2016 Senate Ratings and Predictions

[International Brotherhood of Bernard]

I'm fairly confident that the Democrats will hold Nevada and Colorado and then have a clean sweep of all 8 competitive seats in the east.    

Dem Pickups:  IA, IL, WI, OH, PA, NH, NC, FL

I agree if Republicans nominate a nutjob a la Ted Cruz (one can dream), the Democratic nominee (Hillary or otherwise) runs a strong campaign, and Grassley retires in Iowa (he isn't going anywhere otherwise). The last 2 cycles have shown that once it's clear who will win overall (Dems in 2012, GOP in 2014), they tend to run up the score in the last week or so and overperform expectations (Most saw Dems breaking even as best case scenario in 2012 and they gained 2, not many expected GOP to topple Hagan and very nearly topple Shaheen and Warner in 2014), so should Dems win a blowout Presidentially it will likely come with big Senate gains.

[IceSpear]

All the Dems really need is four seats it will entail: Mastro, Bennett, Duckworth, Sestak and Feingold winning, and 1 of the following from NH, OH and FL. 

A wave of some sort would have tp entail more retirements from McCain, Rand Paul and Rubio.  Dems best hope in AZ was in 2012, KY in 2014, and a Christie or Huckabee Nomination in 2016, to win in FL.

Best bet in NH or Oh for the fourth seat.

They need 5 if the Republicans reclaim the White House, but I agree that the two are somewhat correlated, meaning that a Democratic wave in the Senate would probably net a Democratic President and vice versa.

Yeah, if Republicans win the presidency, a D Senate is a nonstarter. So really 4 is the only number that matters.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dem likely hold: NV
Dem likely pickup: IL
Tossup: FL, CO, NH, PA, WI, OH
Rep likely pickup: --
Rep likely hold: AZ, IN, NC, La

[pbrower2a]

Iowa is Safe R unless Chuck Grassley leaves or retires due to health. He is past 80. Anyone else in Iowa? Lean D.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Iowa is Safe R unless Chuck Grassley leaves or retires due to health. He is past 80. Anyone else in Iowa? Lean D.

I'd call David Young a potential Lean R - being Grassley's Chief of Staff and all could help especially if Walker is on the top line. I know he's only had one term, but he could start off pretty well.

Latham could do well too, but I suppose he's probably done. He might have a bit of a hard time in the east, but he led Braley and Loebsack (trailed Vilsack) in 2013 when he was getting lobbed out as a candidate last time.

Dunno what kind of quality could potentially come out of the state legislature, but I think those are probably the top 2 potential replacements.

[Maxwell]

Iowa is Safe R unless Chuck Grassley leaves or retires due to health. He is past 80. Anyone else in Iowa? Lean D.

I'd call David Young a potential Lean R - being Grassley's Chief of Staff and all could help especially if Walker is on the top line. I know he's only had one term, but he could start off pretty well.

Latham could do well too, but I suppose he's probably done. He might have a bit of a hard time in the east, but he led Braley and Loebsack (trailed Vilsack) in 2013 when he was getting lobbed out as a candidate last time.

Dunno what kind of quality could potentially come out of the state legislature, but I think those are probably the top 2 potential replacements.

David Young was saved by the wave. Did you see his ads? The guy ran the worst campaign he could and because 2014 he won anyway. Even with the loan shark controversy, Rod Blum is a better candidate. And I can't imagine Latham running, but we'll see.

I'd say State Auditor Mary Mosiman or Agricultural Comissioner Bill Northerly would technically be the best candidates, but they're both probably more likely to go for Governor (as well as Pate, but he barely won in 2014 so yeah not a chance).

[pbrower2a]

Approval polls only.

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 --  Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

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


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 now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Dem likely hold: CO
Dem likely pickup: IL
Tossup: FL, NH, NV, PA, WI
Rep likely pickup: --
Rep likely hold: AZ, IN, NC, OH

I doubt the map exceeds these states

The key to Dems winning the tossups is getting top-tier candidates in those states.  The problem is that in NV, PA, and WI there is a bit of a shortage of top-tier candidates.

