Which Senate seat has a better chance of switching?

[/]

There seems to be a lot of variation in opinions regarding whether IL or WI (the two most likely Dem pickups in 2016) is more likely to change parties. Thoughts?

[ElectionsGuy]

Illinois

[Xing]

Illinois, mainly because Kirk needs so many more crossover votes than Johnson (who will still likely need some.)

[RogueBeaver]

Illinois

[Gass3268]

Illinois

[Skye]

Illinois

[Miles]

Illinois

There haven't been rumors of Johnson just retiring like they're have been with Kirk.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Easily Illinois. Johnson could survive with a good candidate. kirk is toast, even with a GOP landslide.

[Bojack Horseman]

Illinois for the same reason that Ann Richards lost in Texas in 1994. You may be fairly popular, but when you're fighting an ideological uphill battle, your approval rating doesn't matter.

[Figueira]

It's close, but I have to go with Illinois because partisanship, and because Kirk is running a bad campaign so far.

[Bismarck]

Illinois by a mile. In an earlier ere, Kirk would be safe as a moderate. With our polarization, Johnson is much safer in a lean D state compared to Kirk in Safe D Illinois.

[Mr. Illini]

Illinois is a more Democratic state

+

Kirk has run a terrible campaign

=

Illinois

But both will go Dem.

[Kingpoleon]

Wisconsin, though Kirk could also lose by more. Illinois will trend R so with Obama gone, and Kirk is an unpredictable candidate. The only way this wouldn't be Toss-Up would be Alex Giannoulius v. Mark Kirk again, as he was a much better candidate than Duckworth.

[Nyvin]

Wisconsin, though Kirk could also lose by more. Illinois will trend R so with Obama gone, and Kirk is an unpredictable candidate. The only way this wouldn't be Toss-Up would be Alex Giannoulius v. Mark Kirk again, as he was a much better candidate than Duckworth.

Illinois is definitely not a toss up in any scenario...

[Mr. Illini]

Wisconsin, though Kirk could also lose by more. Illinois will trend R so with Obama gone, and Kirk is an unpredictable candidate. The only way this wouldn't be Toss-Up would be Alex Giannoulius v. Mark Kirk again, as he was a much better candidate than Duckworth.

lol

[Figueira]

Wisconsin, though Kirk could also lose by more. Illinois will trend R so with Obama gone, and Kirk is an unpredictable candidate. The only way this wouldn't be Toss-Up would be Alex Giannoulius v. Mark Kirk again, as he was a much better candidate than Duckworth.

Illinois is definitely not a toss up in any scenario...

It could anywhere from Safe D to Safe R in various scenarios. Politics is hard to predict.

[pbrower2a]

Mark Kirk is an even worse fit for Illinois than Ron Johnson is for Wisconsin. But this may be the difference between an 85% chance of being defeated and a 90% chance of being defeated. Both now look like swift calls on Election Night.

Win under flukish circumstances and prove a poor match for the constituency, and you lose your reelection bid. I can't see 2016 as a D wave - but lots of Republican Senators elected in 2010 will need to show that they can win in anything other than an R wave.   

[Xing]

Illinois is definitely not a toss up in any my scenario...

FTFY

Oh, btw: I still think Kirk is less vulnerable than Ayotte.

Why, exactly? I get it: You think that NH is a Solid D state, but do you actually think it's more Democratic than Illinois!?

[ElectionsGuy]

Illinois is definitely not a toss up in any my scenario...

FTFY

Oh, btw: I still think Kirk is less vulnerable than Ayotte.

Why, exactly? I get it: You think that NH is a Solid D state, but do you actually think it's more Democratic than Illinois!?

Good question, probably yes. IL is a more moderate state, while NH is very liberal. I think it's about as competitive as Oregon and Washington. And keep in mind that you can't get elected in IL just by being a woman.

wtf

[RINO Tom]

Illinois is definitely not a toss up in any my scenario...

FTFY

Oh, btw: I still think Kirk is less vulnerable than Ayotte.

We know.

[Higgs]

Illinois

[DS0816]

Illinois hash’t carried Republican for U.S. Senate in a presidential year sine Richard Nixon's 49-state re-election in 1972. Every Repunlican U.S. Senate victory ever since came in midterm elections.

Wisconsin has been electing same-party candidates—presidential and senatorial levels—since 1976.

Incumbent Republican U.S. Sens. Illinois's Mark Kirk and Wisconsin's Ron Johnson are going to hav to rely on a Republican presidential pickup, in 2016, and they'll need a national landslide to keep them in office.

[/]

Illinois hash’t carried Republican for U.S. Senate in a presidential year sine Richard Nixon's 49-state re-election in 1972. Every Repunlican U.S. Senate victory ever since came in midterm elections.

