Republicans Now Have Slight Edge For Senate, But Will It Last?

Nearly four months ago, Battleground270 came out with its first 2014 Senate projection.  In December, the model showed that Democrats had a good chance of keeping the Senate.  It gave Democrats a 69% chance of having 50 seats or more after the November elections, which, at the time, was a much better chance than most political observers were giving the party.  

Those December predictions, as well as our current predictions, are based off of numerous factors such as candidate quality, historical data, and of course current polling.  

Now, however, it is the GOP’s turn to get some good news.  The model is predicting a 57% chance of the GOP taking control of the Upper Chamber.  This is a 16-point reversal from just four months ago.  As the graph depicts below, Democrats are now most likely to hold 49 seats after the midterms.  

So what happened?

First, Republicans have been able to recruit some very strong candidates. In states that were either likely or leaning Democratic such as Colorado and Michigan, the GOP has coalesced around stronger candidates. 

Second, it seems less and less likely that there may be a Todd Akin-like candidate emerge from the GOP primaries.  In states such as Georgia, North Carolina, and Alaska, the establishment candidates seem to be leading the more Tea Party candidates. 

Finally, Democrats are suffering from public fatigue of the Obama Administration.  Though the President’s approval rating seems to have stabilized, and it is unlikely they will go any lower, it seems increasingly unlikely that President Obama will have a net positive approval rating by November.  This means that the President will not be welcome in red states and most purple states that have vulnerable Democratic incumbents. 

Below, I have broken down the likelihood that each candidate will win in November.  Further, I have also shown how that compares to the candidate’s chances when I last wrote in December. 

Most Democrats on this list are regulars, but there are few who have moved form ‘likely Democratic’ to ‘safe’.  Those Senators include Al Franken, Tom Udall, and Jeff Merkley.  In each of these cases, the GOP has not been able to recruit a strong challenger and the incumbent Democrat is polling very well. 

The ‘likely Democratic’ list is one that has gotten a lot of media attention lately, but for little reason.  In fact, neither of these candidates have had their chances of victory increased or decreased. 

The first, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, finally got the challenger many were expecting to jump in the race: former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown.  I will be quite honest in that I did not expect Brown to jump into the race, despite all the hype over the past year. 

However, his entrance does not reduce Shaheen’s chances of winning another term.  Why?  The possibility of Brown’s entrance was already factored into the model in December.  Further, Shaheen has kept a relatively strong polling lead against Brown, and her favorability numbers are where they should be to get reelected.  Brown is a strong candidate, but he’s already made a couple gaffes and he will have to combat the carpetbagging charge that will likely follow him throughout the campaign. 

The second race is between Virginia’s Senator Mark Warner and former GOP strategist Ed Gillespie.  Republicans picked up a great recruit in Gillespie… if he were facing a more vulnerable Democrat.  However, Warner is very popular in Virginia, and it would take an exceptionally strong candidate and very ugly campaign to knock him from his seat.

The ‘leans Democratic’ category has lost a couple Democrats, including those from Alaska, Michigan, and Louisiana.  That leaves it with two Democratic seats and only one incumbent. 

Colorado’s Mark Udall is now facing a very strong challenger in Congressman Cory Gardner, a strong, establishment Republican who cleared the field of more Tea Party candidates.  However, Udall is still polling well at this point in the cycle and has decent approval numbers.  It is very possible this race will move to tossup if the GOP and outside groups spend heavily, but for now, it is still leaning Democratic.

Iowa’s senate race has not changed.  The GOP field is still very large and undecided, though in the most recent Suffolk poll, Joni Ernst has begun to pull ahead.  However, her lead is small, and even if she wins the primary, she will have spent a lot of money to do it. 

This is where Democratic Representative Bruce Braley has an advantage.  He does not have a serious primary and can save his cash for the general election.  The same Suffolk poll had Braley’s lead in the high single digits, but expect his race to be closer than that.

