I’m a little later than expected in publishing my weekly diary analyzing the New York Times’ Upshot’s aggregation of the forecasters and data modelers’ predictions of the 2016 U.S. Senate races — my Aggregating the Senate Aggregators column. That’s because as of today, FiveThirtyEight has now joined the scrum, and that forced me to tweak my spreadsheets a bit.
Every day I scoop of the data from the forecasters the New York Times’ Upshot collects and gets their consensus for each Senate race. The NYT uses four data modelers (the New York Times, FiveThirtyEight DailyKos, and Princeton Election Consortium), three knowledgeable experts (the Cook Political Report, the Rothtenberg & Gonzales Political Report, and Sabato’s Crystal Ball), and the PredictWise betting markets. FiveThirtyEight is part of their presidential forecasts but is not yet part of their Senate forecasts.
This week for the first time, the New York Times’ own forecast gave the Republicans the odds of keeping the Senate. Previous weeks always gave Democrats a narrow edge of taking control, aided by the fact that they had considered a 50/50 tie to be the most likely outcome, and in the event of a tie, the incoming Vice President — whom they predict will be Tim Kaine — will cast the tie-breaking vote to determining the Senate organization and leadership. But as of this week, the New York Times considers the most likely outcome to be 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats, allowing Republicans to maintain control no matter who wins the White House.
But this is a minority opinion. As of today, the New York Times is the only one of their forecasters who doesn’t think the Democrats will take control of the Senate.
Let’s dive in.
The Big Picture
While the New York Times only gives the Democrats a 47% of taking control of the Senate, everyone else gives them better odds. DailyKos gives them a bare 51% chance, the PoliticalWire betting markets give them 53%, FiveThirtyEight gives them 56%, and Princeton Election Consortium gives them a 63% chance. The odds average out to 54%.
Note: since FiveThirtyEight just appeared today, it’s only a dot on the chart. You won’t start seeing a trendline for them until next week.
States Up for Election
Democrats are only defending 10 of the 34 seats up for election this cycle, and only one of them, that of retiring Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, is at any risk of flipping to the Republicans. Republicans hold the other 24 seats, many seized in vulnerable blue states in the Republican wave of 2010. (This is why we have to vote in off-year elections, people!)
I know I do this chart every week but it’s help for people joining us for the first time.
2016 U.S. SENATE ELECTIONS
U.S. Senate |
Not Up This Year |
Up For Election |
Probably Safe |
In Play |
Republican Caucus |
30 |
24 |
12 |
12 |
Democratic Caucus * |
36 |
10 |
9 |
1 |
Total |
66 |
34 |
21 |
13 |
* The Democratic Caucus includes two independents who caucus with the Democrats, Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont. As there’s no reason to believe both won’t continue to caucus with the Democrats, I will continue to lump them in with the “Democratic Caucus” for shorthand.
Republican Seats Probably Safe: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah
Republican Seats in Play: Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin
Democratic Seats With Only Democratic Candidates: California
Democratic Seats Probably Safe: Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington
Democratic Seats in Play: Nevada
Forecaster Predictions in the Number of Senate Seats
Here’s the forecasters’ consensus opinions on Senate control.
As you can see, it’s very tight. Let’s look at just the seats up for election in order to zoom in a little.
A little bit of wiggling, particularly in the tossup area, but while the blue shades seem stable, they aren’t expanding — and the red is.
NUMBER OF SENATE SEATS FORECASTED OVER LAST 7 DAYS
Senate Race |
9/15 |
9/16 |
9/17 |
9/18 |
9/19 |
9/20 |
9/21 |
Solid Democratic |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
Likely Democratic |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Lean Democratic |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Tossup — Dem |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Pure Tossup |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Tossup — Rep |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
Lean Republican |
4 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Likely Republican |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Solid Republican |
12 |
12 |
13 |
13 |
13 |
13 |
13 |
The movement has been within the shades of red, with much of it appearing to consolidate and settle in. Let’s roll those up.
