The 2014 Battle for the Senate

[Solecismic]

I thought we could use a non-partisan thread for discussing the 2014 Senate races, since control of the Senate is up for grabs and the direction it goes will have a large impact on whether Congress will pass anything interesting in 2015-16.

Let's try very hard not to have the same tired red/blue arguments. This is just about the election itself. Not about the specific ramifications of a majority for either side.

To sum up the current situation:

The Senate has 100 members, 55 of whom caucus with the Democrats and 45 of whom caucus with the Republicans.

There are 36 seats up for election in November. Of those, 21 currently caucus with the Democrats and 15 with the Republicans. This includes three special elections for senators who are retiring.

This leaves the Democrats with a 34-30 edge. However, since the 36 seats up for grabs are mostly the same seats that were up in 2008 when Obama won in what's seen as a Democratic wave election, and since the party with an incumbent president with low popularity ratings tends to lose ground in off-presidential years, the Republicans will gain a lot of ground.

The question is how much ground. They need to gain a 51-49 majority in order to control the Senate. That's because 50-50 ties are broken by the Vice President. Consider this the home-field advantage of Capitol Hill.

Of the 36 seats up for grabs, 24 aren't competitive. They're not getting a lot of attention, so the polling shows the favorite drifting a little bit more into favorite territory. I won't bother breaking all of these down. If you're in one of these states, you have some awareness that there's a Senate election coming, but there is little to no advertising.

These 24 seats go 15-9 to the Republicans, and include three seats (Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia) that were held by Democrats who decided not to run when their terms expired.

In Illinois, the polls aren't overwhelming for incumbent Dick Durbin (D), but he's touching 50%, he has a fairly consistent 10-point lead, and there's no movement in the polls. I don't see any reason the Republicans would spend a lot of money down the stretch.

In South Dakota, Mike Rounds (R) is in an interesting three-way race and leads by 11-14 points. The fascinating part is the polls have the independent candidate all over the place, suggesting low-quality polling. With Rounds polling at about 40%, while I see nothing to suggest his 11-14 point lead won't hold up, the game could change drastically, as it did in Kansas recently.

In West Virginia, Shelley Capito (R) has increased her lead significantly in the last month and seems to be over 50%. While this race was on the watch list early on, I felt comfortable removing it.

The total will go to 45-43 in favor of the Republicans with these 24 seats decided. We could discuss movement in these races. Some are on a "vague watch" list, where polling suggests something could change the race.

So that leaves 12 competitive races. This is where the money is going. This is where you can't turn on a television without seeing negative ads. Pretty soon, your phone's answering machine will turn into a billboard.

I'm close to putting two of these races on the non-competitive list.

In Minnesota, Al Franken (D) is starting to touch 50% in the polling and has an 8-point lead. Polling has indicated a slight Republican shift while undecideds drop, but only a slight shift. That's the trademark of a race that's fairly safe, and the challenger has fired all of his or her shots.

In New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen (D) seems to be up by about 6 points with the same slight shift while undecideds drop. I know more about New Hampshire politics, having lived there for seven years not that long ago. This is a state that rewards the familiar (even if the familiar is an underdog), and Shaheen has been a name for a long time. It might wind up being a close race, but I don't see much of a chance of her losing.

So that moves the Democrats back to 45-45.

The next group of three are races that are fairly close to statistically tied, but lean one way or the other. I would feel comfortable predicting these races today, but they remain competitive and something relatively small could turn them even again.

In Michigan, Gary Peters (D) leads Terri Lynn Land by a handful of points. There are still plenty of undecideds, but it's a real lead. Obviously, this being my home state, I've heard a lot about it. My take is that Land simply isn't a strong enough candidate to grab more than her share of undecideds.

In Kentucky, incumbent Mitch McConnell (R) leads Alice Grimes by a handful of points. There are fewer undecideds here and McConnell even touched 50 in one recent poll. My sense is that Kentucky is too red to let a powerful Republican senator go down to defeat.

In Colorado, incumbent Mark Udall (D) leads Cory Gardner. This race is getting some high-quality polling and it's all very consistent. Colorado is a slightly blue state and I think that's the difference here. Unlike the other two in this category, I think there's some room for real movement. But it needs to be real movement. Udall has a slight lead.

