- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 8,879
- Reaction score
- 0
Republicans currently hold 51 seats in the Senate, and Democrats hold 49. There are 35 Senate seats up for election in the 2018 midterms, with 26 currently held by Democrats. Now that the “Blue Wave” chatter has died down, conventional wisdom is that Republicans are likely to retain their Senate majority. But do Republicans have a path to winning a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority? They would need to win a net 9 Senate seats, i.e. 18 of the 35 Senate races this term. Polling is actually rather scarce on the individual Senate races. Let’s take a closer look at the 2018 Senate midterm election map:
270towin.com has identified 7 Senate seats as “toss-ups” – seats located in NV, AZ, ND, MO, IN, WV, FL. However, 6 of those 7 seats are in states that went for Trump in 2016. The lone exception, NV, is a quintessential swing state. It went narrowly for Hillary in 2016 (about 2% margin, or roughly 26,000 votes), and Obama before that (twice), but it also went for George W. Bush (twice), George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan (twice). Because Senate elections are state-wide, Trump’s 2016 victory margins cannot be ignored. If Republicans manage to win all 7 of these “toss-up” states, and all other races go as predicted, Republicans will gain 5 seats for a total of 56.
But what about those non-toss-up races? 270towin lists all of the non-toss-up races as “safe,” “likely,” or “lean” either Republican or Democrat. Among those races which favor Democratic are those in MT, MN, OH, MI, WI, PA, and NJ. It should be noted that Trump won all of MT, OH, MI, WI, and PA, although the margins were rather close in those “Blue Wall” states which traditionally vote Democratic. Trump lost MN narrowly (about 1.5 % margin) in an unexpectedly close race. Again, Trump’s 2016 margins cannot be ignored. Regardless of Trump’s national popularity, he helped swing many reliably “blue” states to the “red.” It is true that the local popularity of certain “conservative” Democrats helped Dems hold seats in deep red states (e.g. Jon Tester in MT, Joe Manchin in WV, Heidi Heitkamp in ND, etc.). However, that may not be enough to stave off Red-state anger toward an increasingly Liberal national Democratic Party (FWIW, there has been some whispering that Macnhin may switch parties). Moreover, all Republican-held seats in this election are located in red states.
Lastly, it should be noted that the incumbent Democratic candidate in NJ, Bob Menedez, was the subject of a federal public corruption prosecution which ended in a mistrial (i.e., he was not acquitted). Although the DOJ decided not to refile on Menendez due to the outcome of a recent SCOTUS case, Menendez was severely admonished by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics for conduct which essentially amounted to bribery. Without commenting on the substance of the charges against Senator Menendez, some recent polls suggest it has affected his electoral prospects negatively. One poll put his challenger within 4 points.
The reality is this:
What do you think? Any insight or predictions about specific 2018 Senate races? Discuss.
270towin.com has identified 7 Senate seats as “toss-ups” – seats located in NV, AZ, ND, MO, IN, WV, FL. However, 6 of those 7 seats are in states that went for Trump in 2016. The lone exception, NV, is a quintessential swing state. It went narrowly for Hillary in 2016 (about 2% margin, or roughly 26,000 votes), and Obama before that (twice), but it also went for George W. Bush (twice), George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan (twice). Because Senate elections are state-wide, Trump’s 2016 victory margins cannot be ignored. If Republicans manage to win all 7 of these “toss-up” states, and all other races go as predicted, Republicans will gain 5 seats for a total of 56.
But what about those non-toss-up races? 270towin lists all of the non-toss-up races as “safe,” “likely,” or “lean” either Republican or Democrat. Among those races which favor Democratic are those in MT, MN, OH, MI, WI, PA, and NJ. It should be noted that Trump won all of MT, OH, MI, WI, and PA, although the margins were rather close in those “Blue Wall” states which traditionally vote Democratic. Trump lost MN narrowly (about 1.5 % margin) in an unexpectedly close race. Again, Trump’s 2016 margins cannot be ignored. Regardless of Trump’s national popularity, he helped swing many reliably “blue” states to the “red.” It is true that the local popularity of certain “conservative” Democrats helped Dems hold seats in deep red states (e.g. Jon Tester in MT, Joe Manchin in WV, Heidi Heitkamp in ND, etc.). However, that may not be enough to stave off Red-state anger toward an increasingly Liberal national Democratic Party (FWIW, there has been some whispering that Macnhin may switch parties). Moreover, all Republican-held seats in this election are located in red states.
Lastly, it should be noted that the incumbent Democratic candidate in NJ, Bob Menedez, was the subject of a federal public corruption prosecution which ended in a mistrial (i.e., he was not acquitted). Although the DOJ decided not to refile on Menendez due to the outcome of a recent SCOTUS case, Menendez was severely admonished by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics for conduct which essentially amounted to bribery. Without commenting on the substance of the charges against Senator Menendez, some recent polls suggest it has affected his electoral prospects negatively. One poll put his challenger within 4 points.
The reality is this:
- If Republicans simply won races in all states which voted for Donald Trump (i.e., a total of 18 races), they would have exactly 60 Senate seats.
- Additionally, if Republicans won certain winnable races in states which voted for Hillary (i.e., in NJ, MN x 2, and NV), they would have 64 Senate seats.
What do you think? Any insight or predictions about specific 2018 Senate races? Discuss.