538: Will Democratic Senators Lose Despite The ‘Blue Wave’?

[Virginiá]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-democratic-incumbents-lose-despite-the-blue-wave/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I highlighted something important in the first quote: Incumbent Senators from the "out" party rarely lose, even when they are from states that lean heavily towards the other party. This is not a theory - it is a fact. This would mean that it would be highly unusual for Democrats to have a net loss this cycle, and based on the results over the past generation, it would probably be a better bet to say that they won't lose a single incumbent (vs losing 1 or more).

It's an interesting article nonetheless. Perhaps this is the first election in decades where the out party loses a handful of incumbent Senators, or perhaps Democratic Senators are actually in a better spot than polling reflects and will cruise to reelection in November. We'll see!

[OSR stands with Israel]

Well it would be a repeat of 1982

[Senator Incitatus]

I highlighted something important in the first quote: Incumbent Senators from the "out" party rarely lose, even when they are from states that lean heavily towards the other party. This is not a theory - it is a fact. This would mean that it would be highly unusual for Democrats to have a net loss this cycle, and based on the results over the past generation, it would probably be a better bet to say that they won't lose a single incumbent (vs losing 1 or more).

To be clear, everything before you said "this is not a theory" wasn't a theory – and everything after it was. Historical fact doesn't dictate future results.

[mencken]

Perhaps FiveThirtyEight is overestimating the fundamentals of the Democrats?

[Virginiá]

I highlighted something important in the first quote: Incumbent Senators from the "out" party rarely lose, even when they are from states that lean heavily towards the other party. This is not a theory - it is a fact. This would mean that it would be highly unusual for Democrats to have a net loss this cycle, and based on the results over the past generation, it would probably be a better bet to say that they won't lose a single incumbent (vs losing 1 or more).

To be clear, everything before you said "this is not a theory" wasn't a theory – and everything after it was. Historical fact doesn't dictate future results.

I didn't say historical fact dictates future results tho

[DabbingSanta]

We keep seeing those generic national polls which show Democrats in the lead by 8 to 10 points, but not every seat is up for election - only eight Republican seats are! Democrats certainly have an uphill battle as they're largely fighting to retain their own seats. The closest states are NV, AZ, ND, TX, MO, TN, and FL. The Democrats will need five of those seven close states to win and get a majority (51-49). Anything less would be a loss for them really, no matter what the media says.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Even if Democrats lose a couple seats in the Senate , as long as they win the House it will be a win for them

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Some parts of the "fundamentals" model seem a bit overdetermined to me (e.g. assuming that large state senators lose more often than small state senators).  But as the article points out, the fundamentals shouldn't matter too much once we get a bit more polling.

[TML]

538 has another article where it states that if Democrats win the national House PV by at least 11 points, they would be favored to flip the Senate as well. As things stand right now, that is within one normal polling error of actually happening.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Some parts of the "fundamentals" model seem a bit overdetermined to me (e.g. assuming that large state senators lose more often than small state senators).  But as the article points out, the fundamentals shouldn't matter too much once we get a bit more polling.

Yeah, one of two things is gonna happen: either polling numbers converge to the fundamentals as the campaign goes on, or they stay the same and we can safely disregard the fundamentals (or some combination of the two, I guess). I'm hoping for the former of course, but there is precedent for both.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, Donnelly, Heidi, or McCaskill can lose, despite the blue wave, and McCaskill is by far the worst off, due to MO rightward swing. 

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I think that Democrats will win the national House vote by 12-14 points.

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

Senate will remain about like it is now
Democrats in house will probably have 225 seats


Most of the gains will be at the state house/senate level for the democrats.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I guarantee you you that a progressive would be doing better than moderate heroes like Carper or Menendez.

[Skye]

I think the wave will end up carrying some very vulnerable incumbents, mainly Nelson and McCaskill, over the finish line.

[BudgieForce]

I guarantee you you that a progressive would be doing better than moderate heroes like Carper or Menendez.

Anybody would be doing better than Menendez. That being said, dont be surprised if he wins by 15+ points.

[Pollster]

Didn't 538 write endlessly about the fundamentals of 2016 being terrific for the GOP but the polls showing them struggling?

[KingSweden]

I think the wave will end up carrying some very vulnerable incumbents, mainly Nelson and McCaskill, over the finish line.

Yup.

Honestly the only Dem incumbent I’m worried will lose is Heitkamp

[Virginiá]

Didn't 538 write endlessly about the fundamentals of 2016 being terrific for the GOP but the polls showing them struggling?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-more-normal-trump-can-make-this-race-the-better-his-chances/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/

From last link:

You must be logged in to read this quote.