That being said, from a pragmatic standpoint it's almost better to have the Senate. One of the most lasting hallmarks of the Trump administration (and, indeed, what Mitch McConnell sold his soul for), was the large number of conservatives that he's been able to get appointed to the federal judiciary. Trump throughout 2017 outpaced his last three predecessors during his first year in terms of judges he had appointed/confirmed to the federal bench, and that's likely to grow even longer if the Democrats cannot win back the Senate. However, while the Democrats only need two seats (Doug Jones' victory remains the most consequential special election by a country mile over the past two years), that's still a very tough climb, particularly considering that Democrats have to defend 26 seats to the Republicans only needing to defend nine. Still, Jones ensured that the Democrats at least have a pragmatic mathematical option to win the Senate, so I wanted to do a step-by-step investigation into what I think will currently happen in the Senate (rather than our usual "State of the Senate" article), so let's take a look at the five questions that will decide who controls the Senate for the final two years of Trump's first (only?) term:
 |
| Rep. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) |
This entire conversation is a moot point if the Democrats can't at least take two seats. Thanks to Mike Pence, the Democrats can't just win and tie, they have to win two seats to break past a Pence tie (considering how polarized the senior body has become in recent years, I suspect Pence would have to set up camp at the Senate desk if we actually got a 50/50 Senate). As a result, there's no even theoretical majority if they don't win at least two seats, and almost certainly, those seats will have to be Arizona & Nevada.
Nevada's Sen. Dean Heller remains the most vulnerable incumbent of either party running for the Senate this year, and possibly the most vulnerable incumbent in Congress running this year. He holds the dubious distinction of being the only incumbent GOP senator up in 2018 that is running in a state that Hillary Clinton won. Therefore, his likely opponent (Rep. Jacky Rosen) will only need to convince Clinton voters to get out for her, rather than also peeling away a few Trump 2016 voters who have lost the faith (or just really hated Hillary). Heller avoided a potentially messy primary when President Trump convinced Danny Tarkanian to run for Congress instead, but that still might not save Heller against Rosen (who is doing her best to be a "Generic Democrat," which isn't an insult-Generic Democrats tend to poll higher), and quite frankly could backfire as Tarkanian's candidacy now makes it more likely that Susie Lee holds the 3rd district since he's the close-but-no-cigar candidate.
The second seat is less likely, but still a prime target. Arizona went for Trump, but only by 4-points and if the state's large Latino population turns out (in similar fashion to how Alabama's large African-American population turned out) in 2018, this could be a major get for Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, running to replace incumbent Sen. Jeff Flake (R). The Republicans have a strong candidate in Rep. Martha McSally, but she needs to get back two more-loyal-to-Trump Republicans, State Sen. Kelli Ward & Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Both Ward and Arpaio would be DOA in a general election during a blue wave, but that hasn't stopped the GOP from shooting-themselves-in-the-foot before (see also Christine O'Donnell), and if they don't split the vote (a serious threat), they could pose a serious risk to McSally. Quite frankly, even McSally v. Sinema could be a close race in the right circumstances, but Sinema will have to run a pretty flawless campaign to become the first Democrat since 1988 to win a Senate seat in the Grand Canyon State.
What I'd Predict at This Point: It kind of makes this article silly if I don't predict victories for both (I did give away you can't win without breaking a few eggs here), but I will say that at this juncture I'd probably bet on Rosen and Sinema both to win. Rosen's race seems one of the easier "tossup" calls of 2018, and indeed if the election were actually held today, most of those pundits deeming this race a "Tossup" would be moving it to Lean Democratic, considering the state's fundamentals and the national environment. Sinema's prediction is predicated on McSally having a rough primary or perhaps losing it entirely, but that seems likely to happen and I think that this could be an election cycle where we see typically under-represented Democratic base groups (like Latino voters) turn out in stronger-than-usual-for-a-midterm numbers. So Democrats get their +2.
 |
| Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) |
The largest question for the Democrats is not whether they'll take the above two seats (like I said, if they don't, this whole exercise becomes pointless and Mitch McConnell gets two more years in charge of the judiciary). The bigger question is-can incumbent Democrats overcome Donald Trump to actually stay on for another term. Is Trump love stronger than the blue wave?
