|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 03, 2020, 04:19:30 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  2016 Senate: Republicans maintain it?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: 2016 Senate: Republicans maintain it?  (Read 9808 times)
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,173
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2014, 12:23:44 am »

The popular consensus seems to be that even if Pubs take back the Senate, Dems will bounce back in 2016 and take it back by taking out Toomey, Kirk, and Johnson. Is there any way they could avoid this outcome? What races could Republicans win to result in no change in the Senate? I am seeing Sandoval taking out Reid, and Bennet having the fight of his political life. Are those predictions accurate, and what other races could they go after to defend themselves?

You admit, in the opening of your thread, this is based on the premise that the Republican Party wins over majority control of the U.S. Senate with the midterm elections of 2014.

In the 2004, 2008, and 2012 presidential elections, somewhere in the 70s percentile of states with scheduled U.S. Senate elections saw the same party carry the given states at both the presidential and senatorial levels. So, the Republicans would retain the U.S. Senate if they win the presidency, in a Republican pickup with Election 2016. If the Democrats hold the presidency, with Election 2016, they would either retain majority control of the U.S. Senate (stemming from retaining it with the midterm elections of 2014) or they would win over majority control (after a 2014 Republican pickup).

Please refer to the following link:

@ https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=183905.msg3998105#msg3998105
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,991
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 18, 2014, 10:18:58 pm »

There is an argument that the races are clustered so a small change in the national mood would be the difference between Republicans falling short of taking back the Senate, and Republicans having an advantage of several seats.

If the latter occurs, the party would probably be favored to keep the Senate in 2016, although recent Senate elections have demonstrated the party's ability to lose in states that shouldn't have been competitive.

The party would likely have mostly incumbents in 2016, with a few being particularly vulnerable. But an open race in Florida (if Rubio's on the national ticket) would be problematic, since the conservative base would seem happy nominating a poor candidate (Allan West.)
Logged
Nat. Sec. Council Member Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,330
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: 1.22

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 14, 2014, 03:32:13 pm »

Well, as far as I can tell, the most accurate early 2016 senate outlook is thus (assuming Sandoval runs in NV and either Rossi or Rob McKenna runs in Washington State):



As you can see, with Kirk, Toomey, and Johnson as underdogs to keep their seats, and Rubio, Ayotte, Portman, and Blunt with insecure advantages, and with Burr having what is essentially a 50-50 chance of another term, plus additional vulnerabilities if retirements occur in IA, AZ, GA, and/or AR, the republicans will be spending most of their time defending their own turf. However, their spare time will be spent in CO and NV which are 50-50 races just like NC, in WA where democrats have an insecure advantage, and in OR and CT if retirements occur. 

So, this comes out to 12 republican vulnerabilities and five democratic vulnerabilities. This suggests that, assuming a democratic presidential victory in 2016, republicans would be very hard pressed to keep a 51-49 or 52-48 majority, but beyond that....we'll just have to see.



Logged
Never
Never Convinced
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,627
Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: 3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2014, 03:50:31 pm »

Well, as far as I can tell, the most accurate early 2016 senate outlook is thus (assuming Sandoval runs in NV and either Rossi or Rob McKenna runs in Washington State):



As you can see, with Kirk, Toomey, and Johnson as underdogs to keep their seats, and Rubio, Ayotte, Portman, and Blunt with insecure advantages, and with Burr having what is essentially a 50-50 chance of another term, plus additional vulnerabilities if retirements occur in IA, AZ, GA, and/or AR, the republicans will be spending most of their time defending their own turf. However, their spare time will be spent in CO and NV which are 50-50 races just like NC, in WA where democrats have an insecure advantage, and in OR and CT if retirements occur. 

So, this comes out to 12 republican vulnerabilities and five democratic vulnerabilities. This suggests that, assuming a democratic presidential victory in 2016, republicans would be very hard pressed to keep a 51-49 or 52-48 majority, but beyond that....we'll just have to see.





This seems like a solid analysis. It would make sense that the toss-up Senate seats would be in presidential battlegrounds, and it wouldn't be unexpected to see some Republican senators in Northern states start off with an uphill battle for reelection. The only thing that I would probably do to change the map is make New Hampshire a toss-up instead of lean Republican. Ayotte is a strong candidate in New Hampshire, but Democrats have some strong potential challengers, and the state does lean Democratic.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,892
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 14, 2014, 05:03:44 pm »

Well, as far as I can tell, the most accurate early 2016 senate outlook is thus (assuming Sandoval runs in NV and either Rossi or Rob McKenna runs in Washington State):



As you can see, with Kirk, Toomey, and Johnson as underdogs to keep their seats, and Rubio, Ayotte, Portman, and Blunt with insecure advantages, and with Burr having what is essentially a 50-50 chance of another term, plus additional vulnerabilities if retirements occur in IA, AZ, GA, and/or AR, the republicans will be spending most of their time defending their own turf. However, their spare time will be spent in CO and NV which are 50-50 races just like NC, in WA where democrats have an insecure advantage, and in OR and CT if retirements occur. 

