Talk Elections

Which party will emerge victorious?

Here are my very early predictions: It depends on how you define "victorious." If you mean, which one will come out with a net gain, the Republicans, unless NV and/or AZ fall, and Democrats hold everything else (or lose only one of they pick up both southwest seats). If you're asking which party will have the majority, I'd say Republicans, so long as their losses this year aren't that bad. But anything can happen.

Depends on who is president. I expect Big Don to be in the White House, so Republicans will have some minor losses.

If Hilldog occupies the White House, the GOP will make gains.

Arizona: Likely R
California: Likely D (Assuming Feinstein retires. The D bench in California is so clogged up that any sense of "It's this person's turn now" is going to crumble at some point and lead to an R vs. R general - just a question of when.)
Connecticut: Safe D
Delaware: Safe D
Florida: Lean D
Hawaii: Safe D
Indiana: Likely R (pickup)
Maine: Lean I (LePage has already said he'll run unless he's part of Trump's cabinet, and some "real dem" might run too.)
Maryland: Safe D
Massachusetts: Safe D
Michigan: Likely D
Minnesota: Likely D (Klobuchar could always get tapped for SCOTUS)
Mississippi: Safe R
Missouri: Lean R (pickup)
Montana: Lean R (pickup)
Nebraska: Safe R
Nevada: Toss-Up
New Jersey: Likely D
New Mexico: Likely D
New York: Safe D
North Dakota: Lean R (pickup)
Ohio: Toss-Up
Pennsylvania: Lean D
Rhode Island: Safe D
Tennessee: Safe R
Texas: Safe R
Utah: Safe R
Vermont: Safe I
Virginia: Toss-Up
Washington: Safe D
West Virginia: Lean D
Wisconsin: Lean D
Wyoming: Safe R

So, depending on the Toss-Ups, R+3 to R+6 at this incredibly early juncture.

Republicans will retain or regain the Senate, unless 2016 ends up becoming a complete Democratic tsunami. And even then they still might retake it.

This is why Hilldawg needs to pack the courts as quickly as possible if Dems win the Senate in 2016. If by some miracle they take the House, apply that double with legislation. The Republicans would be swept in regardless 2 years later, so you might as well go balls to the wall.

If Clinton wins

()

MA and VA may be dependent on special elections if Warren/Kaine are VP nominees, in which case the ratings may be different.

If Trump wins

()

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

With the assumption that we go in with a 52 R, 48 D Senate:

With President Trump R+4 (56 R, 44 D):
Montana
North Dakota
Indiana
Missouri
West Virginia
Nevada

With President Clinton R+10 (62 R, 38 D):
Montana
North Dakota
Indiana
Missouri
West Virginia
Ohio
Florida
Virginia
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin

wew lad

Those are definitely realistic scenarios, I wouldn't underestimate how awful 2018 can be for Democrats after they nearly maxed out the class last time.

Apparently a lot of people in this thread think anything can happen in politics. Including a state that sees the Democrats as an anti-white hate group voting for a Democrat.

90% Shading Safe
70% Shading Likley
30% Shading Lean
Grey Tossup (Virginia, West Virginia, Montana, Ohio, Missouri)

()

I expect some gains for the Republicans since there are some Democratic senators in reliably Republican states. If the Democrats take the Senate in 2016, the Republicans will likely take it back in 2018. Of course, this all depends on who is in the White House at that time.

Most likely Hillary will be President. The map is favorable to the GOP and dissatisfaction Sith Hillary Cointon will likely rise, and more Republicans will vote. I think Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin can al to Republican. The last two midterms have been GOP waves, and if a Democrat is President the factors are there for a third wave, especially since Hillary for good or for bad is a polarising figure. The Democrats will probably have les than 55 Seats to begin with so will end in the high 40s but having lost the Senate. So they should try push as much as they can in the first two years, and geven midterms are a turnout game they should try to rally the base as the GOP is to minimalise potential losses. But avoid Reading too much into the midterms, when a Democrat is President it's a Republican-leaning electorate that turns out and issues the verdict, not representative of the nation. A huge wave may show some problems though.

()

Assuming Dems net 50 seats and over and Clinton prez, I am assuming Heikamp and Tester will be defeated.  Assuming Ross runs for Gov and Kate Marshall runs against Heller, this is a decent map assuming Paul Ryan is still Speaker having 232 seats.

First post ever, here goes!

(Added a Tilt in between Tossup and Lean because I think there will be some pretty close elections this year.)

Arizona: Likely R
California: Safe D
Connecticut: Safe D
Delaware: Safe D
Florida: Tilt R
Hawaii: Safe D
Indiana: Lean R
Maine: Likely I
Maryland: Safe D
Massachusetts: Safe D
Michigan: Likely D (Lean D if Stabenow retires)
Minnesota: Safe D (Lean D if Klobuchar is appointed to SCOTUS)
Mississippi: Safe R
Missouri: Tilt R (Lean R if McCaskill's opponent is Ann Wagner)
Montana: Tossup
Nebraska: Safe R
Nevada: Lean R
New Jersey: Likely D
New Mexico: Safe D (Tossup if Heinrich's opponent is Susana Martinez)
New York: Safe D
North Dakota: Tossup (Tilt D if Heitkamp campaigns as well as in 2014)
Ohio: Tilt D
Pennsylvania: Tossup
Rhode Island: Safe D
Tennessee: Safe R
Texas: Likely R (Safe R if a Castro Brother is not the Dem nominee)
Utah: Safe R
Vermont: Safe D/I (Basically, Safe Sanders)
Virginia: Tilt R
Washington: Safe D
West Virginia: Tilt D (Solid R if Manchin does a party switch)
Wisconsin: Tilt D (Tossup if Ryan-type is GOP nominee)
Wyoming: Safe R

I felt like being a little nice to the Democrats this cycle, but a lot of Dems up for reelection in 2018 are moderates and actually can lean conservative on the idealogical spectrum (Manchin, Heitkamp, McCaskill, Tester). I'll just say that I would vote for any of those four Dems over a Far-Right Tea Party nut any day.

R+4, up to R+8 if all possible tossup scenarios are won by Republicans (although I think this is highly unlikely.)

If Clinton wins:
Arizona: Lean R
California: Likely D
Connecticut: Likely D
Delaware: Safe D
Florida: Lean R
Hawaii: Likely D
Indiana: Lean R
Maine: Likely I
Maryland: Likely D
Massachusetts: Likely D
Michigan: Tilt/Lean D
Minnesota: Tossup/Tilt D
Mississippi: Safe R
Missouri: Tilt/Lean R
Montana: Tossup
Nebraska: Safe R
Nevada: Lean R
New Jersey: Tilt/Lean D
New Mexico: Tilt/Lean D
New York: Likely D
North Dakota: Lean R
Ohio: Tossup/Tilt R
Pennsylvania: Tossup
Rhode Island: Likely D
Tennessee: Safe R
Texas: Likely R
Utah: Likely R
Vermont: Likely D
Virginia: Tossup/Tilt R
Washington: Tilt/Lean D
Wisconsin: Tossup
Wyoming: Safe R

Likely means watch the state, but probably Safe.

Should Clinton somehow win in 2016, we would be looking at a GOP mega-tsunami in 2018:

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

R+13  Note that I would not have a single race Safe D, and I think there would be the potential for the Democrats losing 18-20 of their 23 seats in that cycle under President Hillary.  Can you say VETO-PROOF MAJORITY??

If Trump gets elected, we still stand a good chance of getting the filibuster-proof majority by picking up the easy five (MO, ND, IN, WV, and MT) and probably two of the swing states (assuming that we lose IL and WI, but gain NV in 2016).

Assuming a Clinton victory:

Arizona: Likely R
California: Safe D
Connecticut: Safe D
Delaware: Safe D
Florida: Tossup/Tilt R
Hawaii: Very Safe D
Indiana: Lean R
Maine: Likely I
Maryland: Safe D
Massachusetts: Likely D
Michigan: Lean D
Mississippi: Safe R
Missouri: Tossup/Tilt D
Montana: Likely R
Nebraska: Safe R
Nevada: Likely R
New Jersey: Tossup/Tilt R
New Mexico: Likely D
New York: Safe D
North Dakota: Likely R
Ohio: Lean D
Pennsylvania: Tossup/Tilt R
Rhode Island: Safe D
Tennessee: Very Safe R
Texas: Safe R, unfortunately
Utah: Very Safe R
Vermont: Safe Bernie. I'm assuming that he runs as a Dem in 2018.
Virginia: Lean R I'm assuming that a Republican wins the special election.
Washington: Very Safe D
West Virginia: Likely R
Wisconsin: Tossup/Tilt D
Wyoming: Very Safe R

()

R + 7

(I can't get Maine or Nebraska's electoral vote totals to go away.)

*delusional hack*

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_West_Virginia,_2012
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_West_Virginia,_2010
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_West_Virginia,_2008

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_gubernatorial_election,_2012
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_gubernatorial_special_election,_2011
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_gubernatorial_election,_2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Alabama,_1992

Alabama = safe D!

6 elections in the past eight years =/= 1 election twenty four years ago

Richard Shelby =/= Jay Rockefeller, Joe Manchin, or Tomblin

Of nine statewide elections in the past eight years, the Democrats won six of them. They lost President in 2008 and 2012 and Senator in 2014.

Of the lower offices(SoS, AG, Treasurer, Auditor, and Agriculture Commissioner), Democrats have won 9/10 elections in the past eight years.

Okay, how about this one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Arkansas,_2008

I'm sure if I said Pryor was doomed in 2012 you could easily counter with that in the same way, along with the statewide office statistics. The point is, even 2012 was an eternity ago in terms of WV's extremely rapid political evolution. Manchin is already dead and buried. If you don't believe me, that's fine. You'll see for yourself in 2 years. Or not, since there's a good chance he'll see the writing on the wall and retire and Atlas will forever pretend he would've won had he run. ::)

Got it. I mean, sure, 2006 was a landslide for Democrats and Pryor didn't have a GOP opponent, but who needs all the facts when you can cherry pick them?

It was 2008 not 2006, and he didn't have a GOP opponent because they knew he was safe, not because they decided to throw away a winnable seat for funsies. And you're cherrypicking facts as well. Where was the mention of WV Republicans sweeping the legislature when nobody expected them to take both chambers in 2014?

And here's one during a GOP wave, which is irrelevant anyway since gubernatorial races are inherently less partisan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_gubernatorial_election,_2010

Again, there's really no point in arguing this. Feel free to bookmark this thread and come back to it in 2 years to gloat if you're so sure I'm incorrect. I'll do the same. :)

Speaking of Arkansas 2014:

It's a good thing Pryor outperformed Blanche Lincoln by 3%.

You're really good at calling in the midterms now solid R states that voted Democratic until 2000, aren't you?

I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to prove here. Did you just randomly go into my post history and pluck those out with zero context? LOL. The first post was referring to a hypothetical, and earlier in that same thread I said Pryor was doomed (in fact, I always thought he was going to lose, I just wasn't sure of the margin.) The second post was obviously a joke about how certain hacks believed pro-Republican outliers but not pro-Democratic outliers. That in no way implies I believed the latter.  In fact, here's a great example of that:


So yeah, you might want to work on your reading comprehension before you attempt another "gotcha!"

By the way, even if I did think Pryor was going to win, then that would mean I simply learned from my mistake, something many Atlas posters seem incapable of doing.

You overestimated Pryor by ten points with a week left.

Let's not kid ourselves. 2018 is essentially a combination of guesses, recent political trends, and recent experience. That's because we are two years out.

My only point is this: your 2014 predictions were pretty off, and let's not try to pretend we know what will happen in 2018.

