What states do you think will vote for a different party? (2018 Senate election)

[Plate]

In the 2018 Senate elections, which states do you think are most likely to vote for a different party than the party of the incumbent who is up for election in 2018?

[_]

Missouri, Indiana, Nevada, Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania.  In that order of flipping.

[TheSaint250]

I think Missouri is #1

[Plate]

I chose Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, and West Virginia. I honestly don't understand why more people didn't pick Michigan, they were a red state in 2016, with a Republican governor, Republicans have control of the state House and Senate, and a majority of the state's representatives in the US House are Republicans. The state, in my opinion, is slowly getting more and more Republican.

[Plate]

I chose Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, and West Virginia. I honestly don't understand why more people didn't pick Michigan, they were a red state in 2016, with a Republican governor, Republicans have control of the state House and Senate, and a majority of the state's representatives in the US House are Republicans. The state, in my opinion, is slowly getting more and more Republican.

Because that's not how politics works. Stabenow is entrenched, there's a weak field, Trump and Snyder are deeply unpopular there, etc

I do realize how much people don't like Snyder all across the state, but I think people are stating to not like Stabenow either. Like I said, Republicans got control of the state House and Senate.

[Hoosier_Nick]

Missouri is the most likely to flip. McCaskill is not a good fit for the state and doesn't have the benefit of running against a crazy person this time (most likely).

Number 2 would be Heller. It is hard to see him eeking out a victory just due to Trump's unpopularity.

Number 3 is Donnelly (sigh). My favorite Senator, but Indiana is fairly Republican and he isn't running against Mourdock this time. Whoever he faces between Messer and Rokita is going to be quite a challenge.

Number 4 is Flake. If Flake can even survive the primary I'll be impressed due to the opposition there. But AZ is trending Democrat and Trump is un-popular, so we will see.

Number 5 is Heitkamp, who I think will have the most narrow loss. Heitkamp is a good fit for her state as a Democrat, but North Dakota is just so Republican and doesn't have the knack for split-ticket voting in recent memory like West Virginia for Manchin.

Those are the 5 who, if I had to put my money on it today, will lose.

[Plate]

I chose Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, and West Virginia. I honestly don't understand why more people didn't pick Michigan, they were a red state in 2016, with a Republican governor, Republicans have control of the state House and Senate, and a majority of the state's representatives in the US House are Republicans. The state, in my opinion, is slowly getting more and more Republican.

Because that's not how politics works. Stabenow is entrenched, there's a weak field, Trump and Snyder are deeply unpopular there, etc

I do realize how much people don't like Snyder all across the state, but I think people are stating to not like Stabenow either. Like I said, Republicans got control of the state House and Senate.

I'm confused on how that has much relevance to the Us Senate race

If people vote Republicans for state legislature, they'll likely vote them for US legislature.

[TheSaint250]

I do realize how much people don't like Snyder all across the state, but I think people are stating to not like Stabenow either. Like I said, Republicans got control of the state House and Senate.

Any other Democratic candidate for president would have won Michigan fairly easily, so I wouldn't read too much into the 2016 results. I think the GOP has an okay to pretty good chance of holding on to the Governor's mansion, but the Senate race is an uphill battle.

I doubt "fairly easily." Certainly not Obama 2012 easy.

But you're right with the other stuff

[Strudelcutie4427]

Im guessing Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, West Virginia, and Florida. Still way too early to tell the political climate of 17 months from now

[Plate]

Im guessing Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, West Virginia, and Florida. Still way too early to tell the political climate of 17 months from now

True, but let's hope that climate change really isn't real. Except for blue states.

[windjammer]

I personally think Flake is being underestimated. The margin in Arizona was undoubtedly much closer in 2016 than in 2008/2012, but:

(a) For all the talk about how close Arizona was in 2016, Hillary only beat Obama's % by one percent.
(b) Trump was undoubtedly a worse fit for Arizona than McCain/Romney, given his problems with college-educated whites, Latinos, and Mormons. But Flake wouldn't have similar problems with these groups, particularly Mormons.

It's harder to tie Flake to Trump, given Flake was one of Trump's highest profiled critics in the GOP.

This guy underperformed Obama by 5 points and has been often polled as one of the most unpopular senators in the country.

I'm not saying he's doomed, but seriously, he's definitely not underrated.

[MarkD]

Heitkamps, Tester, and Donnelly, in that order.
I don't think Heller is as vulnerable as people make him out to be. Flake is even less likely to lose than Heller.

[Figueira]

WV, IN, MO, ND, NV

[Kingpoleon]

Risky: Only ND and MO flip.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Flip-Indiana, Missouri, Nevada
Within 5 points of flipping-North Dakota, Arizona, Montana.

[This account no longer in use.]

Best case scenario for Democrats: Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Egg McMuffin wins Utah
Best case scenario for Republicans: Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Ohio, Wisconsin

Most likely (in my opinion): Indiana, Missouri

[UncleSam]

I chose Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, and West Virginia. I honestly don't understand why more people didn't pick Michigan, they were a red state in 2016, with a Republican governor, Republicans have control of the state House and Senate, and a majority of the state's representatives in the US House are Republicans. The state, in my opinion, is slowly getting more and more Republican.

