If we push the forecasts in the classic version of FiveThirtyEight’s Senate forecast, it has every Democratic incumbent winning reelection, while the Democrats knock off Dean Heller in Nevada and pick up Jeff Flake’s open seat in Arizona. If this were actually to happen, the Democrats would net two Senate seats in the upcoming midterms elections and take a 51-49 majority in the upper chamber.
Despite this, the same forecast gives the Democrats only a one-in-three chance of accomplishing this task, and that can be explained by the fact that many of the contests are far too close to call and that the Democrats would have to win every single close race in order to pull off the task.
Among their incumbents, no one looks more endangered than Sen. Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota. While the classic forecast gives her a three-in-five (59.2 percent) chance of winning reelection, it also projects that she’ll win only 50.9 percent of the vote. The latest poll out of the state has her losing, albeit within the margin of error. If Heitkamp doesn’t win, then the Democrats will have to win somewhere else to compensate. The most likely place for them to make up the difference is Tennessee, where FiveThirtyEight’s classic forecast gives former Democratic governor Phil Bredeson as three-in-eight (37.9 percent) chance of winning. After that, there’s Beto O’Rourke in Texas who has a one-in-three (33.0 percent) chance and Mike Espy in Mississippi who gets a one-in-six (15.8 percent) rating.
The Republicans are disappointed in how their challengers are performing but they still have some solid opportunities to make pickups. In addition to North Dakota, they’re looking very competitive in Florida where Governor Rick Scott is challenging Senator Bill Nelson. In Missouri, Claire McCaskill is in a real dogfight, and while Joe Donnelly in Indiana is currently a 3:1 favorite according to FiveThirtyEight, he’s also down in the latest poll.
Midterms elections do tend to fall in one direction, meaning that it’s really as unreasonable as it might sound to think that the Democrats could win all the close contests. They could also lose them all. Either of those outcomes might be more plausible than a mixed bag, but there’s always seems to someone in wave election (like Harold Ford of Tennessee in 2006) who doesn’t come along for the ride. Maybe the Democrats have a big night but it turns out the Beto O’Rourke can’t quite get past the post in Texas.
Regardless, it’s significant that if the elections were held today the FiveThirtyEight projections actually have them winning a majority in the Senate. This is not a projection that seemed possible even a month or so ago. The controversy of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court could upset these predictions depending on things shake out. If he’s confirmed, it could cause complacency on the Republicans’ side. If he’s blocked or withdraws, they could become reenergized. However, that reaction isn’t guaranteed and it’s also likely that a lot of erstwhile Republican women could find themselves feeling more gender than party solidarity if Kavanaugh is rammed through despite the allegations against him of attempted rape. Some Democratic women (and men) who would have stayed home might be convinced to show up to vote in that case, too.
Probably the riskiest thing to do for the GOP is to confirm Kavanaugh since (as Barack Obama knows) voters aren’t very good at showing up to say “thank you” and are much more reliable about showing up to say something more filled with expletives. Yet, if they delay the vote or nominate someone new, they’ll probably see that nominee blocked too if the Democrats win back control of the Senate. So, there’s risk no matter what they do.
The best result for the country would be a Democratic Senate that insists that Trump nominate someone on a list of acceptable candidates. That way, we might get a real swing-vote in the mold of Anthony Kennedy, which is the best the Democrats can really demand and the right way for the country to handle it’s political divide.
Wouldn’t surprise me if Beto wins in Texas and Bob Menendez loses in NJ.
Also, I see no reason why dems should feel any compunction to allow another Trump SC nominee, even a “moderate”. The precedent was set with Merrick Garland. And it’s not as if this would be any kind of insult to democracy–Trump didn’t win a majority. In fact, dems have won 6 out of 7 of the last presidential elections, so it’s an outrage that we are considering having any sort of conservative majority on the supreme court.
. . . should be unanimous in total opposition and maximum obstruction of any Trump nominee moving through the process at all, in any manner at least as long as Mueller’s investigation is pending. Longer if those results are as expected. Under the unassailable legal/justice principle that it’s impermissible for anyone to appoint the judge who will very likely be called upon to render judgment on the appointer’s own fate. This seems so obviously the best tactic to me as to be a complete no-brainer. Dems have failed miserably in this so far.
Yep. We just got to get Chuck Schumer to understand the SC seat is not to be part of any deal for anything. Roberts is just going to have to figure out how to work an 8 person court until after 2020.
I see many reasons why Beto will not win in TX. And you can see what they are right here.
Personally, it’s the bulldozing of a historic El Paso Latino neighborhood that does it for me. Reminds me too much of what’s going on in my own neighborhood. True, it wasn’t Beto, it was his father in law. But that’s not enough of a distinction for me.
You’re going to hold his father-in-law against him?
Jesus, man.
. . . be visited upon the sons-in-law.” I think is how it goes. Something sorta like that, anyway.
