Democratic pickup prospects in 2020 senate elections?

[GreatTailedGrackle]

Kyle Kondike at Sabato's Crystal Ball published the first professional analysis of the 2020 Senate map I've seen this election cycle, but I need twenty posts to include links, so I will just quote the bottom line predictions and hope that the next person links the article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I largely agree with this, however I think that Jones in Alabama is basically in the same position in 2020 that Scott Brown was in 2012: unless he gets another amazingly awful opponent, he's a goner.  Unlike MA in 2012, it's likely that the president won't be popular nationally, but also unlike MA, Alabama is a very inelastic state and I get the impression Jones has worked with Trump far less than Brown worked with Obama.

I also think that if Trump's popularity stays where it is now, Montana, South Carolina, and Texas could be competitive depending on the Democratic candidates.  Montana is a very elastic state, and Kondike mentions that if Steve Bullock runs it could be competitive.  

Meanwhile Texas and South Carolina aren't quite as red as people tend to think they are, but they are relatively inelestic states, which helps the GOP for as long as they remain even slightly red. Graham in particular could be a weak incumbent because he is a former NeverTrumper who did an about-face.  Cornyn and Graham's speeches made a strongly negative impression on me at least, and I no longer think of Cornyn as "the sane one."  I'd say that Cornyn is still safer than Graham, but If Cruz goes down in this election, Cornyn may look even more out-of-touch, and it might also convince the national Democrats that Texas is worth investing in.  What I don't know is whether there are Democrats in Texas and South Carolina who are willing to run and who could repeat O'Rourke's success in fundraising and building statewide name recognition.

If Trump's popularity were to go down further, I feel like it is most likely to affect the agricultural states, which are already feeling the effects of his trade war.  This could potentially make Kansas, South Dakota, and Nebraska competitive, especially if Sasse faces a strong primary challenge.  However the remaining Southern states plus Idaho and Wyoming I can't imagine being competitive even if Trump gets Bush-in-2008 numbers, except Alabama, where Jones would no longer be a definite goner.

Conversely, I don't think that if Trump's popularity were to go up (even if his favorable and unfavorable numbers reversed), it would make any of the blue states Kondike rated as safe competitive, though his popularity going up combined with a retirement or a Menendez-level scandal could do it.  But I do think that a rise in his popularity to that level removes all potential Democratic pickup opportunities except Colorado, Arizona, Maine, and North Carolina, while helping Republican challengers in Michigan and Minnesota and possibly New Hampshire.  Even if his numbers end up evenly split, I would take Kentucky and Georgia off the list, and potentially Iowa, though his trade war may throw a wrench into that race.

[GreatTailedGrackle]

Maine, only if Collins retires or is primaried out.

I don't think that's true.  As another thread noted, at least one poll showed her approval ratings currently underwater.  Collins has moved noticeably to the right recently, and I am definitely not the only person who has noticed that whenever McConnell needs her to be the deciding vote for something, she is.  That wouldn't be as much of an issue with a normal president, but when Collins has cast herself a a voice of reason against Trump, it feels positively dishonest that she will further his agenda whenever McConnell needs her to.

Now, Maine is a small, very quirky state, which means her incumbency advantage is going to be quite strong, unless she retires or is primaried.  If she runs and doesn't face a strong primary challenge, it will be an uphill climb for anyone to beat her.  But if she continues to have underwater popularity ratings two years from now, or even fails to regain the popularity she once had with Democrats and independents, then she is definitely vulnerable.

[GreatTailedGrackle]

As a New Englander, I can speak to New Hampshire better than most states. A large chunk of the electorate are white, college-educated, white-collar, "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" voters who moved there from Massachusetts (and to a lesser extent from other New England states) because of annoyance over overregulation and taxes, and these people probably represent the median voter there.  New Hampshire voters also tend to be contrarian and in favor of throwing the bastards out the moment they do something New Hampshire voters dislike.  There are times that New Hampshire seems to have an anti-incumbency bias.

I cannot imagine Trump winning New Hampshire, but I can definitely imagine Jeanne Shaheen doing something to piss off enough New Hampshire voters that they are willing to back her opponent, even while they vote against Trump in the presidential election. It's not likely, but its definitely possible.  It's also not without precedent.  In 2004 New Hampshire voters overwhelmingly reelected Judd Gregg, while also being the only state which had supported W. in 2000 to support Kerry in 2004.

I will say that you are probably right about Virginia, and not just because of your name.  It's probably where Oregon was a few cycles ago: a former red state that's turned a purplish blue really quickly, but was red so recently and has large enough swathes of deep-red territory that the state as a whole seems more competitive than it really is.

On the other hand, Minnesota and Michigan have both been trending redder, but very slowly.  They are also places where Trump's combination of social conservatism and economic populism plays well, though I am not sure about Trump himself.  Michigan barely went for Trump and Minnesota barely went for Hillary, but since presidential elections with incumbents are generally referendums on incumbents I would expect both to be bluer this time around unless he improves his ratings.  However if his does improve his ratings, or if the voters split their tickets, then those states could be competitive in the Senate.

3. I think users may not be fully appreciating the degree to which Democrats show up in 2020 if Trump (1) remains unpopular and (2) continues enraging Democrats and basically everyone who isn't his hardcore base.

Speaking as someone who definitely isn't his hardcore base but who voted Johnson/Weld in 2016, I fully agree with this.  At this point I am so angry at Trump and most of the congressional GOP caucus that I am willing to vote for almost any of the 2020 Democratic hopefuls if they get the nomination.  I am probably even willing to vote for Sherrod Brown or Oprah if it comes to that.

This would be worse if Democrats nominate a decent candidate who can inspire people.

Fortunately for Trump, that seems unlikely.  Fortunately for the rest of us, the Democrats don't have anyone running who is nearly as unpopular with everyone who isn't a registered Democrat as Hillary was.