Welcome to 2018! It’s an exciting year and I kicked it off with my electoral primer. Now it’s time to get down to some ratings. First up are my senate ratings, which I’ve been updating since July 2017. This piece will go over some of the safe seats that I skipped over in October because this diary also serves as an intro for those who haven’t read my earlier pieces. It will also focus more on the total battle for control rather than just individual seats. So let’s get going.
As some folks may know, the Democrats hold 25 seats on this map to just 8 for the Republicans, plus a 26th where Democrats are defending Al Franken’s seat in Minnesota after a special election was called. The base map is the most overexposed any party has been in any Senate election since 1970, and the special election is a cherry on top. In a Clinton presidency, this map would look ugly for the Democrats. But with the political environment that is currently present, this map looks a bit better for Democrats. Naturally speaking, this map will always have a lot of Democratic seats due to the fact 12 very blue states have seats up, including basically the whole northeast. There are also historically blue leaning swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota, along with classic swing states like Florida and Ohio. The fact the Democrats hold all of those seats would make it overextended but what makes it so extremely overextended is the fact they hold five very red seats, in Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, and West Virginia. Meanwhile the Republicans are guarding six pretty red states and then two swingy ones, Arizona and Nevada. Let’s dive in:
Safe D (13): California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Washington
These are blue states. And in a very blue leaning environment, any hope of Republican pickups kind of goes out the window. No one major from the Republicans is taking these incumbents on. Bob Menendez in New Jersey had the potential to be vulnerable due to the corruption allegations, but after there was a mistrial, it seems like he’ll keep going. And as long as the New Jersey Democratic Party backs him (they do), he’ll likely be reelected because that’s how our last remaining pseudo-political machine works. Dianne Feinstein might be in some trouble- from the left. She’ll probably face a runoff challenger who is more liberal than she is, but that’s probably the closest any of these incumbents will come to being toppled.
Likely D (5): Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia
Now I’ll begin running through each state individually. These 4 are ones that if they weren’t swingy states (or in the case of Montana, red), they’d be safe. But the competitive nature of the state at the presidential level puts them here even though Republicans can’t feel good about their prospects of flipping these seats.
Michigan: Debbie Stabenow
Stabenow is a solid incumbent, but in no way is she a Carl Levin-like legendary senator. Michigan is a left leaning state (PVI: D+1, pre-2016, D+3), but in no way a safe state. Trump won this state (barely). Yet the GOP field to take on Stabenow is barren. GOP US Rep. Fred Upton (MI-06) thought about taking the plunge but it looks like he’s going to seek reelection to the house. Ex-State Supreme Court Justice Robert Young was chasing the nomination for this seat but after raising no money he dropped out last week. That leaves the Republican field as a pair of businessmen, one of whom is first described as a “historic preservationist”. These two men also have about the same name recognition that I do in Michigan statewide (none). I really struggle how either of these candidates makes any serious run at Stabenow but we’ll leave it in likely D for now.
Montana: Jon Tester
Montana is a weird state, with a pretty right lean at the presidential level, but a history of electing statewide Democrats, like Tester himself. The two term incumbent is back for round #3 and he has earned his right to be in the Senate. He beat the scandal ridden Conrad Burns in 2006 but then fended off Grade A challenger Denny Rehberg in 2012, a race some thought he would lose. And he did so by an impressive 4 point margin. He sports good approval rating numbers from Morning Consult (even though I don’t put much stock in those). But the big reason why he’s under Likely D besides his strong incumbency is that Republicans have no good candidate to face him. Having not elected a Republican governor since 2000, Montana doesn’t have the best statewide bench of GOPers, but their statewide congressional district offers candidates. Unfortunately for Team Red, the last three are all unavailable, because the most recent one is in the President’s cabinet (Ryan Zinke), one is in the Senate (Steve Daines), and one is Rehberg himself, who doesn’t want to give it another round. Rehberg began his term back in 2001, so that basically means you’re out of top tier candidates from this century. And thus, they were forced to go with uninspiring State Auditor Matt Rosendale who had serious problems raising money in the past. We have to wait for the Q4 fundraising report to see how he’s doing but he doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence and Tester has over $5 M cash-on-hand. As of now, it looks like Tester is going to get an easier ride in 2018.