FORECAST FOR THE U.S. SENATE AFTER THE 2016 ELECTIONS
Senate Races |
9/15 |
9/16 |
9/17 |
9/18 |
9/19 |
9/20 |
9/21 |
Democratic |
12 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
Tossup — Dem |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Pure Tossup |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Tossup — Rep |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
Republican |
19 |
19 |
19 |
19 |
18 |
18 |
19 |
For a few days there, one race shifted from Republican into the Tossup territory, but it shifted back again this morning.
Adding that to the Senators not up for re-election, and grouping the Independents in with the Democrats they caucus with for convenience and Senate organizational sake, we can see the current forecast for Senate control.
FORECAST FOR THE U.S. SENATE AFTER THE 2016 ELECTIONS
U.S. Senate |
9/15 |
9/16 |
9/17 |
9/18 |
9/19 |
9/20 |
9/21 |
Democratic Caucus |
47 |
47 |
47 |
47 |
47 |
47 |
47 |
Tossup — Dem |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Pure tossup |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Tossup — Rep |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
Republican Caucus |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
49 |
49 |
50 |
Based on these predictions, the Democrats would have to win all of the tossups in order to get a 50/50 tie, and then Hillary Clinton would have to win the White House in order for newly elected Vice President Tim Kaine to break the tie in the Democrats’ favor.
Senate Seats in Play
With more state-level polling coming out, we’re starting to see more movement with these races. Six Senate races had some movement this week: Arizona, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Ohio.
U.S. SENATE RACES WITH MOVEMENT THIS WEEK
Race |
9/15 |
9/16 |
9/17 |
9/18 |
9/19 |
9/20 |
9/21 |
AZ |
Lean R |
Lean R |
Lean R |
Likely R |
Likely R |
Likely R |
Likely R |
IA |
Likely R |
Likely R |
Solid R |
Solid R |
Solid R |
Solid R |
Solid R |
NV |
TU |
TU — R |
TU — R |
TU — R |
TU — R |
TU — R |
TU — R |
NH |
TU |
TU |
TU — R |
TU — R |
TU |
TU |
TU |
NC |
Lean R |
Lean R |
Lean R |
Lean R |
TU — R |
TU — R |
Lean R |
OH |
Lean R |
Likely R |
Likely R |
Likely R |
Likely R |
Likely R |
Likely R |
Several races seemed to firm up for the GOP. Ohio and Arizona went from Lean Republican to Likely Republican, while Iowa went from Likely Republican to Solid Republican. Nevada was a Pure Tossup, but sagged to Tossup — Republican. North Carolina gave us a little hope, moving from Lean Republican to Tossup — Republican, but then sagged back down again by the end of the week. New Hampshire had the most promise of these, briefly sagging into Tossup — Republican but then coming back up to Pure Tossup.
In order to take control of the Senate, Democrats need a net gain of 4 seats if they retain the Vice Presidency and 5 seats if they do not. Let’s look at the current status of all the Watch Races.
CURRENT FORECASTS FOR U.S. SENATE RACES TO WATCH
Race |
All
Pundits
|
Data
Modelers
|
Modelers’
Probability
For Dems
|
Impact |
Wisconsin |
Lean Dem |
Likely Dem |
86% |
Flip to Dem |
Indiana |
Lean Dem |
Lean Dem |
81% |
Flip to Dem |
Illinois |
Lean Dem |
Lean Dem |
75% |
Flip to Dem |
Pennsylvania |
Tossup |
Tossup — D |
57% |
Flip to Dem |
New Hampshire |
Tossup |
Tossup |
48% |
Hold Rep |
Nevada |
Tossup |
Tossup — R |
44% |
Flip to Rep |
North Carolina |
Lean Rep |
Lean Rep |
30% |
Hold Rep |
Missouri |
Lean Rep |
Lean Rep |
27% |
Hold Rep |
Florida |
Lean Rep |
Lean Rep |
19% |
Hold Rep |
Louisiana |
Likely Rep |
Likely Rep |
9% |
Hold Rep |
Arizona |
Likely Rep |
Likely Rep |
6% |
Hold Rep |
Ohio |
Likely Rep |
Likely Rep |
6% |
Hold Rep |
Iowa |
Solid Rep |
Solid Rep |
4% |
Hold Rep |
Based on this, Democrats would have a net gain of 3 seats, just shy of winning control even with the White House. They would need to either retain Harry Reid seat in Nevada or flip the New Hampshire seat to get control with Tim Kaine’s tie-breaking vote, and both to have control without it.
