2018 Senatorial Elections

[TheLeftwardTide]

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.

[TheLeftwardTide]

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.

[TheLeftwardTide]

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.

[TheLeftwardTide]

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

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

[TheLeftwardTide]

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.

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.

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.

[TheLeftwardTide]

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.

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 think you are writing off Wisconsin

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.

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.

I agree with this, but it doesn't take away from my original point.

[TheLeftwardTide]

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.

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 think you are writing off Wisconsin

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.

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.

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.

[TheLeftwardTide]

There's no Illinois senate election in 2018

[TheLeftwardTide]

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.

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.

[TheLeftwardTide]

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.