Senate races 2016

[DrPizza]

Kind of a spin-off from some of Trump's recent remarks about endorsements. Republicans hold 54 seats, Democrats 46 (44 + 2 Independents who caucus with the Dems). There are 34 seats up for reelection this year; Republicans hold 24 of those seats. Five thirty eight so far thinks the Dems will grab a few of those seats. It's going to be very close for who controls the Senate after the election; very close.

Currently worth discussing, Paul Ryan is up for reelection. Trump so far as said he's only thinking about endorsing Ryan - Ryan's campaign said they didn't ask for an endorsement, and Ryan hasn't endorsed Trump. Trump has had a lot of positive things to say about Ryan's primary opponent, Republican Paul Nehlen. IIRC, Nehlen is leading Ryan in polling. If Nehlen wins the primary, the chances that seat goes to a Democrat increases.

Earlier this election season, McCain said if Trump gets the nomination, then he (McCain) is in for the fight of his life for reelection. 30% of the vote in Arizona is Hispanic, and McCain has said there's a lot of sentiment building against the Republicans in his state. I think it's likely he'll win, but his seat should have been a given, rather than a fight.

 

[brycejones]

Prediction:

GOP wins Kansas race.

 

[werepossum]

Prediction:

GOP wins Kansas race running on the bugshit crazy conservative platform.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[brycejones]

Fixed that for ya.

Honestly Moran isn't bug shit crazy. I disagree with him on many, many, many things but he really isn't a nutter. We've had much worse trying to run on the GOP side lately.

 

[werepossum]

Honestly Moran isn't bug shit crazy. I disagree with him on many, many, many things but he really isn't a nutter. We've had much worse trying to run on the GOP side lately.

Then he missed his chance to be President this year.

 

[Jhhnn]

Too bad that the Koch network isn't putting their money on Trump.

Here's one analysis-

http://www.rollcall.com/news/home/democrats-target-vulnerable-republicans-party-loyalty

 

[brycejones]

Too bad that the Koch network isn't putting their money on Trump.

Here's one analysis-

http://www.rollcall.com/news/home/democrats-target-vulnerable-republicans-party-loyalty

You can bet they will be pouring money into Senate races though.

 

[Jhhnn]

Honestly Moran isn't bug shit crazy. I disagree with him on many, many, many things but he really isn't a nutter. We've had much worse trying to run on the GOP side lately.

Dunno much about him. I do know that Brownback & friends executed a trickle down cornholio in grand style. Cut business & income taxes, kill revenues. Slash jobs & spending to compensate. When that turns into squeezing blood out of a turnip, raise sales taxes. All better!

 

[Sonikku]

Don't worry Repubs, regardless as for how the chips land in the Senate, the House is gerrymandered safe. You guys get more over all seats for fewer over all votes.

 

[DrPizza]

You can bet they will be pouring money into Senate races though.

Definitely. Democrats in control of the Senate, with Supreme Court Justices needing to be confirmed...
LOL, on Hillary's first day: Obama for Supreme Court. (Not really an outlandish pick, either.) But, a new decision on citizens united would greatly impact the Kochs' future influence in politics.

 

[cliftonite]

I think it will be extremely difficult for the dems to retake the senate. Especially after Rubio is running again.

 

[brycejones]

Dunno much about him. I do know that Brownback & friends executed a trickle down cornholio in grand style. Cut business & income taxes, kill revenues. Slash jobs & spending to compensate. When that turns into squeezing blood out of a turnip, raise sales taxes. All better!

I live in Kansas, you nailed what Brownback has done at the state level. Looks like some folks have finally had enough several GOP state senate incumbents are in tough primary fights tonight with moderate challengers.

 

[IronWing]

I can't see McCain losing his seat. His position as Chair of the Armed Services Committee is critical for Arizona with its military bases and defense contractors. His primary challengers aren't much to talk about and his Dem opponent isn't from Phoenix, a major issue in a state where Phoenix likes to keep power to itself.

