| Pres. | Senate to Dems* | Senate to GOP |
| Democratic: | 43.3% probability | 56.7% probability |
| Republican: | 5.6% probability | 94.5% probability |
| Mean of 49 seats | Mean of 51 seats |
It is way too early to make much of anything out of the 2016 Senate head-to-head polls. After all, we still have a primary season to go before we know who will be on the ballot. Still…there is just enough polling to give us an “early-first-quarter score” in the Senate races.
Currently, the Senate is controlled by Republicans, who hold 54 seats. Democrats hold 45 seats, plus Maine’s Sen. Angus King caucuses with the Democrats. In 2016, there will be 34 senatorial elections, all of the Senate’s “third class.” (There could be additional special elections as well, but I am not aware of any right now.) The current crop of Senators were elected in 2010, a Republican wave off-year election. Six years later, Republicans find themselves with 24 seats to defend and Democrats with 10 seats to defend, in a presidential election year.
I’ve spent a bit of time trying to divine the candidates most likely to appear on the ballot. In some cases, it was easy. Rand Paul will appear as the G.O.P. nominee in the Kentucky race. (You know…assuming his struggling presidential campaign continues its current trajectory.) Incumbents tend to get their party’s nomination, although there are retirements, like Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). In some states, front-runners are obvious, like in Wisconsin where incumbent Sen. Ron Johnson (R) will almost certainly go up against former Sen. Russ Feingold (D). When there are multiple candidates, I’ve tried to use primary polls, newspaper accounts, FEC numbers, and other sources to find the strongest or most likely candidate to advance to the general. You can see which candidates I’ve advanced to the general by looking at the polls page.
I’ve found state head-to-head polls in 15 races and no polls for 19 races. Polled states tend to be the ones with the most competitive Senate races OR states with some other importance. For example, there are many polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, which are the early caucus/primary states. I’ve found a total of 69 polls to date, so clearly there are multiple polls for many of the 15 races. States without polling are assumed to go to the party currently holding the seat.
After 100,000 simulated elections, Democrats have a Senate majority 5,553 times, there were 37,718 ties, and Republicans have a Senate majority 56,729 times. In the event of a 50 seat tie, the President’s party controls (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3). If Sec. Hillary Clinton wins, Democrats have a 43.3% probability of controlling the Senate and Republicans have a 56.7% probability of controlling the Senate. If Clinton loses, Republicans would almost certainly (94.5% probability) maintain control of the Senate.
The good news for Democrats is that they are likely to gain 4 seats and have a good shot of taking control if they win the presidential election. The good news for Republicans is that they are still more likely than not to control the Senate. They can either lose 4 or fewer seats or lose 5 seats plus win the presidential election.
Let’s examine a few of the races.
Arizona: Former Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ-01) is the likely challenger to Sen. John McCain (R). Of the three polls taken in the race, the current one leaves McCain with only a 6 point margin. Still, this leaves McCain with nearly a 90% chance of retaining his seat in a hypothetical election held now.
Florida: Ron DeSantis (R) seems to be the likely Republican nomination for the seat currently held by Sen. Marco Rubio (R). On the Democratic side, feisty former congressman Alan Grayson and Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-FL-18) are neck-in-neck. I give Murphy a small edge for the Democratic nomination. Polling show Murphy leading Ron DeSantis, and with an 88% probability of winning an election held now. I suspect this race will tighten up considerably by election day.
Illinois: Sen. Mark Kirk (R) is in the fight of his life, most likely against Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL-8). Duckworth has led in the three polls taken to date. Kirk, who squeaked through in an off-year election, has a number of weaknesses that suggest he will be a one-term Senator.
Iowa: Republican Chuck Grassley is almost certainly going to beat likely Democratic challenger Rob Hogg (D). I mention this race for one reason: If Hogg does win, it means he will be serving with a more senior Sen. Joni Ernst (R) whose campaign ad start out with her talking about growing up “castrating hogs.” She promises to “cut pork” and offers to “make ’em squeal.” The jokes write themselves. Symbolically, though, adding a Hogg in Ernst’s own state would be a hilarious symbolic victory for the Dems. I would just recommend Rob always wear a cup. But it’s all fantasy. Unless Grassley drops dead before the election, he’ll win.
