US Senate Elections thread, 2014 Edition!

[The House of Xavier]

Though the state's sec. of state has said somebody has to fill that spot for the Democrats, I believe.

That makes no sense. Whats the point of removing your name if someone is just going to replace you ....?

Well the state's secretary is probably arguing that some obscure rule or law requires him/her to do so. But honestly, I think it's the GOP's desperate attempt to spoil the vote and ensure the incumbents victory.

[Insaeldor]

That makes no sense. Whats the point of removing your name if someone is just going to replace you ....?

Well the state's secretary is probably arguing that some obscure rule or law requires him/her to do so. But honestly, I think it's the GOP's desperate attempt to spoil the vote and ensure the incumbents victory.

Plus Kobach is kind of a cunt.

[The Liberated Territories]

I for one, am hoping that the Libertarian Party will pull through.*

Down with the two party monopoly!

*sigh it'll never happen

[Insaeldor]

I for one, am hoping that the Libertarian Party will pull through.*

Down with the two party monopoly!

*sigh it'll never happen

I think Gary Johnson would have a semi-good shot at running for congress in New Mexico.

[The Liberated Territories]

I for one, am hoping that the Libertarian Party will pull through.*

Down with the two party monopoly!

*sigh it'll never happen

I think Gary Johnson would have a semi-good shot at running for congress in New Mexico.

Only as a Republican.

Can you switch parties once you join Congress or are you stuck?

[New Bierstaat]

I think Gary Johnson would have a semi-good shot at running for congress in New Mexico.

Only as a Republican.

Can you switch parties once you join Congress or are you stuck?

You can switch. It's happened many times. Arlen Specter did it a few years ago to help pass Obamacare, then got primaried in 2010 (Pat Toomey currently holds that seat)

[The Liberated Territories]

Only as a Republican.

Can you switch parties once you join Congress or are you stuck?

You can switch. It's happened many times. Arlen Specter did it a few years ago to help pass Obamacare, then got primaried in 2010 (Pat Toomey currently holds that seat)

Huh. I didn't know that.

That would actually be a good strategy, me thinks.

[Nigerian Kenya]

With the government shutdown averted, a few rating changes to announce.


First off, in WV, Capito is approaching a 20 point lead, and even a pollster that once showed the race within 5 points now has it up to a 17 point lead for Capito in their latest release. Without a shutdown, the republicans will be just fine here.

WV-SEN moves from Strong Lean R to Safe R

No other senate rating changes to announce at this point. SD and KY are close to being moved one category each in the republicans' favor (KY to Strong Lean and SD to Safe), but they aren't quite there just yet. For now, KY remains at Lean R, and SD remains at Strong Lean R.

Next up, the house is moving to Safe R, as democrats have run out of avenues for major game-changers, and the map is terrible for them anyways - Even if they won all the seats Sabato rates as Lean R or better (for the dems), they'd still be three seats short.

House Majority moves from Strong Lean R to Safe R

Among the governors' races, I am not making any rating changes at this time. Arizona, Maryland, and Minnesota are close to changes favoring Democrats, and South Carolina is close to a change favoring republicans, but nothing is going through right now.

[New Bierstaat]

New Reuters/Ipsos poll out with Mitch McConnell leading by 5, about his average lead lately. Some of the highlights:

President Obama's approval rating among Kentucky registered voters is an awful 28%, with 69% disapproving.

Rand Paul holds a 60/40 approval spread in his home state, while Gov. Steve Beshear sits at 70/30. He'll be tough to knock off when he's up for reelection next year, support for Obamacare or not.

Which brings us to the next point: only 8% of voters cited healthcare as the most important issue in this election compared to 23% for the economy, 19% for unemployment/jobs, and 14% for coal.

33% say McConnell is "arrogant" (a description that I'd frankly tend to agree with, but I'll hold true judgment of the matter until I see how he leads the Senate if he gets the chance).

