[RD] USA Senate - 2016

[onejayhawk]

Granted it is very early, but this could be a landmark election. The pundits are already putting early trends.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/

IMO calling Illinois a toss up is a stretch. The Republican incumbent Mark Kirk has serious health issues and there is no one else with a decent chance. This looks like easy pickings for the Democrats. However, it is the only low hanging fruit. Florida is interesting because Marco Rubio is the incumbent. If he runs for President, this might change. In Ohio, Portman has already indicated he intends to defend his seat. Rand Paul may run for both offices, ie Senator and President, but he has a much safer state.

On the other side, Harry Reid in Nevada has his hands full if Governor Sandoval runs. That said, Reid is a proven survivor. Colorado is the only other state that is not solidly Democratic.

The task is daunting. The Democrats need to pick up at least five, ie 50/50, with six needed for a clear majority. This is the same task the Republicans faced in 2014 and the Democrats have a similar map. It is not as easy as a 24-10 seat ratio might indicate. The Republicans are mostly defending their base states. Other than Illinois, all the GOP seats are in at least purple states, with several deep red.

J

 

[BvBPL]

Looks like a good time to invest in the Chicago and Pittsburg media markets.

It is really to early to tell given we have no idea who the presidential front runners are. Likely as not, many of these leaning states will be decided by who is riding whose presidential coattails.

 

[downtown]

I think there are probably seven winnable races there for Democrats (maaaaybe as many as nine), given that the voting pool for 2016 is going to look dramatically different than it did in 2014, with this being a presidential year and all. But, as always, so much of this depends on candidate recruitment and quality of campaign.

The best pickup opportunities are probably Wisconsin (Rob Johnson is a pretty throughly unimpressive politician and Wisconsin has a relatively deep statewide Dem bench), and Illinois.

 

[Gucumatz]

Honestly the senate may come down to how electrifying the democratic candidate is. If we see Hillary Clinton as the nominee, we could see a similar like wave as 2008

 

[onejayhawk]

Honestly the senate may come down to how electrifying the democratic candidate is. If we see Hillary Clinton as the nominee, we could see a similar like wave as 2008

I'm sorry, but Hillary in context with electric is hilarious.

Very unpopular President. Very old candidate running against a much younger opponent. You have a point. You could see a similar wave to 2008.

J

 

[warpus]

How are the Republicans controlling the house and senate? (They are, aren't they?) They've been screwing the country over these last couple years, and people still vote for them? What the hell are the Democrats doing that they're not cashing in on Republican screwups bigtime? Seems like gross incompetence on the side of the Democrats. Do they even have a leader? Is he or she.. slow?

 

[Gucumatz]

Better mobilization of their voters [partly a result of money, voter base with high turnout rates to begin with, and better rigging of voting structures] than democrats can do with theirs

Democrats always have a higher potential voter base, the problem for them is always mobilization/"excitement" if you want to simplify things.

 

[downtown]

How are the Republicans controlling the house and senate? (They are, aren't they?) They've been screwing the country over these last couple years, and people still vote for them? What the hell are the Democrats doing that they're not cashing in on Republican screwups bigtime? Seems like gross incompetence on the side of the Democrats. Do they even have a leader? Is he or she.. slow?

It's a combination of very bad candidate selection, the election cycle (not every Senate seat is up for election at the same time), the demographics of midterm electorates being substantially more favorable to Republicans, gerrymandering of house seats to favor Republicans, and the unpopularity of Obama.

 

[onejayhawk]

How are the Republicans controlling the house and senate? (They are, aren't they?) They've been screwing the country over these last couple years, and people still vote for them? What the hell are the Democrats doing that they're not cashing in on Republican screwups bigtime? Seems like gross incompetence on the side of the Democrats. Do they even have a leader? Is he or she.. slow?

It's a combination of very bad candidate selection, the election cycle (not every Senate seat is up for election at the same time), the demographics of midterm electorates being substantially more favorable to Republicans, gerrymandering of house seats to favor Republicans, and the unpopularity of Obama.

While all this is at least defensible, it is not sufficient. The fact is that Republicans have been accused of screwing the country over does make it so. The voting results indicate that it was the Democrats who were perceived guilty of assault. ACA has been a trainwreck for the Democratic party.

J

 

[dutchfire]

NH, OH, FL and NC could all go D if their presidential candidate is good.

 

[onejayhawk]

NH, OH, FL and NC could all go D if their presidential candidate is good.

Poor candidates have plagued the Democratic Party. Look at the twit they ran for Texas Senate this year. She campaigned as a single mother, even though she did not raise the kids. Part of the problem is numbers. Something like 2/3 of all local and state offices are held by Republicans. The people of USA are more conservative than their elected officials.

In Ohio the Republicans have Portman, in Florida Rubio. Both would be hard to top. Burr in NC and Ayotte in NH not so much. Rubio could run for President which makes an opening.

J

 

[dutchfire]

Poor candidates have plagued the Democratic Party.

Todd Akin

I'm not sure the Texas Senate race is very useful, the Democrats did not seriously contest it. In the current political climate, they could run LBJ himself and they still wouldn't win Texas.

