MO-SEN 2018: The Megathread

[Xing]

All Republicans have to do is not screw up the primary, and hope that Trump isn't so unpopular that McCaskill can just run against him. Shouldn't be too hard, right?

[Kingpoleon]

Hopefully Jo Ann Emerson runs.

[Indy Texas]

Hopefully Jo Ann Emerson runs.

She's a lobbyist now. We've learned this year that that is the kiss of death for politicians seeking a comeback race.

[Mister Mets]

Of course she can win if Clinton is president - just like Ron Johnson "can" win reelection this year.

I don't think McCaskill minds sharing Johnson's fate.

[jamestroll]

With the exception of Jay Nixon 2008 and 2012, what Missouri race has gone by conventional wisdom lately? Lol

So too early to count Claire out. I will predict that McCaskill will win if she receives more voters then the gop candidate. Fortunately, there is no "electoral college" on the state level.

[hopper]

I give McCaskilll  a 45% chance of winning in 2018.

[Figueira]

Of course she can win if Clinton is president - just like Ron Johnson "can" win reelection this year.

Congratulations, Senator McCaskill!

[jamestroll]

Of course she can win if Clinton is president - just like Ron Johnson "can" win reelection this year.

Congratulations, Senator McCaskill!

How can you predict that right now? It is almost 24 months before the election occurs?

Also McCaskill is not far left despite what Republicans think. However, facts and statistics do not sway the far right. Look at her voting record.

[Cynthia]

I think she's the most endangered. Hard to see her hanging on again unless it's a good Democratic year, or Republicans nominate a weak candidate.

What makes Donnelly less endangered? I'm aware he survived 2010, but his opponent was Walorski - not exactly the strongest specimen.

Donnelly has charted a more moderate path in the Senate than McCaskill and was part of the Blue Dogs while in the House. He also has stayed clear of making incendiary SJW-esque comments unlike McCaskill and is from a state (Indiana) that is probably a little less red than Missouri.

Claire McCaskill is also more vulnerable than Heidi Heitkamp for that reason as well. 

Honestly, I have to agree that I don't see much of a way forward for her other than a Democratic wave or a really poor Republican opponent. I really think that "shut the hell up" comment is probably the last nail in the coffin for her otherwise.

Indiana is R+8.8, Missouri is R+8.5, what are you talking about

[jamestroll]

I would like to note that even if McCaskill is liberal, I do respect that she will often vote the wishes of her state. The only vote I strongly disagreed with her on is on ObamaCare. All else, I think she is perfect.

Missouri is really a upper single digit GOP state. I think 2012 Romney v Obama was the accurate partisan make up.

2008 was just a perfect storm that almost allowed Obama to carry the state:

1) Obama already had positive name recognition in much of the state.

2) The dixiecrat/yellow dog force was still large enough, and combined with the anti-Republican national climate, it almost carried the state.

I think 2016 was just a perfect storm in which the Democratic Presidential candidate basically called the entire state deplorables, and Trump was 100% tailor made for the state.

So the Republicans who are claiming McCaskill won't even reach 30 or 40% of the vote should wait until at least next summer before making any judgement.

[Figueira]

Of course she can win if Clinton is president - just like Ron Johnson "can" win reelection this year.

Congratulations, Senator McCaskill!

How can you predict that right now? It is almost 24 months before the election occurs?

Also McCaskill is not far left despite what Republicans think. However, facts and statistics do not sway the far right. Look at her voting record.

I was mostly joking. But my point, which is that making these pronouncements way in advance doesn't make sense, is still valid. Even two months before this election, we thought Johnson was completely doomed.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Well, let's operate under the hypothetical assumption that 2018 ends up being a Democratic year. One question we've never answered is, can an unpopular incumbent senator be defeated in a state that leans against that incumbent during a wave for that incumbent's party? Tom Wolf showed us that the answer is yes for governors, but I wonder how this pans out in a senatorial election.

[KingSweden]

Well, let's operate under the hypothetical assumption that 2018 ends up being a Democratic year. One question we've never answered is, can an unpopular incumbent senator be defeated in a state that leans against that incumbent during a wave for that incumbent's party? Tom Wolf showed us that the answer is yes for governors, but I wonder how this pans out in a senatorial election.

Interesting point re: Tom Wolf.

I think McCaskill, IMO, is in a worse position than Tester or Heitkamp.