Ohio: Sherrod Brown
I had a whole paragraph written about Brown vs. Mandel Part II and then less than an hour after I wrote that, the stunning news that Josh Mandel is dropping out comes out. Mandel declared he was running for this seat in December 2016 and was the presumptive nominee from that moment forward. Yes he had baggage and I was more skeptical of his candidacy than some, but the hole he leaves in the field is gaping. With him out, the GOP has a month to scrounge up a candidate. More than likely, either US Rep. Jim Renacci (OH-16) or Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor will switch from running for governor and instead seek this seat. Neither are much better candidates than Mandel at this moment in time if we’re being honest, and you can make the case they are worse. Renacci and Taylor are trailing behind Mike DeWine in the gubernatorial primary and they have their own issues. Renacci is a controversial Trumpian loudmouth who is hard right and has a congressional voting record to defend. Mary Taylor is similar to Luther Strange, a party person who is an establishment favorite but barely has a pulse and she has also had severe problems raising money in the gubernatorial primary. Meanwhile Sherrod Brown’s approval ratings have been good and he’s carved out a niche as an anti-free trade, blue collar senator that puts him in a strong position at this point. He’s a clear favorite right now.
Pennsylvania: Bob Casey Jr.
Casey hails from traditionally Democratic-leaning Pennsylvania, which had a pretty notable swing towards Trump in 2016. That said, it’s still a swing state and in the environment that seems to be present in 2018, the expectation is that this is a race Dems should win. Casey’s father was Governor of Pennsylvania and the family name carries a lot of weight. He entered the Senate after spanking Rick Santorum back in 2006, and then won reelection easily in 2012 against a weak opponent. This time around he faces a better challenger in US Rep. Lou Barletta (PA-11), but still not a great one. Barletta is very Trumpian, and is hard right on immigration. In a year that will largely be a referendum on Trump, and where the majority of voters who will show up to the polls will almost certainly disapprove of Trump (more on that later), this might not be the best time to be a mini-Trump. This perhaps has the potential to be competitive, but with the Republicans defending so many governorships, something like 65+ House swing districts, and a few Senate seats + better pickup opportunities, Barletta is probably going to be on his own here, fundraising-wise. Can he do it? Sure. But I think that Casey has to like his position at this point.
Virginia: Tim Kaine
This is a swing state that is getting bluer and I almost feel bad putting it as a competitive race. Tim Kaine is a solid incumbent and a former governor. Not untouchable but also not weak. And the Virginia Republicans, fresh off their 2017 shellacking are offering up two candidates which are better served for a favorite political game show: Who’s The Bigger Nutjob?. On one hand you have neo-confederate wackdoodle Corey Stewart, who almost won the Virginia Gubernatorial primary back in June 2017. On the other hand is E.W. Jackson, the GOP’s Lt. Governor nominee who lost to Ralph Northam back in 2013 after running an embarrassingly bad campaign. Both guys have made their fair share of crazy statements and neither seem capable of running a close campaign in this environment. Ed Gillespie’s racial identity politics were soundly rejected in 2017 and I doubt that Stewart, who is even farther down that trail, will have any more success. This is looking more and more like a sacrificial lamb for Kaine and I likely will only need to see one poll to move this to Safe D.
Lean D (5): Florida, Minnesota (Special), North Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin
Florida: Bill Nelson
Nelson is looking for term #4 and hasn’t been seriously challenged since he won his first term back in 2000. This time around, he will either be seriously challenged or let free once again. Why? For awhile, it was assumed as a near certainty that term limited Florida Governor Rick Scott was going to challenge Nelson. We’ll analyze Scott in a minute, but he’d at least be a formidable challenger. But Scott appears to have gotten cold feet and still hasn’t declared whether or not he’s going to run. A recent New York Times article claims that Scott has seen the ugly generic ballot numbers and has begun to realize that 2018 may not be a very good year to be running a federal race as a Republican. If Scott does not end up running, I’m not sure who exactly would jump in, perhaps one of the older Reps like Vern Buchanan, but this race would move to Likely D instantly and the Democrats will breathe a big sigh of relief. Why? More than anything else, Scott is a pain in the butt to face because of his wealth. He could instantly drop $200 M on this race alone and force the Democrats to spend huge sums of money they don’t want to. Scott has won two statewide races for governor, both by small margins in good GOP years. His approval rating has seen an uptick recently, but he’s still got a lot of baggage. If he runs, I’d keep the race here and give the edge to Nelson due to the environment and questions about Scott, but it would be a boon to the Democratic Party if he doesn’t. So will he? I’m starting to lean no, because of how long he’s held out and because the whole idea of Rick Scott in the Senate didn’t make a ton of sense given his history as a CEO and as a Governor. He’s more of an executive type, not one who’d want to be one of 100. But only time will tell here.
