2018 Senatorial Elections

[TheLeftwardTide]

^Shaheen? She's not up until 2020, there's no Senate race in New Hampshire next year.

My bad, I was looking at a map and thought that NH was light blue instead of grey - I'll fix it...

[TheLeftwardTide]

No.

Missouri is a toss up and West Virginia and North Dakota are likely D.

How is North Dakota likely D? Lean D at best.

Because Heitkamp is probably one of the best retail politicians democrats have in a Red State in 2018. No one thought she had a shot in 2012. Politico just did a big profile on her and they interviewed a trump voter who said he would absolutely vote for her in 2018. 

Your last point is simply a moot anecdote, and should be treated as such. Heitkamp is a good fit for North Dakota, but in the face of trends on both the national and local level thanks to the fracking boom, would that be enough? In situations like this, I think back to Arkansas in 2014, when Mark Pryor, an immensely powerful figure in Arkansas politics, got absolutely sh**tcanned by Tom Cotton (a fairly weak candidate in my opinion) due to the state trends. Yes, southern states tend to be much more inelastic than the Dakotas, but the point still stands nonetheless.

Retail politics doesn't bring a state like ND up to Likely D status. If you look at my map, Likely D includes Baldwin, Casey, Nelson, and Shaheen. Heitkamp is definitely more vulnerable than those candidates. Lean D includes Brown, Manchin, and Heller (flip) - I would argue that Heitkamp is more vulnerable than all of those politicians as well. Hence, a tossup. Probably more safe than Donnelly but that's not saying much.

Difference is in 2008 no one ran against Pryor so he hadn't had a tough re election campaign in awhile. Everyone said Heitkamp had no shot in 2012 and she won. She won because she ran a great campaign not because her opponent said something stupid or no republican didn't run against her. She is popular in her state 60% approval ratings not sure what Pryor's ratings were in 2014. I think Heitkamp had done a better job separating herself from the party. Not sure why you are bringing up Shaheen she is not up until 2020. Baldwin is definitely more vulnerable than you think Obama ran ahead of her.

By the same logic I could've said that Illinois in 2016 was competitive because Kirk won in 2010. No, Kirk was DOA, regardless of how "moderate" he was.

I'm not saying Heitkamp is DOA, I'm saying that her race is a tossup. If she was not as popular as she is now, it would've been Lean R. The North Dakota of today is much more hostile to Democrats than the North Dakota of even 6 years ago, largely due to the fracking boom. Heitkamp's 2012 coalition was very fragile, and which included Native Americans who are strongly opposed to DAPL. If Native American turnout is depressed due to Heitkamp's overt support for DAPL, then she has to expand her appeal to survive, which given the state environment, is quite difficult.

She didn't win solely because of her campaign skills, it was also partially because the Republicans wrote off that race as being Safe R when it really wasn't. A little bit how you're writing off this race as being Likely D. Again, I could accept arguments for Lean D but Likely D is ridiculous.

It doesn't matter that Obama ran ahead of Baldwin, that doesn't prove much. Romney was a poor fit for the state and Obama was from neighboring Illinois. Trump won a plurality by less than a percentage point with Clinton not visiting the state once during the general, and his approval ratings are now in freefall in the Rust Belt. As long as 2018 is a good year for Democrats, which it likely will be, and the Democrats don't write off the senate race (a la 2016), then Baldwin will win reelection. If Baldwin was more popular, it would've been Safe D like Michigan due to incumbency advantage. Pretending like Baldwin is as vulnerable as Heitkamp is also quite ridiculous.

Pryor didn't have an opponent in 2008 because that opponent would've been crushed - Pryor would've got 60%+ of the vote easily. Landrieu wasn't as good of a politician in a more competitive environment and she still won. Yes, Pryor's approval ratings were mediocre, but given the margin which he lost by, if he had Heitkamp's approval rating, would he have survived? I'd say probably not. Maybe if Obama was not in the White House but definitely not in 2014. Also keep in mind that Romney's margin in Arkansas was quite a bit smaller than Trump's margin in North Dakota.

