2016 Senate Ratings and Predictions

[pbrower2a]

Portman approval rating: 49%-28% positive


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ps/ps06222015_Sp52rg.pdf

...but Strickland is ahead.

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    3      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




[/quote]

[pbrower2a]

Portman approval rating: 49%-28% positive


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ps/ps06222015_Sp52rg.pdf

...but Strickland is ahead.

Toomey has a 51-28 percent approval rating.
Obama has a negative job approval rating in the state (42-55).

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ps/ps06222015_Sp52rg.pdf

What huge swings we see with approvals of Senator Toomey!

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      3      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   12      2

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I'll update mine:

Pure toss-up:
-Florida

Tilt D:
-Nevada
-Wisconsin

Tilt R:
-New Hampshire
-Pennsylvania (I may move this to Lean R if Toomey is still polling strong in the coming months)

Lean D:
-Colorado
-Illinois

Lean R:
-Ohio (It Portman's doesn't poll better against Strickland in future polls, this will be moved to Tilt R or even Toss-up)

Likely D:
None

Likely R:
-Arizona (If McCain loses in the primary, this will be moved to Lean R or even Tilt R)
-Indiana
-Missouri
-North Carolina

To continue to say OH is L R and it isnt.

Strickland will win.

[pbrower2a]

Mark Kirk, R-IL

Approval 25%, disapproval 42%, undecided 33%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IL_72915.pdf

I have waited for a poll. I don't see him sticking around a 25% approval, but I see no possibility of him getting in the range for winning re-election. He was elected under freakish circumstances that will not be repeated in 2016. Terrible mis-match for the state.

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

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Still

LD CO, IL, FL, & WI

Tossup
Pa & NV

GOP favored

AZ, OH& NH

[ElectionsGuy]

Safe R:

Alabama
Alaska (Likely R if there are primary shenanigans and Mark Begich joins in)
Arkansas
Idaho
Iowa (Its Grassely, so yeah)
Kentucky (even if Paul is denied re-election, federal elections are heavily Republican)
Kansas
Louisiana (Dems have no bench + Jungle Primary)
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah (Will move to Likely R if/when Matheson runs)

Likely R:

Georgia (only because its Georgia)
Indiana (like all Indiana races, dems have an outside chance of winning if there are too many shenanigans + open race)
Missouri (Blunt is not as vulnerable as people seem to think)
North Carolina (top tier candidates all taking a pass)

Lean R:

Arizona (He'll likely survive a primary, but he's weaker than he ever was before)
New Hampshire (Toss-Up if/when Hassan runs)
North Carolina (no matter the nominee)
Ohio (no matter the nominee Toss-Up if/when Strickland runs)
Pennsylvania (Yeah, Toomey is looking good starting out)

Toss-Up:

Florida (Lean R if Grayson is the nominee)
Illinois (This is on the verge of being Lean D)
Nevada (R's have a decent bench since the scored big in 2014 Heck is the best possible candidate)
Ohio (Strickland in)
Pennsylvania (despite Toomey's supposed early advantage, its still Pennsylvania)
Wisconsin (Will move to Lean D if/when Feingold announces)

Lean D:

Colorado (Toss-Up if Mike Coffman is the nominee)
Illinois
Wisconsin

Safe D:

California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Maryland
New York
Oregon (Likely D if Wyden retires, but Oregon R's are incredibly weak Even if Wyden retires)
Vermont
Washington

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

NV; FL or Pa you cant put a Lean Rating on it, the States are too important for Hillary's campaign, as she tries to consolidate the states that have Latinos or Catholics in them like CO, NV and Pa for 272.

Getting Sestak elected, despite his drawbacks is very important.

Lean Dem WI; IL; and CO

No clear fav Pa; NV& FL

Narrow inc adv OH, NC & AZ

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

NV; FL or Pa you cant put a Lean Rating on it, the States are too important for Hillary's campaign

Hillary doesn't need FL to win.

[pbrower2a]

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

LIKELY D:

New Hampshire (flip)
Wisconsin (flip)

SAFE D:

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

[JerryArkansas]

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

LIKELY D:

New Hampshire (flip)
Wisconsin (flip)

SAFE D:

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

All of the other I can see, but how in god's name is NH a near safe pickup, and Arkansas at Likely R, and NC going to Lean D with a competent opponent.  Ayotte is doing pretty well in beefing up her "moderate" image.  Arkansas at every level is now safe, it is not going to flip, and even if Burr got an amazing opponent, the race would start out as tossup, nothing more.