I believe that the GOP is vulnerable in AZ, IN, OH, and IA if top-tier candidates could be persuaded to run.  I think Grassley is vulnerable due to age.  On the other hand, I view Ayotte as a pretty safe pick for re-election, even against Hassan.

[pbrower2a]

Iowa is Safe R unless Chuck Grassley leaves or retires due to health. He is past 80. Anyone else in Iowa? Lean D.

I'd call David Young a potential Lean R - being Grassley's Chief of Staff and all could help especially if Walker is on the top line. I know he's only had one term, but he could start off pretty well.

Latham could do well too, but I suppose he's probably done. He might have a bit of a hard time in the east, but he led Braley and Loebsack (trailed Vilsack) in 2013 when he was getting lobbed out as a candidate last time.

Dunno what kind of quality could potentially come out of the state legislature, but I think those are probably the top 2 potential replacements.

Here's the problem with Scott Walker:


Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

NO potential Republican nominee for President is doing well in Iowa. Here I am showing what Walker does, which suggests that he would lose like McCain in 2008 or Romney in 2012.  If Scott Walker cannot win Wisconsin, he is not going to help Republicans in Iowa.

Senator Charles Grassley has approval in the 60s and would win re-election if he seeks it.  (On the other side, Chuck Schumer in New York is about as secure... and both are obviously much more secure than incumbents with ratings in the 30s)  but he cannot devolve such an approval onto any Republican should he retire.

I saw the approval rating for Joni Ernst... and it isn't very high. Iowans basically elected a Sharron Angle in 2014... and she could be the worst drag on any Republican candidate for Senate from Iowa other than Charles Grassley.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Iowa is Safe R unless Chuck Grassley leaves or retires due to health. He is past 80. Anyone else in Iowa? Lean D.

I'd call David Young a potential Lean R - being Grassley's Chief of Staff and all could help especially if Walker is on the top line. I know he's only had one term, but he could start off pretty well.

David Young was saved by the wave. Did you see his ads? The guy ran the worst campaign he could and because 2014 he won anyway. Even with the loan shark controversy, Rod Blum is a better candidate.

Eh, the meal one was pretty bad, but it's not like the others were horrendous. He was in an even district and improved on a semi-incumbent's margin by 2 points. That's not too bad even with the help of the wave. Very difficult to say how much of an advantage he got from the wave because of the redistricting giving us only 1 election for comparison, and Steve King had that tough campaign in 2012 so you can't use that as a comparison either. But winning by 9 in that district could realistically translate to 6 or 7 statewide in 2014 turnout, which is right in line with what the wave was (according to FiveThirtyEight). Plus he had never been elected prior to 2014 so he has that going for him plus the outgoing Grassley's potential support.
Maybe Tilt R would've been more appropriate, but I think he would win by right around 2 points statewide. Plus Walker would only help him. Both candidates you mentioned have strong potential as well.

[pbrower2a]

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-nevada-polling/?utm_source=Copy+of+sc+poll&utm_campaign=SC+Poll&utm_medium=email

Except if popular Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval runs for Harry Reid's current seat, Nevada is slight-D for the Senate for now. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I'm fairly confident that the Democrats will hold Nevada and Colorado and then have a clean sweep of all 8 competitive seats in the east.    

Dem Pickups:  IA, IL, WI, OH, PA, NH, NC, FL

To go further on this, the Dems so far have outstanding candidates and also Hillary is almost guaranteed to bring a boost in turnout being the first female president.   Also Hillary is a much better fit for all the midwestern states that are up this time than Obama was.   

Russ Feingold is probably my favorite candidate up in Wisconsin and he's still very popular unlike Ron Johnson who isn't well liked.

Patrick Murphy will be very competitive in Florida for the open seat being vacated by Rubio.

Ted Strickland will be able to ride the Hillary wave to victory in OH,  he as well is quite popular.

Mark Kirk is very vulnerable in Illinois and pretty sure darn near anyone can beat him there.

