Approval, incumbent US Senators up for election in 2016

[pbrower2a]

Note: This assessment can change rapidly should the Republicans not play obstructionist games with the nomination of a Justice of the Supreme Court. Anyone with an approval rating below 40% is in extreme danger of defeat, no matter what State he represents. Many pols with such low approval ratings retire  or get defeated in a primary.

Of course, should Republicans act responsibly with an Obama appointment this assessment reverses.

Update: Vermont, Vermont Public Radio/Castleton: Pat Leahy is up 65-14. I doubt that anyone can dispute this one.
From March (last update)


My take (and rationale):



Approval polls only.


Gray -- no incumbent at risk.
White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red -- Democrat running for re-election with current polls available.

Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       8     0
40-44    2     0
45-49   1      2
50-54    3      0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      3
retire    3      3  
indict     0      1
oth off  1      0
no poll  6      1


Now -- my projection for the 2016 Senate election:

Sure R:

Alabama
Idaho
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah

Likely R:
Alaska
Iowa (from Sure R)
Kansas


Edge R:
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana

Tossups
Arizona (from Edge R)
Georgia (from Edge R)
Nevada


All but one of the current tossups are current R seats.

Edge D:
Colorado
Florida*
Missouri* (from toss-up)
New Hampshire*
North Carolina* (from toss-up)
Ohio*
Pennsylvania*


Likely D:
Oregon
Washington


Solid D:
California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois*
Maryland
Vermont
Wisconsin*


*flip (so far all R to D)

New Jersey looks like a fairly sure hold should current, but indicted, Senator Bob Menendez be compelled to resign.

[Bronco80]

(05-17-2016, 05:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Note: This assessment can change rapidly should the Republicans not play obstructionist games with the nomination of a Justice of the Supreme Court. Anyone with an approval rating below 40% is in extreme danger of defeat, no matter what State he represents. Many pols with such low approval ratings retire  or get defeated in a primary.

Of course, should Republicans act responsibly with an Obama appointment this assessment reverses.

Every Democrat running against an incumbent Senator should be hammering over and over again about how important the stake of shifting the Supreme Court is in their race.
Also, Murray and Wyden only "likely" Democratic wins?  They're long time incumbents and the GOP has condemned itself to irrelevancy west of the Cascades.

[pbrower2a]

(05-18-2016, 08:31 AM)Bronco80 Wrote:

(05-17-2016, 05:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Note: This assessment can change rapidly should the Republicans not play obstructionist games with the nomination of a Justice of the Supreme Court. Anyone with an approval rating below 40% is in extreme danger of defeat, no matter what State he represents. Many pols with such low approval ratings retire  or get defeated in a primary.

Of course, should Republicans act responsibly with an Obama appointment this assessment reverses.

Every Democrat running against an incumbent Senator should be hammering over and over again about how important the stake of shifting the Supreme Court is in their race.
Also, Murray and Wyden only "likely" Democratic wins?  They're long time incumbents and the GOP has condemned itself to irrelevancy west of the Cascades.

I go on approval ratings. By adding six to an early approval rating and you get an assessment of the likely vote share of an incumbent seeking re-election. This is an estimate based on the assumption that every elected Senator (it also works for Governors) will be less popular by about 6% while governing or legislating than while in campaign mode. Nobody can maintain the campaign mode once the election is over. On the average one expects an 'average' opponent and a re-election campaign of reasonable competence. This applies to someone who has been elected before; this is incumbent advantage, and this does not apply to someone who has been appointed to office. Appointed Senators and Governors have yet to show that they can campaign competently.

I may be understating the chances of Murray (if she gets 53% of the vote, then she wins... and she could do better than that), or Wyden, for whom I have no polls. My assessment is based on "It's Oregon". That's how I have my assessment of South Dakota until I see polls from South Dakota. 

I had Senator Grassley (R-IA) as practically certain of a win when his approval rating was in the low 50s... but that was before the Senate leadership of the GOP took the high-risk course of holding off on approving any Justice to replace the open seat on the US Supreme Court that Antonin Scalia vacated due to death. The model cannot predict the effect of such a course of action upon incumbent Republican Senators. This should reasonably help incumbent Democrats far less than it hurts incumbent Republicans. Polling has shown low approval ratings for most incumbent Republicans, and that people in states with incumbent Republicans want their Senators to give some hearing to an Obama appointee. Of course the Senate can reject a Presidential crony, an extremist, or someone unready or corrupt. Presidential elections have consequences, one of  which is the responsibility to appoint qualified people to Cabinet posts and federal judgeships.

...The current class of US Senators were elected in 2010 in the Tea Party election. That political environment is very different from what we have now. High-turnout elections on the whole favor Democrats. 2010 was a Republican wave, and Republicans were able to get some Senators elected that might not get elected in a more normal climate. Some Republicans have been elected in places in which they would never be elected except in a Republican wave, and some have been shown either extreme or not up to the task.

[pbrower2a]

It seems that the two octogenarian Republican Senators running for re-election (McCain, Arizona; Grassley, Iowa) are losing their once-sure holds on Senate seats.

[MillsT_98]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...-3740.html

I haven't seen any new polls, but looks like Feingold's gonna get his seat back in 2016.

[Bronco80]

(06-05-2016, 07:05 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It seems that the two octogenarian Republican Senators running for re-election (McCain, Arizona; Grassley, Iowa) are losing their once-sure holds on Senate seats.

Oh man, it would be so awesome if both of them lost to Democrats.  It would also be a severe blow to the last remnants of Silent power in the Senate.