 

[DrPizza]

I live in Kansas, you nailed what Brownback has done at the state level. Looks like some folks have finally had enough several GOP state senate incumbents are in tough primary fights tonight with moderate challengers.

Marshal just beat House incumbent Huelskamp in Kansas. Heh, if a lot of the incumbents lose in the primaries, the Democratic strategy of pointing out how often their opponent simply voted along party lines (many were well over 90% of the time) isn't going to work.

However, (Kansas) Moran (the incumbent) won the primary for US Senate.

 

[brycejones]

Marshal just beat House incumbent Huelskamp in Kansas. Heh, if a lot of the incumbents lose in the primaries, the Democratic strategy of pointing out how often their opponent simply voted along party lines (many were well over 90% of the time) isn't going to work.

However, (Kansas) Moran (the incumbent) won the primary for US Senate.

Huelskamp was pretty bad he managed to get himself kicked off the ag committee which as the rep from the big first was a traditional seat for him to have. The ads for him and his competitor were little more than who was the most conservative and somehow the other guy was an evil Obama loving liberal. Pretty nasty race overall.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Too bad that the Koch network isn't putting their money on Trump.

Here's one analysis-

http://www.rollcall.com/news/home/democrats-target-vulnerable-republicans-party-loyalty

Just goes to show you that everyone has their price.

Regardless of which hand is up the puppet's ass.

 

[Jhhnn]

Marshal just beat House incumbent Huelskamp in Kansas. Heh, if a lot of the incumbents lose in the primaries, the Democratic strategy of pointing out how often their opponent simply voted along party lines (many were well over 90% of the time) isn't going to work.

However, (Kansas) Moran (the incumbent) won the primary for US Senate.

Moran isn't the target for that. Senators in other states with a more balanced electorate are. Several of them rode into office on the backlash vote of 2010. Things have changed.

Oh, and they'll be flying the Trump flag. What could go wrong?

 

[Aegeon]

I think it will be extremely difficult for the dems to retake the senate. Especially after Rubio is running again.

This is misjudging how many vulnerable previously Republican Senate seats there are this year running for Senate versus how few Democratic seats fall into this category.

Allot of people view Republicans Mark Kirk of Illinois and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin as practically dead men walking in terms of their Senate reelection chances.

In terms of other Senate seats, at this point only Harry Reid's former seat in Nevada is viewed as potentially vulnerable in terms of Democrats, while you're looking about 8 other Republican Senate seats seen as tossups or at least being somewhat vulnerable. The situation actually got worse recently for Republicans with Democrat Evan Bayh entering the Indiana Senate race to turn that race from basically safely Republican to one where Bayh is the favorite if anything.

The big picture is the Democrats merely need to pick up 4 seats to take control of the Senate if Hillary wins the election, and the odds related to the comparative number of seats make this highly likely. This is especially the case since "ticket splitting" is not nearly as common as it used to be so in a scenario where Hillary wins Trump should be a drag on down ticket Senate races.

 

[Thump553]

The two biggest mysteries to me for subjects rarely, if ever, discussed by the TV political pundits this season: (1) absolutely no discussion on who will run Trump's empire while he is President (I'm firmly convinced he will treat the Presidency as a part time job) and how conflicts of interest will be handled and (2) why in the world the Democratic Party isn't focusing their efforts more on winning back the Senate and Congress? After all, probably the biggest lesson of the Obama presidency is that a moderate, well meaning President can't get much done with absolute refuseniks.

To me a ready made platform for Clinton is to run against the do-nothing Congress and how that is the cause of weak recovery, etc. A win for her and a win for the underticket.

The Koch brothers have realized how important this issue is and this week announced their money is going into Senate and Congressional races and not the Presidential one.

As far as Trump's refusal (that's what it is in essence) to endorse either McCain or Ryan, I'm convinced he is doing them a favor. Both are well known for what they are, a Trump endorsement would most likely be a negative with a lot of swing voters.