I'm confident Maggie Hassan in NH is going to run for the Senate seat, and incumbent governors have good track records in unseating incumbent senators. 

That leaves NC, IA, and PA.   Those will probably be the hardest races but Burr is unpopular and Toomey isn't popular enough to survive a wave in a blue state.    Grassley is old as dirt and I'm pretty sure he's going to retire, he's just holding out till they figure things out behind closed doors.   

And there you have it,  Democrats pick up 8 seats and go up into the majority 54-46.

2-6 seats WI, Pa, OH, IL, NC, CO and NV and 15 seat net gain in House.

[MATTROSE94]

2016
Safe Republican:
Alabama
Idaho
Kansas
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah

Likely Republican:
Alaska (would be Tossup if Joe Miller primaries Lisa Murkowski and faces off against Mark Begich)
Arkansas
Georgia
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Missouri

Lean Republican:
Arizona
Florida
North Carolina

Tossup:
Colorado
Nevada
New Hampshire
Ohio
Pennsylvania

Lean Democrat:
Illinois
Wisconsin

Likely Democrat:
California (would be Safe Democrats were it not for the slight possibility that both of the candidates could turn out to be Republicans due to the primary election system that California has)

Safe Democrat:
Connecticut
Hawaii
Maryland
New York
Oregon
Vermont
Washington

[publicunofficial]

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

[retromike22]

Update your maps now that Florida is an open seat.

[Maxwell]

Safe R
Alabama - Come on, lol.

Alaska - Murkowski will probably lose the primary, but we'll see. Either way it doesn't matter, Democrats aren't picking this seat up.

Arkansas - lol mike beebe. Not even he would win this seat against Boozman. He's safe.

Iowa - For all intents and purposes, this should be a toss-up. Chuck Grassley, however, makes it completely safe. He won't retire. Maybe next term, Democrats.

Idaho - Do they even hold elections here anymore?

Kansas - 2014 will be the last time in a long time we will talk about a Kansas Senate race for longer than a sentence.

Lousiana - lol

North Dakota - Hoeven has serious potential for nobody to run against him. He's fine.

South Carolina - Timmy!

South Dakota - The Dem Bench here doesn't exist, Thune is fundraising like a fiend. He maybe unopposed again.

Oklahoma - I am on record, and yes, in fact, we don't hold elections in Oklahoma anymore.

Likely R
Arizona - Meh. Even if McCain wins or loses the primary, I just don't see it in the cards for Democrats. Unless Republicans nominate Evan Mecham (who I think is dead), this is not the seat in the new Democratic Majority. Dems have some good future recruits that could potentially run, but I advise them to go against Doug Ducey or a potential challenger against Flake (since I see him having one in 2018).

Georgia - This moves to safe R if Isakson announces, but probably stays Likely R if Isakson retires. The GOP had a disastrous 2014 in Georgia and still won out just fine. There would be a chance of a loss here, but it's small, especially since the two Georgia Democrat frontrunners lost easily last year. Who else do they really have? Republicans shouldn't worry about this seat.

Indiana - Yeah, only if Pence loses in a landslide for re-election does the GOP lose this seat too. The bench here is a mixed batch, but it seems like the most undesirable candidates are backing out, so I suspect this seat remains in GOP hands. Plus the Dem bench here is aging and aging quickly, with very few young and up and comers rising.

Kentucky - The Kentucky Democrats have a rather incredible bench for such a Republican state. However, that bench is talented in a way that is very peculiar for Senate races - They do fine in statewide races where not as much attention is paid to them, but as soon as they are in a race with a lot of spotlight is shined, they fade away. Some Democrat candidate here I suspect will be massively hyped only to disappoint majorly. Whoever the Republican nominee is, whether or not it's Paul, is fine. Move this to Safe if Rand Paul runs for re-election.

Missouri - I contemplated moving this to Lean R, and the truth is, this is a seat Democrats could win if Hillary wins in a blowout, but even with strong political talent from Jason Kander, Blunt is a juggernaut in the state. Not necessarily a popular or impressive one, but enough of one to overwhelm most opponents.