As the election continues on, I'll be generally shifting races into less competitive rating categories, culminating in every race holding a Leans, Likely, or Safe rating by Election Day. That probably means I'll miss a few, but I think it's important to make a call on every race. Now, if I'm going to have Iowa and Alaska in the Leans R category (as I probably will by the big day) and currently have Arkansas, Kansas, and Louisiana in that category, it no longer makes sense to put Kentucky in that category, and it seems to me that Mitch McConnell has passed the 97% chance of victory threshold a long time ago as Grimes's numbers are plunging, Obama is only approved of by around a quarter of Kentuckians, and voters have made it clear that even though they don't particularly like McConnell, they'd rather have him than someone from the party that brought us Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other highly liberal figures that are far more hated in the state than McConnell.

Grimes hasn't led in a poll since early June, and every poll since then (sans one poll with McConnell up 2) has had him up by at least 4. It's clear to me that this race, while close, is bound to be highly inelastic for the rest of the season barring some unforeseen circumstance, making it more of a Likely R race, so here we go:

KY - McConnell: Likely R

Another rating change, as the government shutdown was officially averted last week, dashing Democrats' hopes in at least one race:

West Virginia has held another of the most static Senate races in the country. Like the pre-plagiarism John Walsh in Montana, Natalie Tennant was supposed to narrow the polling gap for Democrats against Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R) but has been unable to do so; the lead has only grown, and I can't imagine, even in my most pessimistic nature, a scenario where Capito loses unless she blows the race Todd Akin style. This has long been a commanding lead, but it's more than that and has been for quite some time. Capito's got an insurmountable lead and will not lose. This one's over.

WV - (Rockefeller): Safe R

I'm holding the line in New Hampshire (Leans D) and Kansas (Leans R) despite polling suggesting a tied race in NH and a lead for Greg Orman (I) in Kansas. Allow me to explain why.

In New Hampshire, Shaheen's average lead is still 5%, and although it's buoyed by a couple of outlier polls, Scott Brown hasn't led in a single poll this entire cycle, and I'd like to see that before I rate the race as being a toss-up. This is especially true given that North Carolina is a Leans D state and that I've been moving states to less, not more, competitive categories since Election Day is drawing near.

In Kansas, Orman leads by a significant margin, but I've got the rating where it is for 2 reasons:

1. If Republicans take every seat I've got them favored to win, they'll have 51 seats without Kansas. This will make them a clear majority, and Orman will caucus with them anyway, making the Kansas 2 seat effectively held by a Republican anyway. If I've got the seats required to make this happen at Leans R, as I will by Election Day if this continues, then this seat should be Leans R at a minimum as well.

2. With all indicators pointing to a GOP wave year of nearly 2010 proportions (the generic ballot is at R+4.0; they won by 6.8 in 2010), I have a hard time believing that the resulting groundswell of GOP voters is going to reject a Republican incumbent, however unpopular, in favor of someone who even has a remote chance of caucusing with anybody who'd associate with Harry Reid or the president. It just doesn't make sense that the GOP could pick up a seat in Iowa (and maybe even Colorado) and lose one in Kansas with how nationalized Senate elections have become.

I'd say the next change will be moving Arkansas to Likely R followed by Iowa and Alaska to Leans R. I'm not sure what to do with Colorado, as I'd say the race favors Rep. Cory Gardner (R) except that Colorado has mail balloting, which tends to favor Democrats (which is probably why Colorado and a handful of other somewhat swingy states with blue state governments have adopted the measure as a means of preserving their power)

These changes may make my map diverge a bit from conventional wisdom, but so far this cycle, most major changes I've made have been followed by parallel ones by Larry Sabato and his Crystal Ball.

My map (updated)

[Nigerian Kenya]

If that Reuters poll had showed McConnell +7 or more, I'd be moving the rating too, but it only showed McConnell +4 (not +5) among Likely Voters - among registered voters it actually showed Grimes up 2(!). I don't really see McConnell's chance of victory as 97% - or at my Likely minimum of 85%. Sure, his lead seems fairly stable at 3-6 points, but he's failed to really run away with the race and I don't really see Grimes as being truly out of reach to pull an upset.

Meanwhile, in Alaska, Sullivan seems to be getting a real primary bounce, and PPP's newest poll shows him ahead by 2. Begich retains an average lead of 1.24%, but that could go away quite quickly.