Minnesota: Tina Smith (Special Election)
Smith, the former Lieutenant Governor, was recently sworn in as Governor Dayton’s replacement for the disgraced Al Franken and she plans to seek election in the special election this fall. The projections for this race are all over the place, with Cook Political Report calling it a tossup, Sabato’s Crystal Ball calling it Lean D, and Rothenberg calling it Likely D. We’re going to side with Larry Sabato’s crew and place it here. Minnesota is a blue leaning state, but this is a seat that could easily flip in the right year for Republicans. Unfortunately for them, 2018 is not one of those years. Additionally the GOP bench is pretty weak in Minnesota and the best candidate to declare so far is State Senator Karin Housely, not exactly an A-lister. The two names the Minnesota GOP wants to recruit are Michelle Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty. Bachmann would be a disaster given that her approval ratings in that state are this gif (she managed to make a red seat competitive multiple times due to her unpopularity). Pawlenty, a two term governor, in theory would be a good get, but his approval ratings were pretty low, he never got a majority in his statewide runs, and he doesn’t have great favorables even in post-gubernatorial life. Tom Emmer is another possibility, but he managed to lose a governor’s race for an open seat in 2010 of all years. I think it’s very to say that Team Blue are the favorites given that they have a pretty solid candidate and the winds at their backs, and that the GOP is going to struggle to conjure a good candidate.
North Dakota: Heidi Heitkamp
Heitkamp, like Jon Tester, has earned her right to be a US Senator. In 2012 she beat former North Dakota statewide US Rep. Rick Berg in a race that no one thought a Democrat would win and she was expected to come up short in. Yet she won by 3,000 votes, capturing a majority and running about 13 points ahead of Barack Obama’s mark. After Donald Trump slaughtered Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race in North Dakota, Heitkamp was put on notice. However, she is the favorite in this bid for reelection for a few reasons. First off, the political winds are at her back in the form of the environment. Second, her approval ratings remain very, very high. Third, she’s carved out a good position for herself in a state like ND, voting with the Democrats on the important bills, yet cozying up to Trump optics-wise. Meanwhile, GOP recruiting for this race has been sluggish, a sign that Republicans know Heitkamp is a strong incumbent. So far, wealthy State Senator Tom Campbell is the only GOPer to declare. Trump wants US Rep. Kevin Cramer to declare for this race, and I think Democrats would be fine with that. In theory, his office makes him an A-List candidate. On the other hand, he has a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease, and also seems to be paying his family members with campaign money. This could get close, but for now, Heitkamp is the favorite.
West Virginia: Joe Manchin III
In my last senate ratings back in October, I wrote a lot about Joe Manchin, and how his situation is not really comparable to Mark Pryor’s from 2014 so I’m going to save some words here. His approval ratings remain strong and he leads all of his challengers in head to head matchups. However, the fact this is West Virginia, the Trumpiest state of all, means that the race is Lean D. The one thing that Manchin needs to avoid is having Trump get involved in this race, due to the fact that West Virginia loves Trump. The President has reportedly been angry that Manchin didn’t vote for the tax bill, so if I were him, I’d be cozying up to Trump as much as possible, maybe working with the President on infrastructure or drug legislation, something to subside that vitriol and get Trump out of the race. At the moment he’s the clear favorite, despite facing solid challengers, in Evan Jenkins (WV-03) and Patrick Morrissey (State Attorney General), due to his still strong popularity and powerful incumbency factors. If there’s one thing that I think Manchin could also benefit from, it’s coal company CEO Don Blankenship winning the nomination. While unlikely, the scandal ridden Blankenship could be an easy win for Manchin. He has to hope that he gets lucky, but otherwise, he’s in for a solid test, but he will be a very, very tough out.
