Can the Democrats Win the Senate?

As the year wears on, the Democrats and Republicans are starting to see their Senate battle for next year come into play, but it's difficult at this juncture to be able to tell what direction the winds are blowing.  Yesterday the Republicans got what might be their only major challenger-recruitment in Nevada, where an open seat (Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is retiring after decades of being one of the most powerful men in the country) is waging and Rep. Joe Heck, a three-term congressman from a swing district is making the jump to run statewide against former Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto.  This amped up the Democrats' chances in the House but hurt them in the Senate.  But right now, so far out from the election, it's the Senate that Washington is paying more attention to, since recruitment seems to almost be done.  The DSCC needs four seats if the Democrats hold the White House and five seats if they don't, but really they need a little bit more than that.  The reality is that, in a year where the Democrats are realizing how much the majority can matter in the Senate (just look at the amount of judicial nominations that have been stalled this year so far), they are clearly going to want a more sizable chunk of wins in 2016 to curb their losses in 2018.  That year, a midterm (which we know from 2010 and 2014 has become the Democrats' kryptonite) will feature Democrats trying to hold seats in Romney-states like Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, Missouri, and West Virginia, which means that they really need as many seats as possible in 2016 to gain some sort of buffer in 2018 (as surely some of those senators will retire or lose reelection).  Can the Democrats win in 2016 and potentially gain enough to hold in 2018?  I have broken down the three groups of Senate seats in 2016 below based on their chances.

The Must-Wins

Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)

These four seats I would argue are all seats that the Democrats have a very strong chance, in fact a better chance than the Republicans, of winning in 2016.  Two of them are actually Democratic-held seats.  One of the unwritten stories of the 2016 cycle, perhaps the best story so far for the Democrats, is the Colorado race.  Not only did the NRSC fail to recruit either Rep. Mike Coffman or his wife Attorney General Cynthia Coffman to take on two-term Sen. Michael Bennet, but the State GOP is in the middle of a nasty scandal against it's state chair, with some alleging that the Attorney General blackmailed the State Chair to get him to step down.  This turmoil has taken ahold of the front pages and is going to make finding a candidate to run against Sen. Michael Bennet that much harder.  Alongside Colorado is the aforementioned Nevada, a state that has a long history of close Senate races, but one where the Democrats should have an advantage if Hillary Clinton is able to hold together Barack Obama's coalition (Obama did remarkably well in the state in both of his White House bids).  While the Republicans did win in 2012, that was against a much inferior representative with an incumbent running for the GOP, neither of which is an advantage that Joe Heck will have.

The Democrats also have two major pickup opportunities in neighboring states.  The best shot is going to be in Illinois, the most Democratic state in the Union that is represented by a Republican in the Senate.  Sen. Mark Kirk may be able to pick off moderate Democrats and independents, but provided that Rep. Tammy Duckworth doesn't make many unforced errors, it's difficult to see that being enough-she'll need to run double digit-points behind Hillary Clinton in order to lose the state, which seems unlikely.  Wisconsin is a much closer state, but Republican Sen. Ron Johnson has been pretty tone deaf about the state's slight blue swing (especially in a presidential year), and short of Scott Walker being the nominee I suspect that he'll be the underdog against the man he beat six years ago, Sen. Russ Feingold. It'll be interesting to see how Feingold handles a post-Citizens United world (he's famous for his advocacy for campaign finance reform, and the Republicans are already targeting him on it), but in a state that is famously polarized (there's very little middle here to parcel through), Feingold is up in the polls and has the advantage if the Democrats remain competitive for the White House.  Colorado, Nevada, Illinois, and Wisconsin are basically the base for the Democrats-they can't lose any if they want a shot at the majority.

The Majority

The majority, though, will be decided by four additional states.  If the Democrats take the Must-Wins, they would need two seats with Hillary Clinton victorious and three without her.  Here I give you four, so most of them would need to go to the Democrats in order for them to win.  None of them are gimmes, but none of them are particularly strong for the GOP as well.

Probably the wildest seat of the bunch is in Florida, which is of course going to be home to a major battleground for the White House (it always is).  The Sunshine State has two major primaries on both sides that could get nasty.  The GOP has Reps. Ron DeSanstis and Jeff Miller, as well as Lt. Governor Carlos Lopez-Cantera all three running in what could be an interesting primary-none of the three have an obvious advantage, which means that negative campaigning will probably come into play, and in particular a run to the right.  The DSCC has a clear favorite in the Democratic primary with Rep. Patrick Murphy, a moderate Democrat from a swing district of the state, but the Democrats have a major problem in Rep. Alan Grayson, a bombastic but left-leaning congressman who has been threatening for months to run a nasty primary against Murphy to drag him to the left.  Grayson winning the primary would give this seat on a silver platter to the Republicans while Murphy would likely have the advantage in the general, which makes this the most important Democratic Primary (the party is basically begging Grayson to run for reelection instead).  Considering Florida's position as THE potential seat, Grayson's move could make or break the battle for the Senate.