Not as if that were some abstract reason, no. Not if he opposed or even was completely uninvolved in wht his father-in-law does. But you need to know more about the particulars.
Read this.
And this is exactly what’s happening in cities around the country, and why even lifelong Democrats like me are looking for a different kind of Democrat that is not pushing crap like this.
Of course there’s the Hillary Clinton argument — isn’t he better than Ted Cruz? Yes he is — but the problem is, that’s much too low a bar. Candidates like this are not going to turn out the masses of working-class people needed to beat someone like Ted Cruz.
And then there’s this.
Are you against development altogether? Because that kind of solution is going to lead to pushing working class people out, too, if there’s any kind of population influx or growth. It’s also interesting that the leftier candidates in NY who won this year (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Julia Salazar) did so because the gentrified portions of the districts.
I’m not saying to support tearing down working class areas to build luxury condos in their place, but there needs to be plans in place beyond “stop!” the same way we need a left trade agenda and foreign policy.
Yes. By all means, let’s have six more years of Ted Cruz because Beto isn’t sufficiently pure on this one issue. FFS.
Booman, on the topic of elections but not the US Senate, I was hoping you could write a post about state elections, reapportionment, and district boundaries? I’m frankly confused: Will the next round of re-drawing district boundaries be the responsibility of legislators elected in 2018? Or those elected in 2020?
. . . wait to see him answer.
However, I think state legislatures elected in 2018 can’t reapportion, since the next census isn’t until 2020, and iirc, there’s usually a lag, variable among states, of up to several years after the census to get new districts finalized. (They’re still fighting the outrageous gerrymanders in NC in the courts, with others [PA?] also finalized only recently, I think; and some of these still somewhat likely to end up before SCOTUS.)
As Josh Marshall points out at TPM:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/you-never-win-by-losing
The best course for Democrats is to push as hard on defeating the Kavanaugh nomination.
. . .
Courtesy digby. Karma can be a bitch!
“The best result for the country would be a Democratic Senate that insists that Trump nominate someone on a list of acceptable candidates.”
Meh. Democrats should do what the Republican party did, and refuse to consider any and all future USSC nominations, because they won the House and Senate, so as per the McConnell doctrine, the President is unable to appoint any new Justices unless the Senate expressly approves. For example, Trump could nominate Merrick Garland, and if the Senate expressly approves, then he can push the court back up to full staff levels.
I don’t really see any downside to doing this. The Republican base can’t punish the Democratic party, and I don’t think the Democratic base is going to punish the Democratic party for fighting the Republican party effectively.
Goose and gander reasoning, sure, but there it is.
Bullies don’t learn from rational, cogent reasoning and logic. They learn by getting their fucking nose bloodied by the people they thought they could push around.
But what will the wall Street donors say?
Now that you’re here, would you please, please stop the tariffs?
That’s what happens when you run with dogs.
I supported her in her first election. I heard her on TV in downstate Illinois (an interview not a braindead ad) and liked what she said. Then she won and turned to the Right. A LieberDem.
She made her dogbed, now she can lie in it. If I lived in Missouri I would vote for the (R) only to get her out.
She’s one of the most talented politicians, and aside from Jason Kander, no one would be running better than she is.
. . . for your Reality-Denying purity policing should be a decade living in a red state (like I do!) so you can learn experientially what that purity gets you.
Ah, another Leftier-Than-Thou member of the Our Progressive Betters club. Go away. Isn’t their a Green Party forum better suited to your political needs?
Let’s all be thankful you don’t live in Misery like I do. Don’t get me started on McCaskill or as Charlie Pierce calls her: Claire “I Feel Strongly Both Ways About That” McCaskill. She’s the poster child for timid pols. If she spent half as much time listening to her constituents and acting on their behalf as she does bashing half of those that got her elected and triangulating for money she wouldn’t be in such a precarious position.
I’m no fan as you can see. But living here I see the alternatives and anybody who claims to be for a progressive national agenda and then says “If I lived in Missouri I’d vote for the (R)” is abrogating his or her electoral responsibility for promulgating said national agenda. McCaskill, for all her flaws, enables that agenda to progress.
And the better alternative that can win in MO is what exactly?
The problem isn’t Claire McCaskill. The problem is all those Indian engineers coming to take Voice’s job.
They already did that. Luckily, I also had a hobby that could be turned into a trade.
If this happens, 2019 will be epic.
Probably not a great year for your government salaryperson, but pretty good for the news media.
I disagree. Republicans will be celebrating if they pick up another Supreme Court seat. With Kavanaugh, they have the opportunity to solidify a conservative majority on the court for a decade or more. To them, this justifies their craven support for Trump, despite all his scandals, his self-dealing, his bigotry, his stupidity, his attacks on our democratic institutions, his admissions of sexual assault and the pretty solid evidence that he’s a Russian puppet.
They will be seriously demoralized if he loses the nomination when they were within days of confirming him.