Sean Trende is correct that the Democrats could actually pick up Senate seats in the fall, although that outcome is unlikely. What’s more likely is that the Democrats will largely hold their own, surrendering between one and five seats, and retaining control of the upper chamber. I agree with Trende that South Dakota is the one seat that seems unwinnable for the Democrats, and I also agree that the Democrats have a legitimate shot of winning the seats from Georgia, Kentucky, and (less likely) Mississippi. I don’t expect that the Dems can expand the map beyond that, although I am still keeping my eye on South Carolina, where both seats are up, and Nebraska, which is an open seat.
It’s still early to make confident predictions, but my expectation is that no incumbent Democrats will lose, nor will any Blue States elect Republican senators. That means that Begich, Landrieu, Pryor, and Hagan will all hold on. It means the Democrats will win open races in Michigan and Iowa.
For me, this means that the real toss-up states are Montana (where we have a semi-incumbent in Sen. John Walsh), West Virginia, Kentucky, and Georgia. I think the Republicans have a better chance of winning three or four of those four races than the Democrats do, so I basically predict (as of right now) that the GOP will net one or two seats, leaving them with a 46 or 47 minority. They also have more upside potential than the Democrats, so if my prediction is wrong it is much more likely to be wrong in the Democrats’ favor.
But, let’s say I am right. Let’s say that the Republicans net two seats and Obama finishes his presidency with a 53-seat majority in the Senate. And, let’s say, that Hillary Clinton in the nominee in 2016. How good are her chances of enjoying a filibuster-proof 60 vote majority?
To make this easy, I am going to list 2016 races and show how each state voted in the 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections.
New Hampshire (Kelly Ayotte) voted Democratic in every election except 2000.
Missouri (Roy Blunt)- voted Democratic in 1992 and 1996.
Arkansas (John Boozman)- voted Democratic in 1992 and 1996.
North Carolina (Richard Burr)- voted Democratic in 2008.
Indiana (Daniel Coats)- voted Democratic in 2008.
Oklahoma (undetermined)- has not voted Democratic once.
Idaho (Mike Crapo)- has not voted Democratic once.
Iowa (Chuck Grassley, may retire)- voted Democratic in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, and 2012.
North Dakota (John Hoeven)- has not voted Democratic once.
Georgia (Johnny Isakson)- voted Democratic in 1992.
Wisconsin (Ron Johnson)- voted Democratic every time.
Illinois (Mark Kirk)- voted Democratic every time.
Utah (Mike Lee)- has not voted Democratic once.
Kansas (Jerry Moran)- has not voted Democratic once.
Alaska (Lisa Murkowski)- has not voted Democratic once.
Kentucky (Rand Paul, undetermined)- voted Democratic in 1992 and 1996.
Ohio (Rob Portman)- voted Democratic in 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012.
Florida (Marco Rubio)- voted Democratic in 1996, 2000*, 2008, and 2012.
South Carolina (Tim Scott)- has not voted Democratic once.
Alabama (Richard Shelby, may retire)- has not voted Democratic once.
South Dakota (John Thune)- has not voted Democratic once.
Pennsylvania (Pat Toomey)- voted Democratic every time.
Louisiana (undtermined)- voted Democratic in 1992 and 1996.
By my count 14 out of the 23 Republican seats that are up in 2016 are in states that voted at least once for the Democrats in a presidential election in the ’92-’12 era.
Of all the Democrats up for reelection, only Michael Bennet of Colorado and Harry Reid of Nevada are from states that voted for Republicans in any of the last four presidential elections, and Obama carried both states, twice. I think Hillary Clinton would be heavily-favored to win both states in 2016. In other words, I don’t think a single Democratic senator will be sailing into the wind on election day in 2016.
There are some states like Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Missouri that voted for Bill Clinton at least once and may not vote for Hillary, but she’ll surely do better in those states (especially Arkansas) than Gore or Kerry or Obama did.
There are other states like Wisconsin, Illinois, and Pennsylvania where the Democrats have been absolutely dominant in presidential years.
And then there are states like New Hampshire, Iowa, Ohio, and Florida where the Dems are on a sustained winning streak or have a significant advantage. I don’t think winning seven out of those 23 races is any huge challenge, even if only 14 of them look really competitive.