There are ten Trump-won states that Democrats have to defend in 2018 that Donald Trump won, but those aren't all created equally, and I've dubbed the "Big 5" here the five that seem most likely to flip to the GOP at this point. Democrats really need to win all of these or find another "Doug Jones-Style Miracle" on the map, and that's a tall order. Each of them come with at least some good news for the Democrats, but also a lot of trouble for the party.
The most vulnerable of the Big 5 are probably Sens. Claire McCaskill (MO) and Joe Donnelly (IN). Both represent pretty red states, and states that got increasingly redder the longer that President Obama was in office. Both had top-tier Senate candidates in 2016 (Jason Kander and Evan Bayh, respectively) that ended up losing on Election Night, and both have top-tier challengers in 2018, though Donnelly's are still in the middle of a primary so it's hard to tell which of the brawling members of Congress ends up being his foe. A wave will surely help them, but I'd say at best that the Democrats have a 50/50 shot keeping these two, and will probably need a little bit of luck (or for Trump's approval in these states to tumble a bit more) to take both of them. If the Democrats are taking both, it's likely they've won the Senate majority (hence why I keep telling people if you want to donate to a Senate campaign, give to McCaskill, Donnelly, Sinema, or Rosen)
The last three are a tad bit rosier for the Democrats, but hardly worth bragging about. Sen. Bill Nelson represents the most marginal state (Florida went for Trump by 1.2-points), but he's also (probably-he's rumored to be announcing on Monday) got the best NRSC recruit of the cycle, two-term Gov. Rick Scott. Scott has had a decent amount of popularity since the hurricanes last year, and has won against tough opponents before. Nelson's also a storied politician, but Scott is probably the best candidate he's faced in his Senate career, and the Republican will have his own deep pockets to finance the campaign if need be. This is a tossup race, and Nelson's going to need the notoriously disorganized Democratic Party of Florida to get its act together to win this seat.
The final two I'm still getting a gage on, but including because the fundamentals favor a tossup. Sen. Joe Manchin is still figuring out his opponent in West Virginia, and controversial coal baron Don Blankenship (fresh out of jail) is fast-emerging as an unlikely leader for the Republican nomination, which could be a blessing (though his status as a "coal baron" shouldn't be lightly dismissed) for Manchin if he is as toxic as he should be (and would divert precious resources for the Democrats to another race). Sen. Heidi Heitkamp knows her opponent (Rep. Kevin Cramer), but Heitkamp is a smart campaigner, and also Cramer is not the ideal candidate Republicans made him out to be (though he seemed better than State Sen. Tom Campbell). Both candidates are going to go in with not just a wave, but a decent amount of personal goodwill in states that are famous for reelecting their incumbents, but they also represent the states that Trump is arguably the most popular in of these five, so it's a strange juxtaposition.
What I'd Predict at this Point: Anyone calling any of these five races "safe" for the Democrats needs their head examined, but none of them are unwinnable at this point. That said, I'd argue that it's hard to think that both McCaskill AND Donnelly win from this vantage point, so I'm going to assume that McCaskill falls. I'm not quite to the point where I'd predict both, but honestly a wash isn't out of the question with both of these two (or maybe Nelson) losing, but if the Democrats want a serious chance of winning the Senate, they're probably going to need to take at least one of these five races completely off the map by November (Manchin's seems the most likely, but Chuck Schumer's not going to be picky on that front), and improve all of the candidates' standings a little. But to illustrate a point later in the article, I'll say McCaskill loses but Donnelly rides a split primary to a slim victory.
 |
| Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) |
So before we get into stranger hypotheticals that might get the Democrats back to 51, we have to acknowledge that the Democrats still need to hold all of the other seats, and probably keep them from actually being competitive, in order to have any shot at the majority. At this point, I don't see a lot of evidence that any Hillary-won seats will become competitive, short of a scandal. In some of the more marginally-won seats in Clinton Country (Tim Kaine and Tina Smith's, for example), the Republicans have failed in recruitment and the incumbents seem clean, and the one truly troubled incumbent (Bob Menendez) is in a state that Clinton won by 14 points two years ago. A #MeToo scandal could rock one of these races, but at this juncture I don't see any evidence that the 16 senators are up for reelection in Clinton-won seats will lose to a Republican, even if it's not entirely clear that they won't lose to a Democrat (looking at you, Dianne Feinstein).
