2016 Senate Ratings and Predictions

[pbrower2a]

PPP: Iowa. Senator Grassley is safe politically. His chance of winning re-election is strictly an actuarial question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/general-election-tight-in-iowa.html

Approval polls only.





White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Republican running for re-election with current polls available.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.


What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40      4      0
40-44    2      0
45-49    2      2
50-54    3     0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
other   10      2

[pbrower2a]

MO - PPP:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/missouri-senate-governors-races-competitive.html#more

One more vulnerable Republican incumbent in the Senate, even if Republicans are likely to take the state's electoral votes for President easily. Missouri could be a replay of 2012, when the Democratic nominee for President stayed clear of the state to give the Democratic nominee for the Senate a chance to win.

Approval polls only.





White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Republican running for re-election with current polls available.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.


What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       4      0
40-44    2      0
45-49    2      2
50-54    3      0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
other   10      2

[pbrower2a]

I can now say something of the 2016 Senate race in Missouri: the incumbent Roy Blunt is extremely vulnerable. 


SAFE R:

Alabama
Idaho
Iowa (unless something happens to Grassley)
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah

LIKELY R:

Alaska (unless Murkowski loses in a primary -- see Lugar in 2012)
Arizona (assuming that nothing happens to McCain)
Arkansas (despite low approval for Boozman)
Georgia
Kansas (close at times in 2014)
Kentucky (should Paul run for the Presidency and abandon the Senate)
Louisiana (depends upon the jungle primary)

LEAN R:

Arizona (health of octogenarian incumbent)
Indiana (potential trouble)
North Carolina (unless Burr gets a competent opponent, then LEAN D)

TOSS-UP:

Florida
Nevada
Ohio
Pennsylvania

LEAN D

Colorado
Missouri (flip)

LIKELY D:

New Hampshire (flip)
Wisconsin (flip)

SAFE D:

California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois (flip)
Maryland
New York
Oregon
Vermont

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

L GOP: AZ, NC, IN & NH
LDem IL, WI, CO &FL
Tossups NV, OH, Pa & MO

Senate will flip should Dems win WH

[DavidB.]

https://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/SENATE/2016/pred.php?action=indpred&id=297

My prediction.

Lean R:
Arizona
New Hampshire
Indiana
North Carolina
Ohio

Tossup:
Florida
Missouri
Pennsylvania

Lean D:
Colorado
Illinois (flip)
Nevada
Wisconsin (flip)

All others safe. At this point, I think the Senate will flip if the Democrats win the presidential election, which seems the most likely.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Nice ratings but Toomey & Portman & NV arent safe. But I can live with Sen Kander.

[JerryArkansas]

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Tossup
Pa& NV( potentially LD);MO (Kander would be icing on cake)

Leaning
IL, WI & FL flips to D's

DEMS win 51 seats Kander; Sestak & CCM win

[Senator Cris]

LIKELY R
Alaska (only because of a potential primary challenger to Murkwoski. Safe R if Murkwoski is the GOP candidate)
Arizona (the same as Alaska)
Georgia
Indiana (it's an open seat and might be competitive)

LEAN R
Missouri (it might be competitive, but the Blunt + 5 poll showed a lot of republican undecideds and Blunt can work with them, it remember the Kansas 2014 race)
New Hampshire (if Hassan jumps in it's a pure toss-up)
North Carolina (Burr is not the best, but the DEM field is not better)
Ohio (Portman is not unpopular, he is doing better than Strickland in fundraising)

TOSS-UP
Florida (uncertainity in both parties. If Grayson wins and GOP nominates Jolly, it would be Lean R. As of now, it's a pure toss-up)
Nevada (pure toss-up. Both CCM and Heck are good candidates)
Pennsylvania (Toomey is popular and Sestak is already trailing in the polls, but Toomey won "only" 51-49 in a wave year. I think it might be competitive)

LEAN D
Colorado (the GOP field is not the best)
Illinois (it's a presidential year and Kirk, despite being a moderate republican, will have an hard time)
Wisconsin (Feingold is popular, presidential year... Johnson will have an hard time)

[The Other Castro]

Why do so many of you still rate the GA Senate race "Likely Republican"?

There's always the off-chance that Holcomb or Carter could run and make it somewhat competitive. IMO, a safe label should only be applied if there are no realistically forseeable events that could make the race more competitive (such as Alabama or Oklahoma).