So these three races give the Democrats a 47-46 edge. I think that's where the election stands right now. The Republicans need to win five of seven toss-ups to take the Senate.

Here are the toss-ups.

In Kansas, incumbent Pat Roberts (R) had a lead, but lost it when the Democratic candidate dropped out of the race. This leaves a fairly strong independent candidate, Greg Orman. Now Orman says he's independent and will caucus with the party with the majority. But what will he do if it's 50-49 in favor of the Republicans, and he's the one who breaks the tie (again, 50-50 goes to the Democrats)? His record suggests he fits the mold of a red-state Democrat. Roberts had to run to the right to win a tough primary, which left a gaping hole for this sort of candidate. Polling has not been very thorough here. I don't have a strong sense either way.

In Alaska, where polling is notoriously difficult, we've seen more movement in this Senate race over the last month than anywhere. Presumably, it's because Democrat incumbent Mark Bergich had an advertising gaffe, swinging a few points over to Republican challenger Dan Sullivan. Right now, I'd say this one very slightly leans to the Republicans. But very slightly.

In Georgia, David Perdue (R) has a tiny lead over Michelle Nunn for the Saxby Chambliss seat. This one comes down to turnout. I'd give the Republicans a very slight lean here as well.

In Arkansas, incumbent Mark Pryor (D) is in a very close race with Tom Cotton. Cotton has a slight lead, according to the polls. CNN had it 49-47, which is remarkable at this stage for its lack of undecideds. Other polls have a more normal number of undecideds. The incumbent should get a tiny push in the booth. But Arkansas is a red state, and the southern states seem to be viewing the election as an Obamacare referendum more than most. So that should give a tiny push to the challenger. This race seems dead even to me.

In Louisiana, where the general is essentially a primary, Democratic incumbent Mary Landrieu slightly trails Bill Cassidy. Since there's another Republican getting a chunk of votes, neither is likely to reach the 50% required to avoid a runoff election in December. Which makes this whole race an absolute toss-up. Throw in the Kansas situation and a lot could be on the line here in December. This situation could make Greg Orman a very powerful man indeed.

In Iowa, Bruce Braley (D) has maybe a one-point lead over Joni Ernst for Democrat Tom Harkin's seat. CNN again came in with a poll with almost no undecideds this week. This race has slightly leaned Democrat for ages now, with the exception of some brief movement this summer. My sense is that Braley has a very slight lean.

And finally, in North Carolina, we have the race that's all over the place. Democratic incumbent Kay Hagen may have a slight edge over Thom Tillis. But there are lots of undecideds and neither seems to be a threat to hit the magic 50. Like Georgia, this one will come down to turnout. But it's closer now than Georgia. I'm not comfortable with saying there's a lean either way.

So, with the slight leans, I'm at 48-48. Keeping in mind that the Republicans need three more, my feeling is that the Democrats have about a 60-70% chance of retaining the Senate.

Now, some argue that in elections like these, there's often a late swing against the President. I read an article (on 538, I believe) just today saying that their reasoning for giving the Republicans a slight edge in taking the Senate is that the generic Republican/Democrat poll is running more red than the individual polls would indicate.

That theory could well be correct, especially as it would be stronger in red states like Georgia and Arkansas, and would pull these races solidly over the line. North Carolina and Iowa, purple states looking at toss-ups, maybe aren't toss-ups.

Obviously, the situation is fluid. I will continue to look at these races frequently. I hope we can have some good discussion. Including some details from those of you who have a first-hand look at the closest races.

[Thomkal]

Nice analysis there. While I'm very interested in how this plays out, I'm not that deep into it to comment much on it. Two things I will say though:

1-I think the Democrats will keep the Senate, but it will be by just one or two seats.

2-I think the DNC is going to spend every last dollar in Kentucky. If they still lose the Senate, I think they will consider it a "win/win" to be rid of McConnell-who has been Public Enemy no 1 to the Dems after his infamous-"Let's make Obama a One-Term President" Speech soon after Obama was first elected.

[Peregrine]

Insert biased red statement here.

Followed by biased blue statement.

Followed by third statement calling for bipartisanship.