So if one of these races bolts, it's going to be one of the five senators running in seats that Trump won. I think the least likely to go in that direction are Debbie Stabenow & Bob Casey, both of whom represent marginal Trump-seats (Stabenow's Michigan went to him by less than half a percentage point), and neither seems vulnerable in November; Stabenow never got a top-tier challenger, and Casey can be comforted by Conor Lamb's surprise victory, as it shows that more traditionally Democratic voters are willing to come back to the party in 2018.
The other three seats, however, seem a tad bit more vulnerable, though I'd argue all have something of a lean toward the Democrats. Sen. Sherrod Brown is outperforming most polls so far (by a sizable margin, to the point where he's above the important 50% marker), but Ohio swung hard right in 2016 and his opponent (Rep. Jim Renacci) isn't super well-known. If Brown is still pulling these sorts of numbers in September, chalk this up to him being super popular (and a bit lucky) and also that he will become a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2020; until then he remains a marginal favorite. His colleague Tammy Baldwin also seems reasonably safe, though Republicans appear to think that Baldwin is much more vulnerable than polls (or common sense) let on, which has me scratching my head but giving them some benefit-of-the-doubt. Still, she has to feel good that the GOP couldn't get one of its best candidates to run here (her opponent will be decidedly second tier, though second tier candidates do occasionally win elections...just ask Joni Ernst), and that Rebecca Dallet just showed her where to campaign to win a healthy majority in November. And finally, we have Sen. Jon Tester, arguably the closest person to tossup territory in this group, but who has a relatively weak opponent and has good enough retail politicking skills (and proof in Gov. Steve Bullock that he can win despite Trump) that I think he's got to be considered the frontrunner. Polls start to tighten and I'll reassess that, but for now I suspect Tester gets a third term.
What I'd Predict at this Point: This is less about predicting who will win (I suspect all of them would today) and more about predicting who might become competitive. Really, the Democrats need as many of these races to be "non-events" as possible even as early as Labor Day. Some of these start creeping into Tossup territory, it's going to give them less advantage to do more offense (or play a stronger defense) as they'll run out of money. But yes, we stay 50R-50D here as I think all of these people would win by varying margins as of today.
 |
| Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-TN) |
This is the biggest question right now. Doug Jones made it mathematically possible for the Democrats to win the Senate. Were they to win every seat we just profiled, they'd have a 51-49 majority. But as I mentioned, I think either McCaskill or Donnelly (or both) could falter this year, and it's hard to imagine a perfect sweep of all of the competitive races as even in tough years they don't quite get there. As a result, if the Democrats could open up at least one more seat, they'd be in a much better place for November.
Three seats theoretically could make that possible, though all clearly have a lot of Republican advantages (yes, so did Alabama, that's why I named this "is there another 'Doug Jones' on the Map?"-pay attention!). For starters, there's Texas, where the Democrats are clearly trying their best to sink a basket with top-tier fundraiser and sitting Rep. Beto O'Rourke. O'Rourke, though, feels like the sort of candidate who will beat expectations, but not beat Ted Cruz, and while party-building is important, it's not going to get you a Senate majority in 2018. I'd say that we need some substantive polling here before I buy Cruz is actually vulnerable, and not just going to win by 7-8 points instead of 15.