Wisconsin: Tammy Baldwin
This has been the most baffling recruiting whiff of all for the Republicans. Even worse than Montana, this is a state with a freshman incumbent who doesn’t have terrific approval rating numbers. She’s no pushover, but she also doesn’t have a strong personal brand like a Manchin or a Heitkamp. Yet the only two candidates are businessman Kevin Nicholson and State Senator Leah Vukmir. And so far, neither are impressing. Vukmir reportedly raised over $400,000 in Q4, which is a haul for a house race. But in the senate, that’s rather pitiful, especially in a decent sized state like Wisconsin. Baldwin hasn’t disclosed how much she raised in Q4, but it’s probably quite a bit, given she raised $2.4 M in Q3. She already has $5.3 M cash-on-hand entering this quarter and it’s going to be an uphill climb for either Nicholson or Vukmir. Baldwin won her term rather impressively in 2012, beating former Governor Tommy Thompson by a healthy 5.5 point margin (running just narrowly behind Obama), and so maybe the failure in GOP recruiting is a sign that she’s stronger than she appears. The Republican establishment in Wisconsin (including both Paul Ryan and Reince Priebus) is pretty powerful and the fact they still haven’t been able to conjure up a strong challenger is telling. Right now, Democrats have to love the way this race is going and Republicans need to turn it around quickly or else they will have missed on a solid pickup opportunity.
Tossup (4): Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada
We’ve now arrived at the most competitive ratings, ones that could easily go either way. At this point, I view 5 seats as tossups, 3 held by Republicans and 2 held by Democrats. These races will determine who commands a majority in the chamber after 2018.
Arizona: Open (Flake)
This seat has been a tossup since Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09) declared she was running for it. She’s the best possible candidate the Democrats could conjure and landing her was huge for their overall prospects. She’s very moderate, which is ideal for a state that, while trending blue, still is pinkish. Sinema has the makeup of a pioneer senator, like Jim Webb was to Virginia back in 2006, a blue dog who can be the first in a lineage of transforming a red state blue. At the time she declared, she was set to be facing embattled incumbent Jeff Flake. But Flake has since dropped out, which didn’t help Democrats all that much since his approval ratings were ungodly bad. However, since then, Republican recruiting has been sluggish. Resident nutjob Kelli Ward is running, but establishment GOPers will do everything they can to keep her from being the nominee. Their choice seems to be US Rep. Martha McSally (AZ-02), and she’s sorta declared. Back in November it was reported that McSally had told her House colleagues that she was running, but she is yet to start a campaign website and officially announce her candidacy. While she’d be a formidable opponent for Sinema, she will have trouble winning the nomination given that conservative groups are lining up against her and Republican primary voters nationwide have a history of nominating the crazy/unqualified candidate rather than the one that can actually win (see: Moore, Roy) and that could come up in a showdown with her and Ward. Democrats have to like their position in this race currently but there is still a lot of time to go.
Indiana: Joe Donnelly
Donnelly is the second-most endangered Senate Democrat and his 2012 victory was rather improbable. It started with *surprise* Republican primary voters choosing the less secure and riskier candidate (Richard Mourdock) rather than the shoo-in (Dick Lugar). And then the consequences of said decision helped Donnelly a second time when Mourdock made his “God intended rape” gaffe. All of that said, the amount that the gaffe helped Donnelly is pretty overstated in my opinion. Yes, without that comment, Donnelly would not have won by 6 points, but it’s not a foregone conclusion that he would have lost that race. Yes, Indiana is a red state and Obama was losing it by about 10 points on the same night, but Donnelly is a good politician. He held down a reddish district (though IN-02 was much more favorable to Democrats in the 2000s than it is now) in the House and polls showed a tight race between him and Mourdock before the gaffe (Pharos research had it 46-46 just days before Mourdock’s error). And since entering the Senate, Donnelly has done what he’s needed to do, being the 21st century equivalent of a blue dog and his approval ratings from Morning Consult (again, not a lot of stock put into it) are very solid. He’s going to be a tough out, especially with the winds blowing strongly at the backs of Democrats (more on that later). Meanwhile, the Republican side has three main challengers, ex-State Rep. Mike Braun, US Rep. Luke Messer (IN-06), and US Rep. Todd Rokita (IN-04). Braun is a bit of a wild card, but the primary is already nasty between Messer and Rokita and Donnelly no doubt wants to sit back and watch the two weaken each other and create easy lines of attack he can use on the eventual winner. For now, this is a tossup.