[flere-imsaho]

Excellent analysis. I always enjoy the "horse-racing" element of the general elections and don't see why we can't keep this one non-partisan (or unpartisan?).

I have been under the impression that Nate Silver, et. al. were pretty certain the GOP were going to get control.

Regardless, I don't think much will get done in Congress next term even if the GOP comes up a few seats short. They've still got the filibuster, and the House isn't going to send anything their way the President wants to sign anyway.

The most critical thing (and it is pretty critical) is how it affects potential SCOTUS nominations.

[JonInMiddleGA]

re: Georgia

If you're looking for a possible upset/surprise down here, focus on the Governor's race instead of the Senate race.

Perdue will pull away in the end, it's Gov Deal vs Jason (grandson of) Carter that is feeling more like a dogfight to me.

Reasoning is simple: there is no real anti-Perdue faction. Deal has several groups (teachers, ethics types) looking for his head on a pike.

[JPhillips]

I think KY is less about red/blue and more about McConnell's connections/machine. He has an enormous amount of chits to cash in all over the state. I see it exactly like Reid in NV a few years ago. In the end he'll win by several points more than the polling predicts.

[flere-imsaho]

One of those "no contest" races is here in Maine where Republican Susan Collins is up for re-election. Daily Kos for about a decade (and probably some other liberal blogs) have liked to talk up the chances against her (and also previously Republican Olympia Snowe, now retired), but don't believe it. This state rarely ejects Senators and while Collins might not be the Maine icon Snowe was, most every elected Republican in Maine owes something to her and her machine over the past 20 years.

Like in Georgia (per Jon), the real race is going to be for Governor, where Incumbent Tea Partier Paul LePage is running for re-election. LePage won a 3-way race last time with 39% of the vote. The spoiler in that election, independent Eliot Cutler, is back, but his Democratic opponent is much more formidable. 2nd district (that's the northern and more rural part of the state) U.S. Congressman Mike Michaud is the Democratic candidate. Well-respected, a former millworker and also recently out as gay, he is polling very strongly over LePage. Were Michaud from the south of the state, he probably wouldn't have a chance, but given his background and support in the north, he'll be hard to beat. There's also considerable word that the Independents & Democrats who backed Cutler last time have reconsidered and are throwing their weight behind Michaud.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

In Illinois, the polls aren't overwhelming for incumbent Dick Durbin (D), but he's touching 50%, he has a fairly consistent 10-point lead, and there's no movement in the polls. I don't see any reason the Republicans would spend a lot of money down the stretch.

I'd be surprised if Durbin loses. The Democratic machine is still quite strong, and Durbin has spent considerable time cultivating support downstate. Unless something weird happens, this is probably the high-water mark for his opponent.

[Ryche]

Living in Colorado and being undecided on who to vote for in the Senate race, it really seems like Udall is running a poor campaign. Pretty much every ad being run in support of him is talking about birth control and abortion. I'm still waiting to hear why I should vote for him rather than why I should not vote for his opponent.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Living in Colorado and being undecided on who to vote for in the Senate race, it really seems like Udall is running a poor campaign. Pretty much every ad being run in support of him is talking about birth control and abortion. I'm still waiting to hear why I should vote for him rather than why I should not vote for his opponent.

That could explain the lack of movement in the polls. Both candidates may feel this is a GOTV (get out the vote) election, and Udall is trying to motivate his base more than he's trying to convince undecideds.

Colorado has that interesting mix of mountain conservative, which has a libertarian streak, and urban blue. It reached a tipping point about ten years ago, but it seems all state-wide elections are close these days. I'd imagine the birth-control ads motivate the Democratic base without doing as much of the opposite as you'd see in the south.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Colorado has that interesting mix of mountain conservative, which has a libertarian streak, and urban blue. It reached a tipping point about ten years ago, but it seems all state-wide elections are close these days. I'd imagine the birth-control ads motivate the Democratic base without doing as much of the opposite as you'd see in the south.

This made me think of something: do libertarians normally poll as pro-choice or pro-life?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This made me think of something: do libertarians normally poll as pro-choice or pro-life?

A true libertarian believes choices should be made by the people with limited government intervention. They poll heavily Pro Choice.