The GOP’s future as a possible majority in the Senate lies in the ‘tossup’ column.  In total, the party needs to net six seats in order to take back the upper chamber.  They are very likely to pick up at least four seats (as I will discuss further below), so that means they will need to pick up at least two more within the ‘tossup’ or ‘leans Republican’ categories without losing any of their own seats. 

Starting with Alaska, Democratic Senator Mark Begich has seen his chances of victory diminish since December.  This is mostly a result of new polling that has shown him in a dead heat with his GOP challengers.  Further, it is looking less and less likely that Tea Party candidate Joe Miller will win the GOP nomination.  However, Miller hasn’t ruled out a run as an independent (though that is unlikely) who would likely act as a spoiler in favor of the Democrat.  Begich has raised plenty of money to stay competitive, but it may not be enough for the Democrat who barely won in 2008, a great year for Democrats.

In Michigan, Senator Carl Levin is retiring, giving an opening for the GOP to capture what was once a presumably safe seat for Democrats.  Democratic candidate Gary Peters will be facing a very strong Republican challenger in Terry Lynn Rand.  Rand has either been leading or tied with Peters for most of the cycle, but Michigan is still a moderately blue state, so expect this race to be a nail-biter.

North Carolina’s Kay Hagan has also seen her chances of reelection drop since December.  Polls show Hagan in a virtual tie with each of her challengers.  If she were in a bluer state such as Michigan or Iowa, we might expect her to have a better than even chance at victory.  However, North Carolina is still a state that leans Republican.  Hagan’s best chance will be if the state’s House Speaker Thom Tillis wins the nomination.  He has helped push through some of the more conservative pieces of legislation in the state over the past couple years, and that record could haunt him in a statewide general election. 

Not all news is bad news, however, for the Democrats.  The party has a very good chance of picking one or two Republican-held seats. 

The first is the seat currently held by retiring Senator Saxby Chambliss.  The problem for the GOP lies in the field of primary candidates, most of whom are much more conservative than the state as a whole.  Perhaps the bigger problem for the Republicans is who their eventual nominee’s challenger will be: Michelle Nunn.  Nunn is the daughter of former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn.  She is a businesswoman who has never run for political office and is not tied to any of the President’s policies, which are generally unpopular in Georgia.  Nunn is polling well for a Democrat in the state.  Expect to see Democrats prop up the most radical of the GOP candidates in order to help Nunn in the general election.

The second GOP-held seat up for grabs is none other than Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell’s.  Despite Kentucky being a very conservative state, McConnell is not well liked and is having to spend money to ensure victory against a Tea Party candidate in the primary.  While Democratic Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes has high name recognition and is polling well against McConnell, she may not be able to pull out a victory.  McConnell will have plenty of money and will likely pummel Lundergan Grimes with negative ads in order to keep his seat. 

The only seat currently in the “leans Republican” column this month is Louisiana’s, currently held by Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu.  Landrieu has won three consecutive terms in conservative Louisiana, but 2014 is shaping up to be her toughest fight yet.  Polls show a dead heat, with some giving her main Republican challenger, Bill Cassidy, a slight edge.  Further complicating Senator Landrieu’s position is her state’s electoral system.  In Louisiana, a candidate must attain at least 50% of the vote.  It is increasingly difficult to see any Democrat, even a moderate one, win under those conditions.

Arkansas and Montana are two must-win states for the GOP if they hope to take control of the Senate.  If a GOP candidate cannot win in these states, it shows the party likely would not be able to win in more purple states.

That being said, Senator Mark Pryor is in trouble.  His challenger, Rep. Tom Cotton, is an up-and-coming star in the GOP and will not be short on cash.  Further, Arkansas is a state that has been trending more red with each election.  Most polls give Cotton a slight edge.  If Pryor can defend his vote on Obamacare while running a targeted, disciplined campaign, he still has a shot.  