I don't recall ever predicting how much Pryor would lose by. I had no idea. That post you quoted was referring to a hypothetical situation (if he did lose by 10, it wouldn't be a Blanching since a Blanching is a 20+ point loss. That was my point.) I wasn't predicting he'd lose by 10. And even if I did it makes no difference. It's not like I said Pryor would DEFINITELY lose by <insert whatever margin> with 100% certainty. It would've just been a random guess which people make here all the time. I'm sure I could very easily find a few dumb guesses you made if I decided to scour your posting history.

There's a pretty big difference between randomly guessing something and making a prediction with 100% certainty. Just as I said with 100% certainty that Hillary was inevitable in the primary which caused me to take a lot of heat here over the past 2 years, I will say with 100% certainty that Manchin will either retire or be Blanched. Time will tell which of us is correct. If Manchin is re-elected, then you'll get the last laugh. ;)

As for my 2014 predictions, considering I predicted Republicans would take the Senate, I wouldn't say they were bad. If you mean I underestimated the size of the GOP wave, sure, I'll take the heat for that one, along with nearly every other poll watcher/political pundit in 2014.

Yeah. And he's not even popular. The latest poll has him with a 41-42 approval rating. And that's before any attack ads! IIRC, Pryor and Landrieu actually had very strong approval ratings before the attack ads, and then they collapsed. Manchin's is already mediocre. Not to mention the fact that even if Trump wins and is a complete disaster, WV is one of the few states where he'll probably stay somewhat popular, so it really is a no win situation for Manchin.

I'm sure Manchin will be very afraid of an uncharismatic seventy-one year old.

Assuming a Clinton Presidency:
Arizona: Likely R (Safe if Flake can get through the primary)
California: Safe D (assuming Feinstein is a lifer and runs again; Likely without her)
Connecticut: Safe D (unfortunately, Murphy is a big HP)
Delaware: Safe D (in an open-seat and wave, I could see this within single digits, but it's still Safe)
Florida: Leans D (Tossup without Nelson; if Nelson loses reelection, it's especially bad night for Ds)
Hawaii: Safe D (I suspect Hirono is a retirement possibility but it shouldn't matter)
Indiana: Leans R (assuming they can get a competent nominee in here -- Ballard is possible?)
Maine: Safe I (self-explanatory; depicted as D on map)
Maryland: Safe D (self-explanatory)
Massachusetts: Safe D (ditto)
Michigan: Likely D (Stabenow isn't quite safe but it's hard to see her lose after the split between the Peters/Snyder races in 2014)
Minnesota: Safe D (Klobuchar is quite safe and I doubt Hillary would waste her on a SCOTUS seat)
Mississippi: Safe R
Missouri: Likely R (Wagner is gonna destroy McCaskill, or her appointed successor if she goes AGOTUS)
Montana: Tossup (depends on R nominee; MT bench is weak. Begich's defeat should give Tester pause, however)
Nebraska: Safe R
Nevada: Likely R (but there'll be lots of hype here)
New Jersey: Likely D (Rs can't win here, but Menendez could conceivably lose)
New Mexico: Safe D (Udall won by 12 and this isn't getting any better for Rs)
New York: Safe D (haha)
North Dakota: Leans R (god, I hope it's not Cramer)
Ohio: Tossup (if Brown wins, it's a good night for Dems. In 2010/2014 environment, Mandel should be pretty comfortable winner)
Pennsylvania: Tossup (depending on nominee, very wide range of possibilities here)
Rhode Island: Safe D (obvi)
Tennessee: Safe R (...)
Texas: Safe R (doesn't mean this won't be highly entertaining, of course)
Utah: Safe R (interesting to see how the primary goes here)
Vermont: Safe I/D (safe Bernie, but if he's done, Safe D)
Virginia: Tossup (depends on Nov 2017 election; if Rs win this goes to Likely R. Paging Barbara)
Washington: Safe D (Cantwell is surprisingly young and is going to be around for a while)
West Virginia: Tossup (considering Rahall got crushed but Justice is winning by double-digits, who the hell knows)
Wisconsin: Tossup (could see this as a Shaheen race that stays D even in a horrible night though; Baldwin has skills and I think Duffy is very overrated)
Wyoming: Safe R (lol)

()

Justice will lose.

Totally agree on both parts. Small states (like ND) are where "retail politics" work. I'm scared Heitkamp becomes a lifer, 2018 is the best chance to defeat her. I would love to see lucky Claire run for reelection and get crushed, but I have heard rumors that she may not run.

Assuming a Clinton Presidency, there are three different tiers of Senate Races in 2018.

Tier 1 are Red State Dems who the GOP has the best shot of beating. West Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota. If I had to list their vulnerability, I'd do it in this order:

• Manchin, because West Virginia. (I'm slightly more optimistic than IceSpear, but juuust barely)
• Heitkamp, because of ND's rightward pull in the past few years.
• McCaskill. She's a talented politician and a moderate, but she's in a red state and barely won n 2006 and got a lucky break in 2012.
• Donnelly. Close call between him and McCaskill over who's more vulnerable, but I put Donnelly here because Indiana likes its split tickets more than other states.
• Montana. The MT Dems are a fine institution, certainly better than other red state Dem parties. Tester's still vulnerable, but not as much so as the four Senators above him.

After that is Tier 2, consisting of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maine, and Wisconsin. IIRC, (leaving out Maine) all of these Democratic Senators outperformed Obama, but they're still swing-state Dem Senators who would be prime pickup targets if not for Tier 1. They're probably relieved most of the fighting is going to be in Tier 1, which would leave little GOP resources for these states. They probably stay Dem if the midterm is a normal election year, but could flip GOP in a bloodbath.

Except Virginia. Warner survived 2014, as long as Kaine's replacement is decent they'll be okay. (Virginia would actually be the least safe of the Tier 2 states for Dems, alongside maybe Wisconsin, because the other Tier 2 states have 2-term Dem Senators)
Maine only flips if it's a divided 3-way race, and even then, King is probably fine.

There's also Tier 3: Arizona, Nevada, and Texas. Arizona was close in 2012, and Carmona ran ahead of Obama. Heller outran Romney in 2012, but Nevada's also known for the Reid Machine so maybe the Dems can mount a comeback here. A win in either state could offset a loss in a Tier 1 State and keep the GOP Majority narrow. But, well, these states are more then likely not going to flip.

Texas is only here because Democrats, and Lindsey Graham, salivate over the possibility of unseating Ted Cruz.

Edit: Going to make six different predictions based on these tiers. The new Senates would be based on a 2016 election that went as 538's Polls-Plus forecast characterised it on 10/17/2016, so D+5, 51/49.

1: Republican Bloodbath. GOP Pickups in every Tier 1 and 2 state: West Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maine, and Wisconsin. King doesn't even have to lose, he just has to change the party he caucuses with. That would be R + 11, enough to turn a 51 seat Dem Majority into a 60 seat, Fillibuster-Proof, Republican majority.

2. Republican Mauling. GOP Pickups in every Tier 1 state, and the Tier 2 states with 1st Term Dems: West Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Virginia, Wisconsin, and possibly Maine.  R + 8, resulting in a 57/43 GOP majority.

3. Republican Gut Punch. GOP Pickups in every Tier 1 State, but only in Tier 1 States: West Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota. R + 5. The resulting Senate would be a 54/46 GOP Majority, exactly where we are now.

4. Republican Flesh Wound. GOP Pickups only in the most vulnerable Tier 1 States: West Virginia, North Dakota, and one of Indiana or Missouri. R + 3, new Senate would be a 52/48 GOP Majority, and an RSCC Chair would probably be out of a job.

5. Republican Laughingstock. GOP Pickup in only one of West Virginia or North Dakota, Democratic Pickup in one of Nevada or Arizona. +0, 51/49 Senate again, everybody laughs at the GOP.

6. Democratic Wet Dream. No GOP Pickups. Democratic Pickups in Arizona, Nevada, and possibly Texas. New Senate would be a 54/46 Democratic Majority that lasts until the alarm wakes Chuck Schumer up in the morning.

^Virginia will probably have a 2017 special, and it remains to be seen if McAuliffe will appoint a placeholder or someone who will actually try to hold the seat. And Democrats aren't good at winning off-off year elections in any case, 2013 was just a lucky break due to the shutdown and would have gone the other way if the election was held a week later due to Obamacare. Plus Warner's 2014 victory is actually bad news for Dems because of the margin, he was supposed to win by double digits but nearly lost. Had R's been aware of just how close Gillespie was and spent money on GOTV, they would have won. But everyone believed right up until an hour after polls closed that Warner was going to get a YUGE landslide even as the rest of the country voted for republicans. Virginia is a pure Toss-Up.

Assuming you're right, that puts Virginia in the middle or upper half of Tier 2 rather the the bottom. As for Warner, he survived even when the Dems overestimated his chanced big time. They'll learn from that and actually invest in VA in 2018. Still not safe, but also nowhere near what I'm calling Tier 1.

As for Maine though, what about the possibility of King being re-elected but changing his caucus? He went with the Dems in 2012 because they had a clear majority, I can imagine McConnell trying to convince King to join them if they already have a clear majority. He could also be the deciding vote in a Senate that was 48 Dems, 50 Republicans, him, and Sanders.

King is only going to switch if he's offered a committee chairmanship or something, and I'm not sure if R's want to do that. He does support ObamaCare, which is a huge negative for R's.

Because I'm an optimist, and plus it's way too early to know what turnout will be like and what the mood of the country will be:

()

But seriously, I know TNVol is foaming at the mouth at the possibility of getting rid of a liberal pro-choice women in a red state, but I really don't think McCaskill would go down easily. She's not a total lightweight like Blanche Lincoln like you want her to be.

It should be noted the GOP can still f**k up...big time.

You guys do realize Trump isn't going away? Which means you're going to have to find people who placate three factions in the party (Establishment, Conservatives, and Trumpers) or risk losing support from one group.  Trumpers are especially prone to saying dumb sh*t. There's a lot of opportunity for Republicans, but it could also go horribly wrong.

Trumpers stayed silent before Trump and will do so after Trump.

()

2 things: one, what's the deal with Ohio? And two, that map made me realize the position Nevada is in. For two cycles in a row it will be the one pickup opportunity for a party otherwise defending a ton of seats

I was extrapolating Ohio's R trend in this election to predict how it would behave in a Hillary midterm.

And Brown legislates like he represents a D+15 state when he represents an R+1 state. There are plenty of good, (relatively) moderate Republicans who can take him out. Word is that Kasich and friends are rallying behind Rep. Pat Tiberi.

On the other hand, his approvals are pretty good right now

Brown is an extremely savvy politician. He got elected to the State House at age 22, making him the youngest State Rep. in Ohio history. 2018 may be rough, but Atlasians are seriously underestimating Brown. He's popular and he works pretty well with Republicans, truth be told.

I was at his non-partisan Collegiate Leadership Summit at the University of Dayton last Friday, and he and Bob Taft have surprisingly great chemistry. Yes, Republicans will want to see him go, but he does a good job of connecting with everyday Ohioans. He's very good at framing the issues around doing what's right for working people, and not typical liberal-conservative squabling.

I think Massachusetts would be a toss up if Willam Weld runs. A hypothetical poll from this year showed Weld only 3 points behind Warren. 

Not likely. She has a 61% favorable rating in Massachusetts.

I think he could have a chance. Things can change, plus if Charlie Baker is still as popular as he is now by 2018, his endorsement could greatly help Weld. Weld was also an extremely popular Republican governor in Massachusetts so he could possibly win that seat if things go perfectly in his favor.

Curt Schilling is a lot more popular than Weld.

Charlie Baker and Elizabeth Warren will be reelected.

