Sabato Initial Senate Rankings

[Hindsight was 2020]

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.

But here is my problem with your constant argument about Manchin an others being trouble. There is a psychology to voting an when it comes to midterms an it's really hard to really rally a base to vote for the party in power/expand it. I have doubt out of ND, IN, MO, MT, WV that the reps can pick up 1 or two seats but thinking more then that while also not losing NV an AZ is silly, seeing as Heller and Flake have more problems for them back home in their states then Manchin in WV

[SWE]

Move everything at least two categories to the right and this looks good.

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

Move everything at least two categories to the right and this looks good.

So HI and NY are only "Leans D"?

[JA]

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.

There's actually such a thing as a "Conservative Democrat;" amazing, I know! But simply because they aren't sufficiently liberal for Dwarven's preferences doesn't disqualify them from being a Democrat. Not all Democrats are going to be minorities or cosmopolitan; if we're to have a functioning, competitive, national party we'll need support from people like Manchin and the socially conservative, largely rural voters in states like West Virginia. The more Democratic officials we have, the better; the less elitist our party appears, the better.

[Bacon King]

Manchin's politics are terrible and conservative but at the end of the day he's still going to be a vote to make Schumer the majority leader, Leahy the Chairman of Appropriations, Sanders the Chairman Budget, Feinstein the Chairwoman of Judiciary, etc. etc. etc.

That's going to be the case as long as Manchin is going to be in the Senate because switching parties would force him to lose all his committee seniority and he'd never let that happen

[smoltchanov]

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.

There's actually such a thing as a "Conservative Democrat;" amazing, I know! But simply because they aren't sufficiently liberal for Dwarven's preferences doesn't disqualify them from being a Democrat. Not all Democrats are going to be minorities or cosmopolitan; if we're to have a functioning, competitive, national party we'll need support from people like Manchin and the socially conservative, largely rural voters in states like West Virginia. The more Democratic officials we have, the better; the less elitist our party appears, the better.

+100. While Vermont, Connecticut or Massachusetts Republican can be to the left of Louisiana, Mississippi, or Arkansas (or for that matter - Alaska) Democrat, in almost all states the most conservative Democratic legislators now are at least slightly to the left of the most liberal Republican legislators (unlike what was 30-40 years ago, when in many states you could easily  find a Republican legislator well to the left of his/her Democratic colleague). Political polarization, which reached idiotically high levels of late, makes election as boring as never: an horde of fanatic right-wingers against almost equal one of left loonies. Boring!!!!!

[MT Treasurer]

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.

That's not true and you know it. Manchin votes with Schumer and other liberal Democrats 90%+ of the time. Of course Schumer will allow him to vote for some of Trump's nominees as long as he doesn't cast the deciding vote. Heck, Manchin endorsed a presidential candidate who called the voters in his state racist, sexist deplorable scum. What further evidence do you need? 

This is as stupid as saying Susan Collins is a Democrat.

[smoltchanov]

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.

That's not true and you know it. Manchin votes with Schumer and other liberal Democrats 90%+ of the time. Of course Schumer will allow him to vote for some of Trump's nominees as long as he doesn't cast the deciding vote. Heck, Manchin endorsed a presidential candidate who called the voters in his state racist, sexist deplorable scum. What further evidence do you need?  

This is as stupid as saying Susan Collins is a Democrat.

Why is it so difficult to say the truth? Manchin is a moderate Democrat, but moderate Democrats are considered to be a "conservatives" in present day Democratic party. There are no more really conservative Democrats in high elected positions (even people like Jim Justice are moderate too) - not only compared with really conservative Democrats of not so distant past (1960th - 1990th), but with such recent Democratic congressmen as Walt Minnick, Bobby Bright, Travis Childers and their like. Only in state legislatures and local offices we can still find a few resembling real conservatives (and even them - usually moderate-conservatives). And vice versa among Republicans: Collins is a moderate even "the most moderate in whole caucus", but only by present day standards. She would be considered "somewhat right of center" in 1960th-1990th (surely - no comparison with Javits, Case or Brooke in Senate or Whalen, Reid and some other in House), and is "less liberal" then Morella, Shays, Boehlert and other, who served until recently. And even the most moderate Republican governors (Baker, Scott) are exactly that - moderates. Again - there are few left-of-center (up to moderate-liberal) Republicans in state legislatures and local offices, and that's all. It's so simple...

[SCNCmod]

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.

I totally agree regarding TX and Cruz.  If Joaquin Castro runs (which it appear likely)... its a total Turnout Game.  Texas 2014 mid-term elections only had 28.5% turnout.  In a state that is 45% minority w/ the 1st major mexican american Dem candidate to run for Gov or Senator (at least in a long while)... Turnout for Castro could be unusually high.  And Cruz could struggle to inspire  Republican turnout.