[MT Treasurer]

Well, let's operate under the hypothetical assumption that 2018 ends up being a Democratic year. One question we've never answered is, can an unpopular incumbent senator be defeated in a state that leans against that incumbent during a wave for that incumbent's party? Tom Wolf showed us that the answer is yes for governors, but I wonder how this pans out in a senatorial election.

Yeah, even in this Republican year, three Republican candidates (Ayotte, Kirk, Heck) lost.

Anyway:

Wagner Quits Leadership Posts, Signaling Potential Senate Run

[DavidB.]

2018 is obviously not going to be a "Democratic wave year". The issue in 2010 or 2014 was not that people massively turned out against an unpopular Democratic administration, the issue was that Democrats simply didn't turn out at all and Republicans did. That's not likely to change in 2018. McCaskill is still in deep trouble, and so are Tester, Heitkamp, Donnelly, etc...

[jamestroll]

2018 is obviously not going to be a "Democratic wave year". The issue in 2010 or 2014 was not that people massively turned out against an unpopular Democratic administration, the issue was that Democrats simply didn't turn out at all and Republicans did. That's not likely to change in 2018. McCaskill is still in deep trouble, and so are Tester, Heitkamp, Donnelly, etc...

Look, I want to tell you something.

All these "rules" about elections that Atlas has are often based solely on the last general election. This election we already broke a rule. The rule being that Democrats have a lock on the presidency.

They do not. Trump won. And yet, Democrats are not "dead", they still won the popular vote. Even if I admit that is meaningless under the constitution.

Democratic turnout was lower in this election compared to 2012 and 2008. There is no hard rule or evidence in November 2016 that Democratic turnout will be low in November 2018.

For 2010, I do think it was a combination of low turn out and voters voting against the Obama Administration. For 2014, I think low turn out caused the doom.

Sure, a midterm can be in favor of a person's party. Like in 2002, George W Bush had a good midterm. That was probably the only midterm he has ever done well on. It took a terrorist attack, and a president with huge popularity at that time for the incumbent White House party to make a massive gain of eight house seats and net gain one senate seat in 2002.

Oh lets not forget that 2006 was a Democratic wave midterm..

It is too premature to call 2018 a wave of any kind. I would guess, at the early stage, that Democrats will gain seats in the house. My question is how many? It could be six, it could be 60.

So, David, please explain to me why you believe 2018 will be a carbon copy of 2014 and 2010.

[Figueira]

Well, let's operate under the hypothetical assumption that 2018 ends up being a Democratic year. One question we've never answered is, can an unpopular incumbent senator be defeated in a state that leans against that incumbent during a wave for that incumbent's party? Tom Wolf showed us that the answer is yes for governors, but I wonder how this pans out in a senatorial election.

Yeah, even in this Republican year, three Republican candidates (Ayotte, Kirk, Heck) lost.

Anyway:

Wagner Quits Leadership Posts, Signaling Potential Senate Run

2016 was a neutral year.

2018 is obviously not going to be a "Democratic wave year". The issue in 2010 or 2014 was not that people massively turned out against an unpopular Democratic administration, the issue was that Democrats simply didn't turn out at all and Republicans did. That's not likely to change in 2018. McCaskill is still in deep trouble, and so are Tester, Heitkamp, Donnelly, etc...

Midterms usually go against the incumbent party; this has been true for a long time with the only recent exceptions being 1998 and 2002.

[jamestroll]

Midterms usually go against the incumbent party; this has been true for a long time with the only recent exceptions being 1998 and 2002.

Yup, it took a terrorist attack and a President with huge popularity for the incumbent white house party to have their landslide in 2002. I mean, wow, gaining eight seats!! w00t! That was a huge landslide.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Midterms usually go against the incumbent party; this has been true for a long time with the only recent exceptions being 1998 and 2002.

Yup, it took a terrorist attack and a President with huge popularity for the incumbent white house party to have their landslide in 2002. I mean, wow, gaining eight seats!! w00t! That was a huge landslide.

1998 was a democratic year under a democratic president without a terrorist attack. 1990 was a neutral year.

[Virginiá]

2018 is obviously not going to be a "Democratic wave year". The issue in 2010 or 2014 was not that people massively turned out against an unpopular Democratic administration, the issue was that Democrats simply didn't turn out at all and Republicans did. That's not likely to change in 2018. McCaskill is still in deep trouble, and so are Tester, Heitkamp, Donnelly, etc...

David, there is really no way you can know that. Even when I rant about 2018, I'm only making educated guesses. Independents could completely turn on Republicans like 2006, Democrats could experience a surge in turnout while Republicans, upset by Trump, a man many didn't explicitly support for him so much as a vote against Clinton, stay home, and a fair number of Republicans could switch over. OR maybe none of that happens.