Arizona: Tossup
California: Likely D (top two)
Connecticut: Safe D
Delaware: Safe D
Florida: Likely D (Lean D if Nelson retires)
Hawaii: Safe D
Indiana: Tossup
Maine: Likely I
Maryland: Safe D
Massachusetts: Safe D
Michigan: Likely D
Minnesota: Likely D
Mississippi: Likely R
Missouri: Tossup
Montana: Lean D
Nebraska: Likely R
Nevada: Lean D
New Jersey: Likely D
New Mexico: Likely D
New York: Safe D
North Dakota: Tossup
Ohio: Lean D
Pennsylvania: Lean D
Rhode Island: Safe D
Tennessee: Safe R (Lean R if Corker retires and Cooper runs)
Texas: Likely R (depends on how bad Trump performs--if Hispanic turnout is near black turnout level TX would be purple lean-D right now)
Utah: Safe R (Lean R if Matheson runs and Hatch retires)
Vermont: Safe Sanders
Virginia: Lean D
Washington: Safe D
West Virginia: Lean D
Wisconsin: Likely D (Lean D if Walker runs)
Wyoming: Safe R

Most races two years out are heavily reliant on Trump's performance over the first 12 - 18 months of his presidency - if the economy is strong (or if a downturn happens within a year or so of his taking office == blame it on Obama) that's good, if he can extricate the US while keeping ISIS down that's good, if he can get the murder rate in Chicago down / prevent major terrorist attacks both would help as well. Obviously failure on any of those metrics / inflammatory failures would have the reverse effect, and generally little progress made on the jobs front would probably be pretty harmful as well for Trump and the Republicans. Failing to pass a replacement for Obamacare to extend coverage to at least a vast majority of those who will lose coverage when they repeal it would probably be disastrous.

With that being said I'll rank how likely the Democrats are to win each race, with expected cutoffs for how Trump is performing. No difference within a tier outside of tier 3, which is ranked, again, by the likelihood of the Democrat winning:
Tier 1: The Safe Dem races
These are races that the Democrats will win barring an unheard of collapse somewhere, Todd Akin level primary shenanigans, or a disastrously terrible nationwide environment for Dems
California: Safe D (note: for a Senate race the party will not let a R vs. R emerge out of the primary - I could definitely see the Dems get caught sleeping on a lesser race, but not Senate)
Connecticut: Safe D
Delaware: Safe D
Hawaii: Safe D
Maryland: Safe D
Massachusetts: Safe D
New York: Safe D
Rhode Island: Safe D
Vermont: Safe I (effectively D)
Washington: Safe D

Tier 2: Pls no more Russ Feingolds
In reality these races are probably closer to the Duckworth - Kirk level of competitiveness - the Democrat will probably win by double digits in most / all of these, depending on the political climate; still, there's a decent chance that one of these could surprise Democrats in a bad year
Michigan: Likely D (Stabenow, as disliked by Michigan Republicans as she is, probably won't get knocked off even by Snyder in a Republican wave year; only reason this really needs be said is that Trump just won Michigan)
Minnesota: Likely D
New Jersey: Likely D
New Mexico: Likely D

Cutoff 1: Republican dream wave year: Trump is highly favorable, Republicans successfully implement an Obamacare replacement that works much better, Trump assassinates Kim Jong-Un, defeats ISIS, saves orphans from trees around the world, and Paul Ryan wins the lottery so that they can balance the budget. Trump Net Favorability: more popular than Jesus in Mississippi

Tier 3: This is where the seats will flip
These range from Democrat-leaning to Republican-leaning, but any of these seats could easily change hands based on the national climate, eventual candidates, and numerous other things that could change between now and then.
Virginia: Lean/Likely D - Kaine could potentially be vulnerable to a Mark Warner-esque challenge in a surprisingly strong Republican year, as he came off rather poorly from losing the election as Clinton's VP and Trump could cut down on many government jobs, that would in turn stall population / economic growth in the DC suburbs around Arlington / Fairfax county that drives Democratic strength in the state. This seat will probably be closer to Tier 2 or even Tier 1 by the time election day rolls around, though. One thing to keep an eye on is whether Barbara Comstock decides to run for the Republicans (a decision that, in turn, will probably be influenced by the results of the 2017 gubernatorial election) - Comstock would be a strong challenger who just won a swing district that Clinton won on the presidential level and, if the Virginia GOP were galvanized by a Gillespie win in 2017, she could bring this closer to tossup / lean D territory.
Pennsylvania: Lean D - Casey is a strong, popular incumbent, and his loss from where we stand now would be shocking. That being said, Democrats did manage to lose the presidential race and a senate race in a year with presidential turnout from Philadelphia and the surrounding suburbs, which has to be scary to Casey. Any negative change in public perception towards Trump would almost certainly secure this seats' future, but if Pennsylvania starts to rebound and Trump starts campaigning here, this could just as easily go into the tossup or even lean R category. I think this state is probably Bluer (meaning Democrat, idk why this board has switched the colors) than it voted this past November, however, and that if Trump is even merely moderately popular Casey should be able to hold on.
Maine: Lean I (effectively D) - Maine is a state that is trending Red (aka Republican, I'll stop verifying what I mean by this colloquialism from here on out) overall, but in which a left-leaning Independent like King should be able to hold on barring an unexpected challenge from the left by a 'real' Democrat. I doubt LePage would beat him even in pretty good Republican conditions, but Trump ran pretty strong here and Maine has a Republican Governor and Senator already - stranger things have happened.

WILL CONTINUE IN NEXT POST DUE TO CHARACTER LIMIT

Cutoff 2: Trump is, surprisingly to many people, far from a disaster. He scores a few minor wins on convincing companies like Carrier to move jobs back, he avoids major conflicts overseas, doesn't do anything spectacular (like defeating ISIS, preventing Syrian massacres, etc.) but manages to hammer out a bi-partisan infrastructure deal and gets a reasonably-received ObamaCare replacement in place. Aka things go about as well as Republicans could hope for. Trump Net Favorability: +10 to +25

Florida: Lean D / Tilt D - Florida is a Red-leaning state with Republicans winning at just about every level of government, and which barely voted for Obama in a year where Obama won nationally by almost four points (2012). That being said, Nelson is the kind of moderate, incumbent Democrat who should withstand most challenges - the main issue for him is that Rick Scott has already amassed a large amount of money to (presumably) challenge him with, and is well known. The good news is that Rick Scott isn't very popular outside of the Republican party, and even there he isn't exactly beloved. If this race goes down to the wire, however, it seems like the sort of race Democrats might 'expect' to win then be disappointed by (such as Charlie Crist's loss to Scott or Clinton's loss to Trump this past year in Florida). Any neutral or positive political climate would be hugely beneficial to Nelson, however, and he is definitely the favorite from where we stand today. If Nelson loses this race, it would truly be disastrous for the Democrats, because they cannot afford to be shut out out of Florida's national seats - there's just too many crimson red Republican states for them to be able to get shut out in a tilt-R state like Florida and still hold the senate.
Wisconsin: Lean D / Tilt D - I'll probably be disagreeing with many on this board with this, but it sure looks to me like Wisconsin is trending Red, and fast. Democrats were astounded to lose here on a presidential level, but more scary to Democrats should be the fact that Ron Johnson defeated Russ Feingold by a surprisingly-large 4% statewide, a result that Democrats (and many others) expected to be reversed or better in their direction. Scott Walker and Paul Ryan have built a GOP machine in Wisconsin and, given they've already set their sights on Baldwin, I think Democrats really will need to batten down the hatches to hold this one. With all that being said, Baldwin is a relatively popular incumbent who should be able to galvanize the progressive base of her party and would be a favorite as of today against any prospective challenger. It helps that Duffy, the frontrunner as of now for the GOP nomination, is a more traditional establishment Republican who could be vulnerable in many of the western, working-class counties that Trump flipped but which have reliably voted Democrat for many years. Would flipping those back offset presumed gains in the Milwaukee suburbs by a more traditional Republican? I think the answer is yes, and that Baldwin should be able to carry this in the end barring a good Republican environment.
Ohio: Tilt D - Sherrod Brown is in trouble, and even he knows it. Ohio has always leaned a bit Red, but Trump just stomped Clinton there and did a full 10% better than he did nationally in this state. Meanwhile, Brown is a true-blue progressive who already has a solid Trump-esque challenger in Mandel (who, to be fair, he beat somewhat easily back in 2012) and a potential moderate establishment type challenger in Tibieri (a favorite of Kasich's). The fact that Brown is already e-mailing donors looking for a start on this race should point to how competitive it will probably be, and it honestly is very similar to Florida in terms of a seat they need to keep to have any realistic hopes of taking the senate back in 2020. While Brown will be strongly challenged, I think he is nonetheless a slight, slight favorite as of now, and should benefit tremendously from even slight negatives in Trump's performance, particularly on the economy / job numbers.
Nevada: Tilt D / Tossup - Heller is viewed a lot more vulnerable than he probably actually is in my opinion, simply because he is the lone strong Democratic pickup opportunity of this cycle. That being said, given how people's (and therefore donors') minds work, any signs of weakness here could well be met by a windfall for whoever (Dina Titus???) challenges him, and Nevada is a state where Republicans have done surprisingly poorly in recent years, even on the state level (where they've dominated throughout most of the country). Heller would benefit massively from a net positive-favorability Trump, but anything less than that and he is probably going to be buried underneath an avalanche of negative Democratic ads aimed at securing at least one pickup to hold their hat on in this cycle.
West Virginia: Tilt D / Tossup - Yes, Manchin is popular, and yes, if anyone can win here it's him. But the state has shifted hard right in recent years, and even Jim Justice's gubernatorial win here against a weak Republican candidate won't do much to assuage Manchin's stomach when looking at Clinton's 42-point loss here. Simply put, Obama's 'clean coal' plan packaged with Clinton's outright stated goal of putting coal companies out of business has made establishment Democrats less popular than cancer here, but, to Manchin's saving grace, that doesn't quite tell the whole story. West Virginia, like Montana, is a bit of a bizarre state with many Republican-leaning swing voters (who, in this state, are frequently once-upon-a-time Blue Dog Democrats who've shifted hard right only in the last twenty or so years). Manchin is still popular and has a legitimate conservative record on many of the issues Democrats have become despised on in this state, and given that there are many in this state who still remember voting for the Democratic party, it's not out of the question at all that Manchin could follow up Justice's win with a similar win (perhaps even by double digits). The issue for Manchin is that it's also entirely possible he will be completely and utterly dead by the time 2018 rolls around, as Republicans will probably try hard to unseat him and the state really is crimson Red nowadays.