 

[downtown]

In Ohio the Republicans have Portman, in Florida Rubio. Both would be hard to top. Burr in NC and Ayotte in NH not so much. Rubio could run for President which makes an opening.

J

Rob Portman is not unbeatable at all. He isn't a friend of Ohio's religious wing of the party (especially after he endorsed gay marriage), he's boring, and not a man particularly skilled at retail politics.

The problem is that other than Richard Cordray, Ohio essentially has no credible Democrats they can run for state office. Perhaps one will emerge.

And yeah, I'm not sure Texas is a great example, since Wendy Davis was probably the best equipped to raise enough money to win, and even though she ran a crappy campaign, she wasn't going to win no matter what. A better example from the last cycle, I think, would have been Iowa, or Maryland or Massachusetts' Governor races.

 

[JollyRoger]

Look at the twit they ran for Texas Senate this year.

J

John Cornyn? I know he has spoken about being agnostic in regards to a person marrying a box turtle.

 

[Colonel]

More then likely the Democrats will retake the Senate and with any luck Hilary will be elected President. If we're really lucky the Democrats will re-take the House but I doubt that will happen until after 2022.

 

[Cutlass]

How are the Republicans controlling the house and senate? (They are, aren't they?) They've been screwing the country over these last couple years, and people still vote for them? What the hell are the Democrats doing that they're not cashing in on Republican screwups bigtime? Seems like gross incompetence on the side of the Democrats. Do they even have a leader? Is he or she.. slow?

For the Senate a large part of it is that each state gets equal representation. And there are a lot of states where the population is small, and so mainly rural. This is the Republican stronghold. There are enough states that either lean that way, because of a lack of large metropolitan area populations, or are borderline and so swing states, to make the Republicans a long run even match for Senate and governors. And sometimes that means they will have the advantage. And this is also true of state legislatures. The state legislatures control most of the House districting. And so can gerrymander themselves a win in the House. There are just enough 'lean Republican' and competitive seats that Republicans have an advantage. Incumbent advantage and voter suppression takes care of most of the rest.

Many races can be turned on a bad candidate or poorly run campaign. But for the most part seats are safe, and very few incumbents lose after their first reelection bid.

Strategically Democrats have done themselves no favors. They didn't use their time as the majority to set themselves up for the future. Republicans did. Redistricting happens every 10 years after the Census. Democrats could have used that to give themselves something more of an advantage. But instead they let the Republicans do so.

 

[Antilogic]

I think there are probably seven winnable races there for Democrats (maaaaybe as many as nine), given that the voting pool for 2016 is going to look dramatically different than it did in 2014, with this being a presidential year and all. But, as always, so much of this depends on candidate recruitment and quality of campaign.

The best pickup opportunities are probably Wisconsin (Rob Johnson is a pretty throughly unimpressive politician and Wisconsin has a relatively deep statewide Dem bench), and Illinois.

Agreed, the candidate recruitment game and national environment hasn't shaken out yet but will be really important. Given the presidential year turnout, I think the two races you mentioned are the closest things to likely-D pickups there will be. But really all those lean-R seats in East Coast are viable targets at this point, especially since some of those states do not have LBJ laws and some of those candidates might be running for president or VP (i.e. Rubio, Ayotte). I also agree that Portman might not survive if the Dems can run Cordray or another good candidate against him.

I can't decide which lean-D seat is more vulnerable. Harry Reid managed to survive and heavily outperform in 2010 while Bennet was running in a more divided field but still outperformed expectations. Given presidential year turnout, I don't know which is a better target for the GOP.

While all this is at least defensible, it is not sufficient. The fact is that Republicans have been accused of screwing the country over does make it so. The voting results indicate that it was the Democrats who were perceived guilty of assault. ACA has been a trainwreck for the Democratic party.

J

I'd say DT's multifactor explanation is pretty sufficient to cover the bases. I'm really surprised you are bringing up the ACA given the major media issues before the last election were Ebola and ISIS.

Part of the problem is numbers. Something like 2/3 of all local and state offices are held by Republicans. The people of USA are more conservative than their elected officials.

...

There are some problems there.

Strategically Democrats have done themselves no favors. They didn't use their time as the majority to set themselves up for the future. Republicans did. Redistricting happens every 10 years after the Census. Democrats could have used that to give themselves something more of an advantage. But instead they let the Republicans do so.

This is a serious problem for them going into 2020. If they can't pick it up for the 2018 statewide elections, they are going to be shafted for another decade on redistricting.

 

[onejayhawk]

Things have developed. Unlike 2014, it does not look like a big change coming. As it stands now, given a close Presidential election, the Democrats would pick up 2 two seats, assuming the toss ups split.

If the Hillary wins big, she could have enough coat tails to swing a bare majority in the Senate (it takes +5). If Hillary craters, the Republicans could pick up Colorado and Nevada. After that, the leanings are probably proof against the national election. That's a range of only seven seats, with no change a likely outcome.

All that said, ten years ago Barack Obama was just a the "skinny black guy with the funny name."

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Is this another of those threads where anyone who doesn't live in the same alternate reality as J will be constantly badgered about being off topic?

I just want to establish the rules of participation early.

 

[JollyRoger]

given a close Presidential election

J

That would take Jeb winning the GOP nomination without having to go too crazy in the primary.