2016 Senate Ratings and Predictions

[MT Treasurer]

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.

Agreed. NH is still a very difficult state for Republicans to win.

[madelka]

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Here are my preliminary ratings:

Safe D
Hawaii
Maryland
New York
Vermont

Strong D
Oregon
Washington

Lean D
California
Connecticut

Toss-Up
Arizona
Colorado
Florida
Illinois
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin

Lean R
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
North Carolina

Strong R
Alaska
Arkansas
Georgia
North Dakota
South Carolina
Utah

Safe R
Alabama
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Oklahoma
South Dakota

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.

Agreed. NH is still a very difficult state for Republicans to win.

Since when? Bush carried it in 2000 and lost it by the barest of margins in 2004.

[Nyvin]

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.

Agreed. NH is still a very difficult state for Republicans to win.

Since when? Bush carried it in 2000 and lost it by the barest of margins in 2004.

Bush didn't even win a majority of the vote in 2000.    Kerry's 2004 margin was larger than Bush's 2000 in both percentage and total votes.

It's highly unlikely Bush would've won the state without Nader on the ballot in 2000.

[Nyvin]

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.

Agreed. NH is still a very difficult state for Republicans to win.

Since when? Bush carried it in 2000 and lost it by the barest of margins in 2004.

Bush didn't even win a majority of the vote in 2000.    Kerry margin was larger than Bushes in both percentage and total votes.

It's highly unlikely Bush would've won the state without Nader on the ballot in 2000.

There you go again.

I think it is.

Agreed (at least in a close election).

It's gone Democratic in five of the last six presidential elections, and it may have gone to Gore in 2000 if it wasn't or Ralph Nader taking a whopping 4% of the vote.

No.

Why not?   Bush's margin was around 7,000 votes in NH,  Nader got about 22,000.  

Even if Gore got just "half" of Nader's votes it would've been more than enough even if you added Pat Buchanan's votes to Bush's total.

Pre-election polls in NH showed Bush with a bigger lead (4-5 points) when Nader was polling around 2%/3%. The whole assumption that a majority of Nader voters would have just voted for Gore if Nader wasn't on the ballot is false. Take a look at the exit polls:

http://www.cbsnews.com/campaign2000results/election/index.html

Nader got a majority of his votes from Perot supporters and voters who wouldn't have voted if Nader wasn't on the ballot.

Also:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://politizine.blogspot.de/2004/02/debunking-myth-ralph-nader-didnt-cost.html

Agreed (at least in a close election).

It's gone Democratic in five of the last six presidential elections, and it may have gone to Gore in 2000 if it wasn't or Ralph Nader taking a whopping 4% of the vote.

No.

Care to explain?  

Well, exit polls showed that Ralph Nader took many (I think it was a majority) of his votes from 1996 Reform Party voters (Ross Perot supporters) who were more likely to vote for Bush than Gore (also "proven" by the 2000 exit polls). Nader may have cost Al Gore FL, but probably not NH.

That being said, I still agree with you that NH is almost unwinnable for the GOP.

/sigh...

Okay fine, forget the Nader thing.   Bush's 2000 win was still incredibly weak and was probably more luck than anything.    It was also 15 years ago,  NH has changed quite a bit since then.

[pbrower2a]

PPP. New Hampshire:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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 --  Democratic 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       5     0
40-44    1      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

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

Rubio is retiring, so no sense in listing his approval. Also you should have 'Democratic' instead of 'Republican' in the light orange and red parts of the key.

[MT Treasurer]

Oh no, now he's spamming this thread as well... Also, Bennet's approval numbers are worse than that.

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet gets a 41 - 34 percent approval rating and voters say 40 - 32 percent that he does not deserve reelection in 2016.

But how can you not trust someone who makes such accurate predictions

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=90583.msg1911811#msg1911811

[pbrower2a]

Oh no, now he's spamming this thread as well... Also, Bennet's approval numbers are worse than that.

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet gets a 41 - 34 percent approval rating and voters say 40 - 32 percent that he does not deserve reelection in 2016.

But how can you not trust someone who makes such accurate predictions

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=90583.msg1911811#msg1911811

Early in 2009. I then saw Barack Obama as the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan. I thought the skill sets very similar. One thing was certain: he wasn't going to be the New Jimmy Carter or the New Herbert Hoover. For a time he was one of the most effective Presidents ever, and I saw him likely to ride a bull market 

I saw one pattern unlikely to change: that although the mean result in electoral votes since 1900 is around  62% for winners, nobody got close to that. I could discuss why that pattern held despite demographic change, change in electoral laws, historical events, technology of campaigning, and the technology of the media. But that is a mathematical model not to be explained here. 