Senator John Walsh, who was appointed to fill now Ambassador to China Max Baucus’s seat, will have a hard time holding on to the seat that was given to him.  Despite being a former Lieutenant Governor of the state as well as a commander of Montana’s National Guard, Walsh is polling poorly.  This is mostly due to challenger Steve Daines’ strong approval in the state.  Montana has elected many Democrats statewide lately, but Walsh likely won’t be one of them in 2014. 

Most seats in the ‘safe Republican’ list have been there from the get-go.  Only a couple seats have been added to the list.  Those include seats from Maine, South Dakota, and West Virginia. 

Maine, though a fairly liberal state, will almost assuredly vote to keep its Republican Senator, Susan Collins.  This is mostly due to Collins’ very moderate record.  However, Democrats have also been unable to find a credible challenger.

Both South Dakota and West Virginia have retiring Democrats.  The Democrats in South Dakota have a small bench of prospective candidates.  This leaves the GOP (and its much larger bench of candidates) with a huge advantage.  Polls show Republicans with large leads against any Democrat.

Finally, West Virginia’s Shelly Moore Capito is trouncing her Democratic challenger in the polls.  Any Democrat would have a tough time winning in conservative West Virginia, but the GOP also recruited a top candidate in Capito.  This seat should be an easy win for Republicans in November.

Conclusion:

Both parties still have a good chance of winning the Senate at this point.  Statistically, the GOP are currently the safer bet.  However, messy primaries and potential upsets in currently GOP-held seats could very well stave off Republicans yet again from control of the upper chamber.

Agree? Disagree? Post your comments below!

Why "BridgeGate" Doesn’t Really Matter

Over the past 24 hours, the political chattering class has been aflutter over “bridgegate”, the scandal in New Jersey involving the (deliberate) closure of several lanes of traffic across the George Washington Bridge as political payback for Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich not supporting Christie’s re-election. 

Most politicos have been writing Christie’s obituary, claiming that he is no longer even a contender for the 2016 GOP Presidential nomination.   Most even believe he won’t even attempt running for President now. 

Their predictions are likely half-right, but probably not for the reasons they believe.  Christie will still probably run for President starting in 2015.  But he won’t win.  And that has nothing to do with the current scandal. 

It’s no secret that Chris Christie isn’t especially beloved by conservatives.  In a way, most conservatives, especially tea partiers, feel the same way about Christie as Mitt Romney.  They don’t trust him and see him as a northeastern liberal Republican.

Though Christie is currently polling well among all Republicans (and even better among the general electorate), the first caucus is still two years away and there have been no debates.  It is true that Christie will benefit from likely being one of few (if not the only) moderate Republicans in the field.  Other candidates could be Jeb Bush and longshot Condi Rice. 

But by January 2016, there will have been more than a dozen debates, and conservatives will have likely coalesced around one or two conservative candidates instead of splitting the vote between the half-dozen or so conservatives currently in the running.

Further, Christie will suffer from a built-in structural challenge: the primary calendar.  Assuming the schedule will remain the same, or at least similar to previous years, at least in terms of state order, Christie is at a major disadvantage, especially to someone such as Rand Paul. 

There is little question Iowa will be the first state to hold a primary or caucus.  Then will come New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada.  Michigan could also be in that mix.  It is no secret that Iowa does not favor moderate Republicans (although Mitt Romney only lost by eight votes in 2012).  Candidates like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will likely be competing for the top spot in Iowa’s caucus. 

In New Hampshire, Christie likely has a structural advantage, as there are many other northeastern moderate Republicans who will vote in the primary.  However, New Hampshire also has a sizable libertarian and tea party voter population, which could swing things in Paul’s or Cruz’s favor.  If Christie loses New Hampshire, it would likely be a death knell to his campaign.  If he were to win, he would have to find a way to survive the way John McCain did throughout the next early states in 2008. 

