Hey all,
Election day is almost upon us. Most organizations predict a GOP controlled Senate and House, though an unforeseen skew in the polling data could surprise the country.
For those of you coming to the Marks Basement party (Hurrah! Location has been confirmed.) Tuesday night, or for those who are just as curious as this little guy, here is a rundown of the senate races:
Montana, West Virginia, and South Dakota are open seats in deeply Republican-leaning states with abysmal numbers for the Democratic candidates. These three are easy pickings for the GOP. There is basically no scenario where these races go Democrat. Had Republicans not lost seats in 2012, the story would be over at this point. Watch West Virginia for indicators on national trends; by the time polls close Tuesday evening, they should call West Virginia (Due to its location in EST) for the Republicans very quickly. The later WV is called, the less awful of a night the Dems will have.
Next up are Arkansas and Louisiana. These races have a lot of similarities. Both have unpopular incumbents, both are deeply red states, both Pryor (D-AR) and Landrieu (D-LA) are running against current representatives (Cotton and Cassidy respectively), and both states disapprove of President Obama's performance as POTUS. The key difference here is structure. Whereas Arkansas will likely be decided on election night, Louisiana will likely go to a run-off election. Louisiana's jungle-primary system currently splits the Republican ticket between Cassidy (the favorite) and Maness (the underdog). On one hand, the long-term race and short-term reconciliatory period might keep Maness supporters (GOP) at home on runoff election day, helping Landrieu. On the other hand, turnout will undoubtedly be lower on runoff day. Lower turnout means higher concentration of elderly, caucasian voters. This helps the GOP. In Georgia, where the culture and demographics are moderately similar to Louisiana, a runoff is sure to help Republicans, too. Prediction for election night: Arkansas is called for the GOP before midnight EST, Louisiana goes to a runoff (ultimately R victory).
Keeping with the Southern trend, it's worth mentioning the Georgia Senate Election, too. Perhaps this is the race where Democrats actually have a shot at stemming the GOP tide this year. Ostensibly, the decisive GOP advantage in Georgia (both in elections empirically and Cook PVI) should give Perdue an easy win. The polling numbers, on the other hand, say otherwise. Every poll conducted within the last week either shows a Perdue advantage or statistical tie. This is well within the margin of error. Nunn's father (Sam Nunn) was very popular with Georgia voters during his tenure as Senator. One one hand, Georgia could go Dem. Between Nunn's name recognition, a difficult primary for Perdue, and changing demographics withing Georgia (Specifically suburban Atlanta), there is a scenario for a Dem. pickup on Tuesday night. On the other hand, Georgia is still decisively GOP-friendly. Moreover, a runoff (very possible, particularly if Swafford, the Lib. candidate draws more than 3% of the vote) would decisively help out Perdue, just like it would help out Cassidy in Louisiana. Prediction: Runoff, ultimately GOP victory.
It's very possible that we won't know who controls the senate when we switch off the telly on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning because Georgia and/or Louisiana are going to runoff elections. The math here looks like either 49D-49R-2 Undecided, 48D-50R-2 Undecided, or 49D-50R-1 Undecided. In any of these events, GOP senate control is likely.
This leaves a few races to determine the fate of the senate: Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky (Leaning R), New Hampshire (Leaning D), and North Carolina.
Alaska is notoriously unpredictable. In 2008, Sen. Stevens lost to Sen. Begich by 1-2 points. The polls had previously called a "Safe D" race, some polls showing Begich ahead by double digits. Currently, polls are showing a narrow lead for Sullivan, the GOP nominee. The polls in Alaska have, since 2000, underestimated the Republican candidate's performance. The argument can be made, however, that these polls underestimated the incumbent's chances, not the GOP's chances. Nevertheless, Begich and the President are both deeply unpopular in Alaska. Although Alaska does not kick its incumbents out a lot (it took a felony to get Sen. Stevens voted out), now is not the time to be an incumbent. Prediction: Alaska, due to its status as a close race and its far-west timezone, will not be called until Weds. morning. That said, I tentatively predict AK goes GOP.
I think Colorado will be closer than a lot of pollsters are predicting. One, Gardner is strongly ingrained in the Tea Party. Back in 2010, when polls showed Ken Buck, another Tea Partier, leading now-Senator Bennet, they didn't adequately account for the "lesser of two evils" vote. CO voters unenthusiastically turned out to the polls, preferring the (perceived) moderate in Sen. Bennet over Sen. Buck. This also happened in Nevada, where results defied polls, as Tea Partier Sharron Angle royally lost to Sen. Reid, despite his dismal approval ratings in the state. Although Gardner has led in nearly every poll within the last month, the same could be said for Buck in 2010. On the other hand, Pres. Obama's approval ratings are lower in Colorado today than they were four years ago. Colorado may be drifting left, but the GOP probably has 60-40 odds of winning the Centennial state.