Barack Obama was going to win with 310 or fewer electoral votes or was going to win with 360 or more, with a Texas-sized void (Texas has 38 electoral votes) in between the possibilities.

That pattern failed in 2008, with President Obama winning 332 electoral votes -- just about in the middle of the void.

I didn't see the rise of the Tea Party.   

[pbrower2a]

Rubio is retiring, so no sense in listing his approval. Also you should have 'Democratic' instead of 'Republican' in the light orange and red parts of the key.

I have made the change in identifying "orange" with Democrats apparently running for re-election.  I thought that Senator Rubio could rescind his talk of retirement if his chance to win the Republican nomination for President became insignificant -- which explains why I have his ratings up. Of course if he misses a filing deadline to run he is retired. Boxer, Coates, Mikulski, and Reid seem to have age as a reason for retiring. Rubio is still rather young.

[MATTROSE94]

Here are my preliminary ratings:

Safe D
Hawaii
Maryland
New York
Vermont

Strong D
Oregon
Washington

Lean D
California
Connecticut

Toss-Up
Arizona
Colorado
Florida
Illinois
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin

Lean R
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
North Carolina

Strong R
Alaska
Arkansas
Georgia
North Dakota
South Carolina
Utah

Safe R
Alabama
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Oklahoma
South Dakota

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.

Agreed. NH is still a very difficult state for Republicans to win.

Since when? Bush carried it in 2000 and lost it by the barest of margins in 2004.

You predictions look very accurate at this point, but I might move Pennsylvania to lean Republican and Wisconsin and Illinois to lean Democrat.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The state to watch now is MO; its a game changer like FL. Chris Koster may def Kinder or Hanaway; giving Dems their majority

Also the K factor is on ballot; and MO is only a R state at fed level. Dems keep getting reelected statewide

Pa is leaning GOP right now but Kate McGinty is raking in cash right now; Dems have to win Pa anyways. So; NH or Pa still can go either way.

[pbrower2a]

Its favorable vs. unfavorable, so I can't use it on the map.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/LouisianaPollSeptember2015.pdf

If running for reelection for the US Senate, he would be in trouble.

[pbrower2a]

New category -- incumbent likely running for another office. So far this applies to Florida and Louisiana. Party to be shown.  Color will be tan.

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 --  Democratic 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       5     0
40-44    1      0
45-49    1      2
50-54    3      0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  2      0
no poll  9      2

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Mizz, OH, CO & NV are vulnerable; IN like MO are wildcards

Lean Dem takeovèrs IL & WI

Solid D
Ct, WA, Ca

Solid GOP
NC & AZ

[Kingpoleon]

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.

Dems are foolish to go after Portman and Kirk over Ayotte and Toomey.

Portman and Kirk are substantially more entrenched and compromise more in the Senate.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Portman is entrenched but the fact is; Strickland has been leading in polls thus far QU has Portman down by 3 pts.

It is workable with others as well as Toomey & Kirk & Johnson.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm not going to go through every race, but I'll share my thoughts on the juiciest of races:

I think Kirk and Johnson are toast. Like none of this tilting or leaning Dem stuff, I just think they're boned. Johnson is mildly safer, but will only survive if the national GOP ticket blows out a victory in Wisconisn and drags him past the finishing line. Kirk is a hopeless case, to the extent even if democrats lose in some mondaleesque disaster, I still think he'll be a casualty.

Beyond that I think most Democratic chances are harder to grasp than you might think. I think Portman, Toomey, Ayotte, Burr and Blunt are, if not all in great shape, undoubtedly favoured. Weirdly, considering the state, I'm thinking Blunt is most in danger running a few points below the national ticket. Portman strikes me as too generic to really lose, but he could surprise me - I certainly expect him to outperform the Republican ticket. I honestly don't think Ayotte will face Hassan, but some random legislator and steal a win; even if democrats win her state's EV's. Toomey is the most favoured of them all, and nobody expected that - both his likely opponents seem deeply flawed. I think the sleeper race is Arizona - I think McCain is in danger in both the primary and the general, and he runs the risk of being lazy. I would be deeply surprised if anything else interesting happens. If Vitter is humiliated in his 2015 race, somebody could jump in and try their luck (doubt it work). I think Indiana will be won by Young, and the Democrats will lie unable to escape the national ticket,

The open seat in Florida is a pure toss-up as is the one in Nevada. The former I would call for Republicans due to y'know the FDP; and the latter for the democrats (the 2012 race, where the crappy democrat barely lost, means I'm sceptical of the Nevada GOP in non-Sandoval contexts.