Because that's not how politics works. Stabenow is entrenched, there's a weak field, Trump and Snyder are deeply unpopular there, etc

I do realize how much people don't like Snyder all across the state, but I think people are stating to not like Stabenow either. Like I said, Republicans got control of the state House and Senate.

I'm confused on how that has much relevance to the Us Senate race

Michigan is changing almost as quickly as Georgia in the opposite direction, and if you seriously think that Snyder is widely disliked or would lose reelection if he were eligible for it you're nuts. Trust the two people from Michigan here when we say that people do not like Stabenow at all and that Snyder is a lot more popular. I know it's hard to see because the only polls of Michigan are rubbish from the. Detroit Free Press but Michigan is very white and the conservative areas are growing rapidly whe the liberal areas are stagnating or declining.

Democrats, take Michigan for granted AGAIN at your own risk. Stabenow is way worse off than. Casey or Warner and arguably worse off than Baldwin or even Brown. The state is changing and it's amazing that everyone is blind to it even after Trump won this state last November. You think it was a fluke Hillary got 300k fewer votes out of Wayne / Genessee than Obama did, or that Trump got 150k extra votes out of Kent and Macomb? It wasn't, it was because there's 200k fewer people in Wayne and 50k fewer people in Southern Macomb (aka North Detroit) than there were four years ago. By 2018 there will be another 100k gone from these places and Kent will have grown even more (along with the Grosse Ille Macomb area that is heavily conservative and booming).

These things don't happen in a bottle, especially in an era of hyper polarization. Trumps message may have accelerated things by appealing particularly to Michiganders but he would not have had a shadow of a chance with the 2012 electorate regardless.

[Xing]

If I had to guess right now, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, and North Dakota.

[Miles]

I chose Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, and West Virginia. I honestly don't understand why more people didn't pick Michigan, they were a red state in 2016, with a Republican governor, Republicans have control of the state House and Senate, and a majority of the state's representatives in the US House are Republicans. The state, in my opinion, is slowly getting more and more Republican.

Because that's not how politics works. Stabenow is entrenched, there's a weak field, Trump and Snyder are deeply unpopular there, etc

I do realize how much people don't like Snyder all across the state, but I think people are stating to not like Stabenow either. Like I said, Republicans got control of the state House and Senate.

Democrats won the popular vote for the Michigan State House in 2012, 2014 and 2016.

But since both chambers of the Nevada legislature flipped Democratic last year, I guess Heller is toast.

[Virginiá]

I think there are other reasons why party control at the state level means less for federal offices than one might think, but as Miles was saying, Republicans have tended to fare less spectacularly when you look at the actual number of votes cast, which is a lot more relevant in this case than seat count, seeing as we are talking about a statewide election. Favorable maps and geography combined with a string of GOP-favorable elections have inflated their numbers in the legislature beyond what they would normally be.

As far as Trump's victory in Michigan goes, I really don't know how far anyone should be taking that result in terms of long-term GOP success. Trump only won around ~47.50. It was less of a dominating victory and more of a screw-up by the Democratic Party if you ask me. Personally, I'm going to wait until Nov 2020 before I start beginning to draw conclusions on the status of the rust belt.

[Miles]

^ Yeah, though you did get something of a preview of Trump's strength in northern MI with Stabenow's races.

From 2006 to 2012, her margin expanded from 16% to 21%, but she lost ground in the entire UP (though still swept it):


But yeah, not looking like a good pickup for Republicans, either way.

[Figueira]

Romney also did well in the UP compared to previous Republicans.

[peterthlee]

Only Nevada, maybe Missouri, Indiana and Arizona.

[jamestroll]

stop with the obsession about mccaskill.

[jamestroll]

A lot of these Democratic Senators are remnants of the past. The cycles of 2010 and 2014 destroyed a lot of them especially in deep red states and many survived in 2012 by being lucky, running great campaigns or a combination of both.

So I understand why many are suspicious of them holding on even in a poor Republican climate of 2018 and how the anti Democratic trend in those states may be too much to over come.

But it would be interesting to see how many of these deep Republican state Democratic Senators hold on under a Republican midterm versus a Democratic midterm.

I have not been posting as much lately as it seems way to early and too many unknowns to make any accurate assumptions.

Recent midterms tend to favor the GOP and the party out of power at the same time.

1994= Gop wipe out.

1998= GOP over reach allowed Democrats to make modest house gains and break even in the senate iirc.

2002= Bush popularity allowed gop to make modest house gains and a net gain of one in the us senate.

2006= Bush was very unpopular and Democrats were able to net 31 seats. Decent number but still pales in comparison to gop waves. To be fair though, Democrats held many Bush districts so their playing field was not as great.

2010= Huge GOP wave under a Obama who was unpopular but not as unpopular as Bush.

2014= GOP performed very well in the US Senate races and gained 14 seats in the house but gains were limited to to almost being maxed out.

2018= Democrats net gain 30 seats but lose two Senate seats???