However, I am ready to make one of the gubernatorial rating changes I hinted at in my last update - AZ-GOV is moving to Toss-Up.

Republicans made an arguably poor choice last month when they selected a tea party option, Treasurer Doug Ducey, from a field of about 8 candidates, to replace the retiring republican governor Jan Brewer. However, this purple-red state has been heavily underpolled, and the polls that existed had a habit of showing a particularly high undecided percentage, along with showing a close race. I made a mainly electoral history based decision to keep the race at the low end of Leans R. But now, I have the evidence to move it - Ducey released an internal showing him only up 6, and below 45% - hardly a sign that he's feeling confident - and the democrats immediately responded with their own internal showing Fred Duval (D) only up 2. Averaging them should give us an accurate picture - doing so gives us Ducey +2, which lines up well with the other polling we had that seemed possibly questionable due to showing an abnormal amount of undecideds (20-30%) (neither internal shows this many voters undecided) . So, it's definitely clear at this point that the race doesn't quite qualify for Leans R anymore, though Ducey still has a very slight edge.

AZ-GOV moves from Leans R to Toss-Up/Tilt R.

--------------
Also, Beshear isn't running next year - he's term limited. Conway or Mongiardo will probably be the democratic nominee. Comer, (Cathy) Bailey, Bevin, or Fletcher are all possibilities for the republican nominee.

[New Bierstaat]

Is Ed Gillespie making a race of it in Virginia? Quinnipiac released a poll with him down 9 to incumbent Obamacare-supporting Sen. Mark Warner (D), this poll being the first to show the race within single digits and following a Roanoke College poll released on the 19th with Warner up 20.

I'm more inclined to trust the non-Quinnipiac polls since most of the polls Quinnipiac has released lately has shown the GOP with unrealistic leads, but it'll be interesting to see if more polls validate the result. Perhaps Gillespie's persistence has finally paid off? Not likely, but possible.

Also, Sean Trende has written an interesting article over at Real Clear Politics on wave elections, presidential approval, and October polling movement that I found highly interesting. You may wish to give it a look.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/09/25/senate_races_what_september_polling_trends_tell_us_124092.html

In Alaska, my earlier prediction has come true: not only has the polling average finally flipped in favor of Republican Dan Sullivan, it's moved outside the margin of error. While the race is barely outside the margin of 3.5% (it's currently a 4.0% lead for Sullivan), and thus I am refraining at this time from changing the rating, it's doubtful that Sen. Mark Begich will be able to make up all the ground he's lost. Sure, Sullivan gets a bit of a post-primary bounce, but Begich is losing support as well. At one point, the RCP average had Begich's level of support at 46.3%; that's down to 41.0% now and looks to be trending down for the time being. I expect that to rise eventually (I doubt he's going to be pulling in only 41% support on election day), but how high?

We'll have to see. For now, Alaska remains a toss-up that would go red if the election were today - and one that is extremely close to being moved to Leans R.

[Nigerian Kenya]

Begich loses average lead, Udall nearly does the same, Republicans find way to majority without Kansas

My current average for Alaska contains the polls from September:

Rasmussen: Sullivan +5
PPP: Sullivan +2
Dittman: Sullivan +6
Outlier Average: Begich +4.6 (Average of Harstad: Begich +5 and Hays: Begich +4.2)

And for the first time in the entire cycle, Sullivan has an average lead. It's small, at 2.11%, but it's still a big accomplishment.

Meanwhile, in CO, the september polls include:

Marist: Udall +6
Rasmussen: Udall +2
SurveyUSA: Udall +4
Myers: Udall +2
Outlier Average: Gardner +7 (Average of Quinnipiac: Gardner +8, Gravis: Gardner +7, and CC: Gardner +6)
PPP: Gardner +2
Suffolk: Gardner +1

And averaging them produces a very small Udall lead, of only 0.57%.

Meanwhile, PPP is going to poll LA this weekend, which will give us some much needed reliable data in a heavily underpolled race.

