IL/WI: Who is more vulnerable in 2016?

[Ebsy]

lol pbrower2a keeps reciting those stats when Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, and countless others won re-election. Joke poster.

2016 is not 2014.

The Republican front groups spent millions on negative ads to create mass confusion.

If that keeps working, then we are in for the GOP becoming the dominant party in American politics for decades -- basically the Nationalist Party of South Africa without the overt racism.

FTFY

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

If Republicans wanted to win, they'd primary Ron Johnson with someone who could win statewide. Maybe fmr. rep. Tom Petri?

[Nichlemn]

lol pbrower2a keeps reciting those stats when Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, and countless others won re-election. Joke poster.

2016 is not 2014.

So... therefore you can make predictions that defy parallels with any year, and indeed, common sense?

[Landslide Lyndon]

I voted for Johnson. Kirk is clearly vulnerable, but he has an amazing ability to win tough races, so I'm not counting him out. He's also very personable (I've met him in person) which certainly helps on the campaign trail.

That was more due to his incredible luck in drawing incompetent or deeply flawed opponents than his campaign skills.
Of course the jury is still out for Duckworth too when it comes to how formidable a candidate she is.

[ElectionsGuy]

lol pbrower2a keeps reciting those stats when Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, and countless others won re-election. Joke poster.

2016 is not 2014.

"2014 is not 2010"

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

lol pbrower2a keeps reciting those stats when Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, and countless others won re-election. Joke poster.

2016 is not 2014.

"2014 is not 2010"

2016 is a presidential year, not a midterm

[Maxwell]

lol pbrower2a keeps reciting those stats when Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, and countless others won re-election. Joke poster.

2016 is not 2014.

"2014 is not 2010"

2016 is a presidential year, not a midterm

Look - fair enough.

But even so, when you're so unbelievably wrong even in a midterm election, it's time to think about a new theory on approval ratings.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

lol pbrower2a keeps reciting those stats when Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, and countless others won re-election. Joke poster.

2016 is not 2014.

"2014 is not 2010"

2016 is a presidential year, not a midterm

Look - fair enough.

But even so, when you're so unbelievably wrong even in a midterm election, it's time to think about a new theory on approval ratings.

sure, it's not the be-all and end-all, but probably still a useful approximation

[pbrower2a]

lol pbrower2a keeps reciting those stats when Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, and countless others won re-election. Joke poster.

2016 is not 2014.

So... therefore you can make predictions that defy parallels with any year, and indeed, common sense?

Republicans looked much more vulnerable in 2014 until the Koch fronts opened the spigots and flooded the media with last-minute smear campaigns. Those worked! The politicians did not do such themselves, because such is too risky for cultivating a 'nice guy' image.

If that decides elections from now on, then I can predict that the Republicans will hold the Senate, and that in 2018 the Republicans get a stranglehold on American politics that remains until the United States is defeated in a major war.

That is a prediction. A political culture can change. Rules can be altered to the permanent advantage of a dominant party that makes other parties subordinate or irrelevant if not illegal. The dominant party can then use patronage and affiliation (as in, it is more advantageous for a youth to join the Party youth club than Scouting or 4-H).  "Nationalist Party of South Africa without the racism?" I could say far worse.

I did not see the ruthless assault on the political system coming until it hit. But if the typical American politician becomes more like Senator Tom Cotton or Joni Ernst, then those of us young enough to do so might want to find another country.

[pbrower2a]

Pssst! Want to see how bad some of the ratings are for incumbent Republican Senators up 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.

Yellow is for an incumbent under indictment or impeachment, or who has a terminal diagnosis that likely ends his life before his Senatorial term is up. "R" for Republican, "D" for Democratic. No distinction of shade here.


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 yet, but I predict that there will be one soon!) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.


...Any elected incumbent with an approval rating below 43% should be assumed vulnerable unless there is compelling cause to believe otherwise. At 44% one has about a 50% chance of winning re-election. The chance of winning re-election goes to practically 'prohibitive favorite' around 50% approval and drops off to practically zero rapidly in the zone of 35% approval.

Below 35% approval one has elected pols with extreme problems -- scandal, primary challenges, the bailiwick going sour fast for the pol's party; there's little record on them because they usually resign in disgrace, lose a primary challenge, or decide to nor run for re-election.

Another point. Just look at such numbers as there are now. Of course I have polls for only three incumbent Democrats running for re-election, but two of them have approval numbers above 60% and the other is in the near-safe range of 46%. Three are retiring at the end of their current terms, so they do not count. (I am not really discussing open seats here). There are apparently only four other Democrats running for re-election, and those are in very safe seats. (On the other side I have yet to see the approval ratings of current Republican Senators "up" in Utah, Idaho, the Dakotas, or Alabama. Such would say little).

