[RD] US Senate - 2018

[onejayhawk]

An Alabama special election for Senator will be held on 6 November 2018. Primary elections are scheduled for June and August (if necessary). The seat became open when Jeff Sessions was confirmed as U.S. Attorney General. Earlier this month Governor Robert Bentley appointed Luther Strange, then state Attorney General, to fill the interim. The seat will com up for re-election in 2020.
http://www.wtvy.com/content/news/Go...ion-for-Alabama-US-Senate-Seat-413782033.html

UVa posted its early projections. Despite being early, these tend to fail more because of retirements than other issues. That said, a rising tide floats all boats. 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/

270towin is also up.
http://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/

 

[dutchfire]

Still far away of course, especially on the time scales that dominate politics nowadays.

I'd rate Nevada more favourably for the Democrats.
Democrats also narrowly flipped two House seats there in 2016, it will be interesting to see if they can hold on to those. And the Democrats should also be very interested in doing well in the state election, because they have a chance to safely move Nevada into the Democratic camp.

I would be less confident about Montana, the question is how much incumbency can protect you as a Democrat in Republican territory.

 

[onejayhawk]

I will be interested to see how the Nevada Democratic machine does without Harry Reid. NV is really the only chance the Democrats have for a pick-up. The Republicans likely have five that are better. Offsetting that is the midterm effect. We'll see how it plays. Retirements have not yet begun to impact. Six months from now we will know a lot more.

J

 

[danjuno]

Kelly Ward is running against Jeff Flake in the AZ GOP Primary. An ugly primary could easily put the seat in play.

 

[onejayhawk]

This is an article on the 2018 Gubernatorial races, but it interlaces with the Senate races. It is worth noting that Democrats sit a lot better in the state races, which might help them in at least some of the Senate races.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/initial-2018-gubernatorial-ratings/

J

 

[AdrienIer]

You forgot a link ?

 

[JollyRoger]

The Senate map looks bad for Dems, but the governor's map and the House look better. Also, we may have reached peak GOP in state legislatures.

 

[onejayhawk]

The Senate map looks bad for Dems, but the governor's map and the House look better. Also, we may have reached peak GOP in state legislatures.

Isn't that what you said before Trump flipped the Great Lake states?

J

 

[JollyRoger]

Do you have a different take? To you expect the GOP to increase its numbers of governors, increase its numbers in the House, and increase its hold of state legislatures? If so, how much of a gain do you think they will make in each category?

 

[onejayhawk]

Do you have a different take? To you expect the GOP to increase its numbers of governors, increase its numbers in the House, and increase its hold of state legislatures? If so, how much of a gain do you think they will make in each category?

Not exactly a different take. I was commenting that you expect different results from the same activity. There is a word for that.

J

 

[danjuno]

Ds are over extended on Senate Map, Rs are overextended on Gov map. Not much else to say.

 

[onejayhawk]

Another article focusing on the map.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...he_democratic_senate_map_for_2018_133823.html

 

[JollyRoger]

Not exactly a different take. I was commenting that you expect different results from the same activity. There is a word for that.

J

So are you saying that the Dems are going to pull a Trump flip Senate seats they are not expected to? The 2016 Presidential election was the first time since the 2002 midterms that the results did not roughly match my expectations.

 

[onejayhawk]

So are you saying that the Dems are going to pull a Trump flip Senate seats they are not expected to? The 2016 Presidential election was the first time since the 2002 midterms that the results did not roughly match my expectations.

Not exactly. I am, saying that the part of the President tends to do poorly in mid-term Congressional elections, both House and Senate. With this map, losing only one or two Senate seats would constitute out-performing expectations.

2002 was a shocker. Who knew President Bush had that kind of political capital?

J

 

[JollyRoger]

While President's often lose seats in a mid-term, the Senate map for 2018 sets up well for Republicans to not lose big time. The current expectations (based on current outlook, not historical trends), is that the GOP is not going to lose a lot of seats in the Senate. In fact, they could gain. That is not saying anything about Trump, that is saying something about what the map looked like before Trump was ever elected. The House and Governor's races are different. I think the GOP will get losses in both of those categories.