-----------------------------
With the average lead change in AK, the 'if the election were held today' prediction goes to a republican majority of either 51-49 or 52-48, depending on where Orman (I-KS) chooses to caucus.

Republicans seem to be a good position in the Toss-Up races (leading in AK, LA, IA, and just barely trailing in CO with plenty of time left for Gardner to make up that last 0.57%). But the question now is if they can hold their position there, and also whether they can make a last minute comeback in NC, NH, MI, and/or MN. (In VA, Quinnipiac's finding is a big surprise, and I highly (x3) doubt Gillespie can win this in the end) The overall chance of a republican senate majority stands at 55%.

Edit: AK just got polled again, by Hellenthal, a local Anchorage Pollster, and it's Sullivan +5. This shifts the average even further in Sullivan's favor, to Sullivan +2.68.

[Sebastianbourg]

I for one, am hoping that the Libertarian Party will pull through.*

Down with the two party monopoly!

*sigh it'll never happen

Because of the way the American electoral system is designed there'll always be a two-party state.

[New Bierstaat]

Just a note that the average in Colorado's Class 2 Senate race has finally flipped in favor of Rep. Cory Gardner (R). He's led in 5 straight polls, and I'd favor him to either win or make the election extremely close if it were held today. I'd have a tough time making a call if it were held today, but in the long run, the national climate seems to be favoring the Republican in what I believe is currently the closest race in the cycle.

A clear Gardner win in Colorado would be the eighth blue seat claimed by Republicans this year, enough for a clear majority. However, I'm not ready to say Gardner's a clear favorite in this race, and I'll need to see him leading by a clear margin before I say he can win thanks to the state's all-mail balloting.

If Gardner pulls out a win despite Colorado's mail balloting, can Kay Hagan still win in North Carolina? We'll see, but she remains unable, at least at this point, to break her 46% favorability rating in recent polls, and given that President Obama polls in the thirties in North Carolina, I'm beginning to wonder if Leans D was really the right call. For now, it stays due to the weakness of her challenger, Thom Tillis, but his favorables are better than hers among likely voters, and her path from 45 percent to 50 percent remains a mystery.

[Nigerian Kenya]

Gubernatorial Rating Changes: Alaska and Massachusetts

Ah, Martha Coakley. Famous for losing a senate race that was considered Safe D, and now also famous for turning a Governor's race that I once was considering moving to Safe D into Toss-Up Territory.

One thing that hurt Coakley is probably the primary. Once expected to be a cakewalk for her, she actually lost the democratic convention to Steven Grossman. However, she still got enough votes to stage a rematch in the actual primary, and won with an underwhelming 42% of the vote, with 36% for Grossman and a surprisingly high 21% for Donald Berwick.

Even though she has been actually campaigning this time, she is having the same problems unifying the state that she had in unifying her own party. Charlie Baker (R) is a good, moderate, socially liberal candidate who easily won his primary, and Coakley lacks the charisma of other Massachusetts democrats like Deval Patrick and Elizabeth Warren, and baggage from her 2010 loss continues to haunt her.

Polling in this race has been divided. Boston Globe is consistent on showing a close race, but WBUR has been consistent on showing a high single digit Coakley edge. However, now that both Rasmussen and Suffolk have released polls in line with those of the Boston Globe, I am ready to move the rating, though I would still predict a Coakley win if the election were held today.

MA-GOV moves from Leaning D to Toss-Up/Tilt D

In Alaska, Incumbent Sean Parnell (R) continues to beg for mercy. A month ago, it looked like he would cruise to victory with a plurality due to the anti-parnell vote being divided between a Democrat and a strong Independent candidate. But then the democrat dropped out to join the ticket of the Independent. The combined Indy/Dem Ticket has proved to be 'red' enough for Alaska, and is now consistently leading in the polls, though not by enough to get a significant edge at this time.

AK-GOV moves from Leaning R to Toss-Up/Tilt I

--------
Meanwhile, in the South Dakota Senate Race, Independent Larry Pressler has surged to the mid twenties in some polling, and Weiland has gone down a few points as a result. Can Pressler continue to surge, dominate the anti-rounds vote, and win? It's possible, although the most likely outcome by far remains that Rounds will win with about 40% of the vote.

