Sabato Initial Senate Rankings

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

These are generally a bit too pro-incumbent, outside of Texas, where it is laughable to not rate it Safe R.

[Cynthia]

You posted three times man

[JA]

You posted three times man

I think it's because of the time he posted. I tend to have issues posting around 1am EST every night as well, which causes duplicate posts.

Anyway, people posting on Atlas who think 2018 is going to be some Democratic wave election are delusional. If anyone is positioned to gain seats in the Senate it's Republicans, not Democrats. 2018 isn't going to be a very fun election for our party, but we'll likely make some moderate gains in the House and at state and local levels. My expectation is to see the rural-urban divide intensify even more than the liberal-conservative state divide. This doesn't bode well for partisanship and gridlock in our political system.

[PAK Man]

I'd personally move NV to toss-up (I get Sabato's reasoning, given no Democrats have really expressed interest yet) and ME to Likely I (he thinks a serious Democrat might get in, but there's really no evidence of that happening) but other than that, I think this is a fair list.

[windjammer]

Looks good, would have moved MT and WV to toss up though.

[MT Treasurer]

I love how he rated NV "Lean R" to avoid looking like a hack. Again, there is no universe in which NV is Lean R if IN and MO are Tossups. Pundits are exaggerating the advantage of incumbency. I think these are generally too Democratic-friendly ratings.

[windjammer]

I love how he rated NV "Lean R" to avoid looking like a hack. Again, there is no universe in which NV is Lean R if IN and MO are Tossups. Pundits are exaggerating the advantage of incumbency. I think these are generally too Democratic-friendly ratings.

I mean, I find that normal that ratings always have an incumbent bias at the beginning: we don't know yet who would be the challenger etc etc.

[MT Treasurer]

I love how he rated NV "Lean R" to avoid looking like a hack. Again, there is no universe in which NV is Lean R if IN and MO are Tossups. Pundits are exaggerating the advantage of incumbency. I think these are generally too Democratic-friendly ratings.

I mean, I find that normal that ratings always have an incumbent bias at the beginning: we don't know yet who would be the challenger etc etc.

Yeah, but people forget that Heller is an accidental Senator. Had the Democrats nominated anyone but Shelley Berkley, he would have lost in 2012. Of course NV Republicans did well in 2014 (with Sandoval at the top of the ticket), but that doesn't mean they will do as well in 2018 (see 2010, for example). I think Heller would be the underdog against any serious Democratic challenger, especially Titus or Kibuen. In a Democratic wave year (which is likely if Democrats win ND, IN, MO, etc.), even Shelley Berkley would beat him IMO. The man is just a generic Republican who votes with the GOP 97% of the time. I don't see him having any more crossover appeal than... say... Pat Toomey.

I would rate it a Tossup at this point, and that's being generous to the GOP.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

The democrats probably need to get like, a candidate if NV is going to be a tossup All reports from NV ( including from Ralston) suggest that the race is at least Lean Heller and the democrats do not have their act together here.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Don't tell me Nevada is your new New Hampshire? Yee of little faith, just depends on Trump's approvals I guess, I mean if some people are right here and he's at 20% even Texas could be in play, if he's up near 50% or higher NV should be pretty safe.

[MT Treasurer]

Don't tell me Nevada is your new New Hampshire? Yee of little faith, just depends on Trump's approvals I guess, I mean if some people are right here and he's at 20% even Texas could be in play, if he's up near 50% or higher NV should be pretty safe.

It isn't and I'm not predicting a Democratic wave either, but I see zero reason to believe that Heller is even remotely favored to win reelection. Heck, Republicans lost two House seats and a competitive Senate race in a GOP wave year there (2016).

And yeah, Cruz is safe, even though he'll probably underperform Abbott by a lot.

[Nyvin]

Texas could flip.   I'm not buying that Cruz is unbeatable.   Likely R is fine.

The list looks okay otherwise, maybe move Nevada to tossup possibly.  

Somewhat related- Dianne Feinstein, Ben Cardin, and Tom Carper all need to retire.   Bill Nelson can stick around one more term.

[Virginiá]

Anyway, people posting on Atlas who think 2018 is going to be some Democratic wave election are delusional. If anyone is positioned to gain seats in the Senate it's Republicans, not Democrats. 2018 isn't going to be a very fun election for our party, ...

I mean there is some reason to believe it will only be an average midterm in terms of losses for the incumbent WH party, and given the Senate map, it is easy to see at least a small net loss for Democrats, but delusional to see a wave for races outside of the Senate with what we're seeing from Trump's administration so far? Things like this are how waves are born, and from another thread I think it was said best that the foundation for a wave exists but it's unclear yet if Democrats can build on it, or if Trump somehow cleans up his act.

Let us not forget that we are coming off of 8 years of Democratic control of the White House, with an incumbent who was only really popular during his first 1.5 years and then during reelection/leaving office. The nasty losses we have seen aren't all irreversible, even if only short-term and fewer in number due to structural issues/gerrymandering.