Utah - Only in Likely R because of the possibility of a Matheson v. Lee race. Lee is vulnerable due to his Tea party stands, but he's probably fine in the primary, even against Romney. Matheson would probably poll closely, but ultimately would lose by a fairly unsurprising double digits. If I were a Republican, I wouldn't worry about this seat at all.

Lean R
North Carolina - My first lean R! Burr always has to fear North Carolina's hatred of incumbents, but the Democrat bench against him is thinning. Senator Kay Hagan lost embarrassingly and unexpectedly in 2014, and now she's so unpopular that her loss would be almost a foregone conclusion. Cowell, one of the strongest possibilities of an actual win here, decided not to run, and the next big Democrat hope is a 32 Year Old state senator. Not exactly a strong basket to put your eggs in. Burr's anonymous nature will probably make this race closer than needed to be, but Burr is probably fine.

Ohio - This is probably closer to Tilt R than Lean R, but decided to go with Lean R anyways. Ted Strickland is a juggernaut in the state of Ohio, and a lot of polls show him up on Senator Portman. Strickland, however, is aging, and so far has been severely outpaced in terms of fundraising to Portman. Portman will no doubt define himself and define Strickland before Strickland has a chance to. And there is fuel for the Strickland attacks, just read any of Lebron Fitzgerald's posts about the race! Sittenfeld would probably be an interesting choice if he had been given the chance to challenge Portman, but he'd also be doomed. Portman will have a decent fight in store for him, but it seems like thus far he's prepared for it.

Toss-Up
Florida - Republicans have a strong bench, but with their top guy out and Democrats top guy in, this is officially a toss-up. Still, a negative nancy like Alan Grayson can do a lot to bring down Murphy's positives, and whoever the GOP nominates will have the advantage of the great infrastructure of the Florida Republican Party, so gun to my head, this seat remains in the GOP's hands. But Murphy is in a strong position, and this is a race that will go down to the wire.

Illinois - Mark Kirk is in something of a pickle. Despite being a general moderate, he has the target on his back for sure in this strongly Democratic state. He does have the advantage of not having to run with home state President Barack Obama on the ticket, since Hillary will surely do worse in the state. That being said, he will still have to run strongly ahead of Hillary. This is probably Tiltest D of the Toss-ups, but Kirk has proven to be formidable in his own congressional seat (which is about as liberal as the rest of Illinois), and I suspect he's learned a thing or two about running a competitive race. Don't count him out yet.

Nevada - A cluster-f, We don't even know who's in on the Republican side. The Democrats have Catherine Masto, who is probably a strong candidate since she has such strong support from Harry Reid, another not-necessarily-popular juggernaut. Still, Republicans here have a strong record of winning, mostly due to plucking out very moderate candidates. Dean Heller, the other Senator in the state, has seen demographics shift and has become one of the most moderate Republicans in the Senate, and Sandoval is Sandoval. If Sandoval jumps in, move this to Lean R, but keep this in Toss-up otherwise since Republicans have some potentially potent candidates like Roberson or Hutchison, and some potentially Akin candidates like Angle or (name a random state senator).

New Hampshire - One of the tilter R's of the toss-up section, Ayotte is in a fairly good position for a Senator from New Hampshire. She ties the state's most popular public official, and leads strongly against the state's second most popular public official. Even if Hassan jumps in, which is definitely possibly and maybe even likely, this is still a dogfight to the end, due to New Hampshire's moody nature.

Pennsylvania - Probably Tilts R at the moment. Pat Toomey has gone from conservative warrior to Pennsylvania's Senator with surprising coherency, and certainly more coherent than Sestak's bid for the Democratic nomination, where his own party is actively looking to challenge him. That being said, it's Pennsylvania during a Presidential year, and this is a state where Hillary would do better than Obama, so Toomey has to run far ahead of the Republican nominee, so this won't move out of toss-up unless, god forbid, the Democrats actually forsake Sestak and go with a lightweight like Ed Pawlowski (who would be crushed).