It is clear that Republicans, for now, still have a structural midterm advantage in a number of ways, but that is by no means an ironclad insulator against backlash.

All I can say is, just keep an eye on the Generic Ballot question for 2018 and Trump's approval ratings. If you see Trump constantly floating around the low 40s (or lower) and a generic congressional ballot polls showing Democrats up by mid-high single digits or low double digits, Republicans could very well be in for big trouble in 2018. They might not lose the Senate but the House and many state legislatures/governorships would be at risk.

Or maybe, it's a wash. Who knows, but there are ways to see a backlash coming ahead of time. It's rarely a genuine surprise and in some cases can be seen long before election day.

1998 was a democratic year under a democratic president without a terrorist attack. 1990 was a neutral year.

And Bill had something in 98 that Bush had in 2002 - very high approval ratings. Bill also had favorable economic conditions. Unpopular presidents almost never have those kinds of favorable midterms.

[jamestroll]

Midterms usually go against the incumbent party; this has been true for a long time with the only recent exceptions being 1998 and 2002.

Yup, it took a terrorist attack and a President with huge popularity for the incumbent white house party to have their landslide in 2002. I mean, wow, gaining eight seats!! w00t! That was a huge landslide.

1998 was a democratic year under a democratic president without a terrorist attack. 1990 was a neutral year.

1998 was more of as backlash to the Monica Lewinsky fiasco. The Republicans held the country hostage over it.

I am not a fan of Bill Clinton.

[BuckeyeNut]

2016 was a neutral year.

Lol, 2016 was far worse for Democrats than 2014.

Worse in that we lost the Presidency, but again, Clinton got +2 mil. more votes than Trump and Dems took seats in the Senate.

So no, not by the numbers.

[jamestroll]

Every state that voted for Trump elected a Republican Senator this year. Something to keep in mind when you're predicting a Democratic wave in 2018.

2016 was a neutral year.

Lol, 2016 was far worse for Democrats than 2014.

With all due respect, are you really predicting the GOP will also pick up PA, MI, WI and FL easily just because they voted for Trump this year?

And no 2016 was a neutral year, better for Democrats compared to 2014. Hillary did win the popular vote, and Democrats make weak gains in House and Senate.

Nobody pointed out that Democrats won five Senate seats that Romney also won in 2012, and claimed 2014 would be a solid DEM year.

And no, I am not predicting the Senate flips in 2018 as I believe in math.

[MT Treasurer]

You lost the presidency, you didn't make any significant gains in the House, you failed to win back the Senate despite the favorable map and Trump running a terrible campaign, you lost two governorships and you lost several state legislatures. If that's not worse than 2014, what is?

Anyway, I never predicted that Republicans would easily win states like PA and MI in 2018. That's another strawman right there. All I'm saying is that I don't think Democrats will easily hold Senate seats in states in which Trump won by more than 10 points. There is no doubt that Democrats are in a better position now than if Clinton had won, though (unless Trump has approvals in the 60s, lol). Another thing to keep in mind is that while Republicans did well in states that Romney won in 2014, they underperformed in blue states won by Obama - they lost NH, VA and only narrowly won CO (despite the fact that Udall ran a terrible campaign and Gardner was a very strong recruit). The only exception was Iowa, but we all know that the state is trending away from Democrats. Also, even in 2016 Republicans weren't able to win in NV, NH and IL. So the general trend seems to be that blue states are not willing to vote for Republican Senate candidates anymore and red states are not willing to vote for Democratic Senate candidates. The swing states (FL, PA, etc.) are still very much up for grabs. It's why I wouldn't be surprised at all if Dean Heller lost but if Tester, Heitkamp, Donnely, etc. all lost as well.

[jamestroll]

We only lost the Presidency due to the electoral college. Which I admit, popular vote is meaningless under the constitution and I strongly oppose any efforts for electors to change their votes now.

Democrats lost this election by relying solely on demographics. Hopefully this teaches them that they can not do that. They lost their chance at the Senate due to relying solely on demographics and thinking the Midwest was in the bag for them. There has to be some consequence to that.

I would think by next summer, we will have a better idea. We knew by summer 2015 that Blunt was not exactly a lock for instance, but it is going to take until October 2018 to make any fully confident predictions. Like I said, I strongly believe in math. So I do not think Democrats will retake the Senate in 2018.