Cutoff 3: Trump is a relative neutral force ranging to moderately unpopular, he doesn't get much done, positives are at least matched by negative news cycles, and unexpected threats arise around the world on the level of ISIS. Domestic terrorism on the level of the Pulse nightclub shootings continues or worsens, Trump demonstrates that he routinely loses in foreign relations deals, and can't close the deal on a replacement trade deal for the TPP. Tariffs help the jobs situation here a bit but are matched by increasing prices for a relative wash, and people start to become a bit disillusioned with a candidate who primarily ran on change but who doesn't seem to be changing much, and what he is changing he is doing slowly and without much of a net benefit. Trump Net Favorability: -10 to +10

Montana: Tossup / Tilt R - Prior to Trump's nominating Ryan Zinke to be Interior Secretary I actually thought this was going to be a solid Republican pickup, as Tester is the only true Democrat from any of the solid Red states Democrats will be defending (Montana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Missouri, and Indiana) and, after barely winning in a presidential election year against a sub-standard candidate, he seemed to be a significant underdog against a popular at-large rep who was already gearing up to challenge him. Now, however, I'm not so sure. Tim Fox would still provide a stiff challenge and, given that this is a pretty Red state and in a neutral political climate, I think Tester would go down swinging under such a scenario. Tester does have definite advantages and the president's party often loses races like this one in recent years, however, so given that Tester doesn't yet have a solid challenger and that Montana did just re-elect a popular Democratic governor (albeit over an unknown businessman) I don't think this is any more than a tossup with a slight tilt to the Republicans, but with admittedly lots of variability. This race will change more than most based on how things unfold over the next two years, and is among the most likely to be missed by polling leading up to it.
North Dakota: Tilt R / Lean R - I honestly expected Trump to make Heitkamp his Agriculture Secretary, but now that that's not going to happen we will almost certainly see Heitkamp take on at-large Rep Kevin Cramer in 2018. I wanted to make this Tilt R initially but honestly, North Dakota is another state that has swung hard Right (and which surprised many by the massive margins Trump / Hoeven collected here) and given that Cramer is already gearing up for a fight, I think Heitkamp is probably going to be toast. A favorable climate would make her very competitive, however, and if Trump and the Republicans make a sh**tshow of things in Washington she has a lot of time to bring this one back.
Arizona: Lean R - This is assuming that Flake gets a stringent primary challenge from Ward, who would definitely be an underdog in the general but is perhaps no worse of an underdog in a primary with Flake - keep in mind that she came surprisingly close to beating McCain in the primary, and he's quite popular in Arizona still. That being said, I think Paul Ryan will convince Trump to let bygones be bygones, stay out of the primary, and let the GOP establishment work their magic to keep Flake on the ballot in the general, where he would definitely be a solid favorite against anyone the Democrats nominate. I think that Flake wins this race in the general barring a total meltdown (similar to Cutoff 5 below), and that Ward would need a near miracle (at least Cutoff 2 but maybe closer to 1) to win the general. Not really sure who is in line on the Democratic side; maybe Ann Kirkpatrick again? The fact I've not heard much about who might challenge Flake is a bit puzzling, but makes sense given how the DNC is a bit in shambles right now. This is the sort of race they will have to get on if they want Flake to have any real concerns past the primary.

Cutoff 4: Trump is a poor president. Period. He demonstrates no foreign policy tact, he fails to get any of his major legislative agenda passed despite majorities in both houses of Congress, the Republicans bicker amongst themselves on anything ranging from a replacement for ObamaCare (which they repeal but don't make anything other than a token effort to replace), a balanced budget, immigration reform, and even Trump's SCOTUS nominee. Trump takes increasingly to being bitter on Twitter, and Kellyanne Conway resigns because she already has four children and doesn't need a fifth who also happens to be POTUS. Trump Net Favorability: -10 to -25

Tier 4: AKA pls no more Todd Akins
These are seats the Republicans will almost certainly win, barring major fiascos or a truly disastrous political climate.
Missouri: Likely / Lean R - Fool me once, shame on you, fool me...you know how this goes. McCaskill managed to rig the Republican primaries once, but there's very little chance the Missouri GOP will find a way to not nominate Ann Wagner this time around. Even if they did, there's virtually no chance they'll nominate someone as bad as Todd Akin, and barring a rematch, I just don't see how McCaskill can win. I get that Missouri has a lot of swing voters who almost made Jason Kander the new Junior Senator from Missouri, but Roy Blunt ran about as bad a campaign as you possibly can barring an Akin-level flub and he still won by almost 3 points. I just don't see McCaskill getting any luckier than Kander did, and I doubt she will run as strong a campaign as Kander did. All of which adds up to a race I see Democrats losing even in a year that otherwise would be quite good for them.
Indiana: Likely R - I thought about making this a lean R as well, but I just don't see it. Donnelly isn't liked by the Democratic base, Todd Young (a relatively unknown Rep) just destroyed Evan Bayh (a legendary former senator and governor) by 10 points there, and the current Vice President is from this state and will certainly campaign here barring a disastrous Trump presidency. Indiana is a heavily Republican state and Donnelly doesn't inspire anyone in particular to vote for him. I think he's headed to a double-digit shellacking and I doubt Democrats will try hard to save him given his recent run towards the center. It doesn't help Susan Brooks is being groomed as his successor already to avoid a repeat of the 2012 Indiana Primary fiasco.

Cutoff 5: Major scandal in the Trump administration. Trump resigns in disgrace. Pence tries to make homosexuality a felony. Paul Ryan loses a primary and vanishes ala Eric Cantor, leaving Republicans with no solid showrunners to key off of nationally. Democrats make huge organizational gains in comparison, and work with moderate Republicans to pass a Democrat-led infrastructure bill, keep ObamaCare's coverage while working on fixing how much it costs (presumably be allowing intrastate competition and removing some of the low-value coverage it assigns), and Bernie Sanders is revealed to be the second coming of Christ on earth. Trump Net Favorability: A Yuge Disaster

Tier 5: Safe R. Done.
For Republicans to lose one of these they would have to do something truly, terribly awful. And even then they'd probably hold them.
Mississippi: Safe R
Nebraska: Safe R
Tennessee: Safe R
Texas: Safe R (no, the Castro brothers would not mount a serious challenge to Cruz and no neither is likely to run)
Utah: Safe R
Wyoming: Safe R

My best guess at this point is that Donnelly loses to...maybe Luke Messer, and that Heller loses to..someone. Steven Horsford maybe?

Missouri safe D? Actually, for IndyRep, you once said that with McCaskill, MO will fall to R's hand.
It will be toss-up/tilt D at most.
As a democratic supporter, I'm eyeing for a safe D MO, but it is not happening unless Rep candidates implode severely...

Never overestimate the electorate.

()

I know its controversial opinion I have here but I do think think certain office holders will automatically lose just because I dislike them.

That being said MO-SEN 2018 is Lean R until proven other wise. Likely or Toss Up are not good ratings right now.

I quite like this prediction.

I could settle with rating Wisconsin Lean D (Likely D was probably too much), but Toss-Up is going too far.

WILD GUESS:
()

Updated 11/3/2017 for Alabama by-election.

Jim Justice won relatively easily. Please stop making hateful comments about West Virginia.

Yes I agree with the above post in that the Midwest is very elastic.

Also God has told me that Claire McCaskill will win re-election.

Impressive.

I also have an inkling that she'll manage to hold her seat.

Here's my map:

()

My guess:


Rationale: Trump's approval ratings will be 45-48%. A lot of this means that Republican turnout will be relatively depressed compared to 2016. Additionally, let's go down the races. The economy will begin slowing down but I don't think it will be horribly crappy at this point.

Dem Holds

1. Ohio: Sherrod Brown is an avowed populist who fits the state well in that regard. He'll win even though Trump won by 8 points. Any other Democrat, I'd peg this as a possible GOP pickup.
2. Florida: Bill Nelson has always won handily in a General Election and is an inoffensive Democrat. Again, D win. Trump won FL by just 1-1.5% so it's not much of a shift to keep it Democratic.
3. Pennsylvania. Bob Casey will prevail. Again, narrow GOP win 2016. This is a two term Democratic Senator who has experience holding down Pennsylvania and won his last term by 6%. Also, he's from a political dynasty who is legend in Pennsylvania. He's also got the advantage of being the out party. Philadelphia + the suburbs will vote Democratic while GOP turnout in the rural areas will be slightly down compared to 2016.
4. Michigan: Debbie has been in power since 2000 and has forged a long time connection to Michigan voters. The state went Republican by just 10,000 votes. She'll be fine.
5. Montana: Jon Tester lost his major GOP opponent in Ryan Zinke, who is now Secretary of the Interior. Tester is a decent retail politician who won re-election even as Romney won the state. Without a presidential election, Tester can probably galvanize enough of his supporters to back him for another term, especially given Montana's reservoir of Democratic votes that exist (narrow 2008 win for McCain, the state's governor is a Democrat, etc).
5. Wisconsin. She's got a tough race, given how red Wisconsin has trended and she's a first term senator unlike Debbie Stabenow. She's also a gay woman and while that wasn't a huge issue in 2012, this could be a problem in 2018. The GOP has kept a presence in Wisconsin and Walker will be running for a third term. This is kind of a 52-47% Democratic win, I think. But I could see WI going GOP. We'll see what the national moods are.

GOP Holds

1. Arizona: Jeff Flake has staked himself out as a critic of Donald Trump and yet also has staked himself out as a libertarian conservative. I don't think Arizona's ready to make the big jump to electing a Democratic Senator - yet. Flake holds on by a similar 50-45% to his 2012 win.
2. Nevada: Heller has a unparalleled ability to survive in rough terrain. He beat the Reid machine in 2012 and even as Obama won Nevada by six points, Heller has survived. Nevertheless, this is one of the races I'm least sure about. But I think Heller will be able to squeak it out. 
3. Texas. Not ready to be Atlas Red, yet. Cruz will win renomination and the General.

GOP pickups

1. West Virginia: The state's been trending hard right and while I expect it to backtrack to the left in the 2020s as the Bernie Sanders Democrats come to power, I think that the current trends suggest that West Virginians will junk Manchin. Nevertheless, could see Wisconsin sending Baldwin home and keeping Manchin. Manchin is the most skilled Democratic pol in a red state.
2. Missouri. Claire McCaskill has a major target on her back. She was due to lose in 2012 but eked out a win because of Akin. I don't think that Missouri will be that forgiving this time around.
3. Indiana: Same deal as MO. The GOP will be more careful to not nominate a Murdoch. Trump also won the state by 20 points.
4. North Dakota. See Indiana and Missouri and Wisconsin. Heitkamp is a first term senator who won by 1 point in a red state and expect the state to boot her. She's also lost a race here in North Dakota, suggesting vulnerability.

so, buckets - the deep Republican states (Atlas blue) will elect GOP senators, swing and lean Dem states will elect Dem Senators.

GOP gains +4 even as they lose 4-10 seats in the House. The major lesson is that the polarization continues apace as GOP states start moving more in line and Democratic states remain committed to the Dem Party and the swing states go to the party out of power. Don't think there will be a scandal big enough for Trump voters to stay home in 2018 (think that's more after 2018).

Whoops, bad syntax. Nope, Northeast, not North Dakota. Thanks though:)

Also can anyone set up a 2018 gubernatorial election predictions thread?

My prediction right now is identical to TD's, except with Heller losing.

()

Alabama: Safe R
Arizona: Tossup
California: Safe D
Connecticut: Safe D
Delaware: Safe D
Florida: Lean D
Hawaii: Safe D
Indiana: Tossup
Maine: Likely I
Maryland: Safe D
Massachusetts: Likely D
Michigan: Lean D
Minnesota: Lean D
Mississippi: Safe R
Missouri: Tossup
Montana: Tossup
Nebraska: Safe R
Nevada: Tossup
New Jersey: Lean D
New Mexico: Likely D
New York: Safe D
North Dakota: Tossup
Ohio: Tossup
Pennsylvania: Tossup
Rhode Island: Safe D
Tennessee: Safe R
Texas: Likely R
Utah: Likely R (Depends on whether 3rd party candidate emerges)
Vermont: Safe I (unless Bernie runs as a Democrat)
Virginia: Likely D
Washington: Safe D
West Virginia: Likely D
Wisconsin: Lean D
Wyoming: Safe R

GOP picks up IN, ND and MO

Dems gain NV

R+2 for a 54-44 Senate

()

Using ranks because calling races at this point seems premature.

()

Why is Nebraska a likely R state. Is it just a mis-click or is there some sort of hidden Democratic bench somewhere in the state?

