How many new Senators will we get from the 2016 elections?

[Figueira]

Well?

[Brewer]

9 (CA, NV, FL, MD, IN, IL, WI, NH, OH)

[Bojack Horseman]

9 (CA, NV, FL, MD, IN, IL, WI, NH, OH)

[Figueira]

It would also be interesting to hear predictions of who these new Senators will be.

My guesses: Harris, Masto, Stutzman, Murphy, Edwards(?), Duckworth, Feingold, Strickland, Hassan.

And yes, I need to update my Senate predictions.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

CA, NV, FL, MD, IN, WI, IL

So, 7

[Brewer]

It would also be interesting to hear predictions of who these new Senators will be.

My guesses: Harris, Masto, Stutzman, Murphy, Edwards(?), Duckworth, Feingold, Strickland, Hassan.

And yes, I need to update my Senate predictions.

My guesses as well.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It would also be interesting to hear predictions of who these new Senators will be.

My guesses: Harris, Masto, Stutzman, Murphy, Edwards(?), Duckworth, Feingold, Strickland, Hassan.

And yes, I need to update my Senate predictions.

9 definately but Katie McGinty or Edelen can surely win as well.

[pbrower2a]

CA, NV, FL, MD, IN -- certain because of retirements.

Incumbents are definitely going down in IL and WI.

I think that I can add LA (retirement in disgrace or with the threat of impending defeat).

Other possibilities not related to personal health, the least predictable of realities:


NH/AZ/MO/OH/PA/CO/NC/KY

Your guess is as good as mine on those. CO is least likely of those.

AR, GA, and KS are long-shots.

 

[Figueira]

It would also be interesting to hear predictions of who these new Senators will be.

My guesses: Harris, Masto, Stutzman, Murphy, Edwards(?), Duckworth, Feingold, Strickland, Hassan.

And yes, I need to update my Senate predictions.

9 definately but Katie McGinty or Edelen can surely win as well.

McGinty/Sestak can win, but it's far from certain. As for Edelen, I doubt it.

Also, @pbrower, I forgot about LA. If Vitter wins, then the appointee will most likely win in 2016. But if Vitter loses, he'll lrobably lose the Senate race or drop out.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It would also be interesting to hear predictions of who these new Senators will be.

My guesses: Harris, Masto, Stutzman, Murphy, Edwards(?), Duckworth, Feingold, Strickland, Hassan.

And yes, I need to update my Senate predictions.

9 definately but Katie McGinty or Edelen can surely win as well.

McGinty/Sestak can win, but it's far from certain. As for Edelen, I doubt it.

Also, @pbrower, I forgot about LA. If Vitter wins, then the appointee will most likely win in 2016. But if Vitter loses, he'll lrobably lose the Senate race or drop out.

Why not Adam Edelen if he gets in, he can pull it off, moreso than Kirkpatrick.

[JMT]

It would also be interesting to hear predictions of who these new Senators will be.

My guesses: Harris, Masto, Stutzman, Murphy, Edwards(?), Duckworth, Feingold, Strickland, Hassan.

And yes, I need to update my Senate predictions.

Good guesses, I agree with all except for Edwards. I personally think it'll be Van Hollen.

[pbrower2a]

My rationale:

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

...44% is the usual break-even point for an incumbent seeking re-election, but I will make some allowances for sure things. Incumbents are sure to get re-elected if their approval is above 45% unless they are in fact behind some challenger (which explains how I have Ohio as a likely flip. Those for which I have no polls mostly fall into the "It's Alabama" or "It's Vermont"... unless I see signs such as wins by shrinking margins for recent winners.

I have an estimate in Utah based on a matchup in which the incumbent leads the presumptive challenger by 55-25 or so.  

[Xing]

My current guess is eight.
California: Harris
Florida: Murphy
Illinois: Duckworth
Indiana: Stutzman
Maryland: Edwards
Nevada: Masto
New Hampshire: Hassan
Wisconsin: Feingold

[Figueira]

It would also be interesting to hear predictions of who these new Senators will be.

My guesses: Harris, Masto, Stutzman, Murphy, Edwards(?), Duckworth, Feingold, Strickland, Hassan.

And yes, I need to update my Senate predictions.

Good guesses, I agree with all except for Edwards. I personally think it'll be Van Hollen.

Yeah, I'm not very confident about that one, but there was one poll recently showing Edwards ahead.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

California Harris D Hold
Nevada Masto-Cortez D hold
Kentucky or Pa Edelen or McGINTY D pickup
Ohio Strickland D pickup
IN Stutzman R Hold
MD Van Hollen D Hold
FL Murphy D pickup
WI Feingold D pickup
IL Duckworth D pickup
NH Hassan D pickup

9 or 10 depending on Pa and KY

[ElectionsGuy]

Anywhere from 7 at least (5 retirements + Kirk and Johnson defeats) to 13 at most (Ayotte, Toomey, Portman, McCain, Burr and Bennet all getting defeated). Democrats would need a big wave for McCain and Burr though.

[MT Treasurer]

Anywhere from 7 at least (5 retirements + Kirk and Johnson defeats) to 13 at most (Ayotte, Toomey, Portman, McCain, Burr and Bennet all getting defeated). Democrats would need a big wave for McCain and Burr though.

Blunt isn't safe. Far from it, actually. He'd lose before McCain.

[Nyvin]

Something in the 8 to 10 range seems reasonable.   It could be more though.

[/]

Around 35 but maybe 36 or 37 if things get a bit crazy.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As long as Jeb or Kasich or Rubio arent the nominees, Dems will have a great night in 2016.

There will be between 8-10 new senators. Kate McGinty or CCM may lose, but Murphy, Strickland, Duckworth, Hassan, Feingold & if Edelen decides to run, may very well be new Sen-elect from KY.