I know a lot can happen in two years, but what would your best guess be?
The entire 2016 Senate map is as bad, if not worse, for the Republicans as the 2014 is for the Democrats. There’s the freshmen Republican/Tea Party senators from the 2010 wave sitting mostly in blue or purple states in a probably high-turnout Presidential election year. There are Republican incumbents in Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Florida. There might be the possibility of a D pickup in Arizona and Indiana as well. The Democrats are defending the West Coast, Nevada, Colorado, New York, Maryland, Connecticut, and Vermont. The only likely plays for the Republicans in that list are Colorado (see the Udall race this year) and Nevada (Reid’s seat). The Republicans are defending presumably safe seats in Alaska, Utah, the Dakotas, Kansas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. I’m not sure what’s going on with Hawaii, but that’s probably a Democratic seat. We’ll know more after the special election on Tuesday.
While a lot can depend on the top of the ticket, I’d expect a Republican House (unless their gerrymander starts to break down on them), a Democratic Senate, and I don’t know if I want to make a guess right now on the Presidency. Let’s see what happens in 2015.
I would expect to see Mark Kirk lose re-election for the Illinois senate seat. He narrowly won against Giannoulias who was a terrible candidate in 2010, a Republican wave year. Since then, the state has seemingly only gone bluer. If Quinn manages to win the governor’s race on Tuesday (and a couple polls this weekend show him with a 2-3pt lead), I think that’ll back up the difficulty Kirk will face. Especially in a presidential election year with higher Democratic turnout.
Of course, all the usual caveats and “two years from now”, etc. For all I know, the IL Democrats will find someone even shittier than Giannoulias to run for the spot.
The Republican Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley will be 83 in 2016. There is a possibility he will decide not to run for re-election.
Since 2016 is a Presidential election year, it will all depend on the outcome of the Presidential race. If the Democrat wins, the Democrats get the Senate back and maybe even the HOuse if the candidate has enough coattails. If the Republican wins, then they will also likely hold the Senate.
As for “the map”, it should be noted that the GOP actually has a very problematic map in 2014: in the governors’ races. It’s actually much worse than their 2016 Senate map. The reason they aren’t likely to lose a lot of governors’ mansions on net is because it’s a good Republican year. The map is not destiny. The Democrats faced a horrid map in 2012 yet gained seats. The map is more of an “All things being equal” issue.
One more thing: incumbents are hard to beat. They only tend to lose in wave years. Grassley’s retirement is a concern, but the Tea Partiers are probably all running for reelection.
Normally this is true. But the Tea Party movement and its candidates have made a big issue out of being outsiders. But any Tea Party candidate running for re-election is going to have to turn that around and convince the same voters who wanted an outsider in 2014 that they should now vote for an incumbent. That could be a difficult maneuver.
And the Tea Party candidates won’t have Barack Obama to run against in 2016. They’ll be some other Democrat running for office but Obama has been a lightening rod for drawing protest.
Obama will still be an issue in 2016, just as Bush was still an issue in 2008. If he’s still unpopular in late 2016, Republicans will have a pretty easy time of it.
My best guess is a toss-up; a lot depends on the coattails of the presidential candidates.
Romney! Pale, tired, and unready!
I agree that Obama will still be a boogeyman just as Bush was in 2008. But if Hillary is the candidate as is expected, she is her own lightning rod. Whether or not she attracts more hate than Obama is to be observed.
I doubt it, which in itself is an incredible accomplishment for Obama. But all in all, I think Clinton has made herself an asset through her solid tenure as Secretary of State and voters’, even some conservatives’, memories of the Clinton years. But as I’ve said before, she’s no John McCain, and even JOhn McCain, one of the most popular politicians in the country, couldn’t overcome the albatross that was GWB. Clinton is in an even tougher position shaking Obama, given that she was part of his policy team and has never actually had the opportunity to oppose him or vote against him, as McCain was able to do during the Bush years.
If Obama is still at 42% in 2016, or even lower, the GOP will keep the Senate easily.
However, for those of you attached to “the map”, keep an eye on this Tuesday’s gubernatorial results. The GOP is defending a lot of governors in places that are not friendly GOP territory. If the GOP loses a few on net, then those who think the map is destiny can take heart. If the GOP doesn’t lose any on net, or even gains, then all it takes for the GOP to keep the Senate in 2016 is to win the Presidency.
This is a joke. McCain was never one of the most popular politicians in the country – and at the height of his popularity (around 2000), he couldn’t even win the nomination. By 2008, he had largely murdered his goodwill beyond the Republican base with his stubborn and ridiculous super-hawk, war-war-war “bomb bomb bomb Iran” crap. Hillary has done nothing similar to sabotage her own popularity.
Revisionist history: McCain had a higher approval differential than Clinton at the 2006 midterms. +30. Clinton has never even come close to being that popular. McCain’s popularity sunk as he tried to run a campaign based on being the frontrunner yet trying to keep Bush at arms length. What makes you think Clinton can pull off that feat?
Very few voters who didn’t like Obama are going to want to see Clinton as President. She will be Obama’s third term, or at least that’s what the public will be told, and they’ll believe it because she is too cautious to be willing to chance a campaign based on getting too far from a figure who while unpopular with the electorate, will still be loved by key Democratic constituencies that she’ll need to turn out.
Sorry, she’s just not that creative.
You’ll have to cite, remember? And this doesn’t contradict my point – McCain sunk his own popularity with his unending support for war.
No, he sunk because of war, war, war – and the war was incredibly unpopular. Hillary has no such albatross.
McCain was also a terrible, terrible campaigner in 2008, just cringe-worthy. It wouldn’t have mattered if he was good at running away from GWB or not, he had no place to go when he got there. He’d lost his chops.
I’ll need a cite that McCain sunk his own popularity with his unending support for war. The war saber is always popular. That was never an issue with his party. If you want to extend it ‘beyond his base’, well, nobody beyond his base wanted McCain, let alone the war. McCain’s base didn’t even want McCain.
McCain just didn’t have any heft. He didn’t appeal to the mainstream of the Republican party as did, uh, anybody, and people were tired of the Bush White House. No Republican was going to win in 08 unless some mighty extenuating circumstances came into play.
McCain only had support because he had made too many deals and was owed too many favors, not because he was popular with the real Republican base.
Plus, agree with squeegee. McCain was a limp dick compaigner.
Republicans will argue that Hillary will be Obama’s third term. Democrats will argue that she’ll be Bill Clinton’s third term. Which argument will hold more water?
It’s very hard not to ruin yourself as a presidential candidate and win a Republican primary. McCain had to turn against everything that made him a passable candidate in order to become passable to the troglodytes of the Republican base, and they still disliked and distrusted him.
THat’s where the primaries come in. Unfortunately, Hillary did not run on her husband’s ideology in 2008, she ran to the left of it. To the point where she was asked if Perot was right about NAFTA and she gave a horse laugh in response and never answered the question.
But it is an interesting problem to have. If she does want to be seen as “not Obama” while still standing for something, she could do a lot worse than to run forthrightly on her husband’s centrist record. The problem is, what happens if a liberal upstart runs to her left again? Will the Democratic base support a Third Way candidate?
Democrats have their first likely pickup for 2016: Feingold handily leads Johnson in WI:
Even if Feingold doesn’t run, Johnson is polling below 45% against other candidates. I don’t see a path for victory for him.