[TroyF]

One more note:

A vast majority of libertarians are also against the government funding abortion clinics. As it is a personal choice, it is up to you to get it done.

I am oversimplifying it here, there are both sides, but the biggest tenant of the entire movement is to have the government stay the hell out of decisions. That includes abortion.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

re: Georgia

If you're looking for a possible upset/surprise down here, focus on the Governor's race instead of the Senate race.

Perdue will pull away in the end, it's Gov Deal vs Jason (grandson of) Carter that is feeling more like a dogfight to me.

Reasoning is simple: there is no real anti-Perdue faction. Deal has several groups (teachers, ethics types) looking for his head on a pike.

Though I feel that Perdue and Deal will pull away in the end. Jason Carter may have been benefited getting this far with his name, but the "Carter" name isn't necessarily popular in this state and that will cost him in the end, IMO.

[kcchief19]

Re: Kansas -- The politics of this race are getting more complicated. The Republican Secretary of State is arguing Democrat Chad Taylor did not withdraw correctly before the deadline, therefore must remain on the ballot. If the Kansas Supreme Court sides with Taylor, the SOS is also arguing state law requires the Democratic party to name a replacement nominee. The Kansas SC hears the case this week, so we should have an idea where it will lead.

Only one poll has been taken since Taylor announced his exit, and he was still in the poll, although he dropped from around 30% to 10%. The majority of his supporters have gone to the independent Greg Orman, with the rest undecided. Orman was up 1 in the last poll, making it essentially a dead heat.

Roberts was very wounded in the primary, with lots of questions about his residency and how much time he spends in the state. The prevailing voter attitude is that he's even in Washington too long and they want a change, but this is a dark red state. If this were Roberts vs. Taylor straight up, Roberts would win without much of a sweat. Heads up against a well funded independent, he is in for a fight.

As for the campaign, the RNC and Roberts have completely shaken up his campaign staff. Corry Bliss, who ran Linda McMahon's Senate campaign in Connecticut, has taken over and changing the tone of the campaign. They are trying to paint Orman as a Democrat in Independent clothing.

The general media consensus was Roberts mopped the floor with Orman in the first debate. Orman spent too much time agreeing with Roberts and less time attacking, while Roberts was much more aggressive. Orman is running to the right, trying to prove he's moderate enough for Kansas.

Roberts is absolutely vulnerable against the right candidate, but I question if Orman is experienced enough to handle a tough campaign. So far his campaign is very middle of the road with no attacks on Roberts. If his campaign doesn't get tougher -- or someone on his behalf -- Roberts may survive.

The other X-factor is the governor's race. Theoretically Sam Brownback should be safe, but he has trailed Democrat Paul Davis in three of the last four likely voter polls. Brownback has gone full Arthur Laffer as governor, implement sweeping tax cuts to stimulate the economy. The problem is that state revenues have plunged, and the narrative is that the Brownback tax cuts are devastating the state. If Brownback continues to struggle, you're going to have no enthusiasm on the GOP side and a fired up Democratic/Independent base.

Kansas is a dark red state, but it's complicated. There are for all intents and purposes three parties in Kansas with Democrats, moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans. The moderate and conservative Republicans are at war. Conservative Republicans decided to go after the moderates and challenged many of them in primaries for the state legislature. Moderate Republicans helped give Kathleen Sebelius two terms as governor, so they can definitely swing to Democrats or an independent.

If were a betting man, I wouldn't touch these races with a ten-foot pole right now. We should get a better look the next few weeks once the ballot questions are resolved, we get more polling for a two-man Senate race and voters get to know Orman better. He's doing well right with people not knowing much about him. Will Orman define himself or will he let Roberts define him? Once voters get to know him, will they still like him?

[Julio Riddols]

The cool part about all this is it won't matter who is in office in the end. They're all money motivated ladder climbers who only want a permanent in to living above the law and advancing party interests with no regard for what their constituents actually want to see.

We'll usher in another couple years of gridlock, more middle aged bickering bullshit and tire spinning, where those who are in office never stop campaigning. They'll campaign through misinformation, hidden agendas, and outright lies. They'll do it with dissenting votes in place of actual attempts at legislation. It'll work, because none of the viable candidates are any different from one another except one is ultimately more effective in pandering to the majority.