Lean D
Colorado - Combined with a Presidential level turnout and generally being a controversy-less Incumbent, Mike Bennet should be fine. The fact he's rather anonymous and actually was trailing in a poll against Mike Coffman should set off some alarms. Nevertheless, I don't think the Colorado GOP has a candidate like Cory Gardner left on their roster, and though they have some solid potential people like Walker Stapleton, I think Bennet ultimately survives, maybe narrowly.

Wisconsin - This is the only seat where I can definitively say the Incumbent will be a fairly big underdog. Ron Johnson is a great campaigner but he is far to the state's right. Russ Feingold, on the other hand, lost barely in a wave year and is coming back. Polls show Feingold up double digits. It won't be that bad, but Johnson will probably have to run ahead of the Republican nominee in the state, and I just don't see that in the cards against Feingold.

Likely D

NONE

Safe D
California - Yeah, I concede there isn't a chance the GOP picks up this seat. Unless something unforeseen happens, it's Harris' seat to lose.

Hawaii - lol wut

Connecticut - I already have spent too much time typing about this seat.

Maryland - Edwards and Van Hollen mudslinging will be fun for a while, but once one of them is the nominee, Democrats needn't worry.

New York - Do they even have elections here anymore?

Oregon - Move this to Likely D if Wyden retires. But that's about as much movement this race gets. I've heard rumors that Wyden may be primaried. Sounds like garbage to me.

Vermont - Loleahy

Washington - Republicans here barely have a bench for Governor, much less for Senate.


From this list, I suspect the GOP loses Illinois and Wisconsin, and holds on everywhere else. Democrats hold on to Nevada (unless Sandoval jumps in, as he seems like he won't do) and Colorado.

[LeBron]

Safe R:
Alabama (#VictorSanchezWilliamsforSenate)
Arkansas
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana (I doubt Mitch will run and even if he does, the 50% rule screws Democrats over here)
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota (This could have been Sandlin's opportunity had Thune decided to retire)

Likely R:
Alaska (Leaving open the possibility Miller primaries Murkowski and Begich jumps in)
Georgia
Indiana
Iowa (Just in case)
Kentucky
Utah (I'm going to switch it to safe R if Matheson decides not to run)

Lean R:
Arizona (McCain or Ward would both be weak general election opponents and Democrats might put up a fight here, but I don't think AZ is ready to tilt to the other party yet)
Missouri
North Carolina
Ohio (Portman has basically set himself up to be re-elected, unfortunately and like Max said Strickland will get defined for his old baggage before he can define himself or Portman. I think him or Sittenfeld could have put up good fights, but as long as the ODP is still recovering from it's wounds and Portman's flooding the airwaves, he'll win).

Tossup:
Florida (Assuming Murphy is nominee for now)
New Hampshire (Even without Hassan, this is still likely to be very tight)
Pennsylvania

Lean D:
Illinois (RIP Kirk, we won't miss you)
Wisconsin (Assuming Feingold runs)
Colorado (Bennet might be underestimated here - he's a fundraising powerhouse and the CO GOP is going to end up nominating some far-right loon)
Nevada

Likely D:
None

Safe D:
California (Kamala Harris has this in the bag, and the CA GOP is too much of a joke to be able to make it R vs. R)
Connecticut
Hawaii (Hopefully another DINO doesn't go after him)
Maryland
New York
Oregon (Wyden's running again I think)
Vermont
Washington

[ElectionsGuy]

Safe R:

Alabama
Alaska (Likely R if there are primary shenanigans and Mark Begich joins in)
Arkansas
Idaho
Iowa
Kentucky (even if Paul is denied re-election, federal elections are heavily Republican)
Kansas
Louisiana (Dems have no bench + Jungle Primary)
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah (Will move to Likely R if/when Matheson runs)

Likely R:

Georgia (only because its Georgia)
Indiana (like all Indiana races, dems have an outside chance of winning if there are too many shenanigans)
Missouri (Blunt is not as vulnerable as people seem to think)

Lean R:

