2016 Senate Ratings and Predictions

[pbrower2a]

Q11
Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Patty
Murray’s job performance?

 47% Approve

 39% Disapprove

 13% Not sure

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_WA_52015.pdf

Good, if not spectacular.

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.

[The Other Castro]

Mike Bennett is prone to lose; it all depends on the candidates. But, dems dont necessarily need CO; Toomey, Portman, Ayotte, and FL open are Dem targets.

Its all about putting together 270 and four voted necessary for Dem majority

You're causing me physical pain.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The approvals of the GOP is underwater; I think it is safe to say Dems can win senate.

[pbrower2a]

What I see so far with incumbents

App      Rep  Dem

<40       2      0
40-44    5      0
45-49    1      2
50-54    2      0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
other   12      2

I'm not putting Vitter (R-LA) in the "retire" category until he officially declares that he will be running for Governor and abandons a Senate seat. Menendez (D-NJ) does not have a seat up in 2016, but should he resign or be removed from office, his seat does go up for 2016.

I see anyone with an approval of 44 or less as vulnerable;  I have seen a sub-45 poll for Bennett (D-CO), so just because he got a 'better' poll recently does not take him out of the realm of vulnerability.

On polls alone I see seven Republicans vulnerable; I count two Democratic seats (those of Reid and Bennett) vulnerable.

At this point the Senate election looks much like the inverse of 2014, when many Democrats hoped to hold onto seats that they had won in 2008. Republicans ran a masterful campaign of smears against every vulnerable Democrat and won about every Senate available. Democrats won't have things that good. They aren't that ruthless and devious.

Long-term incumbents can lose in wave elections. The "41" in Arizona is for Senator John McCain, who has gotten some low approval ratings before. Russ Feingold was in a similar position in 2010.
  



  

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Tier 1
NV; OH; PA; WI; IL

Tier 2
CO; NH; FL

Dems must win 4 seats to gain control.

[smoltchanov]

Tier 1
NV; OH; PA; WI; IL

Tier 2
CO; NH; FL

Dems must win 4 seats to gain control.

4 out of 6 and NOT lose neither Nevada, nor Colorado, may be not so easy. IMHO - about 50-50 (with sure return to Republican majority after 2018)

[free my dawg]

Tier 1
NV; OH; PA; WI; IL

Tier 2
CO; NH; FL

Dems must win 4 seats to gain control.

bruh

[Nyvin]

Sabato changed Wisconsin from toss up to "leans dem"

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/

[pbrower2a]

If Sabato says that Wisconsin leans Democratic, then Republicans can kiss 'their' Senate seat in Wisconsin goodbye.

[ElectionsGuy]

If Sabato says that Wisconsin leans Democratic, then Republicans can kiss 'their' Senate seat in Wisconsin goodbye.

Arkansas was Lean D at this point before 2014. Your point?

[Maxwell]

If Sabato says that Wisconsin leans Democratic, then Republicans can kiss 'their' Senate seat in Wisconsin goodbye.

Arkansas was Lean D at this point before 2014. Your point?

Watch for a five page post with not one cogent point. I guarantee it will occur.

[windjammer]

Sabato changed Wisconsin from toss up to "leans dem"

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/

Too early.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Sabato changed Wisconsin from toss up to "leans dem"

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/

Too early.

I believe that PA was also changed from toss-up to Leans R

[Nyvin]

Sabato changed Wisconsin from toss up to "leans dem"

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/

Too early.

I believe that PA was also changed from toss-up to Leans R

Yes, those were the two that were changed.   He did write this though about the PA election -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/senate-2016-sorting-out-the-democrats-best-targets/

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

After those three seats, a fourth one will fall OH, Pa or NH, thus giving Dems the senate.

[pbrower2a]

If Sabato says that Wisconsin leans Democratic, then Republicans can kiss 'their' Senate seat in Wisconsin goodbye.

Arkansas was Lean D at this point before 2014. Your point?

Watch for a five page post with not one cogent point. I guarantee it will occur.

Blanche Lincoln faced a blistering primary challenge. That doomed her campaign.

Indiana was considered "Safe R" two years ago before some nutty right-winger primaried the venerable Richard Lugar.

[pbrower2a]

Approval ratings for incumbent Senators up for re-election:

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.


