IL 2016: Kirk is in

[Nichlemn]

I doubt Kirk gets Blanched (except maybe against Madigan in a pro-D year). Illinois seems to be getting close to 55-45 now, so if Kirk just performs as Generic R he probably loses by about that. If he manages to overperform, as I suspect he will, it's probably a fairly close loss or a win. There isn't any "karma" in the electoral universe. Susan Collins might be as good a precedent as Mark Pryor.

[Nichlemn]

I'm going to make a bold, bold prediction: Charlie Cook's initial rating for this race will be "Toss Up".

Also, he won't change it in any direction until at least mid-2016 barring some kind of freak wave emerging before then. Good chance it stays at "Toss Up" all cycle, even if Kirk wins or loses by 10.

[Nichlemn]

I'm going to make a bold, bold prediction: Charlie Cook's initial rating for this race will be "Toss Up".

Also, he won't change it in any direction until at least mid-2016 barring some kind of freak wave emerging before then. Good chance it stays at "Toss Up" all cycle, even if Kirk wins or loses by 10.

Cook needs to remodel his ratings. Either pull a Sabato and call every race by election day, or split up the toss-up category like Rothenberg does (Pure Toss-Up, Toss-Up/Tilt D, Toss-Up/Tilt R).

I just went and checked his last ratings for 2014, man they were bad. Pryor and Landrieu "toss ups"? Seven toss-ups total? Michigan "Lean D"? I'm sure he'll convince himself he did well because he didn't "miscall" any races and the ordinal rankings of competitiveness are basically right. But pretty much anyone could do that.

[Nichlemn]

I'm going to make a bold, bold prediction: Charlie Cook's initial rating for this race will be "Toss Up".

Also, he won't change it in any direction until at least mid-2016 barring some kind of freak wave emerging before then. Good chance it stays at "Toss Up" all cycle, even if Kirk wins or loses by 10.

Cook needs to remodel his ratings. Either pull a Sabato and call every race by election day, or split up the toss-up category like Rothenberg does (Pure Toss-Up, Toss-Up/Tilt D, Toss-Up/Tilt R).

I just went and checked his last ratings for 2014, man they were bad. Pryor and Landrieu "toss ups"? Seven toss-ups total? Michigan "Lean D"? I'm sure he'll convince himself he did well because he didn't "miscall" any races and the ordinal rankings of competitiveness are basically right. But pretty much anyone could do that.

It's really best to look at Cook's Current Ratings like this:

Solid: Barring unforeseen circumstances, this race will go for one side or the other.
Likely: Barring foreseeable but unlikely circumstances, this race will go for one side or the other.
Lean = Sabato's Likely
Toss-Up = Sabato's Lean/Toss-Up combined.

I'm not complaining that it's "wrong". You could define those categories to mean whatever you want them to. It's just so gutless and simplistic that it doesn't showcase any skill in forecasting. Any muppet could tell you what the competitive races were, just stuffing them all under "toss up" doesn't tell us anything.

Although, in the age of FiveThirtyEight, I think even "Lean" and "Likely" aren't sufficiently granular.

[Nichlemn]

It'd make me laugh if Obama came back to regain his old seat.

Funnier still if he lost. Though I do wonder how he'd do. I'd imagine a fairly ordinary performance for an Illinois Democrat, his advantages mitigated by being so associated with DC now.

If he did actually want to return to the Senate (and I doubt he would, why take a demotion when he could make millions giving speeches, and play the elder statesman without having to do any work?), I doubt he'd do it in his own term. Too much of a distraction from Presidential duties for too little gain (that is, something less than another term as President).