2018 interactive senate map is up. Post your predictions.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Substantially more likely than a Democratic majority:

http://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/aQObB8

67-33; Veto-Proof Majority

MN would be tough to crack.

One overlooked state is MA. If widely popular Baker jumps in, then Warren could be in trouble.

Another blue state that could be in trouble is MD if Hogan jumps in, although I doubt he will.

I don't think AZ will be in play at all. NV is the only GOP state I think we could lose.

I think I'm getting hackishness poisoning. Somebody call an ambulance.

There are 11 states with R+ 2016 PVIs and Democratic incumbents in 2018.  The filibuster-proof majority is quite likely, and I will be disappointed if we don't get it.

Yep. Also this;


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/10/trumps_first_term_and_perhaps_a_second.html

WV - rural
ND - rural
MT - rural
MO - rural/rust belt
IN - rust belt
OH - rust belt
FL - diversified
PA - rust belt
WI - rust belt
MI - rust belt
MN - rust belt
ME - rural

MN Rustbelt?  News to me.

[Roronoa D. Law]

I actually think people would be surprise at how many seats Dem would hold onto in 2018. We stayed competitive in MO and IN plus won states wide in WV and MT. So if Donald Trump is under 50 then Democrats should be able to hold on. And to the Republicans saying that this particular Democrat is going to loose because a state votes a certain way. Did you forget 2016?     

[Hindsight was 2020]

I actually think people would be surprise at how many seats Dem would hold onto in 2018. We stayed competitive in MO and IN plus won states wide in WV and MT. So if Donald Trump is under 50 then Democrats should be able to hold on. And to the Republicans saying that this particular Democrat is going to loose because a state votes a certain way. Did you forget 2016?     

Been saying this forever the only effect the president race has on midterms is negative. The idea that someone like Brown who is really popular in Ohio will lose because Trump won the state is ridiculous

[pbrower2a]

Substantially more likely than a Democratic majority:

http://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/aQObB8

67-33; Veto-Proof Majority

MN would be tough to crack.

One overlooked state is MA. If widely popular Baker jumps in, then Warren could be in trouble.

Another blue state that could be in trouble is MD if Hogan jumps in, although I doubt he will.

I don't think AZ will be in play at all. NV is the only GOP state I think we could lose.

I think I'm getting hackishness poisoning. Somebody call an ambulance.

There are 11 states with R+ 2016 PVIs and Democratic incumbents in 2018.  The filibuster-proof majority is quite likely, and I will be disappointed if we don't get it.

Yep. Also this;


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/10/trumps_first_term_and_perhaps_a_second.html

WV - rural
ND - rural
MT - rural
MO - rural/rust belt
IN - rust belt
OH - rust belt
FL - diversified
PA - rust belt
WI - rust belt
MI - rust belt
MN - rust belt
ME - rural

Because ticket splitting doesn't exist, especially not with incumbents and a wavy midterm.

Sorry.  Democrats don't vote in midterms.  It won't be a good Democratic year, as much as you wish it would.  I even think the Republicans pick up seats in the House.

More analogous to 2018 could be 2006, when the Republicans had an unpopular President. To be sure, the Democrats have far more at risk -- but they seemed to have much at risk in 2006, too. Democrats picked up six Senate seats, all by defeating incumbents; they needed every one of them.

Trump policies will hurt and offend. Retribution can come in the Senate, especially if ethnic minorities vote in large numbers. Most likely, the Democrats lose two seats because they have more potential for loss.  It may be Republicans who get complacent.

The real gain for Democrats is most likely in gubernatorial races in which governorships in Michigan, Florida, and Wisconsin are up for grabs. Such is more critical for 2020 because Democratic Governors will not give the Trump campaign any help in suppressing the vote.

2018 is otherwise structured to be a bad year for Democrats. 2020 is critical in deciding whether America gets a "new Birth of Freedom" or becomes effectively a single-Party system in which one must either be very rich or very stupid to be happy.   

[Shadows]

GOP Gains - ND, IN, MO, OH/MT
Dem Gains - NV, AZ

Trump approval @ 35% !

R+2, Senate @ 54-46!

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

http://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/2kQNOl

Every state Trump won by less than 8 points is going D. Polarization only gets more extreme. House vote is Ds by 7 (gain all HRC-GOP seats, lose none of the Trump-Dem ones). OH is a pure tossup.

[Person Man]

This thread feels VERY 2005 or 2009 ish. In 2006, Ds won 4 bush states? (OH,MT,MO, and VA).

[Figueira]

This thread feels VERY 2005 or 2009 ish. In 2006, Ds won 4 bush states? (OH,MT,MO, and VA).

What is your point?

[heatcharger]

This thread feels VERY 2005 or 2009 ish. In 2006, Ds won 4 bush states? (OH,MT,MO, and VA).

What is your point?

I think he's saying that in 2005 people thought Democrats were gonna be on defense in the midterms, but the opposite happened.

The problem is Bush was underwater in all four of those states, and I somehow doubt Trump will be in the same position in WV, ND, and probably not in MO and IN either. We'll see if Trump pushes an unpopular war,  f**ks up a natural disaster in epic proportions, and tries to privatize Social Security, but even then, I think Reps start out as favorites in 3 of those 4 states.

[RINO Tom]

I think the GOP picks up IN, MO and ND.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I think the Democrats will pick up Nevada. I'm not sure the GOP will pick up a seat - If Sean Duffy runs, Wisconsin could be a possibility. Montana more likely, but I don't know if the GOP has a serious candidate. Missouri a bit tough, but I can't say worse than toss-up for now.

[The Other Castro]

My current prediction is super boring: Republicans gain Indiana, Democrats gain Arizona. Everything else is held by respective parties. No net change.