Wisconsin has been electing same-party candidates—presidential and senatorial levels—since 1976.

Incumbent Republican U.S. Sens. Illinois's Mark Kirk and Wisconsin's Ron Johnson are going to hav to rely on a Republican presidential pickup, in 2016, and they'll need a national landslide to keep them in office.

And only one of Vermont's Senators has ever been from the Democratic Party, so that obviously means we should be expecting two Republican pickups soon.

[DS0816]

Illinois hash’t carried Republican for U.S. Senate in a presidential year sine Richard Nixon's 49-state re-election in 1972. Every Repunlican U.S. Senate victory ever since came in midterm elections.

Wisconsin has been electing same-party candidates—presidential and senatorial levels—since 1976.

Incumbent Republican U.S. Sens. Illinois's Mark Kirk and Wisconsin's Ron Johnson are going to hav to rely on a Republican presidential pickup, in 2016, and they'll need a national landslide to keep them in office.

And only one of Vermont's Senators has ever been from the Democratic Party, so that obviously means we should be expecting two Republican pickups soon.

That doesn't apply.

Since the Republican Party first presidential election in 1856 (and they won for the first time four years later with Abraham Lincoln), no state carried for the party more times than Vermont, in the column from 1856 to 1988 (with exception of 1964, with the uncommon electoral map of Deep South duo Alabama and Mississippi not carrying Democratic but Republican, for Barry Goldwater, and Vermont not carrying Republican but Democratic, for the full-term election of Lyndon Johnson).

Patrick Leahey, first elected to the United States Senate in the midterm election of 1974, after Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, is the state's sole Democratic U.S. senator but he's been there over 40 years and won't be forever. Jim Jeffords, first elected in 1988 and with his last election in 2000, switched from Republican to independent (and moved to caucus with the Democrats) in 2001, is the last from his party. Bernie Sanders won Jeffords's seat in the midterm election of 2006, has always caucused with the Democrats, and when the time comes for different U.S. senators from Vermont they will be either directly from the Democratic Party or will be independents who caucus with that party.

[DS0816]

Incumbent Republican U.S. Sens. Illinois's Mark Kirk and Wisconsin's Ron Johnson are going to hav to rely on a Republican presidential pickup, in 2016, and they'll need a national landslide to keep them in office.

Dean Heller would like to have a word with you. Also, Scott Brown outperformed Mitt Romney by 9 points in 2012 as well.

Not applicable.

Illinois stands out for the reason I pointed out. The fact that it carried for the winning Republican presidential candidates throughout the 1970s and 1980s (and for the unseated Gerald Ford in 1976), but only during that time carried Republican at the U.S. Senate level in 1972 (with Charles Percy's second and last term) says plenty. Even when Ronald Reagan carried 49 states with re-election, in 1984, Illinois carried Democratic for U.S. Senate (Paul Simon, who unseated Charles Percy while Reagan carried his birth state by around 13 percentage points; Percy, in 1972, ran about six points ahead of Nixon).

Since after 1972, the Republican U.S. Senate victories have all come in midterm elections: Charles Percy, with this third (and last) term won in 1978, during the presidency of Democrat Jimmy Carter; Peter Fitzgerald, with sole term won in 1998, during the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton. If the pattern continues, Mark Kirk, who won in 2010, during the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama, won't end up getting a second consecutive term with re-election in the presidential year of 2016.

The Republicans are going to have have a national tide to hold the Illinois U.S. Senate seat in 2016.


As for Wisconsin, I touched on the topic of same-state patterns (referring to carriage outcomes for U.S. President and U.S. Senate) in this post:

@ https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=183905.msg3979488#msg3979488

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This doesn't mean all past patterns have to conform as if they are such patterns that cannot possibly get broken (or, at the least, interrupted). But, I have pointed out before that, at least since 2000, we've been seeing a rate of about 80 percent…meaning, for the number of scheduled U.S. Senate seats timed with a presidential election, about 80 percent of applicable states have lately been carrying for the same party at both levels. (That's why this doesn't apply to 2012 Nevada, nor did it in 2004 Nevada. The percentage points' differential between same-party carriage in 2012 Massachusetts, a different topic, isn't persuasive in part because Elizabeth Warren's win was a Democratic pickup…meaning, of course, that she did a lot more shifting in her race than President Obama. And she unseated an incumbent Republican whose job-approval percentage was approximately 60 percent. Furthermore, Massachusetts carried Democratic for U.S. Senate during Republican presidential wins of carrying the state by the likes of Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. And, in 1972, even when Massachusetts turned out to be the only state not carried by the re-election of incumbent Republican president Richard Nixon…same-party carriage didn't apply as Republican Edward Brooke was re-elected to his second and last term in the U.S. Senate.)