[choclatechip45]

No.

Missouri is a toss up and West Virginia and North Dakota are likely D.

How is North Dakota likely D? Lean D at best.

Because Heitkamp is probably one of the best retail politicians democrats have in a Red State in 2018. No one thought she had a shot in 2012. Politico just did a big profile on her and they interviewed a trump voter who said he would absolutely vote for her in 2018. 

Your last point is simply a moot anecdote, and should be treated as such. Heitkamp is a good fit for North Dakota, but in the face of trends on both the national and local level thanks to the fracking boom, would that be enough? In situations like this, I think back to Arkansas in 2014, when Mark Pryor, an immensely powerful figure in Arkansas politics, got absolutely sh**tcanned by Tom Cotton (a fairly weak candidate in my opinion) due to the state trends. Yes, southern states tend to be much more inelastic than the Dakotas, but the point still stands nonetheless.

Retail politics doesn't bring a state like ND up to Likely D status. If you look at my map, Likely D includes Baldwin, Casey, Nelson, and Shaheen. Heitkamp is definitely more vulnerable than those candidates. Lean D includes Brown, Manchin, and Heller (flip) - I would argue that Heitkamp is more vulnerable than all of those politicians as well. Hence, a tossup. Probably more safe than Donnelly but that's not saying much.

Difference is in 2008 no one ran against Pryor so he hadn't had a tough re election campaign in awhile. Everyone said Heitkamp had no shot in 2012 and she won. She won because she ran a great campaign not because her opponent said something stupid or no republican didn't run against her. She is popular in her state 60% approval ratings not sure what Pryor's ratings were in 2014. I think Heitkamp had done a better job separating herself from the party. Not sure why you are bringing up Shaheen she is not up until 2020. Baldwin is definitely more vulnerable than you think Obama ran ahead of her.

By the same logic I could've said that Illinois in 2016 was competitive because Kirk won in 2010. No, Kirk was DOA, regardless of how "moderate" he was.

I'm not saying Heitkamp is DOA, I'm saying that her race is a tossup. If she was not as popular as she is now, it would've been Lean R. The North Dakota of today is much more hostile to Democrats than the North Dakota of even 6 years ago, largely due to the fracking boom. Heitkamp's 2012 coalition was very fragile, and which included Native Americans who are strongly opposed to DAPL. If Native American turnout is depressed due to Heitkamp's overt support for DAPL, then she has to expand her appeal to survive, which given the state environment, is quite difficult.

She didn't win solely because of her campaign skills, it was also partially because the Republicans wrote off that race as being Safe R when it really wasn't. A little bit how you're writing off this race as being Likely D.

It doesn't matter that Obama ran ahead of Baldwin, that doesn't prove much. Romney was a poor fit for the state and Obama was from neighboring Illinois. As long as 2018 is a good year for Democrats, which it likely will be, and the Democrats don't write off the race (a la 2016), then Baldwin will win reelection. Had Baldwin been more popular it would've been Safe D like Michigan due to incumbency advantage.

Pryor didn't have an opponent in 2008 because that opponent would've been crushed - Pryor would've got 60%+ of the vote easily. Landrieu wasn't as good of a politician in a more competitive environment and she still won. Yes, Pryor's approval ratings were mediocre, but given the margin which he lost by, if he had Heitkamp's approval rating, would he have survived? I'd say probably not. Maybe if Obama was not in the White House but definitely not in 2014. Also keep in mind that Romney's margin in Arkansas was quite a bit smaller than Trump's margin in North Dakota.