[Xing]

I'll update mine:

Pure toss-up:
-Florida

Tilt D:
-Nevada
-Wisconsin

Tilt R:
-New Hampshire
-Pennsylvania (I may move this to Lean R if Toomey is still polling strong in the coming months)

Lean D:
-Colorado
-Illinois

Lean R:
-Ohio (It Portman's doesn't poll better against Strickland in future polls, this will be moved to Tilt R or even Toss-up)

Likely D:
None

Likely R:
-Arizona (If McCain loses in the primary, this will be moved to Lean R or even Tilt R)
-Indiana
-Missouri
-North Carolina

To continue to say OH is L R and it isnt.

Strickland will win.

Sheesh, I can't say anything about the Ohio senate race without someone complaining. Right now, Portman is doing a great job at fundraising, and he's not unpopular. Hard not to see him as a slight favorite at this point, though as I've said, that could change.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

tilt D
WI flip; IL flip & Co

Pure tossup
NV, FL, OH, Pa- Strickland & Sestak can win

Tilt R
AZ, IN & NC

[The Other Castro]

Safe R:
Alabama
Idaho
Kansas
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah

Likely R:
Alaska
Arkansas
Georgia
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana

Lean R:
Arizona
Missouri
North Carolina

Tilt R:
Ohio
Pennsylvania
New Hampshire

Toss-Up:
Florida
Nevada

Tilt D:
None

Lean D:
Illinois
Wisconsin
Colorado

Likely D:
Washington
California

Safe D:
Connecticut
Hawaii
Maryland
New York
Oregon
Vermont

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Kirpatrick can upset McCain as well as Strickland def Portman.

Everyone thinks races will go by conventional wisdom, will be surprised on election day.

[Crumpets]

Here's my updated map.

Changes:
Illinois Tossup -> Leans D
Indiana Leans R -> Likely R
New Hampshire Tossup -> Leans R

[NewYorkExpress]

My Ratings;

Alabama Safe R (At least Shelby is getting an opponent this year)

Alaska Safe R (Murkowski is fine-2010 proved that)

Arizona Tossup (We probably won't know how competitive this race actually is until after the GOP primary)

Arkansas Safe R

California Safe D (Not really looking forward to much money will be sucked into the the Harris-Sanchez battle)

Colorado Tossup (though Bennett should eventually pull away)

Connecticut Safe D

Florida Tossup (though Murphy is a much stronger candidate than Grayson0

Georgia Safe R

Hawaii Safe D

Idaho Safe R

Illinois Likely D (Single most likely seat to flip, maybe can be moved to Safe D if HD by Christmas if the race stays on it's current course)

Indiana (Tossup with Stutzman, lean R with Young and Holcomb)

Iowa Safe R

Kansas Safe R

Kentucky Safe R

Louisiana Safe R

Maryland Safe D (Like California, I am not looking forward to the money being spent on the Edwards-Van Holien battle.

Missouri Likely R (Kander is a solid recruit, but Missouri is long gone in a Presidential year
year for any Democrat)

Nevada Tossup (Most likely GOP pickup...but their best chance was for Brian Sandoval to run and survive a primary)

New Hampshire Tossup (Even if Maggie Hassan runs, Kelly Hassan shouldn't be underestimated...at the same time, if Hassan doesn't run, watch out for Paul Hodes or or Ann McLane Kuster as late entrants).

New York Safe D (Republicans probably wish Pataki was running here)

North Carolina Tossup (Burr is anonymous, and should pull away here)

North Dakota Safe R

Ohio (Tossup with Strickland, Safe R with Satterfield)

Oklahoma Safe R

Oregon Safe D

Pennsylvania Tossup (Sestak isn't the strongest possible nominee-but Toomey starts in worse position than Portman)

South Carolina Safe R

South Dakota Safe R

Utah Safe R

Vermont Safe D

Washington Safe D

Wisconsin Lean D (Feingold probably isn't even the Democrats strongest nominee... that's how screwed Ron Johnson is)

[pbrower2a]

Burr -- 35% approval rating.
Boozman -- 40% approval rating.

Blanche Lincoln looked safe going into 2010.

Approval ratings matter greatly. They show vulnerabilities and strengths. If I look at Grassley and see him safe despite being in relatively-liberal Iowa in a year of a Presidential election, it is because incumbents with 53% approval ratings get re-elected easily.