Edit: And almost like magic, two more MA polls come out showing a close race, sufficient to eliminate any need to give WBUR any weight in the average, and it flips to Baker +0.6. MA-GOV has reached Toss-Up/Tilt R....

[Nigerian Kenya]

Louisiana Leans R, Pat Quinn comeback?

Mary Landrieu, a senator in big trouble. Being a democrat in Louisiana means she's always had tough races, and even had the "distinction" of being the only vulnerable democrat back in 2008. This year, she received a strong main challenger in Bill Cassidy (R), and while she will place first in November, she has almost no chance of avoiding a december runoff. In that runoff, Bill Cassidy has had a small, stable lead, month after month. Furthermore, the more turnout drops off from November to the runoff, the more it favors Cassidy - PPP finds that the Cassidy lead expands from 3 points to 5 points when those unsure about voting in a runoff are excluded. Runoff turnout will vary based on a number of factors, most importantly whether it decides control of the senate, but even a small turnout drop would make the situation more favorable to Cassidy.

The race remains competitive, and this change is not meant to be seen as counting Landrieu out. But she's essentially been in the same place for months, and it's time for the rating to reflect a clear need for her to find a gamechanger in this red state.

LA-SEN moves from Toss-Up/Tilt R to Lean R

Meanwhile, even with the des moines register poll showing Ernst up 6 (and the quinnipiac poll showing the same) included, the average for IA remains at only Ernst +2.5, and that race stays at Toss-Up/Tilt R for the moment.

Now, let's move over to Illinois Governor. After trailing Bruce Rauner (R) for months upon months, incumbent democrat Pat Quinn is finally finding a way to victory. Part of it appears to be a natural coming home effect, while the rest of it appears to be due to the libertarian candidate taking votes away from Rauner. Rauner, a coporate executive whom the attacks on mirror those used on Mitt Romney two years ago, may not have been the best choice for the GOP, perhaps they would have done better with State Sen. Kirk Dillard, who narrowly lost the primary to Rauner. But of course, they can't turn back the clock. Now, Rauner does still lead in my polling average, but the lead is now small enough to, along with Illinois's blue leanings, push the race into the toss-up column.

IL-GOV moves from Leans R to Toss-Up/Tilt R

[New Bierstaat]

I'll probably have a double post here. I apologize in advance.

I updated my mathematical prediction model to include recent polling. Here's what it finds:

With the model treating Greg Orman as a Democrat (which, I know, isn't the most accurate, but I didn't have any other recourse short of completely re-writing the spreadsheet, and I don't really have the time or motivation to do that), it predicts that if the election were held today, Republicans would be 83% favorites to take the Senate. They would also, interestingly enough, have a 62% chance of netting seven or more seats (net, again assuming that if Greg Orman wins, as the model favors him to do by a full standard deviation, he'll caucus with the Democrats).

A GOP gain of 7 seats would be overwhelmingly the most likely option if the election were held today; it carries a 47% probability of occurring. The next most likely is a gain of 6 seats at 21% followed by a gain of 4 seats at 11%. Democrats have a 1:2000 chance of actually gaining seats, a small probability (but a present one). On the other side, Republicans have a 3.26% chance of picking up 11 seats (which would include winning every seat that RCP currently calls a toss-up) and a 0.13% chance of taking 12 or more (which would entail defeating Al Franken, Dick Durbin, Cory Booker, Jeff Merkley, and/or Mark Warner).

On the conditional probability that, as I expect to happen, Orman fades and Pat Roberts defeats him easily (without a change in the national environment), Republican chances to take the Senate would tick upward to 87%.

The model puts Iowa just inside the margin of error, Alaska just outside it, and Minnesota well out of Republicans' reach - a bigger lead than Steve Daines holds in Montana - due to a large amount of recent polling reducing the margin of error to 1.9%. It's also got Mike Rounds (R-SD) with a similar lead. Again, this shows the limitation of polling-only data.