[Maxwell]

Why do so many of you still rate the GA Senate race "Likely Republican"?

There's always the off-chance that Holcomb or Carter could run and make it somewhat competitive. IMO, a safe label should only be applied if there are no realistically forseeable events that could make the race more competitive (such as Alabama or Oklahoma).

Plus, the incumbent has Alzheimer's disease. There is potential that could affect him on the trail.

[/]

pbrower2a, your ratings never cease to amuse us! The funny part is that you aren't even trolling A+!

Anyway, my ratings changes:

MO: Likely R --> Leans R (Blunt will be in big trouble if he doesn't step up his game.)
NC: Likely R --> Leans R (Assuming Heath Shuler gets the nomination)
IN: Likely R --> Leans R (This race is even more unpredictable than I've thought. A strong Democratic challenger will make it competitive.)

Updated map 4.0:

This is a nice map; very accurate.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Why do so many of you still rate the GA Senate race "Likely Republican"?

I use a very strict definition of Safe. Essentially, only the races that would not be competitive in a wave election for either side go there. This is why I have Washington State at only Strong Lean (Likely) D - I believe it would be competitive if 2016 is a republican wave election. Similarly, Georgia is at only Strong Lean R - I believe it would be competitive if 2016 is a democratic wave election.

Basically, the races in the "Up for Grabs" or "Lean" categories of my document make up the current map of what I feel are genuinely competitive seats. The "Strong Lean/Likely" category is what I believe to be realistic targets in a wave election for one side, while the "Safe" seats are those seats that would be Safe even in a huge wave for one side, barring a completely unexpected set of events.

[DavidB.]

Why do so many of you still rate the GA Senate race "Likely Republican"?

There's always the off-chance that Holcomb or Carter could run and make it somewhat competitive. IMO, a safe label should only be applied if there are no realistically forseeable events that could make the race more competitive (such as Alabama or Oklahoma).

Plus, the incumbent has Alzheimer's disease. There is potential that could affect him on the trail.

Isakson has Parkinson's disease, not Alzheimer's.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

MO,FL,Pa are definately tossups now
While WI, IL, FL flips as Dems can secure 50 or 51 votes needed for senate control.

[Maxwell]

Why do so many of you still rate the GA Senate race "Likely Republican"?

There's always the off-chance that Holcomb or Carter could run and make it somewhat competitive. IMO, a safe label should only be applied if there are no realistically forseeable events that could make the race more competitive (such as Alabama or Oklahoma).

Plus, the incumbent has Alzheimer's disease. There is potential that could affect him on the trail.

Isakson has Parkinson's disease, not Alzheimer's.

Whoops. My bad.

[pbrower2a]

Parkinsonism kills. It also gives one the appearance of erratic behavior due to involuntary twitches of muscles.

Retirement watch. 

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Parkinsonism kills. It also gives one the appearance of erratic behavior due to involuntary twitches of muscles.

Retirement watch. 

It can take a LONG time to kill. My Grandmother has had it for 13 years and is still alive (yeah, she's pretty frail, but still).

My prediction: Isakson remains committed to reelection and wins (fairly) comfortably. He retires due to his disease in 2018 or 2020, and a special election is held to replace him.

[Nyvin]

Apparently the Koch Brothers think NH, PA, and OH are vulnerable....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senate-races_55d77eb4e4b08cd3359c20fd?utm_hp_ref=politics&kvcommref=mostpopular

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Kander, Strickland, Kirkpatrick & Sestak can all be elected this cycle. Ayotte seems entrenched.

[MT Treasurer]

Apparently the Koch Brothers think NH, PA, and OH are vulnerable....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senate-races_55d77eb4e4b08cd3359c20fd?utm_hp_ref=politics&kvcommref=mostpopular

Not exactly surprising. Ayotte is the most vulnerable of those three IMO. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

But Hassan is running right now for reelection. We have good chances to defeat Portman, Toomey & Blunt.

[Proudconnh]

I think Ayotte will win, even if Hassan runs for senate. 

[smoltchanov]

I think Ayotte will win, even if Hassan runs for senate. 

Not sure. It will be  very close. Ayotte moderated substantially since her 2010 cmpaign, but still - not sure.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Ayotte isnt make or break the Senate right now. Dems are more focused on Portman, Toomey & Blunt; as well as Kirk & johnson. Dems have a celebrity candidate in Strickland.

The are all toast if Trump, rather than Jeb is nominee.