Missouri: Claire McCaskill
We have now reached the most vulnerable Senate Democrat and the second most endangered Senate incumbent (the next person on the list takes the cake). McCaskill first got to the Senate by riding the 2006 Democratic wave to defeat Jim Talent, and she may need another wave in 2018 to carry her to a third term. In 2012 she was in a lot of trouble against ex-US Rep. Todd Akin until Akin made a comment about instances of “legitimate rape”. That comment destroyed his entire campaign almost instantly. Much like what happened to Roy Moore, Akin was isolated by national Republicans and in a state that is much less conservative than Alabama (though still pretty red), he got shellacked by McCaskill. But now she’s back for re-election and her approval ratings from Morning Consult aren’t great. They’re the type (I’m going to do a long piece about Senate approval ratings in the future) that indicate that she’s clearly the most vulnerable Democrat and is in for the fight of her life. She’s also up against “rising star” Josh Hawley, the state Attorney General who is very well funded. McCaskill’s playbook seems to be to go the Harry Truman route and barnstorm, holding a ton of town halls. And despite Missouri’s red makeup, we nearly witnessed Jason Kander upset Roy Blunt last fall in a pretty neutral/GOP-leaning environment. If that race had been run in 2018’s environment, I think without a doubt Kander wins. But can McCaskill pull off the same support and appeal that Kander had? Who knows. But she’s gonna need it.
Nevada: Dean Heller
And here we have the most vulnerable Senate incumbent of all. As I wrote in my last Senate ratings, Heller has done just about everything possible to oust himself from the Senate when it came to Obamacare repeal. And then on taxes, Heller decided to put his name all over the very unpopular tax plan in this genius tweet. It makes me wonder just how politically out of touch Heller has to be to tweet like that. Also, shoutout to that tweet getting ratioed to death. Heller’s approval ratings have been dreadful and he’s facing a strong challenger, in US Rep. Jack Rosen (NV-03). He’s also going to have to survive a primary against perennial candidate Danny Tarkanian, who is hugging Trump and hoping that that carries himself over Heller. Either one winning gives Democrats a huge pickup opportunity. Heller is serving in a light blue state (PVI is D+1) and this environment is, once again, strongly favoring Democrats. I’m inclined to believe that he’s going to need to pull a rabbit out of a hat to survive 2018, but the lack of polling/glut of time means this race is securely parked as a tossup.
Lean R (1): Tennessee
Tennessee: Open (Corker)
This is the big rating change from last time around and it is certain to ruffle some feathers in the comments. Sabato’s Crystal Ball and Rothenberg Political Report have this as Likely Republican, while the Cook Political Report has it as a tossup. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this race and it’s kind of in between Lean R and Tossup at this moment in time. The Democrats have an excellent candidate, Phil Bredesen. I wrote a whole piece about him when he declared, and he’s the sole reason that this race has switched columns and is just about the only person in Tennessee that can make this race competitive. In order to win, he’s going to need to hug the center, not really talk about Trump much, and focus on winning issues, particularly opioids, which was a focal point of his governorship and a big weak spot in his most likely opponent, US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN-07). The polling we’ve seen so far is mostly based off of name recognition but it indicates that Bredesen isn’t going to be a pushover, at least not yet. The state’s lean and the lack of true polling makes us go a bit conservative and leave it here, but this could easily move in either direction in the next few months.
Likely R (1): Texas
Texas: Ted Cruz
This is a race that I’ve been watching closely for awhile. Texas had a big swing towards the Democrats in 2016 and it will have a handful of intriguing House races in 2018. Its margin was actually closer than Iowa’s and if this state were Iowa, it would be graded a lot more competitively than it currently is. Now there are reasons why we aren’t treating Texas the same way obviously, and there are signs that Iowa is regressing back to its swing state days, but a state that Hillary Clinton got over 43% in shouldn’t be laughed away. Ted Cruz is a controversial incumbent but he’s a solid politician who is well funded, and that contributes to why likely Democratic nominee Beto O’Rourke is an underdog. But O’Rourke is running an interesting campaign and is fundraising well. Due to the environment, this race is only Likely R, and it may never be competitive. But it’s too intriguing and O’Rourke is too interesting of a candidate for me to totally say it’s safe. Cruz’s campaign put out a poll recently showing him with a big lead which we shouldn’t put too much stock into because the whole goal of releasing that was to show him with a big lead. Internal polling in general is fishy and ones that are intentionally released serve only a few purposes and are rarely reputable. But the fact they felt a need to release that poll makes me inclined to believe that perhaps this race is closer than some people are expecting. We’re keeping it in Likely R for now.