 

[dullard]

As of right now, if the tossups split evenly (Reid, Rubio, Kirk, Coats, Ayotte, Portman, Toomey, and Johnson), it will be 47+2 Democrats and 51 Republicans. I think it will be really close and it will come down to turnout (which tends to be much more based on enthusiasm for the presidential race).

We need another month of polls (and a few more primary elections) to know any better than that since the data is pretty sparse so far.

 

[zinfamous]

Then he missed his chance to be President this year.

:beer:

 

[Aegeon]

As of right now, if the tossups split evenly (Reid, Rubio, Kirk, Coats, Ayotte, Portman, Toomey, and Johnson), it will be 47+2 Democrats and 51 Republicans. I think it will be really close and it will come down to turnout (which tends to be much more based on enthusiasm for the presidential race).

The thing is that evaluation ignores among other things (besides how in danger Kirk and Johnson probably actually are) that McCain, Blunt, and Burr are also generally rated as fairly vulnerable while no further Democrats are generally placed in this category. (Which is lean Republican in the Cook Political Report for example.)

While it may be close, I have a really hard time seeing Democrats not get to at least 50 in almost any scenario where Hillary wins the Presidential election given how these things tend to work.

 

[dullard]

The thing is that evaluation ignores among other things (besides how in danger Kirk and Johnson probably actually are) that McCain, Blunt, and Burr are also generally rated as fairly vulnerable while no further Democrats are generally placed in this category. (Which is lean Republican in the Cook Political Report for example.)

While it may be close, I have a really hard time seeing Democrats not get to at least 50 in almost any scenario where Hillary wins the Presidential election given how these things tend to work.

Few Democratic senators are in the vulnerable category mostly because there are few up for reelection.

But I do agree with you. If Clinton sweeps the presidential election, then democrats will sweep into the senate as well (in that case, I think it'll be 50 + 2 Dem and 48 R). Like I said, it all comes down to turnout though. That all depends on IF Clinton does well in the presidential election.

The democrats can win over the house as well, but I think that is significantly less likely. It may very well end up like the end of Obama's first term. The house in narrow GOP control, the senate in narrow Democrat control, and a Democrat in the white house. That form of gridlock where only items with true bipartisan support get through tends to be a pretty good scenario for the US economy.

 

[glenn1]

I can't see McCain losing his seat. His position as Chair of the Armed Services Committee is critical for Arizona with its military bases and defense contractors. His primary challengers aren't much to talk about and his Dem opponent isn't from Phoenix, a major issue in a state where Phoenix likes to keep power to itself.

Honestly McCain is one of those guys who should have retired and tried to nominate a GOP successor if he wanted to keep the seat. Instead he's got a good chance to lose both a primary fight and the general election. Although his Dem challenger is pretty moderate and completely unobjectionable to most voters absent the Tea Party types it's still a blow to lose the seat if you're a Republican.

Ann Kirkpatrick's politics per ballotpedia:

 

[fskimospy]

Few Democratic senators are in the vulnerable category mostly because there are few up for reelection.

But I do agree with you. If Clinton sweeps the presidential election, then democrats will sweep into the senate as well (in that case, I think it'll be 50 + 2 Dem and 48 R). Like I said, it all comes down to turnout though. That all depends on IF Clinton does well in the presidential election.

The democrats can win over the house as well, but I think that is significantly less likely. It may very well end up like the start of Obama's first term. The house in narrow GOP control, the senate in narrow Democrat control, and a Democrat in the white house. That form of gridlock where only items with true bipartisan support get through tends to be a pretty good scenario for the US economy.

I agree with you for the Senate part, but for the House two things:

1. At the start of Obama's first term Democrats controlled the House by a substantial margin.

2. I think it will be nearly impossible for the Democrats to take the House in this election barring a total landslide. From what I've read they would need to win the popular House vote by about 7 points just to draw even. That's how much the district map has been distorted.

Fixing the House map should be a top priority for Democrats going into 2020, not just for their own advantage but for simple good governance of the country. There is no logical reason why one party should need a 7 point win to get a majority while the other party just needs to lose by less than 7 points to keep theirs.