The Republicans will have a big challenge on election day in 2016 no matter who the Democratic nominee turns out to be, but they’ll have an easier time defending their turf against the Gore/Kerry/Obama map than they would against the Clinton map.
I take no great joy in pointing this out, but it is perhaps the most alluring thing about a potential Clinton presidential run. It could result in a Senate supermajority that would break the gridlock and make some (modestly) progressive legislation possible again.
You think you have an incumbent in Manchin. But he’ll jump if it makes a difference. As will King. 49 + 2 equals 51 is math that cuts both ways.
Manchin wouldn’t need to jump if his vote was decisive, and King definitely would not.
King’s hinting at doing just that. Josh Marshall can poo-poo it all he wants, but I know people who work for King’s people, and he’d do it — in a heartbeat.
His loyalty to a non-existent Third Way is stronger than common sense or external reality.
There’s no real gain for him in flipping if he can stay in the majority without flipping. Especially since he’d be in the president’s coalition, and because he thinks the GOP caucus is filled with neanderthals.
Now, if he was going to be in the minority and the GOP offered him some plum committee chair to join their ranks and pad their numbers, he might do it.
As for Manchin, he might jump even if jumping flips control. But even he would have a high asking-price.
Manchin won’t jump. Being a turncoat is electoral death these days and he knows it.
Guys like King enjoy straddling because they make themselves more important by being available. It was the same with Lieberman or any other of these wobbly yet self-important Senators.
They get all kinds of attention and people try to “win them over” with favors. It looks principled, but it’s very self-serving.
If the Dems win a supermajority in the Senate in 2016, they’ll just figure out some other way of not being able to make even modestly progressive changes. They’ll bring Joe Lieberman back from the dead if they have to.
Coalition politics dictates that this will happen.
There are three parties in the Senate. Democrats who are Democrats, Democrats who are Republicans, and Republicans who are Republicans. (There used to be a fourth, in the dear dead days of Ed Brooke and Jake Javits, but they’re extinct)
So, if you want to govern, you wind up with a coalition of Democrats who are Democrats, and Democrats who are Republicans.
The Republicans are content to obstruct and grandstand — for that they don’t need to build a coalition.
But to govern? You need some of the Democrats who are Republicans.
Unless you are also content to obstruct and grandstand.
The problem with American politics is that there are five parties, but only two labels.
Thanks, Booman. Interesting stuff. I’ll go you one further.
Let’s assume the 2014 and 2016 elections break so well for the Democrats that they not only have 60+ Senate seats but they also retake the House.
There’s a decent chance that the progressive agenda bubbling up in a number of blue states, and with the enlarged progressive caucus of Senate Dems starts to move on the national level even if a President Clinton is inclined to be more conservative than President Obama.
Furthermore, there’s a good chance that President Clinton the 2nd does a more forceful job of wielding the executive power to appoint than President Obama has. Even with a Republican House blocking progressive legislation, having the White House in Democratic hands with a strong Senate majority could make a real difference in both the executive and judicial branches.
One gameplan that escapes Democrats is to challenge Maine voters to be as smart and savvy in 2014 as Rhode Island voters were in 2006. They liked their incumbent GOP Senator well enough, but they didn’t like the GOP Senate majority. So, they tossed out Lincoln Chaffee (R) in favor of Sheldon Whitehouse (D). And unlike Susan Collins, Chaffee had been politically to the left of most Senate Democrats (voted against the AUMF).
Make some national news by electing Shenna Bellows, and put fear in Angus King. Don’t forget to dump that clown currently occupying the governor’s office.
I agree, but it’s not on the map, yet.
Collins wins 60%-40%. Make book on it.
She won against a wave in 2008, a presidential year, against a much better known Democratic candidate.
In a mid-term race, she’s a mortal lock.
Mainers hate politicians. They hate party politics.
Collins doesn’t sound or look like a politician. And she’s got the voters here convinced that she’s actually some kind of independent. That, plus exemplary constituent service and a very good, very experienced campaign crew…. no upset here.
Wasn’t George Allen on the GOP 2008 POTUS short-list and a lock to win his 2006 Senate re-election? Sorry, unseating Allen was far more difficult than defeating Collins would be. Unfortunately, Howard Dean isn’t the DNC chairman and Democrats aren’t bothering to contest GOP held seats.