I have already conceded that Tim Scott (SC) has a safe seat, and that the only question about Grassley is more actuarial than political.

But look at some of the other numbers. Maybe "43" and "46" aren't significantly different... but if I am a Republican I would be concerned about the chance of any Republican Senator with an approval rating below 43.  I would see a near-inverse of 2010. So how does one shore up support in what will be a high-turnout election?

[fenrir]

I voted for Johnson. Kirk is clearly vulnerable, but he has an amazing ability to win tough races, so I'm not counting him out. He's also very personable (I've met him in person) which certainly helps on the campaign trail.

That was more due to his incredible luck in drawing incompetent or deeply flawed opponents than his campaign skills.
Of course the jury is still out for Duckworth too when it comes to how formidable a candidate she is.

You don't go to the Northwest and Northern suburbs to find non-Jewish liberals en masse; Democrats shouldn't have as easy of a time the last two cycles as she did with that district, which voted for GWB twice and elected Henry Hyde time after time.

[Maxwell]

I voted for Johnson. Kirk is clearly vulnerable, but he has an amazing ability to win tough races, so I'm not counting him out. He's also very personable (I've met him in person) which certainly helps on the campaign trail.

That was more due to his incredible luck in drawing incompetent or deeply flawed opponents than his campaign skills.
Of course the jury is still out for Duckworth too when it comes to how formidable a candidate she is.

You don't go to the Northwest and Northern suburbs to find non-Jewish liberals en masse; Democrats shouldn't have as easy of a time the last two cycles as she did with that district, which voted for GWB twice and elected Henry Hyde time after time.

Melissa Bean, a Democrat, was the incumbent in the district before 2010.

[Mr. Illini]

I voted for Johnson. Kirk is clearly vulnerable, but he has an amazing ability to win tough races, so I'm not counting him out. He's also very personable (I've met him in person) which certainly helps on the campaign trail.

That was more due to his incredible luck in drawing incompetent or deeply flawed opponents than his campaign skills.
Of course the jury is still out for Duckworth too when it comes to how formidable a candidate she is.

You don't go to the Northwest and Northern suburbs to find non-Jewish liberals en masse; Democrats shouldn't have as easy of a time the last two cycles as she did with that district, which voted for GWB twice and elected Henry Hyde time after time.

Meh, the Schaumburg/Palatine/Arlington Heights suburban sprawl area is pretty in-the-middle and is, if anything, drifting very much toward the Dems as the GOP is percieved to be going right-ward.

Not a liberal area necessarily, but no longer a Republican stronghold.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Well... Kirk is in a much worse state but Johnson has done more damage by himself. Right now I'm going to say Johnson.

I agree with this, but I think Johnson has a better chance at a rebound.  It's not impossible that a Wisconsin native will be on the national ticket; Scott Walker is a first-tier Presidential candidate.  Johnson will benefit from that.  Truthfully, I expect both these guys to lose.  If either wins, that's an indictment of the DSCC.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Well... Kirk is in a much worse state but Johnson has done more damage by himself. Right now I'm going to say Johnson.

I agree with this, but I think Johnson has a better chance at a rebound.  It's not impossible that a Wisconsin native will be on the national ticket; Scott Walker is a first-tier Presidential candidate.  Johnson will benefit from that.  Truthfully, I expect both these guys to lose.  If either wins, that's an indictment of the DSCC.

Polls have shown Walker losing Wisconsin badly to Clinton so it's debatable whether his presence on the ticket will help or hurt Johnson.

[TJ in Oregon]

It really depends on what the national landscape looks like in 2016. If it's a Republican year, Kirk is more vulnerable because Johnson is nondescript enough to be swept along with the current. If it's a neutral or Democratic year, Johnson is more vulnerable because it's easier to see how people could split their ticket to save Kirk. On the whole. I'd say Johnson is more vulnerable.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Kirk; is the obvious choice.  Johnson; who has yet to be challenged can say, like Toomey, that he is a firm believer in second amendment rights.  Which are supported by the majority of the GOP in WI. Kirk on the other hand supports SSM and is pro choice; opposed by the majority of GOPers in the state. Voters have voted for Walker and a good majority of GOPers in WI. Kirk on the other hand; along with Rauner are the only two statewide officeholders in the state.

It doesnt matter; Dems need 4 seats and OH, Pa, IL and WI are on their target list.

[Ebsy]

If OC says Kirk is the obvious choice, then the obvious answer is Johnson.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Feingold was one of my favorite senators, it'd be nice to have him back. Would Johnson's chances increase at all though with Walker at the top of the ticket?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If OC says Kirk is the obvious choice, then the obvious answer is Johnson.

If Walker is nominee; Johnson will put up one heck of a fight.

Like I said; it doesnt matter; Dems need both seats, so the question is minor.