South Carolina will not be friendly turf for Mr. Christie, and both Nevada and Michigan are states that have a more libertarian-oriented GOP electorate, something that will help Paul.  Governor Christie’s only hope then is to make it to Florida and hope that it’s older and more moderate Republican electorate will save the day.  That is a far shot though, as both Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush are likely to run for President and will probably grab a large share of the vote.

Overall, does this sound like another northeastern moderate Republican who was considered the front-runner two years before the election only to not be able to win any primaries and holding out until Florida?  If you are reminded of Rudy Giuliani, that is because he had essentially the same path to victory.  Worse for Christie, he will be going up against a field that is much stronger than 2008’s. 

Many will point out that, if history is any guide, Christie has a very plausible path to victory: the same path that other GOP moderates like John McCain and Mitt Romney followed.  But that is a dubious argument.  Both McCain and Romney (especially Romney) faced a very weak field.  The same will not be true for Christie.  The Republican party will have had seven building years since the 2008 election in which potential candidates such as Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, and Marco Rubio have cultivated their own large followings.

I’ve always been a bit bearish on Governor Christie’s chance at getting the nomination, but I truly don’t see his chances getting any worse after this latest flap.  It is ironic that the candidate who polls the best among the general election (read: independents) will likely do the worst among the field of GOP contenders. 

Still Much Uncertainty in Midterm Gubernatorial Races

So far, the 2014 midterms seem to present to Democrats in gubernatorial races what the GOP is facing in the Senate; Democrats are likely to gain governorships as the GOP is likely to gain Senate seats.  Unlike the Senate, there is no practical necessity for controlling a “majority” of the governorships like there is in the Senate.  However, it could certainly be argued that control of the governor’s mansion is more important than having control of the upper chamber. 

Governors arguably have more control over policy that affects their constituents than do Senators.  Further, they have the resources to be able to help elect Congressmen, Senators, and most importantly, Presidents.  Finally, Governors have the ability to implement (or stand in the way of) federal policies, such as the Affordable Care Act.  There are currently many states that are choosing to not implement all or parts of Obamacare, which obviously makes it more difficult to implement nation-wide.  These are the places Democrats most need to win next year.

20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33
1	5	9	42	53	92	93	74	56	30	15	3	1	2
0.21	1.05	1.89	8.82	11.13	19.33	19.54	15.55	11.76	6.30	3.15	0.63	0.21	0.42

Republicans currently hold 30 governorships.  Using current polling trends, state voting history, and some personal input on the ‘feel’ of a race, I have developed a model to predict the number of governorships the GOP will likely hold after the 2014 midterm elections.  Looking at the model, above, we can see they are most likely to hold only 26 after the midterms.  Overall, the GOP still has a 77% chance to keep 25 or more seats and a 57% chance to keep more than 25.  What we can also gleam from the model is that gubernatorial races seem to be more competitive than Senate races. 

In the Senate model, there were only two seats I rated as a tossup (Georgia and Arkansas) as well as six seats I rated as only leaning one way or another (Alaska, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, and North Carolina).  In the Gubernatorial model, there are four seats rated as a tossup (Arkansas, Illinois, Maine, and Wisconsin), and there are again six seats only leaning one way (Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, and Ohio).

Below, I have grouped the races based on seven categories: safe Republican, likely Republican, leans Republican, toss-up, leans Democratic, likely Democratic, and safe Democratic.

There are eight states that qualify as “safe Republican”, according to the model.  All of these states are currently governed by Republicans who are running for another term.  Additionally, with the exception of Nevada (in which there isn’t yet a credible Democratic challenger) and Iowa (in which there is an extremely popular GOP governor and also not a credible Democratic challenger), all of these states were handily carried by Mitt Romney in 2012.  The state to watch is Alaska, where Independent candidate Bill Walker could shake up the race if he gets traction, giving the Democrat challenger a possibility to win with less than 50% of the vote. 