To be fair some people did think Kirk had a good shot in 2016 (I was not one of them). I think Heitkamp has a much better shot at winning with Trump in the White House than she would have if Hillary was in the White House. I think Trump has given her a lot of opportunities by inviting her to the White House that she can say to the people of North Dakota I'm working with the President. He also considered her for his cabinet and the fact Hoeven has come out against the medicaid cuts helps her too.  I'm not writing this race off it will be definitely be competitive  and yes I think the more the National Democratic party stays out of the race and lets Heitkamp run her own race will help her. I just think she has a good shot at winning. I think you are writing off Wisconsin and making the same mistake Democrats made in the Walker recall election and the Feingold election by saying if Baldwin was more popular it would be a Safe D. Stabenow has represented Michigan since 2000 while Baldwin has represented the state of Wisconsin since 2012. Not sure why anyone would think Baldwin has that much of an incumbency advantage. 
 
Yes I think Pryor would have won in 2008 with a republican challenger. It's pretty obvious his "name" is what helped him more than anything.

[Lord Admirale]

GOP gains a net total of one seat.

[Kamala]

GOP gains a net total of one seat.

Yep; I agree with this map if Rokita wins the IN rep primary - if Messer does, I think Donnelly pulls it off.

[TheLeftwardTide]

I think Heitkamp has a much better shot at winning with Trump in the White House than she would have if Hillary was in the White House.

Well obviously. If Hillary was in the White House, Republicans would have a shot at hitting near-supermajority levels in the Senate by 2020.

I think you are writing off Wisconsin

I'm not. I think if the DSCC abandons Baldwin, and if she doesn't run a good campaign, the race will definitely be competitive. The thing is, I don't think there are many Republicans in Wisconsin who would fare well against Baldwin in a Trumpian sense. Being economically left-wing is one of Baldwin's biggest assets here. People who act like Wisconsin is becoming a red state because Feingold didn't cruise to victory on a minimalist campaign are very delusional. A one-term incumbency is more valuable in U.S. politics than one might expect.

Yes I think Pryor would have won in 2008 with a republican challenger. It's pretty obvious his "name" is what helped him more than anything.

I agree with this, but it doesn't take away from my original point.

[choclatechip45]

I think Heitkamp has a much better shot at winning with Trump in the White House than she would have if Hillary was in the White House.

Well obviously. If Hillary was in the White House, Republicans would have a shot at hitting near-supermajority levels in the Senate by 2020.

I think you are writing off Wisconsin

I'm not. I think if the DSCC abandons Baldwin, and if she doesn't run a good campaign, the race will definitely be competitive. The thing is, I don't think there are many Republicans in Wisconsin who would fare well against Baldwin in a Trumpian sense. Being economically left-wing is one of Baldwin's biggest assets here. People who act like Wisconsin is becoming a red state because Feingold didn't cruise to victory on a minimalist campaign are very delusional. A one-term incumbency is more valuable in U.S. politics than one might expect.

Yes I think Pryor would have won in 2008 with a republican challenger. It's pretty obvious his "name" is what helped him more than anything.

I agree with this, but it doesn't take away from my original point.

The thing that worries me the most about Wisconsin is the GOTV infrastructure the Republican Party has built in that state when Reince Preibus was state chairman. Preibus became RNC chairman by touting his efforts on getting Walker and Johnson elected in 2010. Like my dad said after election the democrats haven't been able to beat Walker in 2010 or the recall election, Johnson won in 2010 and that State Party chairman became the RNC chairman democrats should have taken those warning signs more seriously and they didn't.  I don't think Wisconsin is gone for Democrats. In my opinion for it to be gone Baldwin would have to lose in 2018 and Trump winning in 2020.  Hopefully Wisconsin becomes like New Hampshire were democrats will never take it for granted again.  I would feel a lot better about Baldwin's incumbency advantage if she was more popular.

[TheLeftwardTide]

I think Heitkamp has a much better shot at winning with Trump in the White House than she would have if Hillary was in the White House.

Well obviously. If Hillary was in the White House, Republicans would have a shot at hitting near-supermajority levels in the Senate by 2020.

