Approval, Incumbent Senators seeking re-election

[pbrower2a]

I can't find my old thread on this topic, so here I revive it.

A recent poll by Democracy Corps has Strickland and Portman tied in Ohio. The challenger Strickland has typically been slightly ahead despite reasonably-good approval ratings
for Portman. That is enough to take away the one Democratic edge for Strickland and make that race a true toss-up.

According to PPP, Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) has an abysmal 29% approval rating. If you think that bad, then Senator Tillis (not up until 2020) fares even worse at 26%. I can't say that an unpopular Senator from the same party hurts the chances of the other Senator (that does not seem to hurt Chuck Grassley in Iowa at 50%)... but it can't help.  

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_102915.pdf

Approval polls only.




Gray -- no incumbent at risk.
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 -- Democrat running for re-election with current polls available.

Tan -- incumbent Senator credibly running for another office. Approval and party (D, R) shown    


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.

What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       6     0
40-44    2     0
45-49    0      2
50-54    4      0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    2      3  
indict     0      1
oth off  2      0
no poll  7      2


Now -- my projection for the 2016 Senate election:

Sure R:

Alabama
Idaho
Iowa
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah

Likely R:
Alaska
Kansas


Edge R:
Arizona
Arkansas
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana

Tossups
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania


All but one of the current tossups are current R seats.

Edge D:
Colorado
Florida*
New Hampshire*


Likely D:
Oregon
Washington


Solid D:
California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois*
Maryland
Vermont
Wisconsin*


*flip (so far all R to D)

New Jersey looks like a fairly sure hold should current, but indicted, Senator Bob Menendez be compelled to resign.

[/]

It's funny because Burr is actually a pretty good fit for NC.

[Bismarck]

I'd say Indiana is likely R. Stutzman could blow it but he has more tact than Murdock. Sorry if this is the wrong thread.

[Free Bird]

This is why raw approval numbers are a horrible method of calculating races. Dan Malloy and Rick Scott anyone?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's funny because Burr is actually a pretty good fit for NC.

Heath Shuler declined the run, leaving 2nd tier candidates left. I doubt anyone will beat him.

But, approvals are somewhat good determinate. Rick Scott and Malloy won in state that had the same party dominating local politics, R dominate, except in presidential races in FL and Dems, with the exception of Chris Shays dominate CT.

Toomey, Ayotte, Kirk, Feingold all are in states dominated by Dems in presidential years.

Tilt D
WI
IL
NH
FL

Tossup
OH
Pa

[Kingpoleon]

This is why raw approval numbers are a horrible method of calculating races. Dan Malloy and Rick Scott anyone?

Governor Charlie Crist begs to differ...

Oh wait.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Midterm races are different dynamics than presidential ones.

[pbrower2a]

I'd say Indiana is likely R. Stutzman could blow it but he has more tact than Murdock. Sorry if this is the wrong thread.

This is not the wrong thread for that. I would love to see a poll, but the state is Indiana whence comes few polls due to its laws against phone-based polling.

In the last Presidential year Indiana elected a Democrat for the US Senate. There will be no incumbent running, and in view of the 2008 Presidential election Indiana might be trending D. It is Indiana, so it is probably Lean R or Edge R.   

[pbrower2a]

Update: Vitter is not running for re-election.

One for Georgia:

poll from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Johnny Isaacson, R-GA

Approve 38%
Disapprove 30%

http://www.myajc.com/news/jan-2016-poll/

Approval polls only.




Gray -- no incumbent at risk.
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 -- Democrat running for re-election with current polls available.

Tan -- incumbent Senator credibly running for another office. Approval and party (D, R) shown    


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.

What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       7     0
40-44    2     0
45-49    0      2
50-54    4      0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      2
retire    3      3  
indict     0      1
oth off  1      0
no poll  6      2


Now -- my projection for the 2016 Senate election:

Sure R:

Alabama
Idaho
Iowa
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah

Likely R:
Alaska
Kansas


Edge R:
Arizona
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana

Tossups
Georgia (from Edge R)
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania


All but one of the current tossups are current R seats.

Edge D:
Colorado
Florida*
New Hampshire*


Likely D:
Oregon
Washington


Solid D:
California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois*
Maryland
Vermont
Wisconsin*


*flip (so far all R to D)

New Jersey looks like a fairly sure hold should current, but indicted, Senator Bob Menendez be compelled to resign.