[Julio Riddols]

And I apologize for shitting on this thread with my likely overly cynical views.. But in my lifetime I have yet to see anything valuable truly occur with our government. For every step forward we take at least one back as a country. Its not about who has the money anymore, it is just increasingly apparent that the system is beyond repair. All that matters (and as far as I know, all that has ever mattered) is who lies the best.

[Solecismic]

While I agree with you for the most part, I hope we can keep non-partisan ranting out of this thread as well as the partisan ranting that renders so many political threads unreadable.

It looks like Perdue might be gaining some separation in Georgia, but the latest poll showing 50-44 is an outlier so far.

[larrymcg421]

Nate Silver has Republican chances down to 53%, mostly due to movement in Kansas.

[Solecismic]

Yes, there's definitely been about ten percentage points of momentum for the Democrats this week in the Senate battle question. My assessment is more like 65% to 75%. North Carolina looks like it's moving. The only piece of good news for the Republicans is Georgia these days.

Maybe 2014 will hold up as the only real exception to the rule that the minority party gains in off-year elections with an unpopular president.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Nate Silver has Republican chances down to 53%, mostly due to movement in Kansas.

The Kansas race is flat out nuts.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Maybe 2014 will hold up as the only real exception to the rule that the minority party gains in off-year elections with an unpopular president.

That would be something, to be sure. The rule about off-year elections has been pretty unshakeable. I also believe (though I can't look it up right now) that even the party of popular presidents tends to lose or hold at mid-term elections, especially in a 2nd term.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Maybe 2014 will hold up as the only real exception to the rule that the minority party gains in off-year elections with an unpopular president.

Even the rosiest of scenarios for the Democrats have them losing several seats in the House and Senate, including a bunch of incumbents. They may hold onto the Senate, but they will still be losing 4 to 5 seats.

[JPhillips]

We're in an odd time period due to demographic changes and ideological consolidation within parties. I think it's pretty clear that nationally and in a number of swing states and districts that Dems win if they get their voters out, but in off-year elections they generally don't get their voters out. A lot of close Senate races aren't close with registered voter numbers, that's why the GOP has to work so hard to limit turnout.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Even the rosiest of scenarios for the Democrats have them losing several seats in the House and Senate, including a bunch of incumbents. They may hold onto the Senate, but they will still be losing 4 to 5 seats.

In the Senate, just about all of these seats were last up in the wave election of 2008. Only losing 4-5 seats would be a major gain for the Democrats. That would be true unless Obama were as popular as he was in 2008.

The Republicans should understand that they're getting this far only because Obama is at historic lows in popularity. That underneath it all, they are still quite unpopular themselves, and have missed an opportunity to gain significant control over the Senate and increase their lead in the House.

I'm not sure a party can limit turnout. Both parties will be using GOTV heavily.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm not sure a party can limit turnout. Both parties will be using GOTV heavily.

I'm talking about GOP efforts in states to limit voting times/places and add restrictions to voting and registration. There's a pretty clearly coordinated effort to limit access for traditional Dem voting blocks.

[JPhillips]

So now we have aggregator aggregators. From Vox:

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So now we have aggregator aggregators.

Right or wrong, that made me LOL

[albionmoonlight]

A couple of observations from inside NC.

I'm pretty much a TiVo/Netflix/Podcasts guy, so I avoid most TV and radio ads. And I am still getting lots of ads for the Senate race. Online, print, what TV I do manage to see, etc. Both sides are pouring $$ into this race, and it really shows. The parties also seem better at getting ads into places where people like me will see them.

Also, I think that in hindsight, the GOP messed up by nominating Tillis to run. He's the Speaker of the House of the state legislature, and Hagan's team is doing a good job of accusing him of being responsible for every unpopular thing happening in the state.

He does not get to run as pure of an anti-incumbency campaign as I think the GOP would like in an off-year election with an unpopular government.