Edit: Realistically I can see anywhere from D+2 to R+5, with most likely range being R+0 to R+2.

[Figueira]

Here's the states ordered from Safe D to Safe R (in my opinion).

Hawaii
New York
Vermont
Maryland
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Massachusetts
California
Washington
Delaware
New Mexico
Maine
New Jersey
Minnesota
Michigan
Virginia
Pennsylvania
Florida
Wisconsin
Ohio
Nevada
West Virginia
Montana
Missouri
Indiana
Arizona
North Dakota
Texas
Utah
Nebraska
Alabama (special)
Mississippi
Tennessee
Wyoming

[Crumpets]

ITT: "LOL Republicans are overconfident hacks! Democrats will win back the Senate easily!!!1"  -  "LOL no, YOU are the overconfident ones! Republicans will have 67 seats in 2019!!!11"

Yawn. Anyway, here are my ratings: http://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/aZoqx2
I think the GOP will definitely gain a couple of seats, but not sure how many.

Some early guesses:

MO - McCaskill +14
WI - Duffy +1 (saved by the WOW counties, but underperforms in rural WI)
ND - Cramer +8
OH - Mandel +5
IN - random R +10

FL - decided by a margin of 1% or less

Wow, that's a pretty yuge number for McCaskill. Why do you think she'll outperform her party's nominee in 2016 by a full 33 points?

[Mike Thick]

ITT: "LOL Republicans are overconfident hacks! Democrats will win back the Senate easily!!!1"  -  "LOL no, YOU are the overconfident ones! Republicans will have 67 seats in 2019!!!11"

Yawn. Anyway, here are my ratings: http://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/aZoqx2
I think the GOP will definitely gain a couple of seats, but not sure how many.

Some early guesses:

MO - McCaskill +14
WI - Duffy +1 (saved by the WOW counties, but underperforms in rural WI)
ND - Cramer +8
OH - Mandel +5
IN - random R +10

FL - decided by a margin of 1% or less

Wow, that's a pretty yuge number for McCaskill. Why do you think she'll outperform her party's nominee in 2016 by a full 33 points?

It's a meme

[MT Treasurer]

Well, it happened everywhere in 2006 and 2010, sooo...

It even happened last year with Kander. Plus, she is an excellent fit for her state, extremely popular and was underestimated in 2006 and 2012 as well. So yeah, I think she is very safe in 2018, even if it turns out to be a GOP wave year. Keep in mind that she beat Talent and Akin and the GOP bench in MO sucks.

Anyway, even with polarization, it really depends on whether 2018 is a neutral/slight GOP year or a good Democratic year. Especially in a state like Maine or Michigan, that matters. So it's not easy to rate those states at this point.

[Xing]

Because why the fck not.

Obviously this, since as others have said, Democrats don't vote in midterms.

[Vosem]

I repeat my prediction, which I've detailed elsewhere, that 2018 will simultaneously produce the largest Republican Senate majority since the 1920s and the return of Speaker Pelosi. The exact numbers are so fuzzy at this point that predicting them is basically pointless, though I think the median possible Senate is 56-44 (R+4).

R gains: MT, ND, MO, IN, OH, WV
D gains: AZ, NV

There's several seats that could also go Republican if the ball is dropped in one of those states (FL or WI will probably have strong candidates), and I think that, while the odds are less than 50%, the odds of a Scott Brown-style event where Democrats pick up a seat they really shouldn't have in some special election somewhere are quite real. I also think, while Ted Cruz is favored for reelection, TX is a very real Democratic 2018 target.

[publicunofficial]

R's gain North Dakota, Indiana.

If D's can find a candidate, then Nevada could absolutely flip, but right now it looks slim that they find good candidates for both the Senate race AND the governor's race.

[Crumpets]

R's gain North Dakota, Indiana.

If D's can find a candidate, then Nevada could absolutely flip, but right now it looks slim that they find good candidates for both the Senate race AND the governor's race.

Is Sandoval running again? Because if so, the Democrats should absolutely focus on the Senate race.

[publicunofficial]

R's gain North Dakota, Indiana.

If D's can find a candidate, then Nevada could absolutely flip, but right now it looks slim that they find good candidates for both the Senate race AND the governor's race.

Is Sandoval running again? Because if so, the Democrats should absolutely focus on the Senate race.

Sandoval is term-limited.

[publicunofficial]

Candidate quality and incumbency advantage are overrated. There is no way Dean Heller can win if the Democrats hold states like MO or WV. Even Shelley Berkley would beat him in such a scenario.

It definitely helps, even if marginally. You're willing to tell me that if LA, NC, AK, or AR had been open seat races in 2014, they wouldn't have been even bigger blowouts?

Oh, most red state Democrats definitely have an incumbency advantage, but incumbent Republican Senators clearly haven't. It's the main reason why the GOP advantage in the Senate exists only on paper.

I was talking more about incumbent Republicans like Heller, who are quite overrated. If 2018 is a Democratic landslide year (which it will be if they hold most or all of their red state seats), Republicans will lose one or two of NV/AZ/UT/TX. I'm pretty sure about that.   

I agree with you about incumbency being overrated, but candidate quality is still a must. Can't beat something with nothing.

[Horus]

R gains in ND and IN
D gain in NV

MO is 50/50 and will go down to the wire.

[Person Man]

More interestingly, what does a D+7 House look like? If Trump is at 45% with no bad happening, what will happen when the recession comes?

[peterthlee]

D-friendly wild guess given Trump's stagnant popularity:
http://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/8bNAd8
My hunch tells me that McCaskill and Donnelly, who are said to be destined to get blanched in a likely R race, will squeak out by a percentage point or so. Of course they could lose by mid-single digits, as their states are scarlet red states, but it is a midterm. I hold onto my belief.