2016 Senate: Republicans maintain it?

[Free Bird]

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?

[Free Bird]

OC, how is Florida a "definate" pickup? Have you seen the Democratic bench in Florida? That state party apparatus is pathetic and the bench is weak.

:
Hilary is gonna spend a lot of time trying to win over the New York Snow birds that vacation in Florida during  Christmas. Florida is more winnable to us cause it might be an open seat should Rubio opt to run for prez. Patrick Murphy should beat any GOPer not named Rubio. Clinton is gonna spend a lot of time def Johnson , Kirk and Toomey.
[/quote]

We all seem very convinced of Hillary making a snowball effect. We don't even know if SHES running.

[Free Bird]

It is really difficult to say whether the Republicans could maintain the Senate in 2016 should they win it this year.

While Kirk seems like a good senator, Illinois is such a left-leaning state that all it could take for him to lose is a average Democratic presidential nominee and an acceptable opponent. On the other hand, if the Republicans win the White House, he could barely hold on.

Johnson is probably the next most vulnerable senator. He is quite conservative for Wisconsin, which might cause him to lose some ground with a presidential electorate. Still, he appears to be a strong campaigner, which might allow him to hold on. If the Republican presidential nominee wins the election, I'd expect him to be reelected. On the other hand, should the Democratic presidential nominee win by less than 5 points nationally, I'd estimate that he would have a 50/50 chance of keeping his seat, but if the Democrat wins by a larger margin than that, then his or her coattails would probably take down Johnson.

Toomey can probably hold on as long as the Democratic presidential nominee doesn't win Pennsylvania by a huge margin. He is good enough of a senator that I would expect many Pennsylvanians to pick him over his opponent.

Ayotte is probably at some level risk simply because there are many credible opponents in New Hampshire. Still, she might be able to run ahead of the other Republicans on the ballot, as others on this thread expect.

Rubio and Portman will probably hold on, and I'm not too worried about either one losing.

The Republicans could make some pickups. Obviously, their best opportunity would be to have Brian Sandoval run against Harry Reid in Nevada. I'd say this would be a 50/50 race, and that Sandoval would win if the Democratic presidential nominee wins less than 54/55% of the vote nationally. Even though Nevada tilts Democratic, Sandoval is a particularly strong option. Unfortunately for the Republicans, that might be their only pickup of the night. Although Bennet is definitely not the strongest candidate, it is important to remember how thin the Republican bench is in Colorado. After all, until Cory Gardner jumped in this year's Senate race in the state, Udall was practically assured of victory. If the bench was that weak during a midterm, what Republican will challenge Bennet in a presidential electorate that favors the Democrats more? There could be another GOPer in the state who might end up being a credible threat to Bennet, but right now, I only think Bennet would lose if the Republicans win the White House.

All in all, Kirk and Johnson are probably at high risk of losing their seats, and Toomey and Ayotte are probably both going to have competitive races. Barring a Democratic landslide, the Republicans are in danger of losing about three or four seats. They could make up for that with one pickup, or two if they are having a good night. Based on that, a Democratic net gain of 1-4 seats seems plausible should the Democrats win the presidential election, and if the Republicans win the White House, their party will probably either break even or have a net gain of 2 seats.

It seems that the Republicans need to get to least 53-54 seats in the Senate after November's election in order to secure their majority for 2016.

I think that if Cory Gardner loses this year against Mark Udall by a slim margin, he might run again in 2016 against Michael Bennett and could potentially defeat him.

Perhaps, certainly in a strong Republican year with a nominee like Rand Paul and a generic Democrat. Same with Reid if he goes against Sandoval. Colorado is NOT gone for Republicans. Even Hillary has been trailing in hypotheticals there.

[Free Bird]

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

[Free Bird]

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?

[Free Bird]

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.

[Free Bird]

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.

I have to disagree on Ayotte. Her seat in general has often been Republican, and even when Lynch won by 5, she still won in a landslide. This either shows bipartisan popularity on her or Lynch's part

[Free Bird]

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.

I have to disagree on Ayotte. Her seat in general has often been Republican, and even when Lynch won by 5, she still won in a landslide. This either shows bipartisan popularity on her or Lynch's part

And polls have been going in her direction (though it is definitely early, sure.)

Johnson is done, I think.  Kirk could hold on to his seat, and so could Toomey, but both will likely have trouble doing so.

If Rubio retires (same for Burr), the seat could flip.  If not, I think they'll stay red.

I haven't heard enough from CO to really comment.

IF Feingold runs.

[Free Bird]

All indications are that he will, TheHawk

Really? I haven't been paying attention. I thought he would either run for president, retire from public life, or be happy with his obscure African job. Granted, I actually like Russy-boy, so I will gladly trade Reid's seat for his.

[Free Bird]

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.

Completely off topic, but in Washington, what was the common consensus about the 2004 governor race? Was it agreed that Rossi was screwed over?
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.

The difference is also that Inslee was a hack running for an open seat with an unpopular outgoing incumbent, and Murray is essentially a female Scoop Jackson.