Finally, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing an emergency appeal on September 25th concerning some of North Carolina's new voting law changes and whether to prevent their enforcement for this election. (The actual legality of the changes is still being litigated. The emergency appeal is to decide what to do for this election while that litigation is ongoing). In a race this close, anything that could affect turnout will have a magnified effect.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/news-ann...north-carolina

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

In the Senate, just about all of these seats were last up in the wave election of 2008. Only losing 4-5 seats would be a major gain for the Democrats. That would be true unless Obama were as popular as he was in 2008.

The Republicans should understand that they're getting this far only because Obama is at historic lows in popularity. That underneath it all, they are still quite unpopular themselves, and have missed an opportunity to gain significant control over the Senate and increase their lead in the House.

I think you're viewing this through the prism of how crappy it could be for Democrats rather than taking the empirical view of how this election compares to similar recent elections. Clinton saw no net change in Senate seats in 1998. That is what a victory looks like for a second-term president. Losing 4-5 Senate seats is much more like what happened to Bush in 2006, when Republicans lost 6. I don't think anyone viewed that as anything other than a huge loss for the President.

Most of the Dems I talk to on the Hill view the current snapshot (which is the best it has looked for Dems since the cycle started) as merely a disaster. And many think the winds may well shift against them again. I think that may be right; but I admit that getting burned as badly as I did in 2010 colors my judgment here.

Regarding the House, I've not seen any polling or assessment of the House that doesn't show the GOP increasing its majority there. Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook, two of the better known handicappers in DC, both anticipate a net pickup for Republicans.

[flere-imsaho]

Thought this might be useful from a historical standpoint:

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We're in an odd time period due to demographic changes and ideological consolidation within parties. I think it's pretty clear that nationally and in a number of swing states and districts that Dems win if they get their voters out, but in off-year elections they generally don't get their voters out. A lot of close Senate races aren't close with registered voter numbers, that's why the GOP has to work so hard to limit turnout.

Is the younger demographic voting block down quite a bit in off-year elections?

[kcchief19]

The Kansas Supreme Court has scrubbed Democrat Chad Taylor from the ballot, ruling that his withdrawal complied with state law. Not a huge surprise; from the questioning during the hearing, it was clear where the justices were headed. The court is also more Democrat-leaning than one would expect, since 4 of the 7 justices were appointed by Kathleen Sebelius and two more were appointed by moderate Republican Gov. Bill Graves.

The Republican SOS Kris Kobach has given the Democrats until Sept. 26 to nominate a replacement, but it's not entirely clear under what legal precedent he is making that claim. Kobach asked the Kansas Supreme Court to order the Democrats to nominate a replacement, but the justices said that was not material to the Taylor case. So we probably have one more court cased to go before this is clear.

Right now, the polling shows a clear difference between a three-candidate race and a two-candidate race. Whether there is a Democrat on the ballot might decide the race and control of the Senate.

[JPhillips]

Is there a reason why they couldn't nominate the independent?

[DaddyTorgo]

What a sleazebag Kobach is.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Is there a reason why they couldn't nominate the independent?

Because Orman is not a registered Democrat, is running on an anti-party platform, and would drop 20 points in the uber-red state.

Kansas has a law that defines 'major party status' as one that receives at least 5% of votes in the previous election. Kobach could use that to effectively eliminate the Democratic Party in Kansas.

Since the ruling, Orman now has a 10 point lead on Roberts.

[Solecismic]

I thought I'd do a quick check of the state of the Senate races. We're 11 days closer to the election, which is now 41 days away. Not quite time for the incessant phone calls to start, but when I zip through the commercials on TiVo, nary a commercial break goes by without frowny-faced ads for our senate and gubernatorial races. Positive ads have entirely disappeared during this cycle. It's all about linking Rs to Koches and Ds to Obamas.

Nothing has changed in the 24 "settled" races. So that's 45-43 Republican.

Checking the remaining 12...

Close to non-competitive:

Minnesota: Franken's (D-incumbent) lead over McFadden is expanding a bit. This one is close to moving to the settled category. I doubt I'll be tracking it on November 4.

New Hampshire: One CNN shock poll had Shaheen (D-incumbent) tied with Brown a couple of weeks ago. Every other poll shows Shaheen with a solid lead, and touching the 50 barrier. Undecideds remain low. I see no reason to change my rating of this race.