Wasn’t George Allen on the GOP 2008 POTUS short-list and a lock to win his 2006 Senate re-election?
Yes, until “Macaca” happened.
A couple of points. First, “macaca” moments aren’t rare. Absent a viable and competitive opponent, they go unnoticed. Allen, “I’m not a witch,” Mourdock, and Akin had opponents, and therefore, they aren’t US Senators.
Second, important events can materialize quickly late in an election cycle and alter which candidate is favored even when neither candidate is directly tied to the event or change condition.
Republicans are particularly good at manufacturing faux “macacas” and exploiting unexpected events.
Not rare at all. Like rape babies are gift from God. This even enraged sane Republican women.
Oops! Read it fast and didn’t notice that you had already mentioned Mourdock.
Unless Collins goes visibly insane, she’s going to win pretty crushingly. She’s got the incumbency advantage, far greater name recognition than Bellows and a track record that seems to work for the good people of Maine. Added to which, she’s been around long enough to have a handy degree of seniority – which is quite a useful asset for any politician to have.
Most commentators think it more likely than not that the Republicans will gain control of the chamber.
I’d love to believe otherwise but wonder what you base your expectations on.
Well, a few reasons…
Let me talk individual races.
In Alaska, they like incumbents and they almost never turn them out. Begich is gaining seniority on important committees, including Appropriations. And he doesn’t have a strong challenger. He’s at risk, but favored.
In Louisiana, Landrieu knows how to win. She knows how to turn out the vote. He knows how to deliver the pork, even in a no-pork barrel spending Senate. And she just became chair of the Energy Committee, which means half the state is going to vote for her on that alone.
In Arkansas, Pryor is ahead in the polls and I expect him to stay there. He’s probably the most vulnerable incumbent, but he’s in decent shape right now.
In North Carolina, the GOP can’t come up with a decent candidate.
In Iowa, Braley is consistently way ahead in the polls against no-name competition.
In Michigan, Peters has reemerged with a lead in the polls.
In Kentucky, McConnell is drowning. Grimes is a strong candidate.
In Georgia, Nunn is perfect candidate running against a bunch of lunatics who are all trying to out-conservative each other in a bruising primary that will lead to a bruising run-off.
When we get to more marginal seats, I am not necessarily optimistic about West Virginia or Montana, but the Democrats have a consistent record of winning state-wide elections in both states, even in midterm years or years when they vote for a Republican presidential candidate. We have too solid candidates in those states, and they both have a chance.
Despite all the rhetoric, the GOP isn’t ahead in any of the states with Democratic incumbents running for reelection.
And I expect the environment to improve for the Democrats all summer long.
Grimes and Nunn look great right now, but as they say, undecideds break for the dominant trend of the contest. Also, we’re talking about midterm turn outs.
Personally I need to see a lot more of the “environment” to improve before I get to where you are now. And I am generally optimistic on that also.
In Georgia, Nunn is perfect candidate running against a bunch of lunatics who are all trying to out-conservative each other in a bruising primary that will lead to a bruising run-off.
Perfect candidate, why? What, exactly, does Nunn offer that will boost turnout?
Grimes ISN’T a strong candidate if your paying attention. She is just running against somebody not many people in KYT really like who has been in DC since 1985.
