IL/WI: Who is more vulnerable in 2016?

[pbrower2a]

Kirk probably gets 45% of the vote no matter what he does.  Johnson might win against a weak opponent -- barely -- but he could lose his re-election bid 60-40 to Russ Feingold.

Both got in on a wave, and both get swept out on the reverse wave.

In view of the poor approval ratings for several Republican incumbents in the Senate and the low approval rating for Congress, 2016 is beginning to look like a Democratic wave.

Ask me next week after PPP gives results from Arizona.

[pbrower2a]

Pssst! Want to see how bad some of the ratings are for incumbent Republican Senators up in 2016?

White -- retiring incumbent, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Democrat running for re-election with current polls available.

Yellow is for an incumbent under indictment or impeachment, or who has a terminal diagnosis that likely ends his life before his Senatorial term is up. "R" for Republican, "D" for Democratic. No distinction of shade here.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none yet, but I predict that there will be one soon!) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.


...Any elected incumbent with an approval rating below 43% should be assumed vulnerable unless there is compelling cause to believe otherwise. At 44% one has about a 50% chance of winning re-election. The chance of winning re-election goes to practically 'prohibitive favorite' around 50% approval and drops off to practically zero rapidly in the zone of 35% approval.

Below 35% approval one has elected pols with extreme problems -- scandal, primary challenges, the bailiwick going sour fast for the pol's party; there's little record on them because they usually resign in disgrace, lose a primary challenge, or decide to nor run for re-election.

[pbrower2a]

lol pbrower2a keeps reciting those stats when Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, and countless others won re-election. Joke poster.

2016 is not 2014.

The Republican front groups spent millions on negative ads to create mass confusion.

If that keeps working, then we are in for the GOP becoming the dominant party in American politics for decades -- basically the Nationalist Party of South Africa without the overt racism.

[pbrower2a]

lol pbrower2a keeps reciting those stats when Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, and countless others won re-election. Joke poster.

2016 is not 2014.

So... therefore you can make predictions that defy parallels with any year, and indeed, common sense?

Republicans looked much more vulnerable in 2014 until the Koch fronts opened the spigots and flooded the media with last-minute smear campaigns. Those worked! The politicians did not do such themselves, because such is too risky for cultivating a 'nice guy' image.

If that decides elections from now on, then I can predict that the Republicans will hold the Senate, and that in 2018 the Republicans get a stranglehold on American politics that remains until the United States is defeated in a major war.

That is a prediction. A political culture can change. Rules can be altered to the permanent advantage of a dominant party that makes other parties subordinate or irrelevant if not illegal. The dominant party can then use patronage and affiliation (as in, it is more advantageous for a youth to join the Party youth club than Scouting or 4-H).  "Nationalist Party of South Africa without the racism?" I could say far worse.

I did not see the ruthless assault on the political system coming until it hit. But if the typical American politician becomes more like Senator Tom Cotton or Joni Ernst, then those of us young enough to do so might want to find another country.

[pbrower2a]

Pssst! Want to see how bad some of the ratings are for incumbent Republican Senators up in 2016?

White -- retiring incumbent, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Democrat running for re-election with current polls available.

Yellow is for an incumbent under indictment or impeachment, or who has a terminal diagnosis that likely ends his life before his Senatorial term is up. "R" for Republican, "D" for Democratic. No distinction of shade here.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none yet, but I predict that there will be one soon!) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.


...Any elected incumbent with an approval rating below 43% should be assumed vulnerable unless there is compelling cause to believe otherwise. At 44% one has about a 50% chance of winning re-election. The chance of winning re-election goes to practically 'prohibitive favorite' around 50% approval and drops off to practically zero rapidly in the zone of 35% approval.

Below 35% approval one has elected pols with extreme problems -- scandal, primary challenges, the bailiwick going sour fast for the pol's party; there's little record on them because they usually resign in disgrace, lose a primary challenge, or decide to nor run for re-election.

Another point. Just look at such numbers as there are now. Of course I have polls for only three incumbent Democrats running for re-election, but two of them have approval numbers above 60% and the other is in the near-safe range of 46%. Three are retiring at the end of their current terms, so they do not count. (I am not really discussing open seats here). There are apparently only four other Democrats running for re-election, and those are in very safe seats. (On the other side I have yet to see the approval ratings of current Republican Senators "up" in Utah, Idaho, the Dakotas, or Alabama. Such would say little).

I have already conceded that Tim Scott (SC) has a safe seat, and that the only question about Grassley is more actuarial than political.

But look at some of the other numbers. Maybe "43" and "46" aren't significantly different... but if I am a Republican I would be concerned about the chance of any Republican Senator with an approval rating below 43.  I would see a near-inverse of 2010. So how does one shore up support in what will be a high-turnout election?