Leaners:

Michigan: A lot of polling here lately, and all of it showing Peters (D) with a 2-7 point lead over Land. Undecideds are still quite high. So this is competitive, but still a definite leaner.

Kentucky: McConnell (R-incumbent) has a steady five-point lead over Grimes. Slightly fewer undecideds. This one could soon move up a category, into close to non-competitive.

Colorado: Two polls this week show Gardner (R) with a lead over the incumbent, Udall. This is a switch from consistent polling showing Udall with a small lead. Not sure what happened this week, or if this is just random noise. One of the new polls is from Quinnipiac, which was running R of the other polls here all along. If this continues, Colorado will move back into the toss-up category.

Alaska: Sullivan (R) now has a small lead over the incumbent, Begich. Begich may have sacrificed a few votes by voting with the president to keep his amnesty executive option alive post-election. The Democrats allowed Hagan (NC), Shaheen (NH), Pryor (AK), Manchin (WV) and Landrieu (LA) to cross over. The same could explain Colorado. This vote would give more credibility to the argument that the vote is not about the individual, it's about Obama and control of the Senate.

Georgia: Perdue (R) maintains a small lead over Nunn. The last cycle of polls, which showed an expansion of the lead, was from the subset that's been showing larger Perdue leads all along. So this is still a slight leaner, and hasn't changed in the last couple of weeks.

North Carolina: Hagan (D-incumbent) has a definite lead over Tillis now. So I'm moving it into the leaner category, despite it having the largest number of undecideds amongst the close races. The Democrats are focusing heavily on this race, and it's paying off.

The leaners move the balance to 48-48.

Toss-ups:

Louisiana: Landrieu (D-incumbent) had a large lead over various nameless competitors this summer. But as Cassidy has emerged as the main Republican challenger, he has taken the lead in polls, which is now a definitely lead. Since Louisiana uses the general as a primary, a run-off is still likely. While Cassidy will probably win the most votes in November, the run-off is still way ahead here, so I can't call this anything but a toss-up. It will be a different political world in December.

Arkansas: Pryor (D-incumbent) still trails Cotton by a point or two. This is getting closer to a Republican leaner, but I'll keep it in the toss-up category for now.

Iowa: Polling shows Braley (D) and Ernst are dead even. Ernst has steadily closed the gap. I'm moving this one into the toss-up category.

Kansas: Orman (I) has a 6-10 point lead over Roberts (R-incumbent) in this race, now that the Democrat is off the ballot. This means Roberts will try to show that Orman is a de-facto Democrat. There could be considerable fluidity in this race down the stretch. I'd signal a switch to a leaner, but Orman may be under pressure to define himself - which carries large risks. Orman really deserves his own category right now. Watch the money here. Democrats are running against the Koch brothers this term. Roberts may start running against Orman's backers rather than Orman.


Overall:

My assessment two weeks ago was 65% chance of Democrat control. Last week, it moved to 75%. With the amnesty vote, and the resulting fallout (admittedly, I'm reading a lot into a small number of polls), I'm moving it down to 60%. I think this had a big effect in the closer states.

[JPhillips]

How crazy is it going to be if the election ends up with 49 Dem caucus and 49 GOP caucus with Orman pledged to go to the majority and Landrieu in a December runoff.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How crazy is it going to be if the election ends up with 49 Dem caucus and 49 GOP caucus with Orman pledged to go to the majority and Landrieu in a December runoff.

That would be crazy, but why would Orman do that? He could secure being in the majority before the LA runoff since the Dems only need 50.

[Solecismic]

Yes, the more interesting scenario is if it's 50-48 R after November 4. I don't think Orman hesitates for a second if it's 49-49, especially since he'll be hit pretty hard by the Republicans over the next few weeks.

The only sign of weakness from Orman will be if he can't raise money. Which means he really is on the fence with regard to affiliation.

[JPhillips]

I don't know what he'll do, but if there's a runoff there will be tremendous pressure for him to wait and hold to his promise. If he doesn't he'll guarantee himself one term and out. He needs a lot of people that would normally vote R to vote for him if he's going to win.