The Mississippi race is obviously tempting, but it's probably too weird for the Democrats to actually win. The race is predicated upon the idea that the top two finishers will advance, regardless of party. There's two big problems there. For starters, Democrats may have as many as 4-5 candidates running (so far they have two, former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and Tupelo Mayor Jason Shelton, but a couple others are rumored), while Republicans seem to have it split between soon-to-be-incumbent Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith and conservative firebrand State Sen. Chris McDaniel. Mississippi is conservative enough that even two Democrats running could ensure both Hyde-Smith and McDaniel advance to a runoff, much less even more Democrats splitting the electorate (one has to imagine that Chuck Schumer will be working hard to ensure that Democrats get only one candidate, but he's not magic). And even if one advances, it's very possible that an Espy v. McDaniel election (arguably the best case scenario for Democrats right now, though Brandon Presley or Jim Hood would be better for their side), would be less about McDaniel's radical politics and more about how this seat decides who holds the Senate majority (an extremely strong possibility). Doug Jones won in part because crossover voters knew they weren't voting for Chuck Schumer. It's probable that Espy wouldn't be able to beat the pressure (see also Louisiana Senate race in 2002 for more proof of this).
Finally, then, we have the one race that seems like it could switch to tossup: Tennessee. The Democrats got their best possible situation with Gov. Phil Bredesen, and while recent history has not been kind to former governors running in red states (Ted Strickland, Evan Bayh, and Bob Kerrey all come to mind), Bredesen is polling well and his opponent has a bit of baggage, even for a red state (Rep. Marsha Blackburn). I will need to see more concrete polling, with Bredesen approaching 50% (it's easy to see undecideds breaking to Blackburn, so he'll need to be at least 48% to take this), but this is the one race that Democrats should at least be looking into. At age 74, Bredesen is hardly the poster-child for the future of the Democratic Party, and might only be a one-term senator, but when it comes to math this year, that could well be enough.
What I'd Predict at this Point: Honestly, Bredesen would win today, but I still think Blackburn would win in November. That said, I am keeping an eye out here (it's currently my #9 most-likely-to-switch-hands, and is moving up). The other two races are pipe dreams unless the wave is a tsunami, in which case McCaskill and Donnelly are probably fine (put it this way-Beto O'Rourke and Mike Espy won't be Seat #51, but Phil Bredesen just might).
 |
| Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) |
This puts the contest at 50R-50D, which is going to be my prediction, giving the Republicans a razor-thin majority. But no review of the Senate races in 2018 would be complete without tipping a hat to the very real possibility that John McCain's seat will be up in November. The longtime Arizona Republican has been battling brain cancer for nearly a year now, and health rumors have been hitting a fever pitch this week. McCain's seat being open would be a huge game-changer in the race for the Senate, as it would open up another seat in a state that Hillary Clinton just barely lost, and would give the Democrats a bit more wiggle room to account for a "Big 5" loss or two.
There are too many variables here to really assess where this race would go. Names like former Sen. Jon Kyl and Cindy McCain have been thrown around as potential replacements for McCain, and Mrs. McCain in particular would be a difficult candidate to beat (though it's worth noting she's considerably more progressive than her husband on most issues, so a primary challenge wouldn't be out of the question). Other Republicans, including Martha McSally and Kelli Ward, could look at the seat if a placeholder is appointed by Gov. Doug Ducey. Democrats don't have nearly the bench that the Republicans do, but names like former Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, Rep. Ruben Gallego, and Mark Kelly (husband of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) would probably be toward the top of the list.
Whether or not McCain's replacement (should there be one) would stand for election in 2018 or 2020 is also up-for-debate. Most agree that if McCain were to resign or leave office before May 30th, the governor would be required to hold a special election this November. It's highly-likely, though, that if McCain were to resign prior to the August primary, that Democrats would sue to force an election this November (legal experts generally seem to agree that May 30th is the deadline, though there is some grey area in the law & no precedence here as there has never been a governor-appointed-senator in Arizona, so it wouldn't be a safe assumption). Either way, while it still remains unlikely, there continues to be a real possibility that a second seat is open in Arizona, and that would upend the math for Senate control.
What I'd Predict at this Point: It's too morbid to weigh-in on, but it's worth noting at least until May 30th that this remains a possibility (remember we already have two unplanned Senate races in Mississippi & Minnesota-Arizona could be a third).
So my predictions right now are that the Democrats net one seat, and that largely 7 races (that they'll need to cleanly sweep) is what it'll take to win the Senate, with at least some glances toward Baldwin, Tester, Brown & Bredesen being problems/solutions for the DSCC. But the national environment, and each individual campaign, will continue to be the determining factor here.
No comments:
Post a Comment