There are five states in the “likely Republican” category.  Again, all of these states are currently governed by Republicans, but there are three retirements in this camp.  In Nebraska, Republicans have a very strong shot at holding the seat, despite them having their top two recruits already drop out of the race due to scandals.  The Democrats will look to Chuck Hassebrook to pull off the unlikely victory.  In Texas, the high profile race between the likely Republican nominee Greg Abbott and Wendy Davis is much less competitive than made to seem in the media.  Current polls have Davis down by double digits in the deeply conservative state.  Despite the huge Latino population in the state, Democrats are at a huge disadvantage and will have a tough time turning Texas blue.

The same applies for Arizona.  While the Grand Canyon State has elected Democratic Governors recently and is trending bluer as the Latina population increases, it is still a state the GOP has won in every Presidential election since 1996.  Democrats have a chance if Democratic candidate Fred DuVal can consolidate support early and if the GOP primary is a bloody one.

In New Mexico, a state President Obama carried twice, Susana Martinez is running for re-election.  Her approval numbers are fairly high, and unless she makes any large mistakes or the Democratic nominee can rally the Hispanic voters to the polls, Martinez will likely prevail.

Polls in South Carolina show Governor Nikki Haley with a modest lead on her rematch challenger, Vincent Sheheen.  Haley’s approval rating, while not great, has been on the rise, it is still under 50%, and her state’s unemployment is among the highest in the nation at 10.8%.  Sheheen definitely has an opening if he can get a majority of independents to support his bid, but for now, Haley is the favorite.

The states that are leaning Republican are, again, all currently governed by Republicans.  However, the main difference is that those GOP governors’ approval ratings are not especially high, and Democrats have been able to recruit fairly strong challengers.

Beginning in Georgia, Governor Deal faces not just a primary challenge, but also the presence of the likely Democratic nominee, and grandson of former President Jimmy Carter, Jason Carter.  If Deal is pushed too far to the right in the primary or if Carter can rally a base of liberals as well as independents, this may turn out to be a toss-up come the fall.

In Kansas, it is much the same story.  Governor Sam Brownback’s approval ratings are in the low 40s, which is pretty low, considering he is a Republican governor of a bright red state.  Furthering his problems are that Democrats have recruited Kansas House minority leader, who has selected a female running mate, something that could help him win the support of women in the state.  The Fix rated this as the 2014 “dark horse” race, and I certainly expect it will be.

Michigan and Ohio are two very similar states in regard to the midterm election.  They are both Midwestern states that voted for President Obama in both 2008 and 2012 (though each by a smaller margin in 2012).  They both elected GOP governors in the 2010 midterms, and they both have governors with modest, but not great, approval ratings.  Further, Democrats will likely have strong candidates to go up against each governor.  The reason these races are still in the “lean Republican” category is because both Rick Snyder and John Kasich have turned around struggling economies in their respective states, and they seem to be reaping the political benefits from those turnarounds.

The four states in the “tossup” column really don’t have much in common with one another.  In Wisconsin, the electorate is deeply polarized after Governor Scott Walker’s crackdown on unions, among other things.  Democrats are hopeful that their likely nominee, Mary Burke, can match the fundraising and enthusiasm levels that Walker is sure to bring to the race.  Wisconsin has traditionally been a swing state, though it has voted for President Obama in both 2008 and 2012. 

In Arkansas, popular Democratic Governor Mike Beebe is retiring, giving the GOP a good opportunity for a pickup, as Arkansas has trended more and more conservative since Beebe was first elected.  The Democrats have recruited a strong candidate in Mike Ross, a conservative, ‘blue-dog’ Democrat.  Still Arkansas has become deeply conservative in the past few years, and whichever Republican gets the nomination will likely attempt to tie Ross to Obama.  Current polls have this race as a dead heat.