Arizona (He'll likely survive a primary, but he's weaker than he ever was before)
New Hampshire (Toss-Up if/when Hassan runs)
North Carolina (no matter the nominee)
Ohio (no matter the nominee)

Toss-Up:

Florida (Lean R if Grayson is the nominee)
Illinois (This is on the verge of being Lean D)
Nevada (R's have a decent bench since the scored big in 2014)
Pennsylvania (despite Toomey's supposed early advantage, its still Pennsylvania)
Wisconsin (Will move to Lean D if/when Feingold announces)

Lean D:

Colorado (Toss-Up if Mike Coffman is the nominee)

Safe D:

California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Maryland
New York
Oregon (Likely D if Wyden retires, but Oregon R's are incredibly weak)
Vermont
Washington

[Xing]

Safe R
-AL
-AR
-GA
-ID
-IA (Unless Grassley suddenly retires)
-KS
-KY
-LA
-ND
-OK
-SC
-SD
-UT

Likely R
-AK
-AZ
-IN
-MO

Lean R
-NC
-OH

Toss-up/Tilt R
-NH
-PA

Toss-up/Tilt D
-FL (With Murphy in, and Rubio, Atwater, and Bondi out, this is looking better and better for Democrats. Still extremely competitive, but since I'm making every race as least tilt R or D...)
-NV
-WI

Lean D
-CO
-IL

Likely D
None

Safe D
-CA
-CT
-HI
-MD
-NY
-OR
-VT
-WA

[pbrower2a]

Approval polls only. Updated to reflect a 'better' poll for Senator Bennet in Colorado (D-CO), a new poll (and first) of approval for Kelly Ayotte (R-NC), and the likelihood of Bob Menendez (D-NJ) resigning with the near certainty of an appointed Senator replacing him (the appointed Senator would be up for election 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.


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 now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.

I think that Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) will appoint a Republican if he could get away with it, so here's what I think the map will look like pending new polls:

Appointed pols have a poor record of getting re-elected; thus the asterisk.

An elected Governor or Senator with an approval rating of 43% or 44% has about a 50% chance of being re-elected in an election with an 'average' turnout and if one does not account for the strength of the opponent or 'money bombs'. This map does not show this. Chance of being re-elected generally drops precipitously as an approval rating dips below 43% and approaches certainty as approval is near 50%. Governing and legislating take a bite out of approval (about 6-7%), so one can expect someone who got 51% of the vote to have an approval rating of about 44-45% and need to campaign to get re-elected. With an approval rating of 40% or so, an elected pol either runs from his record and loses or takes his chances.

An appointed pol who has never proved himself in an electoral campaign (Tim Scott is no longer in that category) needs approval near 50% to have a chance because he has never shown that he can win the seat by getting elected.

This map does not show how good a campaigner the incumbent is, what sort of opposition the incumbent has, does not predict turnout, and cannot show how effective right-wing front groups will be in convincing voters that the Democrat drowns kittens or feeds puppies to snakes.

[pbrower2a]

No map. PPP tells us that Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) has a 52% approval rating -- contrast Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) at 40%. Senator Shaheen is not up for re-election this time.

PPP has offered a context for interpreting a 40% approval rating for Senator Ayotte. 

[pbrower2a]

We get a poll from Arizona:

PPP, Arizona, Senator John McCain, R-AZ

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of Senator John
McCain’s job performance?

 41% Approve --  50% Disapprove -- 9% Not sure

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_AZ_50515.pdf

Slipping. Note also some updates for Colorado and Iowa.

Approval polls only.

New verbiage underlined



White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.


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

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


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 now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

This shows less than many would like to see. I'm not rating the strength of the opponent or the likelihood of the incumbent seeing himself in good-enough health to last into the election.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Excluding completely safe seats:

Safe R Seats: 14
Likely R: AZ, IN, IA
Leans R: PA, NC
Tilts R: OH, NH
Toss-up: FL, IL, NV
Tilts D: CO, WI*
Leans D:
Likely D: CA, OR
Safe D Seats: 6

Iowa and Oregon are safe for their respective parties barring retirements.