So, this comes out to 12 republican vulnerabilities and five democratic vulnerabilities. This suggests that, assuming a democratic presidential victory in 2016, republicans would be very hard pressed to keep a 51-49 or 52-48 majority, but beyond that....we'll just have to see.





This seems like a solid analysis. It would make sense that the toss-up Senate seats would be in presidential battlegrounds, and it wouldn't be unexpected to see some Republican senators in Northern states start off with an uphill battle for reelection. The only thing that I would probably do to change the map is make New Hampshire a toss-up instead of lean Republican. Ayotte is a strong candidate in New Hampshire, but Democrats have some strong potential challengers, and the state does lean Democratic.

More like New Hampshire (and Maine) are independent states that vote for whenever they feel is better and bipartisan (Hassan, Snowe). No real partisan loyalties in my book
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,764


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 14, 2014, 08:05:55 pm »

Polling I've seen shows Ayotte is not popular in NH she has middling approval ratings at best. I think she is too conservative for the state her voting record will be attacked heavily and someone like Hassan or Lynch would make the race very competitive. Also if Nixon runs against Blunt in MO it would be a tossup no doubt. Murray is safe in WA if she survived 2010 she should have no problem in 2016 against whomever she is a good politician who knows how to win tough races.
Logged
Never
Never Convinced
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,627
Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: 3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 14, 2014, 08:16:31 pm »

Polling I've seen shows Ayotte is not popular in NH she has middling approval ratings at best. I think she is too conservative for the state her voting record will be attacked heavily and someone like Hassan or Lynch would make the race very competitive. Also if Nixon runs against Blunt in MO it would be a tossup no doubt. Murray is safe in WA if she survived 2010 she should have no problem in 2016 against whomever she is a good politician who knows how to win tough races.

I think you are about right on Ayotte and Blunt. Murray, on the other hand, could be vulnerable if McKenna runs against her and the Republicans have a good night nationally. Should the Republican presidential nominee win at least 300 electoral votes, someone like McKenna could leave the WA-Sen race up in the air for a few days and possibly leave the election with a narrow victory. Of course, Murray isn't in any danger if a Democrat wins the presidency in '16.
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,764


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 14, 2014, 11:41:30 pm »

Polling I've seen shows Ayotte is not popular in NH she has middling approval ratings at best. I think she is too conservative for the state her voting record will be attacked heavily and someone like Hassan or Lynch would make the race very competitive. Also if Nixon runs against Blunt in MO it would be a tossup no doubt. Murray is safe in WA if she survived 2010 she should have no problem in 2016 against whomever she is a good politician who knows how to win tough races.

I think you are about right on Ayotte and Blunt. Murray, on the other hand, could be vulnerable if McKenna runs against her and the Republicans have a good night nationally. Should the Republican presidential nominee win at least 300 electoral votes, someone like McKenna could leave the WA-Sen race up in the air for a few days and possibly leave the election with a narrow victory. Of course, Murray isn't in any danger if a Democrat wins the presidency in '16.

If McKenna couldn't win against Inslee in an open Governor race what makes you think he would win against Murray a powerful incumbent who brings home a ton of $$ for the state. Even if a Republican is winning nationwide they won't be winning Washington state it'd likely be a 10 point Democratic win there giving Murray more than enough room to win.
Logged
Never
Never Convinced
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,627
Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: 3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 14, 2014, 11:53:22 pm »

Polling I've seen shows Ayotte is not popular in NH she has middling approval ratings at best. I think she is too conservative for the state her voting record will be attacked heavily and someone like Hassan or Lynch would make the race very competitive. Also if Nixon runs against Blunt in MO it would be a tossup no doubt. Murray is safe in WA if she survived 2010 she should have no problem in 2016 against whomever she is a good politician who knows how to win tough races.

I think you are about right on Ayotte and Blunt. Murray, on the other hand, could be vulnerable if McKenna runs against her and the Republicans have a good night nationally. Should the Republican presidential nominee win at least 300 electoral votes, someone like McKenna could leave the WA-Sen race up in the air for a few days and possibly leave the election with a narrow victory. Of course, Murray isn't in any danger if a Democrat wins the presidency in '16.