I think you are writing off Wisconsin

I'm not. I think if the DSCC abandons Baldwin, and if she doesn't run a good campaign, the race will definitely be competitive. The thing is, I don't think there are many Republicans in Wisconsin who would fare well against Baldwin in a Trumpian sense. Being economically left-wing is one of Baldwin's biggest assets here. People who act like Wisconsin is becoming a red state because Feingold didn't cruise to victory on a minimalist campaign are very delusional. A one-term incumbency is more valuable in U.S. politics than one might expect.

Yes I think Pryor would have won in 2008 with a republican challenger. It's pretty obvious his "name" is what helped him more than anything.

I agree with this, but it doesn't take away from my original point.

The thing that worries me the most about Wisconsin is the GOTV infrastructure the Republican Party has built in that state when Reince Preibus was state chairman. Preibus became RNC chairman by touting his efforts on getting Walker and Johnson elected in 2010. Like my dad said after election the democrats haven't been able to beat Walker in 2010 or the recall election, Johnson won in 2010 and that State Party chairman became the RNC chairman democrats should have taken those warning signs more seriously and they didn't.  I don't think Wisconsin is gone for Democrats. In my opinion for it to be gone Baldwin would have to lose in 2018 and Trump winning in 2020.  Hopefully Wisconsin becomes like New Hampshire were democrats will never take it for granted again.  I would feel a lot better about Baldwin's incumbency advantage if she was more popular.

I understand all of this, and knew about the Walker political machine. Yes, as long as the Democrats don't take this race for granted, she will win. It's the same thing with Casey and Nelson, too, who are both incumbents in Trump states (that were more Trump-friendly than Wisconsin). Baldwin's the most vulnerable out of the 3 "likely D" candidates, and I would accept arguments for putting her at Lean D, but I'm keeping Baldwin at Likely D at this point.

[choclatechip45]

I think Heitkamp has a much better shot at winning with Trump in the White House than she would have if Hillary was in the White House.

Well obviously. If Hillary was in the White House, Republicans would have a shot at hitting near-supermajority levels in the Senate by 2020.

I think you are writing off Wisconsin

I'm not. I think if the DSCC abandons Baldwin, and if she doesn't run a good campaign, the race will definitely be competitive. The thing is, I don't think there are many Republicans in Wisconsin who would fare well against Baldwin in a Trumpian sense. Being economically left-wing is one of Baldwin's biggest assets here. People who act like Wisconsin is becoming a red state because Feingold didn't cruise to victory on a minimalist campaign are very delusional. A one-term incumbency is more valuable in U.S. politics than one might expect.

Yes I think Pryor would have won in 2008 with a republican challenger. It's pretty obvious his "name" is what helped him more than anything.

I agree with this, but it doesn't take away from my original point.

The thing that worries me the most about Wisconsin is the GOTV infrastructure the Republican Party has built in that state when Reince Preibus was state chairman. Preibus became RNC chairman by touting his efforts on getting Walker and Johnson elected in 2010. Like my dad said after election the democrats haven't been able to beat Walker in 2010 or the recall election, Johnson won in 2010 and that State Party chairman became the RNC chairman democrats should have taken those warning signs more seriously and they didn't.  I don't think Wisconsin is gone for Democrats. In my opinion for it to be gone Baldwin would have to lose in 2018 and Trump winning in 2020.  Hopefully Wisconsin becomes like New Hampshire were democrats will never take it for granted again.  I would feel a lot better about Baldwin's incumbency advantage if she was more popular.

I understand all of this, and knew about the Walker political machine. Yes, as long as the Democrats don't take this race for granted, she will win. It's the same thing with Casey and Nelson, too, who are both incumbents in Trump states (that were more Trump-friendly than Wisconsin). Baldwin's the most vulnerable out of the 3 "likely D" candidates, and I would accept arguments for putting her at Lean D, but I'm keeping Baldwin at Likely D at this point.

