2018: How many Senate seats do Democrats pick up?

[justfollowingtheelections]

I think there are only two likely scenarios that will happen for the Democrats in 2018. The Republicans will be gaining Missouri, North Dakota, and Indiana for sure without a shadow of a doubt. The first scenario, which seems pretty likely, is that Trump is moderately unpopular to flat out unpopular and it damages the Republicans in western states. I think if he is unpopular then Democrats will surely gain Nevada and Arizona putting the GOP at a net gain of 1 seat with a 53-47 GOP majority. Should Trump be popular the GOP will gain Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Montana, and Pennsylvania at a net gain of 9 seats leaving the composition to be 61-39 GOP majority. Putting my biases for the Republicans aside, strictly from an analytical standpoint I find it hard to believe the Democrats have a chance at gaining any seats. The numbers are simply not on their side as they control 23 seats and Trump had won ten of their home states and came close to winning 3 of them. There simply is no pathway for them to create a majority in the Senate.

Relax.

[DPKdebator]

I'm not sure if they'll pick up anything, but it's very likely that the Dems will lose seats- there's 8 Republican seats (MS, TN, AZ, NE, UT, NV, WY) and 23 Democratic seats up- 9 of which are probably safe for Dems (MA [although this is Warren, who is certainly vulnerable to a Republican since she won by a small margin], RI, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD, CA, WA) and 14 of which are in red states or battleground states (NH, PA, WV, VA, FL, OH, IN, MI, WI, MN, MO, ND, MT, NM) plus two independent seats (one in ME, which is more Republican than in 2012 and could go three ways and VT, which is Bernie Sanders who is definitely safe). If the Republicans don't lose any seats (if this happens, the only plausible loss is NV) and get every Dem seat not in one of the 9 safe states, they'd have a 66 seat majority in the senate.

[nekipa12]

Democrats pick up AZ and NV,
Democrats lose IN and MO, Hold onto FL,MI,MT,NJ,NM,ND,OH,PA,VA,WV,and WI.
0-2 seats

[MarkD]

Wagner is a good fit for the St. Louis suburbs that Blunt cratered in (he only won St. Charles County by 7! That's unheard of for an incumbent R), but she's persona non-grata among the Trumpists after her endorsement flip. I have my doubts she'd get a clear primary, and would probably lose one to a decently funded opponent.

Huh? What? How do you figure? Do you mean only had 7 more votes than Kander in the entire St. Charles County? No way. Do you mean only 7 more votes than Kander in the MO-2 portion of St. Charles County (which would mean getting 15,701 more votes than Kander in the MO-3 portion of the county)?
I have not yet gotten the precinct-level report of the St. Charles County vote, so I haven't yet been able to analyze them like I have analyzed the St. Louis County precinct data. The latter is online but the former I have to buy from the County Election Authority's office.
Kander beat Blunt by about 6,800 votes in the MO-2 portion of St. Louis County, so I know what you mean about Blunt in THOSE suburbs, but I cannot fathom how you could say that about St. Charles County (my home for most of the first 40 years of my life).

[MarkD]

Having a "%" behind a number makes a big difference in how we interpret a statistic!

Like I said, I have not yet bought the precinct-level report from the Election Authority's office, but when I do, I will analyze at the difference between MO-2 and MO-3 (in every race). As I vaguely recall from my analysis of the 2012 results, there was not much of a difference between the level of support for the GOP ticket between the two districts.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Anyone who thinks Donnelly, Heitkamp and McCaskill are done is clueless.

[MT Treasurer]

Anyone who thinks Donnelly, Heitkamp and McCaskill are done is clueless.

And anyone who thinks they will win easily just because Trump is president is beyond clueless. Especially McCaskill and Donnely.

And regarding MO: While I think McCaskill is terrible and extremely overrated, let's dispel with this fiction that Kander would be guaranteed to hold this seat for the Ds: Yes, he ran a good campaign last year, but the biggest reason he came so close was Roy Blunt running a terrible, Todd Akin-tier campaign and 2016 being a year of outsiders. I don't think any other Republican candidate would make the same mistakes.

[MT Treasurer]

No one has evee said that they were favored. Only that they are not in "likely R" races.

We'll just have to wait and see, I guess. I have rated ND a Tossup and MO and IN Likely R (I was thinking about moving them to Lean R, but I just don't see it). The only way I see them winning reelection is if the IN or MO GOP nominate another Akin/Mourdock. It's far from guaranteed that Trump will have approvals in the 20s or 30s (like most Democrats here suggest) or that polarization will suddenly no longer be a thing just because a Republican is in the White House. Yes, big swings can happen, but let's not forget that even in 2014 Democrats didn't lose states like NH, MI, VA and MN (And in 2010, they were able to hold CO, NV and some other competitive races). I also doubt he will be THAT unpopular in solid red states like ND and MO. That being said, I'm not going to underestimate the incompetence of the MO GOP either.

[jamestroll]

Why is Heitkamp so loved here?

[MT Treasurer]

Why is Heitkamp so loved here?

She's not, but she supposedly has approvals in the 70's in North Dakota, and if there's any stock in that, it's hard to see her as an underdog.

I think Hoeven has approvals in the 70s in ND, not Heitkamp. A Morning Consult poll (which generally shows good numbers for most Senators, though) had her at 50-35 in April 2016.

https://morningconsult.com/senate-approval-bernie-rubio-cruz/

And yeah, I really dislike her, but once people in those small states (where retail politics still matters) start believing that their Senator is a " nice moderate ", it's hard to topple them. I could easily see Cramer blowing it, unfortunately.

[jamestroll]

If McCaskill can win by  a healthy margin she would  be an excellent Presidential candidate in 2020.

[Virginiá]

If McCaskill can win by  a healthy margin she would  be an excellent Presidential candidate in 2020.

too far jimmie! too far!

[RJ]

One thing I learned after 2006, 2008 and 2010 is that it doesn't matter what color(red or blue) states are up for reelection as much as the political climate in 2018. Scott Brown won in MA in 2010 because of media driven pessimism. Mark Begich won in AK in 2008 on a wave of "democratic change." John Tester beat long time incumbent Conrad Burns in Montana of all places in 2006 given similar circumstances. I said 1-2 seats but who knows what things will look like in a year and a half.

I see the Republican party is already starting to overreach by passing tax cuts and trying to repeal Obamacare. If over 20 million people lose their healthcare and the budget deficit balloons again worse than it is now I don't see how the Republican party can recover. I'd also like to think that if Donald Trump shoots off his mouth their would be a referendum but that already happened and that boob got elected.

[MT Treasurer]

John Tester beat long time incumbent Conrad Burns in Montana of all places in 2006 given similar circumstances.

Montana is not a red state in Senatorial or statewide elections, so Tester beating Burns of all people was fully expected by everyone (in fact, you could argue that Tester underperformed in 2006). The Senate race in 2000 was very close as well.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The worst case scenario is a 54-46 R senate with losing IN and ND and possibly losing MO and or picking up NV. But that keeps the Senate in play for 2020 with CO, AK, IA and NC at stake