If the GOP wins these seats (MT, SD, WV, AR, LA, AK, and CO), the senate is in their hands. Even if Kansas goes Independent and Ornan chooses to caucus with the Democrats (which is still undecided), the Democrats would still have to pick up Kentucky to win the Senate. The problem for the GOP here is not winning the senate, but holding it through 2016 (Sen. Kirk, R-IL tops the list for endangered elephants). Victories from here on out are not merely a victory lap. They need to pad for potential losses in 2016, where GOP wins in blue states (Read: 2010, wave year) forebode a difficult year for the GOP. Even if the GOP narrowly loses the senate in 2016, however, it has a solid shot at picking it back up in 2018, when the Democrats have very few chances of picking up vulnerable seats out of the R column.
Iowa definitely leans Red this election. Ernst has been campaigning extremely effectively (though the importance of campaigning is definitely exaggerated), and her polling numbers reflect this. In this blue-leaning state, Republicans have an uphill battle to face. Braley, though he is serving in the house, does not benefit from incumbency as much as someone like Shaheen or Hagan might. Not a lot of gimmicks to this race. Prediction: Odds are 65-35 GOP takeover.
Kansas and Kentucky both tackle unpopular Senators in deeply Republican-friendly states. Both Lundergan-Grimes and Orman are distancing themselves from Pres. Obama as much as possible. Orman has a better chance than Lundergan-Grimes because he's an independent, not a Democrat. Even if a Kentucky voter doesn't mind Lundergan-Grimes, chances are, they disapprove of Pres. Obama. That voter doesn't want to give Pres. Obama's party another seat, so (s)he votes against the party rather than the politician. By contrast, in Kansas, Orman is running as an Independent. KS voters aren't tying him to Pres. Obama as strongly. In a state where POTUS has dismal approval ratings, this brightens his odds. Nevertheless, Orman's run as an independent also shows less gain for Dems. Orman is not bound to caucus with Dems should he win. For future elections, he won't have the solid party base that a GOP/Dem candidate would have. If Dems. can pick up a GOP-held seat, it will be KS (50-50 odds). KY is a longshot (80-20), though winnable if Tuesday night shows anti-incumbent sentiment.
North Carolina is a difficult race to forecast. Hagan and Tillis are both well within the margin of error. Unlike many other key southern states, however, North Carolina does not host a runoff election. As such, the importance of 3rd party candidates is significantly downplayed. Perhaps it's too much of a tall order for the GOP to juggle a solid campaign in North Carolina alongside so many other swing states (CO, IA, and AK come to mind). Hagan is still very vulnerable, and going into 2016, the GOP would be well served to have another Senator. I'm predicting a 55-45 Dem. edge here, but either party winning would not surprise me.
If all else fails, Scott Brown in New Hampshire is a dark horse. I forecast Shaheen's odds at 80-20 of winning this race. Brown served in Massachusetts (potential to be seen as a carpet-bagger or Washington insider), is a Republican (in a leans-blue state), and hasn't received significant attention from the GOP itself. The GOP knows it can win the senate with or without Brown, so it's strategically focused on winnable races like Iowa and Colorado. In the event of a GOP loss in CO, AK, and/or GA, the focus of the election may very well turn to the Granite State.
RCP shows the Virginia senate race as "Leaning D". I don't buy this for a second - this race is as solidly Democratic as it could be. No poll has shown Gillespie ahead, Virginia is quickly becoming bluer by the year, and the GOP has paid virtually no attention to this race. Similarly, New Mexico (where a recent poll showed the other Udall leading by single digits) and Michigan are other "what-if" states: what if the GOP had had fewer targets and was able to turnover 2008 gains in Virginia and New Mexico? What if the GOP had seized the opportunity to pursue the open seat in Michigan? I give the GOP about 3% odds of picking up either Virginia or New Mexico, and that's being bullish.
TL;DR
Doing the math, there are very few scenarios where the GOP doesn't win the senate. If the GOP has a good day, they'll be around 54 seats. If the GOP has a poor night, they'll be around 51 seats. More importantly, they'd be in a terrible position for 2016. Overall prediction is a 52-48 split for the GOP. Republicans carry MT, SD, WV by double digits, AR and LA, and four of AK, CO, GA, IA, and KS. A GOP win in NC or (slightly less likely) NH would help the GOP out a lot, though they can still do very well even without victories here.
For Democrats to win, they'll have to limit the GOP to net two non-safe (safe races being MT, SD, and WV) wins. This most likely comes through victories in the GOP-held states of KS and GA. If the GOP loses both GA and KS, the Dems can definitely maintain control of the senate by holding onto Alaska, Iowa, or Colorado alongside North Carolina and New Hampshire.
The night looks bad for Democrats in the short term. The big item at stake is confirming a SCOTUS judge in the event of retirement (Breyer and Ginsberg, we're looking at you). Nevertheless, likely Dem gains in 2016 ensure that all Republican wins here are strategic, not just victory laps.
No comments:
Post a Comment