Safe R (4): Mississippi, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming
These states are, for the moment, safe. Mississippi could easily become competitive if two things happen: Brandon Presley runs for the Democrats and Chris McDaniel wins the Republican primary. But it seems that both of them are waiting to see if Thad Cochran retires (more on that in a minute). Utah had the chance to be competitive if Orrin Hatch ran again and the Democrats could lure Jim Matheson into the race, but with Hatch out and Mitt Romney likely running, that will be an easy Republican hold. Democrats have a decent candidate in Wyoming in Gary Trauner, but they will probably need Erik Prince to win the primary to have any shot in that state.
Concluding/Thoughts on the battle for control
As it stands now, battle for control is a tossup. That means simply that the races required to put either party over the top are in the tossup column. Prior to Alabama, the battle for control was Likely Republican, as three Democratic flips were required and only two Republican-held seats were in the tossup column. But now, simply defending their seats and winning Nevada and Arizona would give Democrats control. If we’re being honest, flipping Nevada and Arizona is probably easier at this point than defending their seats, but they are helped by the fact that incumbents of the opposition party in midterm elections rarely lose their seats, and the only time it has happened without a scandal were in neutral midterms where the President was very popular (AKA the opposite of 2018). But defending several blue seats in very red states is a pretty extraordinary circumstance as well.
However, my main thought emerging about how the Democrats can protect their vulnerable seats has to deal with Trump’s approval rating by state. I’m hoping to do a post about this idea some point down the road, but the Alabama election was a pretty striking example of the concept that the 2018 electorate will probably be pretty unfavorable to Trump. The Alabama exit polls indicated that the electorate’s approval/disapproval of the president was 48/48, a rather striking number. Part of that was that some Trump voters didn’t show up, either because of Moore or because of the enthusiasm/turnout edge that Democrats seem to have. But that Alabama, one of the reddest states of all, had Trump only at 48/48 can teach us big lessons about these other states. Most notably, that in most all of these races, the electorate’s approval of Trump will be underwater. In the “soft” Trump states that we’ve looked at, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, the approval of the President is almost certainly underwater, along with Virginia and Minnesota. But even in states like Indiana, Missouri, and possibly Montana, it is likely that Trump’s approval is underwater. How do we know this? If you simply apply the Cook PVI from the state to Trump’s national numbers, you get a rough idea:
Missouri and Indiana are R+9 states. If Donald Trump’s approval/disapproval rating is roughly 37/57 (which has been what it’s been around for most of the last 8 months), then in those states, we’d expect his numbers to be 46/48 in those states.
Factor in a potential enthusiasm gap benefitting the disapproval side, and it’s not hard to see how a Joe Donnelly or a Claire McCaskill could survive simply by winning those who disapprove of the President, much how Doug Jones won in Alabama largely by winning those who disapproved of the President. Thus, Trump’s approval rating on November 6, 2018 will be really crucial. If it sinks to a point lower than its average, and is at say, 35/61, then Democrats would be in a nice position. But if it were to tick back up over 40, those prospects wane.
The final ideas that must be discussed are potential wildcards, most notably seats that could open up. It is now widely believed that Thad Cochran, Sen. Mississippi, who has been dealing with terrible health, is going to resign. That would trigger a special election for his seat, one where troubled candidate Chris McDaniel might be the favorite for the Republicans. A McDaniel vs. Brandon Presley matchup could be very good news for Democrats. Mississippi is the blackest state of all, and thus is a significantly easier state to win in than Alabama was for Democrats. Its PVI is R+9 (no different than Missouri, for example) and Barack Obama took 43.8% of the vote there in 2012. In a better environment and with a better regional candidate (e.g. Presley) and a weaker opponent (e.g. Chris McDaniel), Democrats could make some real noise.
But the most pivotal wildcard is Arizona’s other seat, held by John McCain. McCain missed large stretches of the fall Senate session due to his battle with brain cancer. He’s the type of Senator that would be inclined to resign rather than fall to a state where he can’t perform basic Senate duties. If he were to resign or pass away, that seat would open and would become an instant tossup, giving Democrats another opportunity to flip a seat, and create a scenario where they could potentially afford to lose Missouri/Indiana and still take the majority.
As for now, there is a lot of time and a lot of uncertainty, since we haven’t seen much polling in any of these races. But I expect battle for senate control to be seriously up in the air on election night, adding more intrigue to a hugely consequential midterm.