Because Senator Mendendez is indicted he could have to vacate his seat. Anyone who is appointed to fill a part of his term will be up for re-election in 2016.

....An approval rating of 40 or less is big trouble.  45 or higher? The incumbent pol is likely to survive re-election.

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

With Kirkpatrick in, AZ moves from Likely R to Lean R.

Toss-Up:

NV (Likely R if Sandoval runs, Lean R if it's Dina Titus vs. Heck/Krolicki, Likely D if Angle runs. Toss-up otherwise.)
FL

Lean D:

IL
WI
CO (Lean R if Mike Coffman runs, Toss-Up if Cynthia Coffman runs, Likely D if Buck runs. Lean D otherwise.)

Likely D:

WA
CA (Due to Top-Two Crap)

Lean R:

NH (Toss-Up if Hassan runs)
OH (Toss-Up if Sittenfeld drops out)
NC
PA
AZ

Likely R:

AK (primary crap)
MO
LA (Safe R if Vitter loses governorship and still runs for senate reelection)
GA
KY (Safe R if Rand Paul is the senate nominee)
IN

Safe D (* means that while retirement is highly unlikely, such an event would make the state more competitive):

OR *
MD
NY
VT
CT
HI

Safe R (* means that while retirement is highly unlikely, such an event would make the state more competitive):

UT
ID
ND
SD
IA *
AR *
KS
AL
SC
OK

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

LD
WI and IL

Pure tossup
OH, NV, FL

Tilt GOP
Pa, NH, IN



3-5 net gain for D

LOL at your belief that IN is more competitive than CO  or NC.

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

IND is solid GOP

OC: rather than defending my ratings, I simply edit then whenever they're criticized.

And PA/NH are not solid gop, WI/IL are not solid dem.

[windjammer]

With Kirkpatrick in, AZ moves from Likely R to Lean R.

Toss-Up:

NV (Likely R if Sandoval runs, Lean R if it's Dina Titus vs. Heck/Krolicki, Likely D if Angle runs. Toss-up otherwise.)
FL

Lean D:

IL
WI
CO (Lean R if Mike Coffman runs, Toss-Up if Cynthia Coffman runs, Likely D if Buck runs. Lean D otherwise.)

Likely D:

WA
CA (Due to Top-Two Crap)

Lean R:

NH (Toss-Up if Hassan runs)
OH (Toss-Up if Sittenfeld drops out)
NC
PA
AZ

Likely R:

AK (primary crap)
MO
LA (Safe R if Vitter loses governorship and still runs for senate reelection)
GA
KY (Safe R if Rand Paul is the senate nominee)
IN

Safe D (* means that while retirement is highly unlikely, such an event would make the state more competitive):

OR *
MD
NY
VT
CT
HI

Safe R (* means that while retirement is highly unlikely, such an event would make the state more competitive):

UT
ID
ND
SD
IA *
AR *
KS
AL
SC
OK

Tbh, I would still keep AZ as likely rep. Mccain is far from being stupid.

[Nyvin]

Updated ratings:

Updated ratings 2.0:

Moved Georgia from "Likely R" to "Safe R" (I don't see any way how Isakson could lose his seat: Democrats won't be able to put up a great candidate and if the race goes to a runoff because of Hillary narrowly winning the state, Isakson will be heavily favored).

Moved Arizona from "Leans R" to "Likely R". Now that McCain will likely survive the Primary, he should be fine in the general election.

After Ann Kirkpatrick announces her run for McCain's seat you're changing AZ to likely???    Kirkpatrick is pretty popular,  much more than McCain is...

[JerryArkansas]

[International Brotherhood of Bernard]

My thought process on this: "why the hell is Arizona likely D is this guy insane OHHHH he's using the normie colors"

[Nyvin]

Moreover, McCain is a great campaigner. He won by 24 points in 2010!

The rest of points at least have some merit, but this one certainly doesn't.   The AZ senate race was a joke in 2010...the Democrats had a mayor of a small LA town in fricking California to run for an "Arizona" Senate race.    He was a nobody, squeaked out a narrow win against a bunch of other nobodies, and received practically nothing for funding.   He spent less than $3 mil against McCain who spent more than $25 mil.  

Napolitano was originally going to be the nominee possibly, but Obama took her for Homeland Security Secretary.    

The AZ Senate race in 2010 speaks more about the ineptness of the Democrats in 2010 than it does anything about McCain.