If McKenna couldn't win against Inslee in an open Governor race what makes you think he would win against Murray a powerful incumbent who brings home a ton of $$ for the state. Even if a Republican is winning nationwide they won't be winning Washington state it'd likely be a 10 point Democratic win there giving Murray more than enough room to win.

Oh, let me just say that I don't think McKenna is favored or anything like that, I just don't feel that Murray is a 100% lock to win if he is her opponent. Does Murray have 90-95% chance of winning at this point? Yes, but until we have a clearer picture of the national environment in 2016, I think this race should be at Likely D-borderline Safe D.

It's worth noting that while McKenna lost against Inslee, it was only by three points during an Obama victory of nearly 15 points. While Murray has incumbent strength, it is entirely possible that if the Republican presidential nominee wins nationally and loses in WA by just 10 points, McKenna could eke out a victory.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,635
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 15, 2014, 07:59:19 am »

I think they could.  Kirk, Toomey, Thompson, and Ayotte are being written off too early.  The 2016 election are over two years away, and if it turns out to be good for Republicans, then most (if not all) of them should hold on.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,955
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2014, 04:56:28 pm »

Well, as far as I can tell, the most accurate early 2016 senate outlook is thus (assuming Sandoval runs in NV and either Rossi or Rob McKenna runs in Washington State):



As you can see, with Kirk, Toomey, and Johnson as underdogs to keep their seats, and Rubio, Ayotte, Portman, and Blunt with insecure advantages, and with Burr having what is essentially a 50-50 chance of another term, plus additional vulnerabilities if retirements occur in IA, AZ, GA, and/or AR, the republicans will be spending most of their time defending their own turf. However, their spare time will be spent in CO and NV which are 50-50 races just like NC, in WA where democrats have an insecure advantage, and in OR and CT if retirements occur. 

So, this comes out to 12 republican vulnerabilities and five democratic vulnerabilities. This suggests that, assuming a democratic presidential victory in 2016, republicans would be very hard pressed to keep a 51-49 or 52-48 majority, but beyond that....we'll just have to see.

Interesting map. This would be mine:



Of course, environment, retirements, and candidate recruitment will affect a lot. For example, Missouri would go from Lean R to toss up if Nixon ran, Florida would go to toss up if Rubio ran for president, etc.

I remember reading an analysis of 2010 right after 2008 saying that Democrats would almost certainly gain seats, and their only potentially vulnerable seats were Arkansas and California (but only if Schwarzenegger ran...lol). And of course, Democrats were seen as almost certain to lose the Senate in 2012. We all saw how that turned out.

In 2016, Democrats should almost certainly gain seats simply because there's so few available targets for the GOP (similar to the GOP's position currently in 2014), but how many could vary greatly. I think the GOP probably needs at least 53-54 seats after 2014 to have a roughly even shot at holding it in 2016.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,612
United States


P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 17, 2014, 10:27:15 am »

Potentially Competitive GOP Seats, in the order they'd fall:
1. Wisconsin
2. Illinois
3. New Hampshire
4. Arizona
5. Pennsylvania
6. Ohio
7. North Carolina
8. Missouri
9. Kentucky
10. Georgia
11. Arkansas

Potentially Competitive Dem Seats, in the order they'd fall
1. Nevada
2. Colorado
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,764


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 17, 2014, 10:39:17 am »

Illinois is the easiest Dem pickup someone like Madigan could turn it into a Safe D seat or even force into Kirk into retirement. Wisconsin is the second easiest pickup for Dems, Johnson is way too conservative for the state and not a good very a good politician either. Pennsylvania is third easiest pickup, Toomey barely won in a wave year and is not super popular either.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,892
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 30, 2014, 02:35:39 am »

Let's have a scenario.
Win the minimum 2014. Knock out Reid's power.
Defeat Reid outright with Sandoval in 16, but have a net loss of 2 assuming two of Kirk, Johnson, and Toomey lose. Worst case scenario is Durbin is Majority Leader for 2 years.
Win it back in 18 with ND, MO, and IN.
Turtleman, Corndog, and Durbin all retire in 2020, but control stays Republican. Who is majority leader then?
Logged
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,424


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 30, 2014, 08:17:16 am »

I believe in 2010, when Reid looked done, the Senate Dems figured out who would take over as Caucus leader, and Schumer beat Durbin out. So in the situation Reid goes down in 2016, I think Schumer takes over.

