decided he wants to try and take Boozman out, he could face a hard fight.

I just wonder how much of a grudge that Cruz can hold on someone.

[Xing]

Are we really going to still say Q is less accurate than PPP? After the disastrous cycle PPP just had?

One cycle doesn't make a trend. Many pollsters had a disastrous cycle last year.

[Free Bird]

Are we really going to still say Q is less accurate than PPP? After the disastrous cycle PPP just had?

One cycle doesn't make a trend. Many pollsters had a disastrous cycle last year.

By that logic, Rass wouldn't have been trashed the way you guys did

[pbrower2a]

Are we really going to still say Q is less accurate than PPP? After the disastrous cycle PPP just had?

PPP has a better model for a high-turnout Presidential election.

The harsh negative ads that GOP front groups flooded the media with may have confused people and discouraged them from voting. Those may be more effective in a midterm election.   

[dmmidmi]

An awful lot of money will be spent in these states: Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Wisconsin

Start off with talk about competitiveness, but subsequently become noncompetitive: Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Iowa

None of the others should be considered competitive

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Are we really going to still say Q is less accurate than PPP? After the disastrous cycle PPP just had?

One cycle doesn't make a trend. Many pollsters had a disastrous cycle last year.

By that logic, Rass wouldn't have been trashed the way you guys did

Rass has been bad and biased since 2006.

[Xing]

Are we really going to still say Q is less accurate than PPP? After the disastrous cycle PPP just had?

One cycle doesn't make a trend. Many pollsters had a disastrous cycle last year.

By that logic, Rass wouldn't have been trashed the way you guys did

Rasmussen was biased in years when other pollsters (e.g. PPP) were quite accurate. My point was that many pollsters did a poor job in 2014, so PPP having a bad year wasn't anything special. Rasmussen, on the other hand, had a much stronger Republican bias in its 2010 and 2012 polls than most other pollsters.