Her campaign has had a series of mis-steps, and has a few skeletons that could come home to haunt her;
http://pageonekentucky.com/2014/04/09/mitch-mcconnell-is-weak-on-health-care-but-where-does-alison-g
rimes-stand-does-she-even-know/
A quite big scandal roiling the democratic party has her in it’s wake;
Arnold sex harassment women want new vote
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2014/04/11/arnold-sex-harassment-women-want-new-vote
7610707
Staffers: Lack of African-American Women ‘Decision-Makers’ in Kentucky Behind Arnold Ethics Verdict
http://wfpl.org/post/staffers-lack-african-american-women-decision-makers-kentucky-behind-arnold-eth
ics-verdict
Stivers accuses House Democrats of using ‘smoke and mirrors’ in sexual harassment case
Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2014/04/09/3188048/stivers-accuses-house-democrats.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/04/09/3188048/stivers-accuses-house-democrats.html
Grimes problems in this;
Yarmuth says statehouse harassment case puts Grimes in ‘delicate’ situation on responses and with donation
http://mycn2.com/politics/yarmuth-says-grimes-campaign-message-of-women-s-issues-puts-her-in-delicat
e-position-on-arnold-situation
Grimes declines to take questions about Frankfort sexual harassment case
http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2014/04/08/grimes-declines-to-take-questions-about-frankfort-s
exual-harassment-case/
Which is getting her ink like this;
Grimes’s Sad Hypocrisy On Supporting Women
http://pageonekentucky.com/2014/04/09/grimess-sad-hypocrisy-on-supporting-women/
Let Us Count The Ways Re: Alison’s Responsibility
http://pageonekentucky.com/2014/04/11/let-us-count-the-ways-re-alisons-responsibility/
I live in KY and am NOT counting Yertle out just yet, he has a machine that turns out HIS voters here.
I agree with your post. Not much I find disagreeable, actually.
I didn’t think Pryor would be given the heave-ho, just like that. Everyone kept pronouncing he’s the likeliest to get kicked to the point of saying he’s already dead. I think he’s got a better chance than McConnell.
I take no great joy in pointing this out, but it is perhaps the most alluring thing about a potential Clinton presidential run. It could result in a Senate supermajority that would break the gridlock and make some (modestly) progressive legislation possible again.
I like that dream.
Oddly, I have this vague vision of a football being pulled away at the last minute when I think of the Democrats having 60 Senators … but what the hell, it’s probably just the wind.
I don’t think a 60 seat plus Democratic majority would be able to do all that much if the Republicans still control the House. I don’t see them changing their strategy anytime soon. We’ll see if Clinton has the coat-tails to drag enough House candidates over the line.
Turn out, turn out, turn out.
I do not think we will fair well in 2014 for the Senate. I will be happy if we still hold the majority and there are no defectors (King, etc). I doubt there will be defectors because they have to be looking forward to 2016 also.
But I also doubt we will have an adequate base in the Senate to build to a 60+ majority in 2016 unless the ACA and minimum wage issues really take a much stronger hold on voters.
And what source are you relying on for the Clinton map? I think it is still a bit early to push for her like this without seeing any other candidate for 2016.
If true, it’s due to the efforts of those like TarHeelDem who lay their heads on the stone pillow.
Let me say, since nobody else has, that the same 2016 result would arise with any nominee that isn’t as weak as Kerry, detached as Al Gore, or black as Barrack Obama.
A certain Vice President, for example.
The governor of Montana.
Elizabeth Warren, maybe.
Lots of options…
This pretty much backs up my predictions, although they are insanely pessimistic about Montana and West Virginia.
Your premise for Hillary outperforming President Obama is unsubstantiated. Kerry/Gore maps are not the same as President Obama’s, who EXPANDED to Western states and mid-Atlantic states that Democrats had never seriously contested.
These include, Virginia (2008 & 2012) that no democrat had won since 1964, North Carolina in 2008, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa. These Obama-states are not AUTOMATIC Democratic wins. If Hillary is the nominee, she’s gonna have to work her tail off to secure their votes. The Obama-coalition is NOT a Democratic party coalition. Remember that! Those voters have to be courted, and not assumed to be inheritable.
Plus I am not comfortable with this coronation rush for Hillary. Puts all our eggs in one basket. The important thing that awakened us in 2008 from Kerry/Gore size lethargy and constricted map, was the invigorating nature of the Democratic primaries. Why do we give u the one thing that works for us in favor of a McCain style coronation? Why?
And who says a Hillary presidency with or without a big Dem congress will even protect Obama-era policy gains, let alone enact a “progressive agenda”? We don’t know that! All and Hillary bandwagoneers are doing is fantasy yarn-spinning
thank you, zizi.
thank you.
I’m getting tired of seeing the cheerleading. It’s like she didn’t lose the last time she was inevitable. She was out worked and outclassed in 2008. Who’s to say it won’t happen again? Why can’t we wait and see what the landscape looks like in 2016? This cheerleading for Hillary looks weak and disrespectful in my eyes.