()

In this scenario, MT should be tilt/lean D. Domestic politics overrule gubernatorial and senatorial elections, and Tester is a good local fit.

()

GOP gains Missouri and Indiana. They could gain North Dakota, but Heitkamp is an appealing moderate there. If a Berniecrat out-primaries Joe Manchin, that's another GOP gain (or Manchin pulls a Lieberman and runs independent). Ohio could go to the GOP if a popular enough candidate runs against Brown (John Kasich could do it easily). Florida is a bit of a stretch since Nelson has been there a fairly long time, but like Ohio, a strong enough candidate could win there.

Lean R:

-Arizona
-Nevada

Lean D:

-Florida
-Montana
-North Dakota
-Ohio
-West Virginia

Likely D:

-Virginia
-Wisconsin (just barely Likely D as of now)

Lean I:

-Maine

Tossup:

-Indiana
-Missouri


If the GOP will pick up any states, they will be Indiana and/or Missouri.  If the Democrats will pick up any seats, they will be Arizona and/or Nevada.  The way I see it, Manchin and Tester will most likely remain in their seats unless a really strong Republican ties them to national Democrats in a strategic way.  The same goes for Heitkamp.  The three of them are moderates and are at a greater position in remaining in their seats than McCaskill and Donnelly, for example (I think Donnelly is relatively moderate too, but I think Indiana would most likely vote for a Republican instead).

If his approvals just stay stable, people like Donnelly and McCaskill actually have a chance.

()

dream map

my wild guess is that Democrats will hold on to all their seats  and will pick up NV (because hillary won nevada last year).. arizona (because hillary almost won AZ last year) and Texas (because cruz is hated).

#analysis

()

dream map




Yes, these are rural areas aside from IN, who was the most hostile towards Clinton, Tester, Manchin and McCaskill have high approvals for incumbants

As for the GOP incumbants Flake, Heller and Cruz, the Latino corridor of IL,CA, CO, NV, NM, NY and NJ all voted for Clinton in 2016 and will be friendly again for reapportionment in 2020 eventhough, the new map won't take effect until latter.

And AZ is a Clinton friendly state. TX is a special case, but a Latino sunbelt state.

Red is Democrat, blue is Republican and green is tossup. For the purposes of this scenario, Angus King and Bernie Sanders will be ranked as Democrats.
()

Arizona may be more Democratic than thought not just because of its D trend but also that Kelli Ward could well be the GOP nominee(she leads in the polls over Flake and if DeWitt is running he wins). McCaskill, Donnelly and Heitkamp are vulnerable, I'd expect at least one of them to lose, but all three have an ability to win in GOP states and their states have shown a willingness to elect Democrats. Nevada's race looks like a prime pickup for the Democrats given Hispanic opposition to Trump and that Heller only won by 1% in 2012.

You're joking, right? :P

This must be a joke. TX is safe R on a good day for Dems. Cruz isn't hated here, either. He's the kind of Republican that dominates here. Every statewide elected official here except for John Cornyn is as far right as Cruz.

lol

AZ: Ward +5

Dems if they run a decent candidate can win a competetive race against either Ward or Flake

In an anti Trump environment McCaskill will win

Is Maine a gain for Dems or King being reelected?

Apologies, but what tool are y'all using to make predictions?  I can't find it and can't even find a FAQ to help.

Assuming nothing crazy happens, (though in the age of Trump, you never know) here's what I think.

()

Among the safe Ds and safe Rs, there are a few I'm gonna put a question mark next to. The first is Alabama's special election in November (I know it's not a 2018 election, but I'm putting it here anyway). Some primary polls suggest that Roy Moore might become the nominee, and for anyone familiar with Alabama politics, this guy brings disaster with him everywhere. If he gets the nomination, there isn't an 100% guarantee that he'd win a general. He could become the Republican version  of Martha Coakley. Minnesota deserves a note because Trump nearly won it, but Klobuchar is quite popular. I know this sounds a bit like flawed thinking, but there's a very slight chance Cardin in Maryland isn't 100% safe. He hasn't announced he's gonna run for reelection, a popular Republican Governor (Hogan) is up for reelection, and Maryland hasn't been the kind of state that does a lot of ticket splitting. Hogan's coattails could overwhelm Cardin (or vice-versa) or another Democrat if Cardin retires.

Also, Bob Menendez has a corruption scandal going on, and is scheduled to appear in court in September, so he's not a 100% guarantee for reelection. I wish a competent Democrat would just primary him.

My early prediction.
()
Key races:
NV: Heller loses by 7 or so.
AZ: Flake holds by 5 (against whoever) in the general, wins the primary fairly comfortably.
UT: Romney and McMullin sit out, Hatch easily wins both the primary and general.
MT: Rosendale wins by 5, Olszewski by 2, anyone else (unlikely) loses by 4.
ND: Heitkamp wins by 8 against Cramer, 14 against Campbell, by 20 against Becker or Berg.
MN: Klobuchar wins by 12, as she tanks in MN-01, 06, and 07.
WI: Fitzgerald, Kleefisch or Hovde beat Baldwin by 1, any other nominee (far more likely) loses by 6.
MI: Robert Young, Randy Richardville, or Dan Benishek lose by 1 or 2, anyone else falls by 15 or more.
TX: Cruz wins by 11 or more despite all the hype.
FL: Scott pulls the unthinkable and wins by 1 after catching Nelson sleepwalking.
MO: Wagner wins by 12 (or Hawley by 4).
IN: Donnelly loses by 14 (probably more than O'Rourke) as the race is nationalized and Pence does a lot to help Messer (who'll probably win the primary).
OH: Mandel wins by 5 or 6 after easily winning the primary.
WV: Manchin loses by 11 against Jenkins (who should easily win his primary).
PA: Casey should win by 10 or so, but the GOP should get a good wave insurance candidate anyway.
NJ: Nothing to see, NJ voters don't care about corruption, they think it's no big deal.
ME: Even if RCV is struck down, King should be fine and win with room to breathe.

I'm assuming Trump's approval is -1 or 2 as Republicans "come home" and polarization remains historically high. I could very well be way off.

Okay I have not been posting as much lately because there really is not a whole lot to post right now.

The only real confident prediction that I can make at this time is that Democrats will gains seats in the House of Representatives. I can not really put a number on it but it could be as low as eight if there is not a huge backlash to Trump or as high as like 40 to 50 if voters are not feeling partisan in 2018, Trump is very unpopular and a bunch of R PVI +5 to +10 districts fall.

As far as the US Senate elections a lot of these Democratic incumbents are remnants of the past. We saw how they all fell very quickly in 2010 and 2014. Mark Pryor was a popular remnant of the past but fell by a surprisingly large margin. 2012 was a bit different for Senate Democrats even remnants of the past because of luck and the fact that a Democrat president was not assured in the minds of many people. Many voters were quite convinced Romney would win and the polls were oversampling Democrats. We saw how that went.

If anything polls underestimated Democrats that year. That is something to consider before assuming polling in 2018 will underestimate Republicans.

Now we saw how these remnants of the past went during a Democratic administration, it will be interesting to see how it goes under Donald Trump. Donald Trump is too unpopular at this present time for a repeat of 2002 to occur.  Even in 2002, Democrats did not do that bad locally and House and Senate gains were limited even with favorable redistricting for the GOP and that was the first cycle that the redistricting took place.

Also even if Trump is popular in certain states it is no guarantee that the Democratic incumbents will fall down.  Obama was popular in Illinois in 2010 and 2014 and Republicans won two major offices those years. We saw Kirk go down in a year with entirely different circumstances and it is too early to see if Rauner is DOA in the Governor's contest next year but a state's lean does not dictate how a state will vote during midterms even if the President is popular in that specific state.


Manchin thrived in West Virginia during the tea party wave and won by a large margin in 2012. His polling has shown him as popular and West Virginia Democrats to have some success statewide to this day. Even if Jenkins is from the key part of the state for Democrats to win West Virginia we can not assume that he will going to defeat Manchin. Manchin has the clear cross over appeal but he could be taken down if 2018 becomes quite a Republican year.

Heitkamp was elected while her state was very hostile to the Democratic party and has become quite popular. Only thing that could defeat her is sheer partisan.

Sherrod Brown is quite the progressive but if his opponent is Mandel I can argue that Brown would be favored to win re-election as rematches can often Falter. I have seen this happen too many times. Not sure why the gop is set on Mandel for their nominee. They probably have a dozen other candidates who could be stronger.

We argue about McCaskill a lot but I argue that I do not think it is in the cards for her to lose by more than single digits in the current climate for 2018. I could even see her winning. She seems to be doing the right things.. she is exiting the liberal base but she is not bashing Trump voters. She only criticizes GOP policies. There is a difference. Despite assertions on this site her progressive punch score is a "D".

Donnelly is very anonymous. Most voters in Indiana probably do not actively remember his name. His path to victory could be managing to create a positive image to voters now as he is so unknown to many voters. Unlike McCaskill he has that option. On the other hand if Donnelly does not invent a positive image to voters and reintroduces himself to voters he could end up losing by a 19 point margin. What would kill him is if voters go to the polls and are like "Who is this guy?" and vote Republican by default.

The rest of the races I am not very familiar with enough to comment.

Ordinarily, 2018 would be a reverse of the 2006 Democratic wave.. except that the Republican President will be extremely unpopular. The only question is whether the 2018 election will be free and fair.

Democrats have no real chance of winning a majority. Even picking up Arizona and Nevada while holding what they now have,  they would get an effective 50-50 split of the Senate with the VP as the tie-breaker... unless some Republican defects from the Party or dies and creates a vulnerable seat in a state that would likely vote for a Democratic nominee for a Senate seat in a Democratic-leaning state. 

It is telling that a poll that shows Trump approval at 62% in West Virginia suggests that Joe Manchin has an excellent chance of winning re-election. Indiana and Missouri are even less supportive of Republicans.

Wat

Just one question here, about WI.  I assume you're saying Hovde would be a good candidate, why exactly?

Wow this is hackish.

Here's a hot take. The democratic incumbents in red states who won election/reelection in 2012 in an environment that was only slightly less polarized then 2016 aren't heavy underdogs in a year that will almost certainly be at least a decent D wave. Even bigger hot take. Republicans aren't going to knock out popular swing state incumbents in a midterm under a Republican president whos 20 points underwater nationwide.

Let's not pretend McCaskill, Donnelly, Tester, and even Manchin are super popular in their states. Even Manchin has moved left on a lot of things over the past few years (endorsing Hillary even after her coal comments, PP funding, etc.) and I imagine he's lost some support over that. He's not the same Manchin from 2012.

you people are little school yard children.

Two of those incumbents won solely because their opponents were wackos who imploded after making incredibly dumb comments. And that's probably not going to happen twice.

Also, we really don't know if Trump's approvals will stay like this on election day.

McCaskill has a tendency to out perform expectations and she did not win solely because of legitimate rape.

Donnelly is anonymous which could be a blessing or curse. The curse would be that he would be killed at the ballot box because so many voters have no clue who he is or the blessing could be that he could have a chance to define himself in a positive light. McCaskill can not really redefine herself. People have rigid opinions of her.

I obviously have my doubts that all those red state Democrats will go down that consistently under a Republican president versus under a Democratic president.

I am particularly perplexed as to why everyone thinks Manchin is DOA.

Hackish is suggesting that its ridiculous to assume that the party of a president consistently facing a -20 net approval will probably be the victim of a wave. It took impeachment over a blowjob and 9/11 to get the last 2 positive midterms for the in party.(fun fact: also the last two midterms where the outparty didn't get a serious wave). The thing about these midterms is that the presidents involved had excellent approval ratings. Considering that the current trump approval ratings are under a good economy, I highly doubt that will happen.