Nevada: Sen. Harry Reid (D) is retiring, leaving the seat susceptible to a G.O.P. takeover. The most likely match-up seems to be Nevada AG Catherine Cortez Masto (D) against Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV-03). The most recent poll has Cortez Masto up a slim +1, but a slightly earlier poll had Heck up by +14! This promises to be a most interesting race.
New Hampshire: Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) has had a solid lead over Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) in three of the past 4 polls, but the most recent poll puts Hassan up +1. Hassan has only led in 5 of the the 18 polls taken to date. These leads may be flukes. Alternatively, we have another fascinating race that may determine control of the Senate.
Ohio: This race will most likely be between Sen. Rob Portmann (R) and former Gov. Ted Strickland (D). Portmann has led in two of the six polls taken to date. The past three polls, going back to June, have Strickland in the lead by at least +3.
Wisconsin: Sen. Ron Johnson (R) hasn’t made much of an impression on Wisconsin voters. And former Sen. Russ Feingold (D) intends to capitalize on that to take back his old seat. Feingold has led in all seven polls taken for this race, and leads by +11 in the current poll. At this point, this race looks like a sure D pick-up.
So that’s that. If you notice any errors in this post, please leave a comment in the thread below. I am shaking down software that I haven’t used in a few years, and thinking about senate races that are still in the formative stage.
Here is the distribution of Senate seats from the simulations:*
This graphs shows the probability of at least each number of seats controlled by the Democrats:*
- Average ( SE) seats for Democrats: 49.3 ( 0.8)
- Average (SE) seats for Republicans: 50.7 ( 0.8)
- Median (95% CI) seats for Democrats: 49 (48, 51)
- Median (95% CI) seats for Republicans: 51 (49, 52)
Expected outcomes from the simulations:
- Contested Democratic seats likely to remain Democratic: ten
- Contested Republican seats likely to remain Republican: 20
- Contested Democratic seats likely to switch: none
- Contested Republican seats likely to switch: four
This table shows the number of Senate seats controlled for different criteria for the probability of winning a state:* Safe>0.9999, Strong>90%, Leans>60%, Weak>50%
| Threshold | Safe | + Strong | + Leans | + Weak |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safe Democrat | 45 | |||
| Strong Democrat | 2 | 47 | ||
| Leans Democrat | 2 | 2 | 49 | |
| Weak Democrat | 1 | 1 | 1 | 50 |
| Weak Republican | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 |
| Leans Republican | 1 | 1 | 50 | |
| Strong Republican | 5 | 49 | ||
| Safe Republican | 44 |
This table summarizes the results by state. Click on the poll number to see the individual polls included for a state.
| # | Sample | % | % | Dem | Rep | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | @ | polls | size | Dem | Rep | % wins | % wins |
| AL | 0 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||
| AK | 0 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||
| AZ | 1 | 392 | 45.7 | 54.3 | 11.1 | 88.9 | |
| AR | 0 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||
| CA | 0 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||
| CO | 0 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||
| CT | 1 | 1509 | 70.1 | 29.9 | 100.0 | 0.0 | |
| FL | 1& | 611 | 53.4 | 46.6 | 88.3 | 11.7 | |
| GA | 0 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||
| HI | 0 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||
| ID | 0 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||
| IL | 1& | 726 | 53.9 | 46.1 | 92.7 | 7.3 | |
| IN | 0 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||
| IA | 2 | 2522 | 33.9 | 66.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | |
| KS | 0 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||
| KY | 1& | 975 | 44.3 | 55.7 | 0.6 | 99.4 | |
| LA | 0 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||
| MD | 0 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||
| MO | 1 | 595 | 43.4 | 56.6 | 1.2 | 98.8 | |
| NV | 1& | 562 | 50.5 | 49.5 | 57.0 | 43.0 | |
| NH | 4 | 2677 | 47.1 | 52.9 | 1.8 | 98.2 | |
| NY | 0 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||
| NC | 1 | 1002 | 43.0 | 57.0 | 0.1 | 99.9 | |
| ND | 0 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||
| OH | 1 | 1050 | 51.7 | 48.3 | 78.7 | 21.3 | |
| OK | 0 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||
| OR | 0 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||
| PA | 2 | 1671 | 44.4 | 55.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | |
| SC | 0 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||
| SD | 0 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||
| UT | 1& | 483 | 31.3 | 68.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | |
| VT | 0 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||
| WA | 1 | 335 | 65.7 | 34.3 | 100.0 | 0.0 | |
| WI | 2 | 1242 | 57.2 | 42.8 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
@ Current party in office
& An older poll was used (i.e. no recent polls exist).
