[RD] US Senate - 2018

The first run is 52-45-3, nearly status quo, with both independents winning. Toss-ups are MO, ND, IN which have been mentioned several times are possible GOP pick-ups. Trump won all three states by 19% or more.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/2018s-initial-senate-ratings/

Even if the Democrats win all the current blue seats + Nevada and Arizona, that's still not enough for them to regain the senate control. The Republican vice president will serve as the 50-50 tie breaker.

Do you think any Democrats can win in Texas?

Virginia Senate should be democratically safe because Tim Kaine will run for the re-election.

The chance for a Democratic Senate 2018 is indeed <1% given the fact how much money they have to spend compare to their counterpart Republican campaigns.


The Rust Belt states already surprised the Democrats in 2016, both on the presidency and the senate election maps.

Did you know Wisconsin and Pennsylvania also voted for the Republican Senators in 2016, a partial map of Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton.
https://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election-results-live/

Democratic Senate challenger beat New Hampshire Republican incumbent by only 0.2% in 2016 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_New_Hampshire,_2016

Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire over Trump with the very narrow 0.37% lead -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_New_Hampshire,_2016


One more important fact: If Senate Election of 2018 follows the Trump 2016 map, the Republicans will acquire a super-majority Senate which requires 60 total members.

The 9 pick-up states are FL, MI, MO, MT, ND, OH, PA, WI, WV, +8 with Nevada flipping the opposite direction.
 
Last edited:
I notice that Texas is about 2-1 for the Republican in the simulations. That does not take the candidate into account. As you point out, Ted Cruz will not let this detail escape his notice. I also think Missouri is flipping to the Republicans. Source on this is familial, so take that with as much salt as desired.

J
 
Trump's approval is underwater in Indiana, of all places. Even in a normal midterm year, incumbents in the opposition party are hard to unseat. This far out I'd ballpark the Dems would most likely lose one of WV, ND, MO, or IN. But the map is now expanded to include the possibility, however remote, that the Republicans lose in Alabama. Tennessee also should at least see the Democrats put up a credible challenge where they otherwise might not even bother, though Marsha Blackburn would appear to be a strong candidate for the Trump Party.
 
Mitt may regret that speech he made against Trump if that happens.
 
Same thing for MN. There are good arguments to put it in the blue column and in the purple column.
Minnesota is defintely purple. Trump lost it but very narrowly, and reps control the legislature.

That said I don't see democrat Sen Klobuchar getting booted in 2018 unless she does something really stupid.

Governer race will be interesting with Dayton's retirement
 
Another interesting thing to watch might be California and if Feinstein will make it. It might actually be good for the Democrats to have two competitive candidates there, if they can pick up both general election spots. That could demotivate some Republicans which could help the Democrats downballot.
 
That said I don't see democrat Sen Klobuchar getting booted in 2018 unless she does something really stupid.
Agreed.
She has the liberal cred to keep the activists happy and is skilled at porking out the Farm Bill to keep the farmers happy.

Governer race will be interesting with Dayton's retirement
Minneapolis Mayoral race is interesting too, with the local DFL apparently trying their hardest to race into nutty-ville.
I haven't been following governor race that closely. Whose all in on the DFL side that has a chance? Last I checked all the GOP big names were staying out of it until later when they can get a better sense of which want the Trumpian breeze is blowing.
 
Al Franken's resignation puts another state in the picture, though only for a two year term. There will be a special election in November. So, one more Democratic seat at stake.

Franken tipped an issue in his resignation speech when he referred to his replacement as "her". The lame duck Democratic Governor will appoint a Democratic (likely female) interim Senator. Among other things, it would be a way for the party to use two candidates from the pool of gubernatorial hopefuls.

Minnesota is notoriously difficult to predict, but the appointee will have almost a full year to generate an incumbent vibe, assuming she survives the primary election. UVa has a new article on the subject.