Because its a midterm... and Cruz is the opponent- Castro has the voters to win (its a matter of if he can turn the out)

[Holmes]

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.

I totally agree regarding TX and Cruz.  If Joaquin Castro runs (which it appear likely)... its a total Turnout Game.  Texas 2014 mid-term elections only had 28.5% turnout.  In a state that is 45% minority w/ the 1st major mexican american Dem candidate to run for Gov or Senator (at least in a long while)... Turnout for Castro could be unusually high.  And Cruz could struggle to inspire  Republican turnout.

Because its a midterm... and Cruz is the opponent- Castro has the voters to win (its a matter of if he can turn the out)

But it is ultimately Texas, and Republicans don't need to really turn out in large numbers to win (not that they don't), unlike Democrats. Especially in a midterm.

[SCNCmod]

But it is ultimately Texas, and Republicans don't need to really turn out in large numbers to win (not that they don't), unlike Democrats. Especially in a midterm.

Texas was closer than Ohio in 2016... and moving more Dem ever day... Couple that with mid term turnout in TX below 30%... with the right match up, Dems can with via a strong turn out push (Castro v Cruz is the best matchup for such a possibility)

[smoltchanov]

But it is ultimately Texas, and Republicans don't need to really turn out in large numbers to win (not that they don't), unlike Democrats. Especially in a midterm.

Texas was closer than Ohio in 2016... and moving more Dem ever day... Couple that with mid term turnout in TX below 30%... with the right match up, Dems can with via a strong turn out push (Castro v Cruz is the best matchup for such a possibility)

You predict an ideal situation for Democrats. I doubt it will happen. Democrats have enormous ability "to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" as 2010, 2014 and 2016 have shown. Not vice versa. It's my habit now to take a reeasonable election forecast and move it couple of seats for Senate and Governors and 5-10 for House in Republican favor. That "skewed" prediction usully ends to be very close to reality..

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The thing with Texas it's such an expensive state with a multitude of different machines and media markets you can't really go for the scrappy underdog routine. It would require a huge investment, and in a year when they need a lot for defence I don't think the Dems should bet the barn just for the symbolic joy of taking a statewide office in Texas.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I love Claire McCaskill, but she needs to retire and let Kander save this seat for the Democrats.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I get a funny feeling that Alabama could become another Coakly.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I get a funny feeling that Alabama could become another Coakly.

And let me guess: Republicans will lose the Senate.

Suspicion of corruption in a nasty atmosphere for your party is quite a powerful force. It got a republican elected in Massachusetts 8 years ago(and Illinois as well).

Plus, the idea that the senate is safe R in the years of trump, a likely disasterous repeal of the Affordable Care Act, etc is is a laughable fantasy.

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

I get a funny feeling that Alabama could become another Coakly.

And let me guess: Republicans will lose the Senate.

Suspicion of corruption in a nasty atmosphere for your party is quite a powerful force. It got a republican elected in Massachusetts 8 years ago(and Illinois as well).

Plus, the idea that the senate is safe R in the years of trump, a likely disasterous repeal of the Affordable Care Act, etc is is a laughable fantasy.

The only way the senate flips is if we get a couple of out-of-class deaths/retirements in a competitive-enough states, or if democrats somehow hold all their seats and sweep AZ/NV/UT. Both are possible, but both are highly unlikely to occur. And AL-S is Safe R. It is held during the regular midterms (Coakley/Brown was held in the middle of January), and Luther Strange is not a clone of Alexi Giannoulas.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I get a funny feeling that Alabama could become another Coakly.

And let me guess: Republicans will lose the Senate.

Suspicion of corruption in a nasty atmosphere for your party is quite a powerful force. It got a republican elected in Massachusetts 8 years ago(and Illinois as well).

Plus, the idea that the senate is safe R in the years of trump, a likely disasterous repeal of the Affordable Care Act, etc is is a laughable fantasy.

The only way the senate flips is if we get a couple of out-of-class deaths/retirements in a competitive-enough states, or if democrats somehow hold all their seats and sweep AZ/NV/UT. Both are possible, but both are highly unlikely to occur. And AL-S is Safe R. It is held during the regular midterms (Coakley/Brown was held in the middle of January), and Luther Strange is not a clone of Alexi Giannoulas.

Races aren't independent of each other. If the democrats do well in North Dakota, they aren't going to randomly get blanched in Ohio. I'm skeptical that being in a special election really hurt Coakley in a way that a midterm wouldn't, considering that the amount of votes cast in the special senate election was pretty similar to the amount of ballots cast in the Gubernatorial election 10 months later on the date of the 2010 midterms. Strange's appointment is in rather suspicious circumstances(he was investigating Alabama's governor for something, and made noises about not refusing a senate seat if offered, knowing that if he vacated his attorneyship the governor he was investigating would get to appoint his new investigator. I kind of doubt that TX(Ted Cruz strikes me as an easy target for an anti-trump backlash voter) is as safe as you claim, considering that trump being in the low thirties to mid twenties on election night is entirely possible at this point.

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

TX just doesn't have the votes to elect a democrat. And just because Heitkamp is re-elected (assuming she is) doesn't mean all of McCaskill, Manchin, and Donnelly will hold on. And even if just one of those three loses, the democratic path to the senate is gone. And I'm not suggesting they, or anyone else, will get blanched - losing by 1 vote is the same as losing by 19 points - both result in a senate seat going over to the other party.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

New England is flexible enough to cross the aisle because they all think the Republican is a total hottie or whatever. Deep South? Less so.

Also the Scott Brown election was explicitly a special election at an unorthodox time, so was susceptible to be a bit weird. The Alabamama special election will be with all the other midterms, so will probably obey "normal" rules.

[Skye]

New England is flexible enough to cross the aisle because they all think the Republican is a total hottie or whatever. Deep South? Less so.

Also the Scott Brown election was explicitly a special election at an unorthodox time, so was susceptible to be a bit weird. The Alabamama special election will be with all the other midterms, so will probably obey "normal" rules.

Yeah, Alabama is not going to elect a democrat any time soon, not as the age of Trump is blooming.

[MT Treasurer]

I stand by my prediction that one of McCaskill, Donnelly and Heitkamp is going to get Blanched.

[Figueira]

I stand by my prediction that one of McCaskill, Donnelly and Heitkamp is going to get Blanched.

Out of those three I'd say Donnelly is the most likely to get Blanched.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

New England is flexible enough to cross the aisle because they all think the Republican is a total hottie or whatever. Deep South? Less so.

Also the Scott Brown election was explicitly a special election at an unorthodox time, so was susceptible to be a bit weird. The Alabamama special election will be with all the other midterms, so will probably obey "normal" rules.

The special election thing probably didn't affect it, considering that the vote total for it was very close to the vote total for governor later that year. We also haven't seen the post-Obama south, or how trump will impact it, and don't know if the Obama backlash is going to continue to hurt democrats down there. I think an anti-trump backlash could very well be stronger in the south then elsewhere, it has many of the kind of tuned out working poor(if they're lucky enough to be able to find a job) whites that probably aren't quite as safe R as people think. The more visible culture warriors aren't the only kind of republican white in the deep south, and while on a subconscious level racial resentment plauges all of them(more accurately, pretty much all whites in general except for the occasional kid who grew up in a heavily minority community. I find it happen in my own subconscious, and I doubt most of you are much better. The key is to recognize that you have such biases), it isn't strong enough to overcome the class based idea's that drive their votes more. Which drive them republican ATM, but what if a rich billionaire plutocrat with a ridiculously corrupt administration filled with random rich people who supported him was busy stealing from taxpayers shamelessly, taking away their own healthcare by repealing the democrats healthcare bill, and devastating the country with stupid policy after stupid policy?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

New England is flexible enough to cross the aisle because they all think the Republican is a total hottie or whatever. Deep South? Less so.

Also the Scott Brown election was explicitly a special election at an unorthodox time, so was susceptible to be a bit weird. The Alabamama special election will be with all the other midterms, so will probably obey "normal" rules.

The special election thing probably didn't affect it, considering that the vote total for it was very close to the vote total for governor later that year. We also haven't seen the post-Obama south, or how trump will impact it, and don't know if the Obama backlash is going to continue to hurt democrats down there. I think an anti-trump backlash could very well be stronger in the south then elsewhere, it has many of the kind of tuned out working poor(if they're lucky enough to be able to find a job) whites that probably aren't quite as safe R as people think. The more visible culture warriors aren't the only kind of republican white in the deep south, and while on a subconscious level racial resentment plauges all of them(more accurately, pretty much all whites in general except for the occasional kid who grew up in a heavily minority community. I find it happen in my own subconscious, and I doubt most of you are much better. The key is to recognize that you have such biases), it isn't strong enough to overcome the class based idea's that drive their votes more. Which drive them republican ATM, but what if a rich billionaire plutocrat with a ridiculously corrupt administration filled with random rich people who supported him was busy stealing from taxpayers shamelessly, taking away their own healthcare by repealing the democrats healthcare bill, and devastating the country with stupid policy after stupid policy?

Lol. This was a sober post.