*Analysis assumes that one independent candidate will continue to caucus with the Democrats.
Details of the methods are given in the FAQ.
The most recent analysis in this match-up can be found from this page.
If this is at all accurate, it’s terrible news for Democrats, who were expected to easily retake the Senate in 2016. It appears voters bounced Republicans from offices high and low in 2008 with an expectation that Democrats would slap a bandaid on the economy and make everything all happy again overnight; and, when that didn’t materialize, swung back to the GOP. This won’t end well for those voters.
Meanwhile, as the Fed and other countries’ central banks try to keep economies afloat with policies that inflate stocks and other assets, but do virtually nothing for small businesses or workers, I’m keeping my nose above the waves. My stocks are up $2,000 this morning on the first NYSE trading day after Europe’s worst terrorist attack in decades. It doesn’t make any damn sense.
If this is at all accurate…? Really?
RR, have you seen anything better by your buddies at Seeking Alpha? Maybe you posted a contrary opinion somewhere you’d like to share, like that ‘fleeing felon’ piece about Michael Brown you once thought wise to share with the HA crowd?
Based upon current data, RR, what parts of Darryl’s post might not be accurate?
Jeb: I am considering Senate run
http://www.politico.com/story/.....run-016155
OK, it’s from 2008. But if he doesn’t gain traction soon in the presidential race, Senator Bush might start to sound a little better to him.
Retaking the Senate is bound to be a very long term project for Democrats. More blue voters than red, but more red states than blue. Still, more populous swing states are trending blue and that’s where Democrats can expect to pick up with time and money. Wont happen in two years, though.
We just had another election with record low turnouts. Useless complainers are winning!
@4 “Retaking the Senate is bound to be a very long term project for Democrats.”
It shouldn’t be. The GOP has 2 1/2 times as many seats up for grabs in this rotation. Some of them are safe, as in every roation, but the biggest reason they won a majority in 2014 was because Democrats had to defend many more seats, and that situation is reversed in 2016. The Democrats had a majority before 2014, and that should flip back in 2016. The only reason it wouldn’t is if the electorate (the part of it that votes) has shifted toward the GOP. If that’s what these numbers show, it’s troubling, and also implies the GOP could take the White House, too.
[Deleted]
@ 6
… the biggest reason they won a majority in 2014 was because Democrats had to defend many more seats, and that situation is reversed in 2016.
No, the biggest reason the GOP won a majority in 2014 is because Democrat-supporting voters stayed home.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/up.....-70-years/
The absence of Dem voters last year probably is most notable in Maryland:
The Republican candidates had virtually identical totals in 2010 and 2014; the difference was in the Democratic turnout. Overall, the Republican ticket picked up 71,000 more votes, but the Democratic falloff was 274,000. Some commentators have massaged the numbers to make it appear that voters, even in the four heavily Democratic counties O’Malley won handily in 2010, preferred Hogan. Sorry, but that drop-off of 274,000 votes is real, and it was fatal. Those Democrats didn’t vote for the Republican; they stayed home.
http://prospect.org/article/bl.....s-failures
GOP voters are unlikely to stay home in 2016, if for no other reason than it’s a presidential election year. Oh, and hatred of Hillary Clinton.