The Democrats have a deeper bench of talent in the state and Dayton will have the choice of several quality candidates to appoint, including state Attorney General Lori Swanson and state Auditor Rebecca Otto (Swanson may be a gubernatorial candidate and Otto already is), as well as Lt. Gov. Tina Smith, among others. One would think Dayton would strongly consider a woman given the number of impressive female Democratic candidates in the state and the fact that Franken is leaving because of his bad behavior toward women.​
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cr...-out-how-wed-rate-a-minnesota-senate-special/

J
 
Last edited:
Cook is now calling Tennessee a toss-up, as former governor Phil Bredesen has decided to run for Corker's open seat.
 
Al Franken's resignation puts another state in the picture, though only for a two year term. There will be a special election in November. So, one more Democratic seat at stake.

Franken tipped an issue in his resignation speech when he referred to his replacement as "her". The lame duck Democratic Governor will appoint a Democratic (likely female) interim Senator. Among other things, it would be a way for the party to use two candidates from the pool of gubernatorial hopefuls.

Minnesota is notoriously difficult to predict, but the appointee will have almost a full year to generate an incumbent vibe, assuming she survives the primary election. UVa has a new article on the subject.

The Democrats have a deeper bench of talent in the state and Dayton will have the choice of several quality candidates to appoint, including state Attorney General Lori Swanson and state Auditor Rebecca Otto (Swanson may be a gubernatorial candidate and Otto already is), as well as Lt. Gov. Tina Smith, among others. One would think Dayton would strongly consider a woman given the number of impressive female Democratic candidates in the state and the fact that Franken is leaving because of his bad behavior toward women.​
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cr...-out-how-wed-rate-a-minnesota-senate-special/

J
Media reports Dayton lilely appt. Lt. Gov Tina Smith, who will likey not run in 2018.

A lot can happen between now and midterms but Trumps mishandling of obamacare, loss of the salt deduction (MN is a high tax state), and general terrribleness should keep Republicans on the craplist.
 
Media reports Dayton lilely appt. Lt. Gov Tina Smith, who will likey not run in 2018.

A lot can happen between now and midterms but Trumps mishandling of obamacare, loss of the salt deduction (MN is a high tax state), and general terrribleness should keep Republicans on the craplist.
I have my doubts if Smith would not run for the full remaining term. If nothing else, they want the seat to be blue for the 2019-2020 congresses. The time to election is too large an asset to waste.

Cook is now calling Tennessee a toss-up, as former governor Phil Bredesen has decided to run for Corker's open seat.

I can believe that. That said, a big issue the Democrats face is the economy. If the first three quarters of 2018 are like the first three quarters of 2017, Republicans will do well. Current economic indicators point that direction.

J
 
I have my doubts if Smith would not run for the full remaining term. If nothing else, they want the seat to be blue for the 2019-2020 congresses. The time to election is too large an asset to waste.
My guess is she'll run for governor in 2018
 
Minnesota is notoriously difficult to predict

J
The only state in the union to vote Democratic in every Presidential election since 1972. Aside from two single-term Senators, you would have to go back to the 1970s to find Republicans winning a Senate race.
 
The only state in the union to vote Democratic in every Presidential election since 1972. Aside from two single-term Senators, you would have to go back to the 1970s to find Republicans winning a Senate race.
Minnesota has the streak because of Mondale in '84

Minnesota took a strong red turn in the past decade along with much of the midwest It's a purple state and Clinton barely won it.

That said, Minnesota is very likely to vote Dem because Trump blows chunks

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-seat-but-minnesotas-not-as-blue-as-it-seems/
 
I agree that it has turned purple. I just question that it is notoriously difficult to predict. I guess it is possible that some have predicted the Presidential race wrong since 1972.
 
The only state in the union to vote Democratic in every Presidential election since 1972. Aside from two single-term Senators, you would have to go back to the 1970s to find Republicans winning a Senate race.
This is a valid point. It is also the state that elected a wrestler and a comic to major office.

Yeah "notoriously difficult to predict" is pretty overwrought. It's not hard to see that Dems are favored for 2018.
Not hard, but also not given. The UVa article cited above gives the Democrats an small edge, but also makes the case for a toss-up rating, particularly if Pawlenty runs.

J
 
Top Bottom