Sabato: Initial 2016 Senate ratings

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So, Grassley has a 0% chance of retiring? LA can flip in a democratic wave, but GA/KY/AR can't? WA/CT/OR should be at only likely D due to the possibility of retirements/strong candidates. And I think he's optimistic on NV (for the dems).

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

LOL, Illinois is not a tossup. Maybe only likely D.

Uh, there's a republican incumbent there. He's fairly popular too. Democrats have a strong bench, but they need someone to actually RUN.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

LOL, Illinois is not a tossup. Maybe only likely D.

Uh, there's a republican incumbent there. He's fairly popular too. Democrats have a strong bench, but they need someone to actually RUN.

Since when being anonymous means you're popular?

He's at +10 in favorability. Yes, +10. That's very good for an Illinois Republican. Furthermore, the suggestion that you can argue two years out that ANY incumbent has a 100% chance of losing as ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ (he said 'maybe only likely D' hinting that he thinks Safe D is arguably a correct rating) says in relation to Kirk is just ludricious. We don't know who's going to challenge Kirk yet. Sure, Madigan will defeat him, but Kirk has a solid shot at surviving against one of the democratic U.S. house members, and probably starts out with a slight advantage against outgoing Lt. Gov. Shelia Simon.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

LOL, Illinois is not a tossup. Maybe only likely D.

Uh, there's a republican incumbent there. He's fairly popular too. Democrats have a strong bench, but they need someone to actually RUN.

Since when being anonymous means you're popular?

He's at +10 in favorability. Yes, +10. That's very good for an Illinois Republican. Furthermore, the suggestion that you can argue two years out that ANY incumbent has a 100% chance of losing as ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ (he said 'maybe only likely D' hinting that he thinks Safe D is arguably a correct rating) says in relation to Kirk is just ludricious. We don't know who's going to challenge Kirk yet. Sure, Madigan will defeat him, but Kirk has a solid shot at surviving against one of the democratic U.S. house members, and probably starts out with a slight advantage against outgoing Lt. Gov. Shelia Simon.

In which poll is he at +10?
And even so, tell that to Lincoln Chafee and Scott Brown.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/11/2016-senator-approvals.html

Neither Chafee nor Brown had a 100% chance of losing two years before the election. In fact, Brown didn't lose his lead in the polls until the last few months of the campaign.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

He is at 38/28. He is more anonymous and unknown than well-liked.
And nobody said anything about a 100% possibility of losing. That's a strawman you created.

LOL, Illinois is not a tossup. Maybe only likely D.

He is hinting that Safe D, which means an (effectively) 100% chance of a democratic victory, is an arguable rating two years out.

And I said fairly popular for a reason.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Just for context, these were Sabato's ratings in April 2013.

With 2012-style turnout that was probably true.

Cotton, Daines, Cassidy and Ernst would have won even in a presidential year. Begich, Hagan, and M. Udall may have held on though.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'd switch Nevada and New Hampshire,  both Florida and Ohio should be tossups, Missouri should be Safe R, and Kentucky should be Likely R.

Portman won by a landslide last time. Sure, it was a midterm, but still. He deserves the early advantage. And it's too early to rule out anything with MO - Blunt is not some ultra-popular person. And no, New Hampshire is not Lean D. Wait for Hassan to actually jump in (right now she's saying "maybe, but maybe not") before you think about underestimating Ayotte, who won by an even bigger landslide than Portman did.