Not such a good start to your Monday, RR.
@8 “hatred of Hillary Clinton”
That’s some platform for governing a country you’ve got there, pardner.
@8 “Not such a good start to your Monday, RR.”
My stocks are now up $5,166 since 6:30 am. I wish all Mondays were so terrible. I could easily live with that.
@ 9
That’s rather irrelevant in a thread about 2016 US Senate races. So far you’ve gone from offensive to host @ 1 to factually incorrect @ 6 to violation of ToS @ 7 to irrelevant @ 9.
You’ve hit for the cycle and done it while the thread spews were still in single digits. Notable accomplishment, RR.
Sloppy Travis Bickle,
“No, the biggest reason the GOP won a majority in 2014 is because Democrat-supporting voters stayed home.”
You are mostly wrong. The “biggest reason” cannot easily be disarticulated into turnout versus number of seats to defend. And the number of seats defended is a function of turnout in the previous election. In some sense the extraordinary Democratic turnout in 2008 is another major reason for Dem losses in 2014.
Republicans lost 6 “Class 1” seats in 2008 which flipped control of the Senate. Some of the R losses can be attributed to a huge D advantage in turnout, which increased by some 5 million, particularly from strong D-supporting demographic groups.
In 2014, there were only three seats that Dems lost that were close enough to be attributed to low D turnout: AK (+2.2R), CO (+1.9R), and NC (+1.5R). Other losses (AR +17.7R, LA +11R) were not close enough for turnout to have an effect. I would argue that CO is the only clear case for a “voter turnout loss”. Maybe NC as well. Most certainly not AK. If anything, the fact that AK narrowly elected a D Senator in 2008 was a surprising outcome of the extraordinary D turnout that year. A return to an R Senator was almost inevitable.
Note that all three of these states (AK, CO, NC) were in the top 10 states for voter turnout, so a “voter turnout” explanation may not work for any of them.
A much more important reason for Dem losses in 2014 was a wave of retirements/vacancies in, basically, red states with blue Senators. This accounts for 4 losses with margins that cannot be attributed to turnout. Specifically WV (+27.6R), MT (+17.7R), IA (+8.3R) and SD (+++R).
To summarize: Low D turnout is a potential explanation for two turn-overs, but the case is weak given the overall high turnout in these states. A much clearer case can be made that large number of retirements of D Senators in red states made turn-over inevitable.
Sloppy Travis Bickle,
“The absence of Dem voters last year probably is most notable in Maryland”
…with isn’t particularly relevant to the question of Senate control, since there was no Senate race in Maryland in 2014.
GOP voters are unlikely to stay home in 2016, if for no other reason than it’s a presidential election year.
Trump/Carson will keep them home. I’m talking to lifelong GOP voters who say that they’d vote for any Republican in opposition to Clinton… except those two. They say if one of those two wins the nomination they are out.
And then they quickly follow up by declaring emphatically they have nothing against Carson’s race!
@11 Why don’t you complain to Darryl? When you’re unhappy with the service, you go to the top. I’m just a freeloader here, like you.
@14 Carson is a gift to GOP bigots. He gives them so many reasons to vote against him, they don’t have to be racist. There are a million other ways to get there. And Democrats won’t say a thing.
The Senate seat here in Washington state that will be up for election should be of interest to HA folks. Yes if I were to bet on it I would bet on the current incumbent winning the primary and the general election. Still when parties assume something is safe that is when something bites them in the ass. It’s possible for Washington voters to elect a Republican into the Senate, they have done it before. So what has the current Senator done for me lately. Sure it would be great if our Senators party has control of the Senate, but frankly a 49/51 split either way is little better than a split Senate. In the unlikely event we get a bunch of moderates into the Senate from both Parties then it would be a Senate that can do the peoples business. Most likely we will see our Constitution work even better than the writers intended. It’s supposed to be difficult for our Congress to get things passed, just lately that’s been on steroids.