And of course, the more extra seats the Democrats can win, the more padding there is when Democrats face a brutal election in 2018 with a lot of Senate seats to defend, many in reddish/purple states that they won in 2012 that they will now have to defend in an off-year.
Here are the trendlines for these tossups so you can see which way things are moving.
If that’s hard to see, perhaps it would be more helpful to just look at one that just looks at the four races that will be the ones that will most likely determine which party will control the U.S. Senate next year.
A Few Words About Why This Is a Big Deal
When President Obama was first elected, he was swept into office with a Democratic Congress. We not only controlled the House, we also had filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate (when the Democratic Senators from more conservative states were willing to vote for cloture to vote down the filibuster, at least.) And shit got done.
Then we lost the House. We retained the Senate, but lost the super majority. Rep. Darryl Issa and other House Republicans began an endless parade of nonsensical hearings on pointless things that had no basis in reality. But even if Congress couldn’t pass meaningful legislation with one house controlled by an obstructionist party, at least the Senate could continue to confirm President Obama’s judicial appointees.
Then we lost the Senate and judicial confirmations have virtually ground to a halt.
Not just Merrick Garland, whose pending nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Antonin Scalia has now broken records for the longest Supreme Court nomination wait without a confirmation vote, much less a confirmation hearing.
There are currently 91 vacancies on federal courts for which President Obama has made 54 nominations (97 vacancies and 59 nominations if you include the Article I US Court of Federal Claims). In addition, there are 14 more impending vacancies, 11 from announced retirements and three from federal judges who are waiting Senate confirmation for promotion to higher courts (including Merrick Garland). In the current 114th Congress, which is 85.5% done, the Senate has only confirmed 22 judicial appointments, representing only 10% of the judicial vacancies.
The Presidential election will determine who replaces Scalia on the Supreme Court. If Trump wins, the current Republican-controlled Senate will immediately scuttle Garland’s nomination so that a Republican president can replace Scalia. If Clinton wins, some more policy-oriented Republican Senators may try to rush through Garland’s nomination, while more politicized Republicans — fearing a Tea Party backlash — may have more short-sighted fears about giving Obama a victory and may shoot down Garland’s nomination, even though they know a Clinton nominee should be younger and more liberal.
I’ve written extensively about how this election is our first chance for a liberal Supreme Court in half a century, and what a liberal Supreme Court’s decisions look like compared to a conservative Supreme Court's. But it is not enough to simply retain the White House. We need a Democratic majority in the Senate as well.
The Republican-controlled Senate has acted as if President Obama was only 3/5ths of a President, allowed judicial confirmations during only 3/5ths of his presidency. Under a Clinton presidency, what excuse will a Republican Senate give (if they bother with any) to withhold consent for her nominations? The Constitution provides that certain federal offices, including judicial offices, require the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. It does not require the Senate to actually give that consent. A Republican Senate could try to get away with simply voting down every Clinton Supreme Court nominee, or simply not giving them a vote. Perhaps that would provoke a backlash and voters would punish them at the polls, but I expected more of a backlash against their refusal to give Garland a hearing, so who knows.
So it would be a whole lot easier if we win the White House and the Senate. Yes, the filibuster still exists, for now. But it doesn’t apply to lower judicial nominations anymore, just the Supreme Court. And if Republicans go crazy with an unprecedented, unprovoked filibuster of a qualified Supreme Court nominee who doesn’t have corruption issues (which was the case of the only SCOTUS filibuster I know of).
As the old saying goes, those of us with more money than time may want to consider donating to some of these swing Senate races or to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, and those of us with more time than money may want to consider volunteering to phone bank, knock on doors, lobby friends and family who live in those states, or volunteer for other campaign activities.