2016 Senate: Republicans maintain it? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:24:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  2016 Senate: Republicans maintain it? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2016 Senate: Republicans maintain it?  (Read 10298 times)
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

« 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
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

« Reply #1 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
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 12 queries.