My Ratings as of 6/21/17


()


Added light pink as Tilt D.


Apologies if it looks weird, first time creating and posting a map.

()

Blasphemous color scheme.

Is this the realignment?

lol very sorry to everyone for inverting the colors

https://mapchart.net/usa.html

Just remove the state names (you can do that on the side.)

The site is great for mapmaking.

I guess I'm just playing it safe right now with ND and MT, especially since in MT, the GOP bench isn't too deep.  Also, I  forgot to note that AZ's color is lean R and NV's is (the slightest of tilts) tilt R, the latter of which I am only saying once again to play it safe, especially since Heller is an incumbent.  Clearly, though, he would be the first Republican in my ratings I would move leftward if the national environment looks more and more anti-GOP.

Can see your point on FL and IN, FL Scott should move it to tossup once he jumps in and really starts campaigning, and with IN once a good candidate jumps in it'll move to likely R.  But I want to hear your reasoning on why MI should be less favorable to Stabenow, to my understanding she's an entrenched incumbent and won her last 2 elections by at least 15 points, that makes me put it at likely D, does she have a strong challenger or are her approval ratings failing?

The Georgia 6 Election pretend ominous signs for Democrats in Indiana and Missouri. In GA the base turned out rejecting a moderate Democrat in Ossoff who ran a decent Campaign. And in MidTerms IN & MO are lean more to the right than in POTUS years.

I think McCaskill & Donnelly are gone.

()

Pick-ups:

Indiana (Lean R): A lot will depend on who Donnelly's opponent is, and while I have no doubt that he'll massively overperform Clinton's 2016 performance, he is running in a tough state that often isn't kind to incumbents. He'll need some wind at his back to win.

Missouri (Tilt/Lean R): McCaskill is definitely in trouble, but she's been labeled DOA before, and we saw how that worked out for Republicans. Had she beaten Akin by only 2-3%, it would be hard to see her winning, but since she won by 16%, clearly she has more appeal in Missouri than some would like to give her credit for. She's not a bad campaigner, and while she's in for the fight of her political life, counting her out this early is foolish.

Nevada (Toss-Up/Tilt D): Heller got very fortunate in 2012, and still just squeaked by. Nevada's also not trending in a favorable way for him. Again, though, much will depend on his opponent, and Rosen might be too inexperienced/untested on a statewide level. Since it will be a Trump midterm, though, Heller will likely face some headwinds.

North Dakota (Toss-Up/Tilt R): People seem to be ridiculously opinionated on this race. I think the assertion that Heitkamp has special appeal in North Dakota is accurate, but that doesn't make her a shoo-in, that just gives her a fighting chance. This is a state that has moved significantly to the right since 2012, and while we don't know who her opponent will be yet, there's a good chance he/she will be more competent than Berg, who she just barely beat.

Competitive holds:

Arizona (Lean R): Flake isn't very popular, and a strong Democratic challenger will definitely endanger him, but Arizona remains a tough state for Democrats. Republicans may not love Flake, but that doesn't mean they'll turn their backs on him and allow a Democrat to win.

Florida (Lean D): Nelson is decently popular, but he's running in a state that is chronically competitive, and his likely opponent, Rick Scott, will be able to self-fund his campaign. Scott, however, isn't exactly beloved, and just squeaked by twice in Republican wave years, so he won't have an easy time unseating a Democratic incumbent.

Michigan (Likely D): Stabenow will probably be fine, especially since the Republican bench here isn't very strong.

Montana (Toss-Up/Tilt D): Both of Tester's wins were impressive, but they were also narrow, so he definitely can't rest easy, even in a Trump midterm. The fact that his opponent won't be Zinke or Fox definitely helps him, though.

Ohio (Lean D): Mandel may look in good position right now, but so do Strickland in 2015, and we saw how that ended. Rematches have rarely worked out well for the loser, and while the results in Ohio in 2016 should make Brown at least a little nervous, he has much more appeal than Clinton did here.

Pennsylvania (Likely D): As long as Casey doesn't try to sleepwalk through his re-election again, he'll probably be okay.

West Virginia (Pure Toss-Up): This is the toughest race to predict, at this point. I could see anything from a Manchin losing by 15 to him winning by 20. Jenkins will be a tough opponent for him, but he is well-established in the state, and even if he bleeds a good deal of his support from 2012, his strong connections to the state will definitely come in handy. The million dollar question is just how much crossover appeal he still has.

Wisconsin (Lean/Likely D): Democrats likely won't get caught flat-footed here like they did in 2016, and Baldwin is the right kind of Democrat for this state. Especially if turnout doesn't drop in Milwaukee like it did last year, Baldwin will definitely be favored.

The GOP Base turned out. That matters. Democrats were banking on the Republican Base abandoning Handel because of Trump. That didn't happen.

They underperfomed by a large number of points. Most Clinton republicans are staying blue.

(). If Trump's approval rating drops to 30%. From RCP. This would be about a D+20 wave, which looks possible, though somewhat optimistic for democrats.

This isn't possible in the slightest.

This is an absolute impossibility.

Kek.

Off topic from this impossibility, why do you think Stabenow is in a bad enough position to be lean D?  I don't really see how she's any worse off than likely D, unless she's got a strong challenger.

If Trump keeps up, don't be surprised if you see this map.

()

Here's my prediction. I know its pretty hackish in favor of democrats, but whatever.

What?

...with Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas voting Democrat? Nope.

A R+5 state, a state with a possibly ineffective nominee, and a state which had a democrat senator 5 years ago. All obviously impossible to win even in a landslide.

LOL, from a "Clinton Republican," this is bullshlt.

Clinton Republicans aren't voting for Donnelly and McCaskill, though.

stop this is not helping

Look at Georgia.

since this site believes all elections will be like 2016 forever and democrats lose points due to MIDTERM!!! these are my predictions for 2018

Basically it is 2016 + a five point gop add on since we live in a world in which formulas dictate elections:

Arizona: Flake wins by 9

Nevada: Heller wins by 2 to 3

Texas: Cruz wins by 14

Montana: Tester loses by 25

Missouri: McCaskill loses to the currently unnamed Republican candidate 81 to 15 because atlas told me so!

Wisconsin: Baldwin loses by 6 to 7.

Michigan: Stabenow loses to unnamed Republican candidate by 5 to 6 points

Ohio: Sherrod Brown loses by 13 to 15 points.

Pennsylvania: Casey loses by 5 to 6 points.

Florida: Nelson loses by 4 to 6 points.

West Virginia: Manchin loses  like 46 points because all results from 2016 are set in stone forever!!

North Dakota: Heitkamp loses by 41 points!

I know I will still be told that I am being biased towards the Democrats

What are people smoking that Mt Treasurer's predictions are 'hackish' Jesus have you learned nothing from the recent past

A few reasons I've shifted my view from R+4 to R+6-7 in recent weeks in the senate (even whe Ds pick up house and governor races):
1. Trump approval has stabilized and the Russia story is rapidly losing credibility. Frankly I always thought it was a losing strategy but Ds need this time to recruit candidates and make up a serious infrastructure gap in many states, and reduced enthusiasm could be damaging to both efforts. Ds need to score a win by blocking healthcare or bringing their own changes to fix ObamaCare to the people and saying 'you can vote for our plan or you can vote for Republicans ripping Medicaid from you and giving that money to the 1%'. Right now there is just no positive messaging at all. 
2. Heitkamp has said she doesn't like being a senator and is openly considering not running for re-election.
3. Wisconsin' article 10 is not discussed much as a reason for it's strong trend towards Rs, but the gap in money and influence of unions there is hitting Ds hard outside of Madison and Milwaukee. I think Baldwin is gonna lose next year, maybe even by a surprising margin.
4. Sherrod Brown is already coming under fire for his progressive stature, and he is dropping in Ohio opinion polls for the same reasons Atlas loves him. Mandel is not a bad candidate any longer even if I want to punch him in the face every time I see him. Sooner Ds realize that and realize golden boy Sherrod Brown is in for a political fight to the death the sooner they can start strong counter-messaging and infrastructure building in a state they have gotten systematically dismantled in in recent years.
5. Republicans are almost certainly going to have an open SCOTUS seat to talk about. Between Kennedy putting off retirement and the actuarial tables on Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer, the odds that Rs will have a SCOTUS seat to talk about through much of next election season will help them greatly. The clout of social conservatives was seen in this vein last year - Rs care much more deeply about the Supreme Court than Ds do, simple as that. If there's a vacancy it wi fire up conservatives. Honestly it might have been better for Ds for Kennedy to retire now vs next year (if it is next year) because that would have faded from people's minds by then.

In any case to ahead save the quote maybe I'll look like a fool next November. But I really think that Ds are, amazingly, underestimating their weakness in the Senate next year.

And yes, I know that Ds are energized and getting lots of recruits and Trump is unpopular etc etc etc. I just think that post-Ga 6 it's hard for my unbiased brain to buy that as a reason why Trump voters won't throw out at least half a dozen Democrats from the Senate next November.

Alright, I'll stop being a Democratic hack. Here's the real ratings map.

()

Uh, cherrypicking one random person on an internet forum's prediction and applying it to what all pundits and/or Democrats think is kind of the definition of a strawman. But please proceed, governor.

I don't think this is the most likely outcome but it is possible and I'd say this is my reasonable GOP win scenario.

At some point the GOP will not have a good night. Should be noted that polling in 2012 underestimated Democratic support.

Of course a good way to lose an election is to act like you can not possibly lose it.

^I think that was a mistake. His numbers have 52 R + the 3 newly elected ones

Look, how about instead of attacking eachother's predictions we post what we believe the ratings are and how they will go and see how they hold up to the actual results? 

Yes even in a wave Democrats will lose Tennessee I meant to put it for the GOP.

Hold on, I may have not been referring to you.

Right now we are not in a position to make any confident predictions. Too many contradictory factors.

We saw in 2010 and 2014 midterms how many Democratic Senators were just tossed out. Even if they were entrenched and popular and often by landslide margins. In 2012 they had very good luck and many had no problem winning re-election.  So it is easy right there to say that it was because of "midterms!!". But presidential years were supposedly always supposed to be good for Democrats because the last two presidential cycles and we all see how that went.

I have a hunch that all these deep Trump state Democrats may not necessarily lose in the upcoming midterm despite results of 2010 and 2014. The variables are different.

Special elections do not dictate or even predict what will happen the next cycle but they can give clues. KS-04 shows that the midwest is indeed quite elastic. That may give some hope for McCaskill and Heitkamp. GA-06 showed that the sun belt suburbs are indeed trending to the Democrats but we are not there yet and it also showed overconfidence can destroy election chances. Should be noted that GA-05, which neighbors GA-06, is D+34.  What does it say about the Republican Party that they have to depend on structure to win?

For the GOP best-case scenario WV and MT could be potential gains, however Tester and Manchin are strong incumbents in states willing to vote for Democrats down-ballot. Florida is possible but it is not Republican-enough to be a very likely gain and given that Nelson is a strong incumbent he'll probably win. I'd say more likely Democrats and Republicans both fail to make significant gains-maybe 1 or 2 gains either way(though 2 R gains probably means Republicans keep both houses) as Democrats gain big at the House and state level.

()

I'm going to assume you have Ward primarying Flake here?

I am not assuming anything. These are just very fuzzy projections that could change based on many factors.

Some slight adjustments (and including Alabama from 2017):

()

No West Viriginia is likely to solid Democrat. And North Dakota is likely dem.

I'm comfortable with my ratings, but everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Thank you for putting mo as toss up! If i were straight and mccaskill was not an old she would be my type of white girl.

I love her!!!!!

This stands, largely.

Obviously Trump's AR will not be likely 45-48%, but it should be enough for the GOP to pick up deep red states while losing everything else.

The most vulnerable seats, at this moment, for either party is Heller and Flake. But at this juncture, I think Heller still has good odds of survival. So I could be 1 seat off (could be a 55-45 majority, instead of 56-44).

Not including major surprises (unexpected vacancies, retirements, etc), I only expect a maximum of 2 Democratic losses right now, coming from either Indiana or Missouri. If I had to pick one specific scenario, I think every Democratic seat will be held, with the net result being D+1 (from a Nevada gain). It's too early for me to get a good read on the chances of flipping AZ.

Predictions

()

Net R+3 (-NV, +IN, MO, ND)

Ratings

()

Conclusion: Who really knows yet. This Trump midterm has the potential to be a disaster for Republicans but I don't think the Dems can pull off all of those overwhelmingly red states. Republicans are so lucky that this Senate class is up this year, there is much more potential for loss in the House.

No. West Virignia and North Dakota are likely Democratic.

Wat?

()
My prediction atm a lot could change

Red: D
Blue: R
Green: I
Gray: No Senate race in 2018
Gold: Tossup
IN: Tossup for now; Wait for more GOP candidates to enter race
ND: Tossup for now; Lean R if Cramer runs
MT: Tilt D
NV: Tilt D
WV: Tossup for now; Likely D if Morrisey is GOP nominee; Tossup if Jenkins is nominee; Safe D if Raese is GOP nominee
NM: Likely D
MO: Tossup for now; Tilt D if no credible Republican; Lean R if credible Republican
AZ: Tilt R
TX: Likely R
VA: Likely D
FL: Lean D for now; Tossup if Rick Scott enters race
WI: Lean D
MI: Likely D
PA: Likely D
AZ: Lean R for now; Tossup if Flake loses primary
ME: Likely I

()

I'm starting to become more and more convinced that Kaine's seat atm is safe

No. West Virginia and North Dakota are likely Democratic.

()

Dark Red: Safe Dem
Red: Likely Dem
Light Red: Lean Dem
Green: Tossup
Light Blue: Lean Rep
Blue: Likely Rep
Dark Blue: Safe Rep

I'm including the 2017 Alabama special election, in this map too.

Sanders and King are both colored in as Democrats.

I think it's more likely than not that Nevada flips Dem and Missouri flips Rep. Both Heller and McCaskill are very unpopular in their opposite-trending states (Nevada --> D, Missouri --> R).

MTTreasurer is going to bite my head off for putting Heitkamp as a tossup, lol.

EDIT: Forgot about Hawaii. Safe D, of course.

EDIT 2: New Hampshire shouldn't be colored in.

Why are people saying that Texas is not safe for Cruz?

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.

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

If McCain's Senate seat becomes vacant, I believe that a special election would be held in 2018 to fill it(http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2017/07/20/what-if-senator-mccain-leaves-office-how-process-works/494621001/). If it does become vacant, what effect do you think it will have on the 2018 Senate elections?

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.

Pryor probably would've won in 2008 with a GOP opponent. Landrieu did. Just pointing that out

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

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.

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.

()
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.

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'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.

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.

()
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

There's no Illinois senate election in 2018

whoops sorry

()

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.

Nope.

West Virginia and North Dakota are likely Dem.

Missouri is a toss up.

()

No Tossup Map:

()

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.

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.

Excellent prediction. I agree 100%.

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!!

Alaska doesn't have a Senate race in 2018.

lol Texas isn't going to flip

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.

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

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.

I mean 2016 did break a lot of rules also and Trumps approvals are solid in rural America and our election system has a biased towards rural America and add in the factor that midterms have a gop boost even when thwy favor the out power party I can kind of see why some users here think 2018 will be great gop year in Senate and the house seeing minimal gop losses.

I do not agree obviously.

()

Editing my prediction: AZ from tilt R to Tossup

My updated prediction.
()

Predicted outcome, no tossups:
()
R+3. As you can see, I'm not feeling good about Arizona AT ALL. IF Flake steps aside and someone else (other than Ward) is the nominee, I can see it holding, but I really think Flake isn't electable anymore., he's really destroyed himself and has made enemies with just about everyone else. In Ohio, I have lost confidence in Mandel given how the last 2 weeks went, and, as much as I despise Brown, back to Tossup/Tilt D it goes. :( Bold prediction: FL votes to the right of AZ. It will be all about turning out and inspiring the bases. Flake will not, Scott will.

Why do you have PA as Lean D, and why is WI Likely D?  Would WI change if Hovde or Vukmir got in?  Also you really believe Kid Rock makes it tossup in MI?

Pennsylvania: The real battle will be in southeast part of the state, since Casey and Barletta really cancel out each other's "bases" quite well (Northeast PA). Erie County (2016's best bellwether in PA) is another one to watch. I'd say Casey is favored right now, but Barletta definitely has a path forward.

Wisconsin: Hovde, Fitzgerald, (or Kleefisch or Duffy if they pulled a Gardner) would move Wisconsin to the right. Hovde seems like the best, the other three I said may be able to hitch on to Walker and narrowly win, but it'll be tougher since Hovde has the "Johnson/Trump" factor in him (outsider businessman). What exactly is so great about Vukmir? I never got her statewide appeal? She strikes me as tailor made for the WOW area/Milwaukee suburbs. I can see her run for and win WI-05 whenever Sensenbrenner hangs it up (which may not be a while), but she probably underperforms in the western part of the state. Keep in mind that WI-03 and WI-07 are VERY elastic, and have a long progressive, populist, and even pacifist tradition (they have changed a little, but still). The WI-05/WI-06 playbook does not work in WI-03 and WI-07. Nicholson, who seems like a Tom Cotton-type, would probably be toxic. I don't know too much about Vukmir, but she seems too anonymous to really hitch on to Walker, and also, has't she underperformed in her deep red State Senate district? I think Vukmir is a paper tiger.
 
Kid Rock could win by 2 (or a little more), or lose by 20 (or a little more). No in between. He has a path to victory, something most "generic Republicans" don't have. He has been doing well in early polls, which may mean nothing, but tossup until further notice, I have to wait and see.

Alright, one last question, Barletta should clear the primary rather well yes?

Probably. There are four others (semmingly) serious Republicans running, here's a little rundown of what I've picked up:
Rick Saccone: State Rep. from the Pittsburgh area. He's one out of 203(!) in the State House, so his constituency is tiny, and he's not well known to the voter-rich eastern parts of the state. From a Trumpy area, but it's an area that's losing population relative to the state, and therefore also losing influence. Generic R, I guess, will probably just drop down and run for reelection instead. The next two options up, State Senate and US House, both have GOP incumbents running again, so he'll probably just wait.
Jim Christiana: See above.
Jeff Bartos: He's trying to strike a Trumpy tone, it seems, borrowing a few liens (such as "our jobs are disappearing," "end destructive trade deals" and "secure our borders," as well as emphasizing his business background. He will have to explain his past support for Kerry, Obama, and the DSCC to voters, though, if he wants to be serious.
Paul Addis: Another mavericky businessman who touts his outsider business background, but his similarities with Trump and Bartos stop there. He's been openly critical of Trump for the most part, so he'll have a base with #NeverTrumpers.

I think Saccone, Christiana, and Bartos will all drop out soon and endorse Barletta, he's way stronger and all four seem like their bases would overlap. Addis, I'm not so sure, but if he does I think Barletta will win due to his name recognition, connections to donors, and he'll probably get endorsements groups like the NRA and NRLC pretty soon. Personally, I hope one of the others (probably Bartos or Addis, due to their profile) runs for Governor instead. I'm not too impressed with Scott Wagner and no other big candidate has stepped in yet.

Alright, and I tend to agree with you on Wagner, i'd like someone else (please god can Dent run), could Turzai possibly be a good candidate?

Totally agree, especially the bolded part. I think Dent would lose to Wagner in the primary for sure. This whole Atlas meme of super moderate candidates being invincible is so overrated. They really don't understand the electorate.

Well I didn't know he did that, that'd kill him in the primary and GE.  So who would be a better candidate than Wagner?

I think some people are being way way too optimistic. Yes Trump will be the most unpopular President two years in - in history. But this country is so polarized between the parties that at this point but I think you'll see R states vote R and D states vote D for the most part.


Republicans win MT, ND, IN, WV
Democrats win NV
----
Republicans +3

2020 Presidential race is when you'll see the first serious WAVE election since '92

We win ND but not MO?!?!

I would definitely swap ND and MO.
To answer your question about who should run for Governor, I think either Mike Turzai or Jake Corman would be good.

Thank you for that answer.

North Dakota is one of the Reddest states in the Nation and this seat was won 50.2 to 49.3 and that was in a Democratic Presidential year... Missouri is a Lean R but not definite R. You have Urban centers of STL & KC... ND is 100% going R, Missouri is tossup IMO

Heitkamp has ~60% approval and the GOP slate doesn't consist of too many decent candidates. Heitkamp has a better chance than McCaskill of surviving.

Just swap ND for MO and that's a good prediction, ND is at least Lean D.

As of 8/17/17

()

I'd say Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Florida are at least tilt-D.

Fair.

Oh, good gravy!
First of all, NC is not scheduled to have a Senate election any time in the next 1.25 years.
Secondly, you sure are over-confident. You're predicting a net of +12 R?!? You're predicting that in Jan. 2019 there will be 64 Republicans in the Senate?!? I can understand an AtlasBlue poster being confident about keeping NV and AZ in the GOP column, and about winning most of the Toss-up or Lean D states, but you're even predicting a GOP win in one of the Safe D states (NM).

Oh well. Everyone's got an opinion, even when some of them are pretty wild.

Here's my prediction for the Senate races.
I also predict the GOP will keep NV and AZ, and they will most likely pick up MO, MT, and IN (assuming that the GOP does not kill itself with a nasty primary fight between Rokita and Messer). Out of these races: FL, ND, OH, PA, and WV -- all of them I would rank now as "Lean D," but probably four incumbents will win, and one won't, but I don't know which one to predict will lose. The rest of the Democratic seats will stay Democratic. In my opinion, MI and WI are just as "Likely D" as are VA and NJ. So I think the net change will just be +4.

I think the final Map will look like this

()
>80=Hold
>50=Gain

Republicans pick up IN and MO
Democrats pick up NV and AZ

No Net change in Party standings

()

DEM Pickups: NV
GOP Pickups: MO, IN, ND, OH, WV, MT, WI

Net: R+6 (58-42 GOP)

I really want 60 seats, and the map realistically should get us there except for the potentially unfavorable climate.  Florida and Wisconsin should be very, very close, either way.

Also, Flake goes down to Ward in a primary, but Ward beats Sinema in the general (Sinema is easily more radical than Ward, by the way).

Sinema is one of the most moderate democrats. She's literally a blue dog.

()

>70%: solid
>50%: likely
>30%: leaning

Counting Bernie Sanders and Angus King as Democrats and not Independents by the way.

R+4

R gains:
All of: IN, MO
Some/most of: MT, ND, WV, OH (2 or 3 from this group)
Fraction of: MI, WI, FL, PA, VA (1-2 of these)

D gains:
All of: NV
Some/most of: AZ (40/60 underdogs imo)
Fraction of: TX, UT (pick up one or both of these in a wave / if something odd happens)

Don't think the Heitkamp will win mantra is particularly true - she is running a good campaign sure but I think people underestimate just how red the plains have become. This is Trump land and he is their god, and he can easily motivate enough people to sink even the best campaign in a place like North Dakota.

WV is somewhat similar, Trump is crazy popular there. Hard to see even Joe Manchin survive if Trump campaigns against him.