The model also puts Arkansas at R+2.16SD, giving Mark Pryor just a 1.5% chance of holding his seat if the election were held today. This one I believe, and it is only the Pryor name and the fact that there's a month to go that are keeping the Arkansas 2 Senate race at Leans R rather than Likely R.

North Carolina remains barely outside the margin of error at D+1.07SD.

I'm still mulling a rating change. Alaska's Senate race has broken quickly in favor of the Republican, Dan Sullivan, since he defeated Mead Treadwell in the primary earlier this month. Sullivan has led in every poll since the primary, with his weakest performance being a PPP poll in which he led by 2. President Obama's approval spread is 40/56 in the state, and Sen. Mark Begich (D) has dropped to an RCP average of 41%, a level I believe he's going to struggle to get very far above (Begich's approval spread is 42/51, suggesting he's in a little better shape than the president). Sullivan's favorability is actually a net +2, a surprise given Begich's early ad blitzes and the tough GOP primary that just ended.

With a fair amount (11% in the PPP poll) undecided but Begich already above Obama's approval rating, it's fair to assume that the grand majority of the undecideds in this race are not in love with Obama.

Also, since July, Begich has only led in polls sponsored by Democrats or Democratic firms, and as Nate Silver says, polls in Alaska have a history of overestimating Democrats, presumably due to the remote nature of the state's rural areas (which are probably disproportionately Republican).

I feel uneasy about changing the rating because of three reasons: the lead has shifted so quickly, Alaska polling is notoriously inaccurate, and the lead is just outside the margin of error.

We'll see how things shake out in the future, but the Democrats have got some catching up to do. For now, Alaska remains a toss-up, but I may change it tomorrow.

[Atlanticatia]

I really really really really hope there's no Republican majority in both the House and Senate. I don't know what I'd do. At least there'd be Obama's veto power.

[Nigerian Kenya]

I really really really really hope there's no Republican majority in both the House and Senate. I don't know what I'd do. At least there'd be Obama's veto power.

And the filibuster. Even if republicans manage to get to like 54/55 seats (including any caucusing independents) and are fully unified on a given bill, they'd still have to get 5/6 conservative democrats to get the bill out of debate and onto a final vote. This will force republicans (and democrats) to compromise some if they want to get anything through the senate.

[New Bierstaat]

I really really really really hope there's no Republican majority in both the House and Senate. I don't know what I'd do. At least there'd be Obama's veto power.

And the filibuster. Even if republicans manage to get to like 54/55 seats (including any caucusing independents) and are fully unified on a given bill, they'd still have to get 5/6 conservative democrats to get the bill out of debate and onto a final vote. This will force republicans (and democrats) to compromise some if they want to get anything through the senate.

And that type of Democrat is the type that GOP candidates are targeting for defeat. The bigger GOP landslide we get this cycle, the more moderate Dems get defeated, and the more liberal their caucus becomes.

[Alien Space Bats]

I really really really really hope there's no Republican majority in both the House and Senate. I don't know what I'd do. At least there'd be Obama's veto power.

And the filibuster. Even if republicans manage to get to like 54/55 seats (including any caucusing independents) and are fully unified on a given bill, they'd still have to get 5/6 conservative democrats to get the bill out of debate and onto a final vote. This will force republicans (and democrats) to compromise some if they want to get anything through the senate.

If Republicans win the Senate, the first thing they'll do is eliminate the filibuster.

Then the Republicans will turn the Defense Appropriations Bill into a Christmas tree, on which to hang every shit thing they ever wanted: National Right to Work Law, National Personhood Bill, National Voter ID Bill, National Open Carry Law, elimination of all Federal aid to States that allow same-sex marriage, repeal of the ACA, mandatory deportation of all undocumented persons, dismemberment of the EPA, a National ban on early voting, etc., etc., etc., etc.

They'll do absolutely everything they can to ram their agenda through Congress while destroying labor unions (or at least preventing them from getting involved in politics) and disenfranchising every Democratic voter they can find, and it will all be attached to the Defense bill, so that if Obama wants even one fucking dime to fight ISIS or hold Putin back from overrunning Europe, he's going to have to sign legislation making it 1890 again.