I'm not too worried about Nelson. It will probably come down to how energized South Florida is. . Granted I lived in Florida in 2012 and voted for him. My friends in Florida will all vote for him and he's the only dem in Florida to win 5 times statewide. I think PA and Florida are more dem leaning than Wisconsin long term. I think Casey will be an interesting case since he's been outspoken against Trump, but is pretty conservative to the national party. Baldwin is definitely the weakest one out of those three. Obviously voting suppression is my biggest worry when it comes to Wisconsion and Florida.

[Canis]

Safe D
California
Washington
Minnesota
Illinois
Maryland
Delaware
New Jersey
New York 
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Hawaii
Likely D
 New Mexico
Montana 
Wisconsin
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Florida
Ohio
West Virginia
Virginia
Lean D
Nevada
North Dakota
Indiana
Toss Up
Arizona
Safe R
Wyoming
Nebraska
Tennessee
Mississippi
Likely R
Utah
Texas
Lean R
Missouri   
Safe I
Vermont
Likely I
Maine

[TheLeftwardTide]

There's no Illinois senate election in 2018

[Canis]

There's no Illinois senate election in 2018

whoops sorry

[Kamala]

No toss-ups. Balance remains the same.

Heller has effectively shot himself in the foot with his needless vote on the skinny repeal and Rosen still got that "Not A Politician" feel.

McCaskill isn't DOA, but she is disadvantaged right now.

I have a gut feeling that Donnelly is ever so slightly favored against Messer but not Rokita.

Polling is the reason Michigan is Lean D and Ohio is Tilt D. If polling turns around, I would shift them left.

Heitkamp will probably shift toward Likely D once we get a picture of who is her opponent, but she should survive (and thrive).

Wisconsin is Lean D right now, will shift accordingly depending on opponent.

[jamestroll]

Nope.

West Virginia and North Dakota are likely Dem.

Missouri is a toss up.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

No Tossup Map:

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I think most people are vastly underestimating just how unpopular trump will be. This is if his popularity falls all of three points

4 democratic pickups, with 6 being quite possible.

[jamestroll]

Nope Jalawest2.  Missouri is a toss up. Texas is likely R, Alabama is solid R, Montana is toss up to Lean D, Arizona is toss up, Michigan is lean to likely D, Ohio is toss up but Brown wins in the end, Florida is lean D not solid, Wisconsin is Likely D.

Everything else looks right though.

[Coraxion]

I think most people are vastly underestimating just how unpopular trump will be. This is if his popularity falls all of three points

4 democratic pickups, with 6 being quite possible.

Excellent prediction. I agree 100%.

[TheLeftwardTide]

I think most people are vastly underestimating just how unpopular trump will be. This is if his popularity falls all of three points

4 democratic pickups, with 6 being quite possible.

Who the absolute f**k do Democrats have in Mississippi? Jim Hood isn't going to run in 2018; Roger Wicker is completely safe. I see Tennessee, Nebraska, and Alabama being more likely to flip than Mississippi.

[_]

Dear god this is ridiculous.

STOP FIGHTING AND JUST MAKE A PREDICTION!!

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I think most people are vastly underestimating just how unpopular trump will be. This is if his popularity falls all of three points

4 democratic pickups, with 6 being quite possible.

Alaska doesn't have a Senate race in 2018.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

lol Texas isn't going to flip

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

With Trump approvals, the GOP will net a seat or two in Senate. Dems will have bragging rights in Gov races and House can change parties, but 2020 is good too to have a D majority.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I think most people are vastly underestimating just how unpopular trump will be. This is if his popularity falls all of three points

4 democratic pickups, with 6 being quite possible.

Alaska doesn't have a Senate race in 2018.

I couldn't figure out a way to do 2 in Arizona. Alaska represent the Arizona special election.

[jamestroll]

Dear god this is ridiculous.

STOP FIGHTING AND JUST MAKE A PREDICTION!!

People will continue to fight non stop until the election results next year all come in.

It ultimately comes down to whether midterms favor the out of power party or the GOP.