Give either Burr or Boozman a strong opponent and he loses. Of course that is asking for something yet to happen, but such is not at all likely against Grassley.

[Torie]

Stabenow's approval rating is 42%. Is she in trouble too?  The thing is pbrower, is that folks are down on the political class in general, so approval ratings of politicians tend to be low these days. Does that mean they will lose? Not really, because their opponents will have low approval ratings too. It is time pbrower for you to start a grand new mental adventure in your life, and yes, begin to think out of the box. Things change. One needs to keep up.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Stabenow is in a Dem leaning state that hasnt voter GOP since 1988.😍

This is a presidential year& Dems are expected to make gains

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Ark doesnt count& Pryor was Blanched as well.  QU was right on the 2014 Senate race; but wrong on the gov race; as Beauprez was suppose to be Gov.

PPP is a better measuring rod of CO.

[pbrower2a]

Stabenow's approval rating is 42%. Is she in trouble too?  The thing is pbrower, is that folks are down on the political class in general, so approval ratings of politicians tend to be low these days. Does that mean they will lose? Not really, because their opponents will have low approval ratings too. It is time pbrower for you to start a grand new mental adventure in your life, and yes, begin to think out of the box. Things change. One needs to keep up.

She could be in trouble in 2018. But we are not discussing her chance of being re-elected as the focus of this forum. 2018 is likely to be a low-turnout election of the sort that Republicans swept in 2010 and nearly swept in 2014 in Michigan. Republicans might have won the US Senate seat from Michigan in 2014 had they had a stronger nominee.

But I am not showing the 2018 election here. After all, we don't know who will be President and how popular the President will be.  We are not discussing the 2018 election here.

If she were up for re-election in 2016 with a 42% approval rating I would have Michigan marked as "Lean R". 43% or 44%? Toss-up at this stage. 46% or 47%? Lean D. 

Venerable Ted Stevens got defeated in 2008 in a state that rarely votes for Democrats in statewide elections.   His approval ratings were in the low forties.

...The Democrats will have plenty of Senate seats up for grabs in 2018.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

In which Mnt & IN are likely the ones to go; and Dems would need AZ or NV to keep control.

[PAK Man]

Time for me to take a fresh look at this:

Safe R:
- Alabama
- Arkansas
- Idaho
- Kansas
- Louisiana
- North Dakota
- Oklahoma
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Utah

Likely R:
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Georgia (Debated moving this to Safe R or not, but I'm waiting for the D field to develop/not develop before doing so)
- Indiana
- Iowa (I'm honestly not convinced that Grassley's going to end up running in the end; after the filing deadline passes I'll revisit this race, but for now it's still Likely R)
- Kentucky (The whole Rand Paul situation has this race in limbo for now)
- Missouri

Leans R:
- New Hampshire
- North Carolina (The possibility of Shuler entering this race has me keeping it here)
- Ohio
- Pennsylvania

Tossup:
- Florida
- Illinois (I'm waiting to move this to Leans D; I know people keep saying Kirk is toast, but as someone who grew up on the border of the 9th/10th Districts, I was able to see first hand his amazing ability to win unwinnable races)
- Nevada

Leans D:
- Colorado
- Wisconsin (Yes, I think Johnson is much more vulnerable than Kirk. Johnson hasn't bothered to moderate himself in a D-leaning state and Feingold, despite his flaws, is the best candidate to go against him)

Safe D:
- California
- Connecticut
- Hawaii
- Maryland
- New York
- Oregon
- Vermont
- Washington

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

New York express had the right idea

AZ we dont know how competetive this race will be
CO Lean D
FL LeanD
IL Lean D
NV tossup
NH Lean R until someone jumps in
NC tossup
OH tossup-With Strickland in
Pa hard to put rating on this; but Sestak is underperforming, but can be considered a tossup
WI Lean D

Its hard to predict how many seats Dems will net, but Senate will flip as long as Clinton wins

[NewYorkExpress]

New York express had the right idea

AZ we dont know how competetive this race will be
CO Lean D
FL LeanD
IL Lean D
NV tossup
NH Lean R until someone jumps in
NC tossup
OH tossup-With Strickland in
Pa hard to put rating on this; but Sestak is underperforming, but can be considered a tossup
WI Lean D

Its hard to predict how many seats Dems will net, but Senate will flip as long as Clinton wins

That's a first, isn't it?