2016 Senate Ratings and Predictions

[/]

Safe Democratic:

Washington
California
Oregon
Hawaii
New York
Vermont
Connecticut
Maryland
Illinois
Wisconsin

Lean Democratic:

Colorado
New Hampshire
Ohio
Florida

Tossup:

Pennsylvania
Indiana
Missouri
Louisiana
Arizona
Nevada

Lean Republican:

North Carolina

Safe Republican:

Alaska
Idaho
Utah
North Dakota
South Dakota
Kansas
Oklahoma
Iowa
Arkansas
Kentucky
South Carolina
Georgia
Alabama

[smoltchanov]

^ Hyperoptimistic. And, most likely, unrealistic too...

[ElectionsGuy]

A D+2 state with a Republican incumbent is Safe D, but an open seat in an R+11 state is a toss-up?

[The Other Castro]

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

Likely R:
Alaska
Arkansas
Georgia
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky

Lean R:
Arizona
North Carolina
Louisiana

Tilt R:
Ohio
Missouri
Pennsylvania

Toss-Up:
Florida
Nevada

Tilt D:
New Hampshire*

Lean D:
Illinois*
Wisconsin*
Colorado

Likely D:
Washington
California

Safe D:
Connecticut
Hawaii
Maryland
New York
Oregon
Vermont

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In order of most likely Democratic to least likely: (I have no toss-ups, I find them cowardly

Hawaii - lmao, although maybe a primary

Vermont - yeah
New York - no
Maryland - open and I think it could be Cummings for the taking if he wanted it, Van Hollen without.
Connecticut - my prediction for the obligatory SHOCK MEDIA IS IT CLOSER THAN YOU MIGHT TBINK?!?!
Washington - weirder things have happened with top-two primaries
Oregon - stoned people make funny decisions
California - open, and Kampala Harris could be caught doing something bad/skeletons in closet ... Still.


Illinois Kirk is toast even in a lean Rep year. Congrats Duckworth.

Colorado - reps are screwing themselves in the butt here
Wisconsin - Johnson could get in on the back of a republican landslide, but ...
Nevada - if Angle wins primary, rockets up to likely Masto
New Hampshire - will be very close to the state's presidential result, and I think that just tilts D in a neutral year.

Florida - the fdp suck, and jolly seems to be the world's luckiest man. Tilt Jolly.
Ohio - incumbency benefits Portman, who should run in front of the GOP ticket, soz OC
Missouri - Missouri republicans appear to either be a criminal racket or a dark sitcom, but the presidential ticket should help
Pennsylvania - none of the democrats are great, and Toomey will over perform the GOP ticket significantly
Arizona - honestly I predict McCain will lose the primary an that will be the big shock result.

North Carolina - nobody good is running for Dems, incumbent inoffensive
Indiana - good dem candidate but only as wave insurance/crazy GOP winner insurance
Louisiana - lolVitter/ open seat. Very mysterious at the moment, but may be funny,

Georgia - don't care
Kentucky - I predict this will be the Kansas 2014 of this race, and everything that entails.
Alaska - and Murkowski is safe in the primary
Arkansas - wave insurance decent, but inoffensive incumbent + good state
Iowa - only if Grassley dies, and even then he might win.
Utah - lee is unpopular as f*** but Utah
North Dakota - generic  
South Dakota - generic  
Idaho - don't care
Alabama - will a democrat even run?
Oklahoma - ayy lmao

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems should win
OH, NH, WI, IL & Pa

FL may tilt GOP to Grayson

50-52 Dems and FL will go Dem if Murphy nominee

[pbrower2a]

Ohio, Zogby/Bowling Green State University

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.bgsu.edu/bgsupoll

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       6     0
40-44    1      0
45-49    1      2
50-54    2    0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  2      0
no poll  9      2

[pbrower2a]

Utah: Utah Policy, Mike Lee (R-UT)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/7152-poll-mike-lee-55-jonathan-swinton-25

I don't expect to see many Utah polls, and I would guess that an incumbent up by 30% over his most credible challenger and appearing to have 55% of the vote looking like his this early, he is extremely solid. He probably has an approval rating at the least in the low 50s. I estimate that his approval at the least is in the low 50s. This is an estimate, and a conservative one from someone who dislikes his politics.   

Ultra-safe -- about as safe as Schumer (D-NY).

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       6     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  8      2

[pbrower2a]

My projection:

Safe 80%
Likely 50%
Weak 30%

white -- toss-up
* flip

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

FL is Lean D, Sabato and Stuart Rothenberg have OH & Pa as leaning R which isnt correct.

[DS0816]

Illinois will flip Democratic. (Last time a Republican U.S. Senate candidate carried in a presidential year was in 1972—when Richard Nixon won 49 states for re-election and even managed to eke out a win in Cook County.)

Wisconsin will carry for same party at both presidential and senatorial levels. It’s been dong this since 1976. Only GOP wins were in 1980. (No Senate election was held in 1984.)

North Carolina has also been on the same-party pattern since 1972. Only Democratic carriage, on both levels, were in 2008. (No U.S. Senate election was held in 1976 when Jimmy Carter carried the state.)

The most reputable bellwether state, Ohio, has followed the pattern since 1992.

I am keeping in mind that patterns can get broken. But, over the past 10 or so years, about 80 percent of the scheduled U.S. Senate elections from presidential years resulted in same-party carriage with both levels. So, for 33 or 34 Senate elections, roughly 25 to 27 resulted in same-party carriage. I will be keeping this in mind with potentially continuing in 2016.

[pbrower2a]

Kansas, Jerry Moran (R):

11% very satisfied
31% somewhat satisfied
24% neutral
20% somewhat dissatisfied
15% very dissatisfied

Not the usual language of approval and disapproval, but it seems close enough. We see few Kansas polls. This is NOT solid, and Moran probably wins because he is in Kansas. But he does have some campaigning to do. "Very satisfied" and "somewhat satisfied" add to 42%. Above water. I am treating this as approval with "neutral" as undecided.

https://www.fhsu.edu/uploadedFiles/executive/docking/Kansas%20Speaks%20Report%202015%20.pdf

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       6     0
40-44    2      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  7      2

[pbrower2a]

I have been slow to recognize that Marco Rubio will not run for re-election. I have waited for a definitive statement,and here it is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thus the change for Florida. The approval rating for Rubio is no longer relevant to who wins the race for the US Senate from Florida in 2016.  

Approval polls only, except for an estimate in Utah.


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       6     0
40-44    2      0
45-49    0     2
50-54    2    0
55-59    1      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  1      0
no poll  7      2

[pbrower2a]

In view of the abandonment of any effort to get re-elected to the current Senate seat that Marco Rubio now holds, I can now conclude that the Democrats have a better chance of winning the seat in 2016:

My projection:

Safe 80%
Likely 50%
Weak 30%

white -- toss-up
* flip

[pbrower2a]

Iowa. Chuck Grassley down to 50%. This is likely statistical noise.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_110415.pdf 

Approval polls only, except for an estimate in Utah.


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       6     0
40-44    2      0
45-49    0     2
50-54    2    0
55-59    1      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  1      0
no poll  7      2





[/quote]

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

Post-reevaluation:

Toss-Up:

NV
FL
NH

Lean D:

IL
WI
CO

Likely D:

WA

Lean R:

OH
PA
AZ

Likely R:

AK (primary crap)
MO
LA
GA
IN
NC

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

CA
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
KY *
AL
SC
OK

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

D Kirk, Johnson, Ayotte, Bennet, and FL open

Tossup Toomey, NV open

Tossup/ LR Portman

NH, IL, WI, Pa, NV, CO go Dem for 50D

While FL or OH will give Dems 51
Bellweather is Pat Toomey

50/51 Dems with Prez Clinton

[pbrower2a]

PPP, New Hampshire:


November 30-December 2, 2015
Survey of 990 New Hampshire voters

New Hampshire Survey Results

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Kelly
Ayotte’s job performance?
 40%
Approve
..........................................................
 42%
Disapprove
......................................................
 17%
Not sure

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NH_120715.pdf

Slight, but insignificant, improvement over the last poll in NH -- but still awful.

Approval polls only, except for an estimate in Utah.


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    4      0
45-49    0     2
50-54    2    0
55-59    1      0
>60       0      2
retire    1       3  
indict     0      1
oth off  1      0
no poll  7      2

[madelka]

Likely D

Florida
Illinois
Colorado

Lean D

Nevada
Wisconsin

Tossup

New Hampshire
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Indiana

Leans R

Missouri
North Carolina

Likely R

Alaska
Louisiana

All the other races are not going to be competitive.

[JMT]

Likely D

Florida
Illinois
Colorado

Lean D

Nevada
Wisconsin

Tossup

New Hampshire
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Indiana

Leans R

Missouri
North Carolina

Likely R

Alaska
Louisiana

All the other races are not going to be competitive.

I can understand the other rankings (and agree with most of them), but Indiana as a tossup? Having a hard time seeing that. Yes, Democrats got a somewhat decent recruit with Baron Hill, but I'd still rate the race as Lean R or even Likely R. To me, Indiana really seems like wave insurance.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

TILT Likely Dem
WI, IL &  CO

TILT Leans Dem
NV, NH & FL

TOSSUP/ Tilt R
Pa & OH

TILT R
AZ, NC & IN

Dems should have 50 senators with def of Ayotte and open seat in FL

[Xing]

Likely R
AZ
IN
MO
NC

Lean R
PA

Tilt R
OH

Pure toss-up
FL
NH

Tilt D
NV

Lean D
CO
IL
WI

[Orser67]

I'm more bullish for Democrats in Nevada and Pennsylvania because I doubt the Republican runs much ahead of the national ticket, and I think Clinton is likely to win both states.

Potentially competitive R
KY
LA
AK
GA

Likely R
IN
MO
AZ
NC

Tilt R
OH

Toss-up
PA
FL

Tilt D
NH

Lean D
NV
CO
WI

Likely D
IL

Potentially competitive D
CA

[Torie]

There you go again. The Pubs have a better chance of holding Wisconsin and Illinois than NH. Where is that laugh track you just linked to?  

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Pat Toomey is overrated. If Trump or Cruz are the nominees.