Gov. Maggie Hassan (D-NH)

Probably the only person whose decision is similarly-important is Gov. Maggie Hassan, the Democratic head of New Hampshire.  Hassan has been rumored for months as the likely challenger to Sen. Kelly Ayotte, but rumors have started to spread that she's considering a run for reelection instead.  Hassan would make this one of the premiere races in the country, while her absence would give Ayotte a clear, though not impossible-to-beat, advantage (former Rep. Carol Shea-Porter and Executive Councilor Chris Pappas would likely give a go at the seat if Hassan passed).  National Democrats are hoping pretty hard that they can get Hassan for Senate, Pappas for Governor, and Shea-Porter for the House (potentially winning all three seats and making two congressional gains in the process), but that's entirely dependent on Hassan-any other combination of names makes the likelihood of winning all three races considerably less.

The final two seats the Democrats likely have their candidates, but the question is both around the national mood (these are two of the biggest swing states in the country) and exactly how partisan are voters in the state.  Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) won elections six years ago in part due to the national wave, but they're both consummate politicians who know how to fight.  Their likely opponents would certainly benefit from Hillary Clinton winning statewide (enough perhaps for them to be carried across), but they both have baggage.  Gov. Ted Strickland (OH) lost in 2010 and is a bit out-of-practice (witness upstart candidate PG Sittenfeld actually out-fundraising him last quarter), but he's definitely well-known and has actually led in most polling.  If he can step up his fundraising game and keep the White House race close or Lean Democrat, this could be a huge coup for the Democrats.  The Keystone Democrats have had more trouble, with them basically trying out every Democrat in the state before finally admitting that former Rep. Joe Sestak will be their nominee once again.  Sestak has been lacking in fundraising as well, but now that he has the support of the DSCC I'm guessing that will start to reverse soon.  Sestak is not a great team player, but Democrats know the math and the importance of this seat so they'll get over that pretty quickly if he keeps the race tight (he's still a vote for the majority even if he's a thorn-in-their-side).  If the Democrats can win the bulk of these four seats (a tall, but not skyscraper-height proposition), they will take the majority come January 2017.

The Battle for 2018

While the major battle for 2018 will be to get the likes of Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin to run for reelection, the battle for the majority in 2018 has already begun in four additional states.  The Democrats can get a majority out of the eight states we've just listed, no doubt, and if they run the tables in those states they could even get to 52 seats.  However considering the partisan nature of congressional elections in recent years, it seems increasingly likely that the Democrats will want a bit more of an insurance policy headed into a midterm where there are five Romney-state Democrats and only one Obama-state Republican (Dean Heller in Nevada).

Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC)

As a result, taking any of the following four seats would be a HUGE coup for the Democrats, though they start out at a disadvantage in all of them.  Probably the best shot would be in North Carolina, where Sen. Richard Burr's middling approval ratings and the potential for Hillary Clinton to win the state (the only one of the four states that starts out competitive) make a recipe for the Democrats that could be appetizing, but they lost their best shot when Sen. Kay Hagan turned down a race.  There are still big names like State Treasurer Janet Cowell and former Rep. Heath Shuler that could make a run for the seat, but they have to actually run in order for the Democrats to win, and no one seems to have floated a balloon in the wake of Hagan's announcement.  If the Democrats can land a top recruit, they have a shot here, but that clock is ticking as Burr continues to build up an arsenal.

The other three states have their candidate, but they are all states that went pretty solidly for Mitt Romney, which means the Democrats need Hillary Clinton to make the states competitive (which is a tough sell as most haven't gone to the Democrats for the White House since the 1990's) or for the Republicans to flub badly.  The best chance of that is probably in Arizona.  Sen. John McCain (R) is the most well-known maverick in the Senate, and as a result is definitely vulnerable to a primary, but he knows that and defeated one in 2010 with ease.  Rep. Matt Salmon (R) has been seen as a potential candidate against him next year, but Salmon has yet to enter the race and I wonder if he'll risk a promising career in the House to make a longshot bid against McCain.  If McCain is bruised in the primary at all, the Democrats got a surprisingly strong candidate in Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick who could take advantage of the situation (though it's worth noting that the DSCC was hoping for Rep. Krysten Sinema, who might still run).  A lot here depends on if Arizona's Latino voters are emboldened in 2016-this is the only state with a large Latino population (outside of Texas) that hasn't made a move to the left (states like Nevada, Colorado, and in particular New Mexico have become much more Democratic).  If you have a rough GOP primary AND an increase in Latino voters, Kirkpatrick could pull off the miracle, but that's a very tall order.

The final states are ones that either Barack Obama or Bill Clinton have won in recent White House bids, and both went Democratic in the Senate in 2012, but they are tough climbs.  Missouri and Indiana both got star recruits for the Democrats (Secretary of State Jason Kander and former Rep. Baron Hill, respectively), but they won't have the obvious advantages of now-Sens. Claire McCaskill and Joe Donnelly in that they don't appear to have to take on Tea Party candidates.  Missouri Republicans seem certain to re-nominate Sen. Roy Blunt and while the Indiana Republicans could have a messy primary, none of the candidates appear to have the foot-in-mouth syndrome that State Treasurer Richard Mourdock did three years ago.  An investment by Hillary Clinton in either state could change the math a bit, but Democrats will be counting on unforced errors to gain an advantage in these states, which is a tough place to be.  As a result, these two states along with Arizona and North Carolina are rough go's for the Democrats, though a win in any of the four would be a huge victory not for 2016, but for 2018.