The democrats are largely a series of snoozer races. I think Edwards may steal the race in Maryland. I think Sanchez could make a decent showing vs Harris I'd it comes down to it - an alliance of publicans and Hispanics would be pretty impressive, and she may even picque the frontrunner. I think the Republicans are dropping the ball in Colorado, and I don't see any surprise Gardners bursting Bennet's condom any time soon.

[Nyvin]

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.

Dems are foolish to go after Portman and Kirk over Ayotte and Toomey.

Portman and Kirk are substantially more entrenched and compromise more in the Senate.

The Dems would be idiotic to not target Kirk though.

[Orser67]

Solid D:
California, Oregon, Washington, Connecticut

Likely D:
None

Lean D:
Illinois, Wisconsin, Colorado

Tossup:
Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania

Lean R:
North Carolina, Ohio, New Hampshire

Likely R:
Missouri, Arizona, Indiana

Solid R:
Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Iowa

Safe D or Safe R:
All others

[pbrower2a]

Marquette University Law School. Wisconsin:

Approvals:


Johnson- 27/36/37

Ugly, but consistent with him having an abysmal 30% approval rating with which one does not get re-elected in a swing state.

PPP, NC

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/09/mccrory-burr-ahead-in-nc-races.html

Comment: I see him vulnerable both to a primary challenge and, once the Democrat gets his campaign rolling, the Democrat in the general election. He is not as obviously doomed as Kirk in Illinois or Johnson in Wisconsin, but he is in a bad spot. Should 2016 be a Democratic wave, then he goes down. NC leans R, but probably not enough to rescue an incumbent Senator with approvals in the low-to-mid 30s.   

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 --  Democratic 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       5     0
40-44    1      0
45-49    1      2
50-54    3      0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  2      0
no poll  9      2

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dem
FL, WI, IL & NV
Tossup
Co & OH
potential competetive but LR
Az, NC, MO & Pa


OH isnt LR, Hilary and Strickland continues to poll well in OH. AZ & OH can come Dems way.

[/]

Lean Dem:

- Wisconsin
- Illinois
- Colorado

Tilt Dem:

- Nevada
- Florida
- Ohio

Tilt Rep:

- New Hampshire
- Arizona
- Pennsylvania

Lean Rep:

- Missouri
- North Carolina
- Indiana

[ElectionsGuy]

So, I realized something today that I probably should've known for a while and feel stupid for: Georgia has a runoff. I've said it was likely R for a while now because despite Isakson being somebody who nobody cares about but always wins re-election, its Georgia and the presidential race would be closely correlated to it, and the presidential race is Likely R. Well, Georgia has a runoff for non-presidential races. So Safe R, because the D's will not be able to get >50%.

And I decided to move North Carolina back to Lean R, I think it was foolish to move it to Likely R actually. Ohio is a toss-up but its a tilt R toss-up.

Edit: NH goes to a toss-up with Hassan now in the race.

Democratic Path to the Senate

Defending seats:

CO
NV

They need to pickup:

IL
WI

2-5 (depends on defending Senate seats and the presidential race, assumes they pickup IL and WI) of these 6:

AZ
FL
NH
NC
OH
PA

Extra pickups (big wave situation)?

IN
MO

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

So, I realized something today that I probably should've known for a while and feel stupid for: Georgia has a runoff. I've said it was likely R for a while now because despite Isakson being somebody who nobody cares about but always wins re-election, its Georgia and the presidential race would be closely correlated to it, and the presidential race is Likely R. Well, Georgia has a runoff for non-presidential races. So Safe R, because the D's will not be able to get >50%.

And I decided to move North Carolina back to Lean R, I think it was foolish to move it to Likely R actually. Ohio is a toss-up but its a tilt R toss-up.

Democratic Path to the Senate

Defending seats:

CO
NV

They need to pickup:

IL
WI

2-5 (depends on defending Senate seats and the presidential race, assumes they pickup IL and WI) of these 6:

AZ
FL
NH
NC
OH
PA

Extra pickups (big wave situation)?

IN
MO

Georgia will turn purple at some point during the next few cycles. It could be 2016 if Cruz is the GOP Nominee.