If the GOP wins the Senate, the next two years are going to be hot bleeding Hell.

[New Bierstaat]

And the filibuster. Even if republicans manage to get to like 54/55 seats (including any caucusing independents) and are fully unified on a given bill, they'd still have to get 5/6 conservative democrats to get the bill out of debate and onto a final vote. This will force republicans (and democrats) to compromise some if they want to get anything through the senate.

If Republicans win the Senate, the first thing they'll do is eliminate the filibuster.

Then the Republicans will turn the Defense Appropriations Bill into a Christmas tree, on which to hang every shit thing they ever wanted: National Right to Work Law, National Personhood Bill, National Voter ID Bill, National Open Carry Law, elimination of all Federal aid to States that allow same-sex marriage, repeal of the ACA, mandatory deportation of all undocumented persons, dismemberment of the EPA, a National ban on early voting, etc., etc., etc., etc.

They'll do absolutely everything they can to ram their agenda through Congress while destroying labor unions (or at least preventing them from getting involved in politics) and disenfranchising every Democratic voter they can find, and it will all be attached to the Defense bill, so that if Obama wants even one fucking dime to fight ISIS or hold Putin back from overrunning Europe, he's going to have to sign legislation making it 1890 again.

If the GOP wins the Senate, the next two years are going to be hot bleeding Hell.

Uh, isn't this a no-partisan-cheerleading thread, as put by the OP?

[Nigerian Kenya]

And the filibuster. Even if republicans manage to get to like 54/55 seats (including any caucusing independents) and are fully unified on a given bill, they'd still have to get 5/6 conservative democrats to get the bill out of debate and onto a final vote. This will force republicans (and democrats) to compromise some if they want to get anything through the senate.

If Republicans win the Senate, the first thing they'll do is eliminate the filibuster.

Then the Republicans will turn the Defense Appropriations Bill into a Christmas tree, on which to hang every shit thing they ever wanted: National Right to Work Law, National Personhood Bill, National Voter ID Bill, National Open Carry Law, elimination of all Federal aid to States that allow same-sex marriage, repeal of the ACA, mandatory deportation of all undocumented persons, dismemberment of the EPA, a National ban on early voting, etc., etc., etc., etc.

They'll do absolutely everything they can to ram their agenda through Congress while destroying labor unions (or at least preventing them from getting involved in politics) and disenfranchising every Democratic voter they can find, and it will all be attached to the Defense bill, so that if Obama wants even one fucking dime to fight ISIS or hold Putin back from overrunning Europe, he's going to have to sign legislation making it 1890 again.
Ilibuster.
If the GOP wins the Senate, the next two years are going to be hot bleeding Hell.

And that's assuming the GOP has the support to eliminate the filibuster. Who's to say Murkowski, Kirk, Ayotte, Portman, and McCain (or other moderates) won't prevent the GOP from getting the 51 votes it needs to do such a thing.

[New Bierstaat]

One more rating change, perhaps inspired a bit by Larry Sabato, but the data warrants it as well:

Of all the toss-up states, Republicans have got to be feeling the most secure in Iowa. The same Hawkeye State that looked like a Likely D state for a while is now swinging heavily toward the GOP, and Joni Ernst has been either ahead of or tied with Bruce Braley in the last five polls. While Ernst has far from a commanding lead, it is clear that this race is not tied. Bruce Braley, once seen as a shoo-in and a great candidate, has run one of the worst campaigns of the cycle.

This marks the sixth pickup seat for Republicans giving them 51 combined Leans, Likely, and Safe R seats and seats that are not up this cycle, and with it, the chance of a GOP takeover of the Senate if the election were held today ticks upward to 87%, and that's assuming that if Greg Orman wins, he'll caucus with the Democrats, which may not be true especially if the GOP wins a clear majority in the upper chamber.