OH I think will be a toss up on Election Day but will clearly be the bellwether for whether or not Rs or Ds are having a good night in the senate. I happen to think that it is entirely possible that house, senate, and governor's races do not predict one another at all in 2018 but we will see.

MI, WI, and FL are the most likely of the unlikely to flip column, I think one of these will flip in the end though it is definitely possible Trump will motivate liberals in Madison / Ann Arbor / Fort Lauterdale and Dems will sweep these. VA and PA are a step more likely for Ds to hold because Trump WILL motivate Philadelpia and NOVA to show up - these are borderline safe seats barring strong R campaigns imo.

Nevada is an easy win for Ds, and AZ is a prime opportunity. I think it's 6 years too early for this seat to flip however, though if it does flip I think Ds hold it forever basically.

Old Map (from ~1 month ago):
()

New Map:
()

Changes:
Arizona: Lean R --> Tossup
Michigan: Safe D --> Likely D
Montana: Tossup --> Lean D

I'm considering moving Pennsylvania to Safe D and North Dakota to Lean D, but I don't know for now. If the Republicans nominate someone incompetent in Missouri, I'd change that race as well.

My predictions are becoming more and more hackish. I better get off of Atlas before I start saying Alabama is a tossup.

()

So anywhere from D+2 to R+3.

Or anywhere from D+2 to R+5?

Or anywhere from D+4 to R+11??

Some explanations:
I'm using Tossup-Tilt-Lean-Likely-Safe as my spectrum
I consider a "likely" state to be a state that is very likely to go for the party it's shaded in but has a nonzero chance of going the other way. This is Texas. Cruz will probably win, but there is a slim chance he won't. This is also how I'm characterizing Florida and Virginia, as well as New Jersey. I will move NJ to Safe D once I'm 100% sure that someone who is not the incumbent will be the D nominee.

I'll move Alabama to Lean R if Moore wins and National Dems get involved, and to Safe R if that does not happen. This is all in lieu of general election polling ofc.

Arizona goes to Lean D as soon as a credibal Democrat steps up to run against Flake.

Alabama is not Solid R. I'd put it as Lean at most.

Safe D
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Maryland
New York
Rhode Island

Strong D
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Washington

Lean D
Michigan (could be a toss-up depending on who the GOP nominates)
New Jersey (see Michigan)
New Mexico (could be a toss-up if Martinez runs)
Pennsylvania
Virginia (see Michigan)
West Virginia

Toss-up
Florida
Indiana
Missouri
Montana
North Dakota
Ohio
Wisconsin

Lean R
Arizona
Nevada

Safe R
Mississippi
Nebraska
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Wyoming

Strong I
Maine (since LePage isn't running)

Safe I
Vermont

Democrats shouldn't get cocky about President Trump's poll numbers.  Their own numbers are even worse than his, and Trump actually breaks about even with people who are actually likely to vote.  Most of all, they are in the same position as Senate Republicans were last election: they have far more seats to defend, and thus more to lose.

Obama was more popular than the GOP in November 2010. Didn't matter. Midterms are a referendum on the President's party.

()


No toss up map. Based on gut feelings, current polling, astrological transits around election night 2018 and early January 2019.

https://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/8mJdql
Dem +2

Republicans hold Senate, 51-50 w/ Pence's vote.

As of 9/8/17

()


Notes:

IN is Tilt R instead of Lean R
In CA the Seat itself is Safe D, but the Primary is Lean Feinstein
FL would be Tilt D without Rick Scott, but he's gonna run so it's tossup

This is hilarious honestly.

The weirdest part of this whole thing is that of the 5 Democrats defending seats in Romney states, McCaskill was the only one who won a bigger margin than Romney in their state.

McCaskill is seen as the most vulnerable because she has low approval ratings in Missouri, and Missouri appears to keep on trending R.

She won by a fair amount in 2012 because of her challenger's rape gaffes.

()

Why is Wyoming the only safe R seat? And why is Alabama a tossup? More importantly, why is Missouri NOT at least a tossup?

Smoking that good good

In polling, Alabama is a statistical tie.

For me it's this map but

AZ = Tossup
NV = Tossup
UT = Safe R
ND = Lean D
MO = Lean R
IN = Tilt R
WI = Tossup
MI = Lean D
AL = Likely R


I'm not 100% sure on PA being Tilt D, but I'll cede to MT on it being that.  (I assume you have Barletta being the nom yes?)

Predictions were recently updated, and injected into my signature.

()

GOP: 56 (+4)
DEM: 44 (-4)

Seat Changes (bold denotes party change)
AL: Luther Strange (R-Cool Name) --> Roy Moore (R-Jeebus)
AZ: Jeff Flake (R-Out of Touch, Also Mormon) --> Matt Salmon (R-eplacement Mormon, Not Out of Touch)
AZ (S): John McCain (R-IP) --> Martha McSally (R-McCain²)
CA: Diane Feinstein (D-Assisted Living) --> Kevin de León (D-#resist)
IN: Joe Donnelly (D-esperate) --> Luke Messer (R-Not Rokita)
MO: Air Claire (D-oomed) --> Josh Hawley (R-ising Star)
MT: Jon Testes (D-???) --> Matt Rosendale (R-Insurance)
NV: Dean Heller (R-Mormon) --> Jacky Rosen (D-Fresh)
NJ: Bob Menendez (D-Jail) --> Donald Norcross (D-La Cosa Norcross)
ND: Hidey Hidekamp (D-A Good Woman) --> Tom Campbell (R-Ad Boobs)
PA: Bob Casey (D-Not Pro-Choice) --> Lou Barletta (R-ProtoTrump)
TN: Bob Corker (R-Liddle) --> Marsha Blackburn (R-Anti Twitter)
UT: Orrin Hatch (R-Doom 2) --> MITT ROMNEY! (R-Javelin)

Selected Other Races
MI: Debbie Stabmenow (D-Incumbent) def. Kate Upton's Uncle (R-Up or Out)
WI: Tammy Baldwin (D-Gay) def. Leah Vukmir (R-Registered Nurse, Probable Soccer Mom)
TX: Ted Cruz (R-Porn) def. Beto O'Rourke (D-TITANIUM D TEXAS)
MA: Walking Eagle (D-Too Full of S**t to Fly, Fake Indian) def.  Shiva Ayyadurai (R-eal Indian)
VA: Tim Kaine (D-Soccer Dad) def. Corey Stewart (R-Self Hating Yankee)
FL: Bill Nelson (D-Spaceman) def. Rick Scott (R-Voldemort)
OH: Sherrod Brown (D-Populist) def. Josh Mandel (R-Ugly)
MN: Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota Nice, Future President) def. Jim Newberger (R-Nobody)
WV: Joe Manchin (D-Blue Dog) def. Patrick Morrisey (R-New Jersey)

Very bold prediction, but I don't see this happening.

It's possible. Ted Cruz's approval ratings are abysmal, Krysten Sinema leads Kelli Ward, and Heller is an unfavorably viewed republican in a state that's trending D.

()

D - 48 (+0), R - 52 (+0)

>30% = Tilt D/R
>50% = Lean D/R
>70% = Likely D/R
>90% = Safe D/R

Safe D:

• California
• Connecticut
• Maryland
• Delaware
• Washington
• New Mexico
• New York
• Hawaii
• Minnesota
• Massachusetts
• Rhode Island
• Maine
• Vermont

Likely D:

• Michigan
• Virginia
• New Jersey

Lean D:

• Montana
• West Virginia
• Florida
• Wisconsin
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania

Tilt D:

• Nevada
• Arizona
• Ohio

Tilt R:

• Missouri
• Indiana

Likely R:

• Alabama
• Texas
• Utah
• Tennessee

Safe R:

• Mississippi
• Wyoming
• Nebraska

()

Changes:

Alabama: Likely R to Lean R

2/19/2018

Safe D - WA, CA, HI, NM, WV, VA, PA, NY, VT, MA, RI, CT, NJ, DE, MD

Likely D - MT, MN1, MN2, WI, MI, IN, OH, FL,

Safe R - UT, WY, NE, TX, MS

Likely R - MO, TN

Tossup - NV (Pure tossup, though I'd say the GOP pulls it out. I expect Tarkanian/Rosen)

Tossup - AZ (Many interesting possible combinations here, but I think it goes blue as the youth and anti-Trump Blue Wave goes into effect. I call Arpaio vs. Sinema)

Tossup - ND (I think incumbent's advantage puts Heitkamp over the edge on road to a possible 2020 campaign)

Safe D
WA, CA, HI, NM, MN (regular), VA, MD, DE, NY, MA, CT, RI, VT

Likely D
ME, NJ, PA, MI, MT, MN (special)

Lean D
ND, IN, WV, FL, OH

Tossup
MO, AZ, UT

Lean R
TN, TX

Likely R
MS

Safe R
NE, WY, UT

Don't really see how MO's anything more than a tossup or tilt R.

If MT is Likely D, all the other states are almost certainly Safe D IMO. Tester is a pretty strong incumbent, but he’s not THAT strong/popular and MT is not THAT Democratic down-ballot.

It’s just that the GOP hasn’t put up too strong of a candidate, and I don’t really see him losing this year, where I could see Donnelly or McCaskill, or even Heitkamp losing.

()

This is my first attempt at rating races, so forgive me for anything that might be out of place. Currently, I rank the states as the following:

Safe Democratic-California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Vermont, Virginia, Washington.

Likely Democratic-Michigan, Minnesota-Special, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.

Lean Democratic-Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, West Virginia.

Tossup-Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee.

Lean Republican-None.

Likely Republican-Mississippi-Special, Texas.

Safe Republican-Mississippi, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming.

()

On this map, Alabama represents MS-Special, while Georgia represents MN-Special.

You have Ohio listed as both lean and likely D but otherwise those are my exact ratings.

I corrected that mistake.

Only changes: TN, FL, and MO are now Tilt D, and UT is now Safe R.

IN tilts GOP, and Dems win TN, AZ and NV

NEW PREDICTIONS:

()

Arizona: Lean D (flip)
California: Safe D
Connecticut: Safe D
Delaware: Safe D
Florida: Tossup
Hawaii: Safe D
Indiana: Tossup
Maine: Likely I
Maryland: Safe D
Massachusetts: Safe D
Michigan: Likely D
Minnesota: Safe D
MN-special: Likely D
Mississippi: Safe R
MS-special: Likely R Hyde-Smith vs Espy +++
                      Lean D McDaniel vs Espy
Missouri: Tossup
Montana: Likely D
Nebraska: Likely R
Nevada: Tossup
New Jersey: Lean D
New Mexico: Likely D
New York: Safe D
North Dakota: Tossup
Ohio: Likely D
Pennsylvania: Safe D
Rhode Island: Safe D
Tennessee: Tossup
Texas: Lean R
Utah: Safe R
Vermont: Safe I
Virginia: Safe D
Washington: Safe D
West Virginia: Lean D
Wisconsin: Likely D
Wyoming: Safe
1 flip R-D D+1

Without Tossup
Florida: Tilt R (flip)
Indiana: Tilt D
Missouri: Tilt D
Nevada: Tilt D (flip)
North Dakota: Tilt R (flip)
Tennessee: Tilt D (flip)
------------------------------------
3 flip R-D (Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee)
2 flip D-R (North Dakota, Florida)
50R---50D
 +1R Vice-President
51R---50D

()

90%=Safe
70%=Likely
50%=Lean
30%=Tilt
Green=Tossup

Please ignore Maine and Vermont.  King and Sanders are counted as Dems for purposes of map coloring.

Odds of winning

()

Dianne Feinstein is listed as Independent because she doesn't have the Democratic Party endorsement.