Democratic Governor Pat Quinn is one of the least popular governors in the entire country, and despite Illinois being a deep blue state, he will have a very competitive race on his hands with whoever wins the GOP nomination.  Four Illinois GOP heavy hitters are vying for the Republican nomination: Bruce Rauner, Dan Rutherford, Kirk Dillard, and Bill Brady, who was the party’s nominee in 2010.  In that year, Brady lost by only a few thousand votes to Quinn, and Governor Quinn is no more popular today than he was four years ago.

Finally, in Maine, Governor Paul LePage, a Tea-Party Republican, is an odd fit for Maine.  In 2010, he won with less than 50% because of a third party Independent candidate, and in 2014, he is again facing an Independent on the ballot.  Polls consistently show both LePage and his Democratic challenger, Mike Michaud with approximately 35 percent of the vote and Independent candidate Eliot Cutler not far behind.  Right now, the race is anyone’s guess, but it certainly seems as if LePage is benefiting from Cutler’s entrance into the race, as he is broadly unpopular throughout the state.

With any other challenger, Democratic Governor Dan Malloy would likely skate to re-election.  However, the Governor will have a re-match against former Ambassador to Ireland, Tom Foley.  Foley is very popular in Connecticut, and this could prove to be another sleeper race for 2014.

In Florida, Governor Rick Scott’s problems have been fairly well documented.  Since his election, he has had middling approval ratings, and his state has not had the kind of economic turnaround other states have experienced.  To further complicate his bid for re-election, he will likely face former Republican-turned-Independent-turned-Democratic Governor Charlie Crist.  Crist left office with high approval ratings, and despite losing a long-shot Independent bid for Senate in 2010, he remains well known and liked in the state.  Polls currently have Crist leading by mid-to-high single digits.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett is the only Republican incumbent in the “Likely Democratic” column.  He remains deeply unpopular in Pennsylvania with both Democrats and Republicans.  Democratic candidate Allyson Schwartz is the likely Democratic nominee (though the primary could turn ugly and become more competitive) and will have the upper hand going into the general election.

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper was once one of the most popular governors in the nation, but after he failed to stop the legalization of marijuana and implemented gun control measures in his state, his approval ratings have taken a hit.  Former Congressman Tom Tancredo is the likely GOP nominee, and despite being a product of the far right, Hickenlooper will still have a fight on his hands.

Both Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee are retiring, giving the GOP a shot at picking up their seats.  However, in the Bay State, Attorney General Martha Coakley, should she prevail in the primary, will likely face a Republican with little-to-no name recognition in the state.  That isn’t to mention that registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly two to one.  However, Coakley was also expected to have an easy path to the Senate to succeed Senator Ted Kennedy, but we all know how that worked out…

Meanwhile, in Rhode Island, Independent-turned-Democrat Lincoln Chafee has decided to retire after having terrible approval ratings over the past year or so.  Both the Democratic and Republican nominations are currently wide-open, but Democrats clearly have the edge in this northeastern state.

All of the seats in the “Safe Democratic” section are currently held by Democrats, and that likely will not change.  The only retiring member is Governor Martin O’Malley, whose Lieutenant Governor is running to replace him.  All of these incumbents are either very popular in their state or they do not yet have a GOP challenger, or both.  The state to watch is Maryland, as Democratic candidate Doug Gansler, who is challenging Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown for the nomination, has recently spoken out against the Affordable Care Act.  This could be an issue that divides Democrats in the primary, giving the GOP an opening to present a strong challenger.

In the end, it doesn’t appear (yet) as if 2014 will be a wave year for either party in the governors’ races.  Instead, it will be more of an equalizing year in which states which likely would have voted for Democrats in 2010 (if it had not been for the tea party tidal wave) will revert to being blue.  Democrats still have a chance, especially if they pick up seats in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and yes, even Georgia, to make sweeping gains, but the reverse is also true; the GOP could keep its 30+ seat advantage.  We have more than ten more months to see how things will shake out, and I will continually update the predictions as time goes on.