After McConnell (and if Cornyn retires too), I think Thune takes over as of now.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,397
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 30, 2014, 08:33:52 am »

I think the consensus is that unless the Republican Party runs a Reagan-like landslide this year, they will, at most have a 1 or 2 seat advantage coming into 2016.  My prediction is that if they keep the Senate in 2016, they are probably going to win the presidency by at least the margin that Obama or Clinton did.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,892
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 30, 2014, 02:29:13 pm »

I think the consensus is that unless the Republican Party runs a Reagan-like landslide this year, they will, at most have a 1 or 2 seat advantage coming into 2016.  My prediction is that if they keep the Senate in 2016, they are probably going to win the presidency by at least the margin that Obama or Clinton did.

Without Clinton and a strong Republican, it isn't totally out of the realm of possibilities.
Logged
Flake
Flo
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,698
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 30, 2014, 02:50:47 pm »



No, I don't think they will.
Logged
Kevin
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,401
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2014, 05:35:44 pm »
« Edited: July 30, 2014, 07:11:11 pm by Kevin »

I agree with the TheHawk's sentiments-the national environment for 2016 is way too unclear right now to speculate about whether the Democrats will reclaim the Senate or not(should they even lose it to begin with).

If a GOP wave does happen this year which results in the party regaining the upper chamber followed by an overall Democratic victory in 2016-right now I can only see the GOP losing NH, WI, and IL if it's replay of 2012 and perhaps IA/AZ if ether of the incumbents there retire. I could also see Burr being vulnerable given that NC has a strong anti-incumbent voting history.

While I am skeptical of Toomey losing since PA has a strong history of ticket splitting. Ex. all the GOP Senators prior to 2006 where reelected when the Dems carried the state on the Presidential level. Same goes for OH, MO and FL as well.

If the GOP loses the Senate in 2016 combined with a Democratic Presidential victory. It's very possible imo that the Democrats will fall to the same midterm curse as Bill Clinton/Obama have. In which case the Republicans stand a a good chance of regaining the Senate in 2018(even in a neutral year) given that like 2014-18 will has a number of Red State Democrats( who got very lucky in 2012) up for reelection(think McCaskill, Heidkamp, Donnelly and Tester)

Likewise, Very liberal Democrats who represent swing states such as Brown and Baldwin are targets too. Same potentially goes for certain NJ Senator dogged by continuing ethical problems(looking at you Bob Menendez). Also I wouldn't discount Kaine, Casey, Cantwell, Nelson, or Stabenow facing strong challenges in 2018 ether.
Logged
GaussLaw
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,283
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 30, 2014, 06:02:55 pm »


Burr really shouldn't be in too much trouble.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,955
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2014, 06:04:43 pm »


Burr really shouldn't be in too much trouble.

Why wouldn't he be? He has no crossover appeal, and it's very possible that Democrats could carry NC in 2016.
Logged
Sol
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,816


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 30, 2014, 07:20:35 pm »

Burr could be in trouble if the Dems nominate a decent candidate or if he retires. He's basically the GOP version of Hagan- low name rec, low controversy, but susceptible to a charismatic or qualified  opponent (a danger which Hagan has fortunately dodged).
Logged
NHLiberal
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 790


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: July 30, 2014, 07:58:35 pm »


Why the belief that Toomey is so screwed? I feel like he's in a much better position than Johnson.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,991
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: July 30, 2014, 08:06:25 pm »

I think the consensus is that unless the Republican Party runs a Reagan-like landslide this year, they will, at most have a 1 or 2 seat advantage coming into 2016.  My prediction is that if they keep the Senate in 2016, they are probably going to win the presidency by at least the margin that Obama or Clinton did.
That's not necessarily true.

Some poll numbers show Republicans having similar numbers in states like Alaska, North Carolina, Colorado and Iowa. It's possible that a difference of one percent is the difference between Republicans falling short of the majority, or gaining three.
Logged
Kevin
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,401
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: July 30, 2014, 10:07:58 pm »
« Edited: July 31, 2014, 10:32:13 am by Kevin »

Burr could be in trouble if the Dems nominate a decent candidate or if he retires. He's basically the GOP version of Hagan- low name rec, low controversy, but susceptible to a charismatic or qualified  opponent (a danger which Hagan has fortunately dodged).

As of now I would say that only Kirk, Johnson, and maybe Ayotte are the most vulernable GOP Senators should the Dems win the WH again in 2016.

I agree with you that Burr could go down in a Democratic landslide or his seat could flip if he retires but that all looks unlikely as of now esp. since we haven't even finished 2014 yet let alone begun seriously taking about 16.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines