2016 Senate Ratings and Predictions

[pbrower2a]

Iowa is Safe R unless Chuck Grassley leaves or retires due to health. He is past 80. Anyone else in Iowa? Lean D.

[pbrower2a]

Approval polls only.

White -- retiring incumbent, 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.

[pbrower2a]

Iowa is Safe R unless Chuck Grassley leaves or retires due to health. He is past 80. Anyone else in Iowa? Lean D.

I'd call David Young a potential Lean R - being Grassley's Chief of Staff and all could help especially if Walker is on the top line. I know he's only had one term, but he could start off pretty well.

Latham could do well too, but I suppose he's probably done. He might have a bit of a hard time in the east, but he led Braley and Loebsack (trailed Vilsack) in 2013 when he was getting lobbed out as a candidate last time.

Dunno what kind of quality could potentially come out of the state legislature, but I think those are probably the top 2 potential replacements.

Here's the problem with Scott Walker:


Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

NO potential Republican nominee for President is doing well in Iowa. Here I am showing what Walker does, which suggests that he would lose like McCain in 2008 or Romney in 2012.  If Scott Walker cannot win Wisconsin, he is not going to help Republicans in Iowa.

Senator Charles Grassley has approval in the 60s and would win re-election if he seeks it.  (On the other side, Chuck Schumer in New York is about as secure... and both are obviously much more secure than incumbents with ratings in the 30s)  but he cannot devolve such an approval onto any Republican should he retire.

I saw the approval rating for Joni Ernst... and it isn't very high. Iowans basically elected a Sharron Angle in 2014... and she could be the worst drag on any Republican candidate for Senate from Iowa other than Charles Grassley.

[pbrower2a]

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-nevada-polling/?utm_source=Copy+of+sc+poll&utm_campaign=SC+Poll&utm_medium=email

Except if popular Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval runs for Harry Reid's current seat, Nevada is slight-D for the Senate for now. 

[pbrower2a]

Approval polls only. Updated to reflect a 'better' poll for Senator Bennet in Colorado (D-CO), a new poll (and first) of approval for Kelly Ayotte (R-NC), and the likelihood of Bob Menendez (D-NJ) resigning with the near certainty of an appointed Senator replacing him (the appointed Senator would be up for election in 2016):  

White -- retiring incumbent, 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 --  Democrat 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.

I think that Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) will appoint a Republican if he could get away with it, so here's what I think the map will look like pending new polls:

Appointed pols have a poor record of getting re-elected; thus the asterisk.

An elected Governor or Senator with an approval rating of 43% or 44% has about a 50% chance of being re-elected in an election with an 'average' turnout and if one does not account for the strength of the opponent or 'money bombs'. This map does not show this. Chance of being re-elected generally drops precipitously as an approval rating dips below 43% and approaches certainty as approval is near 50%. Governing and legislating take a bite out of approval (about 6-7%), so one can expect someone who got 51% of the vote to have an approval rating of about 44-45% and need to campaign to get re-elected. With an approval rating of 40% or so, an elected pol either runs from his record and loses or takes his chances.

An appointed pol who has never proved himself in an electoral campaign (Tim Scott is no longer in that category) needs approval near 50% to have a chance because he has never shown that he can win the seat by getting elected.

This map does not show how good a campaigner the incumbent is, what sort of opposition the incumbent has, does not predict turnout, and cannot show how effective right-wing front groups will be in convincing voters that the Democrat drowns kittens or feeds puppies to snakes.

[pbrower2a]

No map. PPP tells us that Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) has a 52% approval rating -- contrast Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) at 40%. Senator Shaheen is not up for re-election this time.

PPP has offered a context for interpreting a 40% approval rating for Senator Ayotte. 

[pbrower2a]

We get a poll from Arizona:

PPP, Arizona, Senator John McCain, R-AZ

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of Senator John
McCain’s job performance?

 41% Approve --  50% Disapprove -- 9% Not sure

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_AZ_50515.pdf

Slipping. Note also some updates for Colorado and Iowa.

Approval polls only.

New verbiage underlined



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.

[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.

[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.
  



  

[pbrower2a]

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

[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.

[pbrower2a]

Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey (R-PA)...PPP

30% of voters approve of the job Toomey is doing to 37% who disapprove. Those numbers are little changed from when we polled the state in January and found 28% approving to 35% who disapproved. Throughout his first term we've consistently found Toomey with about a third of voters approving of him, about a third disapproving, and about a third having no opinion either way.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/05/toomey-leads-sestak-by-4-in-rematch.html

Close to his ceiling? If so, Pat  Toomey loses. He must campaign to win, and he will need to show what he believes. He has played things closely to his vest so far, avoiding controversy. He will have to take sides on some controversial issues, especially if he is to get the financial support that he will need.

He seems like a fairly good politician, at the least in keeping a potentially-toxic agenda concealed well enough, but that will not be enough should there be anything like a D wave.  His approval is in the league with Johnson in Wisconsin, and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have some similarities.

He is not the new Rick Santorum -- that is beyond any question.

...but here's one contrast: the other Senator from Pennsylvania.


Q16
Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Bob
Casey’s job performance?

 43% Approve
..........................................................
 33% Disapprove
......................................................
 24% Not sure
..........................................................

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    4     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

[pbrower2a]

https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/gsp2015_spring_senrace052715.pdf

Ayotte 45
Hassan 43

Ayotte favorability: 48/28

I do not use favorability polls.

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    4      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

[pbrower2a]

Senator Richard Burr, R-NC. PPP

There's been little change in the state of the North Carolina Senate race over the last month. Voters remain closely divided on Richard Burr- 35% approve of the job he's doing to 36% who disapprove- little different from his 36/37 spread a month ago. Despite his tepid approval numbers though Burr still starts out with pretty healthy leads for reelection. He's up by anywhere from 9 to 18 points against the 5 Democrats we tested against him.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/cooper-takes-small-lead-over-mccrory.html#more

I'm not going to make much of a 2% improvement.

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    4      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

[pbrower2a]

Ohio Senate Race a Toss Up

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/ohio-senate-race-a-toss-up.html#more

Portman is the one who counts. For a valid comparison in Ohio, consider the other side:

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 --  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

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Keep watching. Knowing how Parkinson's works, do not be surprised of a retirement.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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