Finally - historically, unpopular presidents cause losses for the incumbent party. So far since 1946 there is only once instance of a president with <45% approvals costing his party less than 15 (loss was > 10) House seats. The others were greater than 25 seats. The more unpopular, the steeper the losses (usually). That basic correlation has been established, and so far I don't believe there is any reason to think that it won't hold just because Trump is different, or whatever. If the public turns on Republicans sufficiently enough, seats that may have looked like long-shots or even off the table could become competitive.

[publicunofficial]

Nevada will be moved to Toss-Up if Heller gets a strong challenger.

Other than that completely argreeable. Surprised Texas is Likely R.

[UncleSam]

Too incumbent friendly, but not crazy in that respect given how far out we are; a lot depends on who challenges who where.

Personally I think Manchin is in a lot more trouble than most think - tons of Democrats hate him now and the state has shifted so far right of him it's just hard to see him not getting Bayh'd in 2018 (though yes Bayh had some issues Manchin doesn't Bayh was effectively an incumbent for that seat). IMO people are overrating the impact that the Governor race ha on this one - governor races are the only major races that seem to be significant chances at crossover these days, whereas Senators tend to get elected along partisan lines nowadays. IMO Manchin and Tester are in more trouble than many think for this reason, and Brown is in a similar boat. Of course Heller is in the same boat they are (hard to see Republicans winning in Nevada going forward) which would temper the Democratic losses if I'm right. Idk I could easily see Dems losing 5-7 seats with this map even in a year where they pick up double digit house seats (though obviously if they gain the majority that would indicate a wave). Heitkamp should be lean R given that Cramer has more or less already declared for that seat.

[MT Treasurer]

I agree with him on MT (though I'd say it's closer to Tilt than Leans D) and ND (even with Cramer, the race is a pure Tossup), but this idea that Evan Jenkins, Ann Wagner and Luke Messer will face an uphill battle just because a Republican is president is ridiculous, and Sabato knows this.

[publicunofficial]

I agree with him on MT (though I'd say it's closer to Tilt than Leans D) and ND (even with Cramer, the race is a pure Tossup), but this idea that Evan Jenkins, Ann Wagner and Luke Messer will face an uphill battle just because a Republican is president is ridiculous, and Sabato knows this.

I don't know why you think the rules of midterms won't apply to possibly our least popular President ever. Yeah those are Trump states, but a deeply unpopular President (Not nominee, President) throws that out the window.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Heitkamp's vote for Pruitt is a very obvious "PLEASE DON'T VOTE AGAINST ME! PLEASE!" plea. She's obviously scared for her re-election.

[publicunofficial]

Heitkamp's vote for Pruitt is a very obvious "PLEASE DON'T VOTE AGAINST ME! PLEASE!" plea. She's obviously scared for her re-election.

Have you never looked at the voting record for a Senator up for a tough re-election before?

[Nyvin]

Heitkamp's vote for Pruitt is a very obvious "PLEASE DON'T VOTE AGAINST ME! PLEASE!" plea. She's obviously scared for her re-election.

Manchin voted for Pruitt too.   It's not all that surprising Heitkamp would support him.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Manchin isn't an actual democrat.

[publicunofficial]

Manchin isn't an actual democrat.

Oh okay

[MT Treasurer]

I agree with him on MT (though I'd say it's closer to Tilt than Leans D) and ND (even with Cramer, the race is a pure Tossup), but this idea that Evan Jenkins, Ann Wagner and Luke Messer will face an uphill battle just because a Republican is president is ridiculous, and Sabato knows this.

I don't know why you think the rules of midterms won't apply to possibly our least popular President ever. Yeah those are Trump states, but a deeply unpopular President (Not nominee, President) throws that out the window.

No one really knows what his approval numbers will be in Nov. 2018, but even if we're assuming they're terrible, most polls have shown Trump is at least quite popular among Republicans, which matters in states like WV and ND. I also doubt his approval will be in the low 30s, that seems highly unlikely. Even in 2014, Republicans weren't able to win in states like MI, MN, VA, etc. so I don't think the Ds will have an easy time in WV, IN and MO either. Donnelly is very anonymous and basically an accidental Senator anyway, and while Messer is overrated IMO, he should be favored in the end. McCaskill has been discussed at great length before, it should be obvious why she's in big trouble. And WV? Jenkins is a very strong recruit, and I highly doubt that Trump will be such a big drag on his chances. But yeah, if anyone can win there, it's Manchin (And I'm not denying it's a Tossup, but Lean D seems too generous to Dems).

Think of this way: If Ron Johnson was up for reelection in Washington in 2018 and Clinton had won last year, would anyone seriously rate Johnson's race a Tossup? I highly doubt it.

Manchin isn't an actual democrat.

Yeah, I'm sure that's why McConnell is pulling out all the stops to get Manchin's Senate seat.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Manchin votes with McConnell about half the time, because he has to pretend to be a democrat to stay in their caucus. Jenkins would obviously vote with McConnell far more often, so McConnell wants Jenkins instead. But neither Manchin or Jenkins are democrats, they are former democrats. It's just that Jenkins has gone full R while Manchin is taking a center-right tack atm.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump approvals are 40% and any party with that approval rating has an uphill to climb in midterm elections.

I think Dems have licked our wounds since the Clinton election debacle and ready to filibuster Repeal of Obamacare and win Govs and House and Senate races.