 

[onejayhawk]

While President's often lose seats in a mid-term, the Senate map for 2018 sets up well for Republicans to not lose big time. The current expectations (based on current outlook, not historical trends), is that the GOP is not going to lose a lot of seats in the Senate. In fact, they could gain. That is not saying anything about Trump, that is saying something about what the map looked like before Trump was ever elected. The House and Governor's races are different. I think the GOP will get losses in both of those categories.

I agree on all points. The size of losses in the House is going to be a significant item to watch. Part of this is because the Democrats have done so poorly in recent state level elections. The list of young, promising Democrats is shorter than at any time I can remember.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

This is different. RCP has a toy to play with. Input Trump's popularity number and it generates election outcomes. There are also tweaks that we do not have information to properly use, yet.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ate_results_with_rcps_interactive_tool.html#2

J

 

[onejayhawk]

When announcing their retirements, Sen. Flake and Sen. Corker gave lengthy and vitrolic statements against the Trump administration and the President in particular. Though no longer a player inside the White House, Stephan Bannon is leading attacks on Mitch McConnell and several Republican incumbents. Note that Trump actively supported sitting (appointed ) Senator Strange in Alabama. He lost the primary anyway.

UVa has a new article exploring the history of attempts by the executive branch against its own party. This is not a first.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/primary-colors-in-red/

Relating to post #37, President Trump's job approval has settled into a band between 38% and 42% for several months, centering between 39% and 40%. By RCP's widget, the Republicans will maintain control of the Senate, but likely not gain seats. The Democrats seem to be focusing on taking control of the House.


J

 

[metatron]

Concerning changes in the next two years, several "red" states have both Democratic Senators and Governors--MN, MT, MO, PA, VA, WV. If the sitting Democrat decides to retire early, their Governor will be able to appoint the same party to warm the seat.

Ignoring the color debate for a moment:
You didn't check that each of those states actually allows for that, did you? You are just lucky that it happens to be so by chance, aren't you?

Ds are over extended on Senate Map, Rs are overextended on Gov map. Not much else to say.

The latter is as overrated as the former.

Democrats may easily get NM there, possibly IL and then fight for Florida...
...and Colorado.
Because right now that looks like it's going to be a thing.
(Never mind what shape the race in Connecticut will come up once that has settled somewhat).

So we're aiming for what here? Governorship number 17?
Impressive.


Same with the Senate:
Yes this is a perfectly good chance to get rid of McCaskill.
And then Manchin and Donnelly (and maybe Nelson) will have to fight for it.
The rest will be fine.
Like, have you seen Heitkamp? Have you seen the puny man running against her (once you managed to google him, which is hard enough)?
Sorry, but that's not a race, that's violence porn.

On the other hand, while i am not entirely convinced of Ms. Rosen's prowess and she comes with the dubious taste of being unable to do a job for non-palin length of time, Heller is certainly in trouble.

And Jay's confidence regarding the other seats is prmature as well. An obvious start would be Arizona. From where i am sitting Ward is a one-trick-primary-pony. And she either has asthma or she's no good at her job.
Sinema to me looks like someone who has continuously developed into what is now a near-optimal candidate. I'd be happy to send her against an incumbent, never mind that lower case flake.
If, as indicated by post #23, Jay thinks AZ will be safe, i'd joyfully say "Well, prove it!".


You people do this nearly every election:
You overestimate the impact of partisan leanings of states.
You overestimate the impact of presidential politics.
You overestimate of whatever silly narrative you've spun out of the last election.

You usually underappreciate the other factors:
Incumbancy matters. People make a big fuss of it when it doesn't because that's the exception.
The quality of candidates matters. A lot.

You know, you could run Martha Coakley for something, once more, to demonstrate my point.
But hey, it's bad enough (what with you people having fashy "feminism" but no healthcare).

 

[danjuno]

And then Manchin and Donnelly (and maybe Nelson) will have to fight for it.

I've always said Manchin is something else. He's with the coal lords here in WV, so he's pretty safe.