With this, the Senate majority for the 114^th United States Congress starts out at Leans R, my first call on the majority this cycle:

IA - (Harkin): Leans R

114^th Congress Majority:
House: Safe R
Senate: Leans R

One more change to make. About a month ago, I took South Dakota off the board, the first GOP pickup I locked in for this cycle. Since then. former Sen. Larry Pressler (I) has picked up steam and pulled former Gov. Mike Rounds (R) below 40% in the three-way race. While Rounds still holds a commanding lead, one can imagine a couple of scenarios where he could be pulled down, and while his average lead of 13.3% amounts to a lead of 4.83 standard deviations in a two-party model, the uncertainty is far greater with three candidates involved. Admittedly, I did not know about Pressler's candidacy when I changed the rating in this race. I still expect Rounds to win; I just wouldn't bet my savings account on it the way I would with Montana or West Virginia.

SD - (Johnson): Likely R

Won't be updating the map until tomorrow.

Don't be fooled by what looks like a Landrieu resurgence in the polls in Louisiana; the only reason she's now leading in the open primary is because Rob Maness (R), liberals' worst-case scenario, is picking up support, which he's mostly drawing from Rep. Bill Cassidy (R). Republicans still retain a clear lead and are together approaching 50% while Landrieu's support hasn't improved at all. If the two Republican candidates score well over 50% combined on Nov. 4, the Republican will be highly favored in the December 6 runoff.

[Nigerian Kenya]

Michigan slipping away, South Dakota a sleeper?

Two changes to make today:

For a while, it looked like there was an opening for Land to come back in Michigan, as Peters remained below 50% and seemed unable to really run away with the race. But now, not only is his lead stubbornly consistent, but it appears to be approaching double digits, and land continues to fail to do anything right, in fact, she's even refusing to debate Peters! Usually, the candidate who is behind is the one more enthusiastic about debates, but in this case, Peters has proposed a 4 debate plan, but Land has not even responded. Nope, no written refusal, no counteroffer, just plain 'no response'. This is one race the republicans really bungled this cycle , and it moves one step closer to Safe D, even though Cook Political Report continues to keep this at Toss-Up for some reason I can't figure out.

MI-SEN moves from Lean D to Strong Lean D

Also, I'm moving South Dakota to only Lean R. Rounds's consistent struggle to break 40% was why I never moved this one to Safe, but now he's having trouble breaking 35%. Gordon Howie, the weaker of the two independent candidates, is gaining steam, and so is the other independent candidate, Larry Pressler, lowering the amount of votes Rick Weiland will need to beat Rounds. Rounds also continues to suffer from negative favorability, while Weiland and Pressler are on positive ground. Weiland definitely has a shot at pulling an upset, and I wouldn't rule out a Pressler win either. Now, don't get me wrong, Rounds is still the definite favorite, but I definitely see his chances at more like 80% instead of 90%, and it no longer qualifies for my 'likely' category.

SD-SEN moves from Strong Lean R to Lean R

In January, MI was Toss-Up/Tilt R, and SD was inches away from Safe R. Now, Michigan is close to Safe D, and SD is getting tighter and tighter. It is really amazing how much these two races have changed since the year began.

------------------
Other notes:
- My polling average for NH is only Shaheen +4.5. It stays at Lean D for now, but Brown's chance of winning is going up.
- IA and AK are slipping away from the democrats, but haven't reached Lean R yet. AK is at Sullivan +2.33, IA is at Ernst +3.14. Should AK reach a 4 point gap, and/or IA a 5 point gap, a change in the rating would likely be merited (I'm more willing to move AK because it's a red state).
- There's some evidence that gubernatorial races in Idaho and Oklahoma are tightening in the final weeks, and the republican incumbents here cannot simply sleep from now until the election. While these races remain at Safe R for now, I continue to watch them closely.

And on LA, I've always considered Landrieu likely to win the jungle, and still do. The anti-landrieu vote is divided between Maness, Cassidy, and a collection of minor candidates. But she has almost no chance of hitting 50%, and the inveitable runoff between her (Landrieu) and Cassidy continues to look bad for her.

-------------

Edit: Not important enough to make a double post, but Mark Pryor said he'd like to see BOTH McConnell AND Reid lose their leadership positions. He wants Schumer to replace Reid, and either Burr or Alexander to replace McConnell. We'll see if this moves the polling back towards him or not.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/reid-roa ... undraiser/