[chesapeake]

This review of the polling has a Dem spin to it -- which I like -- but I think you are a little nuts if you are putting Begich and M. Udall in the lean Dem and Pryor and Landrieu in the toss-up category. Landrieu in particular is in trouble. The question isn't whether she will win in November; no on really thinks she has much chance of that at this point. She's just hoping to extend the race for another month. Pryor appears to be closing the gap, but is still trailing and has trailed for a long time.

Interesting reporting on the GA race coming out over the last couple of days. Although Michelle Nunn has been trailing for most of the campaign, as in LA you need >50% of the vote to win, otherwise it goes to a January 6 runoff. The numbers there are getting close enough that the runoff is appearing more of a possibility.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm wondering, though, how meaningful it's really going to be if the Democrats even end up with a slight edge in the Senate (like 51-49).

Confirmations are still going to be subject to filibusters and they still don't have enough to invoke cloture.
Those confirmations where they change the rules so they can invoke cloture with 51 I suppose, whereas the GOP will just shut it down if they get the majority.
They're not going to get anything from the House that they want to pass anyway.
Democrats in the Senate especially have never really shown a lot of discipline on party-line votes.

Honestly, given that the House is staying GOP and Obama will be in his last two years, it's probably better for the Democrats (for the purposes of electioneering in 2016) if the GOP takes the Senate, even with a slim margin.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm probably pushing out of the "horse-race" discussion this thread is based upon and more into "political analysis", so I'd encourage folks who want to continue the conversation about the relatively efficacy of Democratic vs. Republican majorities in the Senate to the Obama thread.

I just wanted to respond to the question of the "stakes" involved in this election. Yes, if the Democrats lose the Senate, it's a blow, but how much things would change from now is, I think, an open question.

Which is why my point about this is relevant to the 2016 horserace. Democrats are probably better off for 2016 if they lose the Senate this time around, given other factors.

[albionmoonlight]

Fourth Circuit holding oral argument on NC's new voting laws in about five minutes.

The panel identity would have been announced by now, but I cannot find it being reported anywhere.

[albionmoonlight]

Just found it on twitter:

Judges Motz, Wynn, and Floyd.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Confirmations are still going to be subject to filibusters and they still don't have enough to invoke cloture.
Those confirmations where they change the rules so they can invoke cloture with 51 I suppose, whereas the GOP will just shut it down if they get the majority.

FYI - Executive branch nominees and judicial nominees (other than the Supremes) are no longer subject to filibuster per the 2013 Senate rules change.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

This review of the polling has a Dem spin to it -- which I like -- but I think you are a little nuts if you are putting Begich and M. Udall in the lean Dem and Pryor and Landrieu in the toss-up category. Landrieu in particular is in trouble. The question isn't whether she will win in November; no on really thinks she has much chance of that at this point. She's just hoping to extend the race for another month. Pryor appears to be closing the gap, but is still trailing and has trailed for a long time.

Interesting reporting on the GA race coming out over the last couple of days. Although Michelle Nunn has been trailing for most of the campaign, as in LA you need >50% of the vote to win, otherwise it goes to a January 6 runoff. The numbers there are getting close enough that the runoff is appearing more of a possibility.

I have Alaska in the lean Republican category. These are slight leans. As I wrote before, we're seeing a difference in generic R/D polling and the individual polls - Democratic candidates are faring better than expected. Some expect that to correct. I'm aware that my expectations are a little D of the average aggregation, but it's not spin, it's just my own look at the numbers. We have a lot of undecideds in some races. We also have increased difficulty in polling these days. I expect we'll learn a lot about that when the results actually come in. There will undoubtedly be surprises on November 4.

I have Landrieu as a toss-up because it seems very likely no one will win in November. When Congress returns, there's going to be a lot of action that will change the playing field. There's a good chance Louisiana will affect the balance of power (even with the majority, the Democrats can't go too hog-wild because Manchin doesn't support the controversial stuff). So that race could get very silly very quickly.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Just found it on twitter:

Judges Motz, Wynn, and Floyd.

All three are Democratic appointees. So we can expect a ruling against the new laws.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There will undoubtedly be surprises on November 4.

There always are.

I see your point on Landrieu. You almost need another category for the LA and GA races. They are either "leans Republican" or "leans runoff."