NationStates

Idzequitch wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:While we're all making predictions, here are mine. Nate Silver himself came by and said they looked great.

House: 226D, 209R, Dems regain control narrowly, only sustain a few losses (MN's Duluth district comes to mind)

Senate: 51-49 R, no real change as Dems pick up Nevada and squeak in a super, super narrow win in AZ (48.5-48.0) or something like that. Dems lose ND and MO at the same time (by 3-4 points in ND and 1-2 points in MO. Dems manage to hold on by 1-2 points in FL, MT & IN, and by bigger 3-6 point margins in WV, OH.

If I had to guesstimate the margins of victory (going by intervals of .5%) in the swing Senate seats, I would say as follows;

AZ: 48.5% (D) & 48.0% (R) (possibly lower margin of victory here).
NV: 49.0% (D) & 47.5% (R).
MT: 48.5% (D) & 47.5% (R), I expect Tester's winning margin to be smaller than some expect.
FL: 49.5% (D) & 48.0% (R).
TX: 50.0% (R) & 47.0% (D).
IN: 49.0% (D) & 47.0% (R).
TN: 50.5% (R) & 47.5% (D).
MO: 49.0% (R) & 48.0% (D).
ND: 51.5% (R) & 47.5% (D).

This is all, of course, speculation.

There's just one too few competitive races for the Dems to nab the majority in the Senate. ND, TN, TX appear to be going for the Republicans, so even if the Dems manage to sweep AZ, NV, MT, FL, IN, WV, OH, and MO, they're still probably looking at a 50/50 split.

Thermodolia wrote:

Idzequitch wrote:There's just one too few competitive races for the Dems to nab the majority in the Senate. ND, TN, TX appear to be going for the Republicans, so even if the Dems manage to sweep AZ, NV, MT, FL, IN, WV, OH, and MO, they're still probably looking at a 50/50 split.

I think 50/50 is going to happen. And think that Manchin or Collins will flip parties or go independent.

Thermodolia wrote:I think the democrats will hold all current seats except for ND which will be a R pickup

And the democrats will pick up both NV and AZ for a net gain of Dem +1. 50-50 is my prediction.

In the house I’m predicting 230D-205R

Idzequitch wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:I think 50/50 is going to happen. And think that Manchin or Collins will flip parties or go independent.

It would be kinda nifty to talk about the two independent senators from Maine.

Thermodolia wrote:

Idzequitch wrote:There's just one too few competitive races for the Dems to nab the majority in the Senate. ND, TN, TX appear to be going for the Republicans, so even if the Dems manage to sweep AZ, NV, MT, FL, IN, WV, OH, and MO, they're still probably looking at a 50/50 split.

I think 50/50 is going to happen. And think that Manchin or Collins will flip parties or go independent.

Idzequitch wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:I think 50/50 is going to happen. And think that Manchin or Collins will flip parties or go independent.

It would be kinda nifty to talk about the two independent senators from Maine.

The South Falls wrote:

Idzequitch wrote:It would be kinda nifty to talk about the two independent senators from Maine.

I mean, they act like independents.

Thermodolia wrote:

Idzequitch wrote:There's just one too few competitive races for the Dems to nab the majority in the Senate. ND, TN, TX appear to be going for the Republicans, so even if the Dems manage to sweep AZ, NV, MT, FL, IN, WV, OH, and MO, they're still probably looking at a 50/50 split.

I think 50/50 is going to happen. And think that Manchin or Collins will flip parties or go independent.

Shrillland wrote:

Idzequitch wrote:It would be kinda nifty to talk about the two independent senators from Maine.

Albeit for two years. Truth is I don't think that Collins will survive 2020. If she becomes an independent, she'd make it to the second round of counting but that's all.

Ngelmish wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:I think 50/50 is going to happen. And think that Manchin or Collins will flip parties or go independent.

Manchin and Collins are both pretty invested in their parties as institutions and, especially, as part of their identities and neither one is that likely to flip. Murkowski is the closest thing to an unaffiliated senator who runs as a major party candidate these days.

Idzequitch wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:I think the democrats will hold all current seats except for ND which will be a R pickup

And the democrats will pick up both NV and AZ for a net gain of Dem +1. 50-50 is my prediction.

In the house I’m predicting 230D-205R

I guess if that happens, Pence will have to really earn his paycheck.

Astrolinium wrote:

Ngelmish wrote:
Manchin and Collins are both pretty invested in their parties as institutions and, especially, as part of their identities and neither one is that likely to flip. Murkowski is the closest thing to an unaffiliated senator who runs as a major party candidate these days.

I think Murkowski is definitely the most likely Senator to leave her caucus. The party establishment already hates her. Frankly, if the night turns out 50-50, Chuck Schumer would have to be an idiot not to offer Murkowski whatever gavel she wants if she'll flip.

Tobleste wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
I think Murkowski is definitely the most likely Senator to leave her caucus. The party establishment already hates her. Frankly, if the night turns out 50-50, Chuck Schumer would have to be an idiot not to offer Murkowski whatever gavel she wants if she'll flip.

Did she not lose a primary and win as a write in candidate? Surely that makes her effectively an independent or at least capable of succeeding as one. Afaik, the outgoing Alaskan governor is an independent.

Valrifell wrote:

Tobleste wrote:
Did she not lose a primary and win as a write in candidate? Surely that makes her effectively an independent or at least capable of succeeding as one. Afaik, the outgoing Alaskan governor is an independent.

But if she turns independent her only real options are to be left out of the fun Senate jobs or caucus with Democrats, considering Reps wouldn't be too happy about the name change, I imagine.

San Lumen wrote:I don’t want to sound paranoid but what is to stop Russian hackers from changing results right before our eyes? Would election officials in republican states even notice or care? I don’t think they would

Tobleste wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
I think Murkowski is definitely the most likely Senator to leave her caucus. The party establishment already hates her. Frankly, if the night turns out 50-50, Chuck Schumer would have to be an idiot not to offer Murkowski whatever gavel she wants if she'll flip.

Did she not lose a primary and win as a write in candidate? Surely that makes her effectively an independent or at least capable of succeeding as one. Afaik, the outgoing Alaskan governor is an independent.

Astrolinium wrote:

Tobleste wrote:
Did she not lose a primary and win as a write in candidate? Surely that makes her effectively an independent or at least capable of succeeding as one. Afaik, the outgoing Alaskan governor is an independent.

She did, her state party successfully primaried her and she won as a write-in anyway, which is, I think, basically the equivalent of a license that says, "Lisa Murkowski can do whatever the fuck she wants." Schumer, as I said, would have to be an idiot to not at least try to tempt her away if the chamber ends up tied, and she could also be extremely powerful as an independent.

Ngelmish wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
She did, her state party successfully primaried her and she won as a write-in anyway, which is, I think, basically the equivalent of a license that says, "Lisa Murkowski can do whatever the fuck she wants." Schumer, as I said, would have to be an idiot to not at least try to tempt her away if the chamber ends up tied, and she could also be extremely powerful as an independent.

If it somehow is a 50-50 split, both sides are going to scramble to flip a 51st vote, it's what always happens in that scenario. It's just that, looking at the individual senators that could make up that composition, who has the most incentive to flip? Such moves are rarely dictated by ideology in any meaningful sense which is why, for example, Manchin, but especially Collins are unlikely to ever go through with it.

Murkowski might, although it'd probably be a bad move for her to make if she wants to be elected again. She doesn't need the party establishment, but she needs some Republican votes and flipping would be a good way to lose more than she can afford. On the other hand, she might be the only senator in either caucus right now who has enough of her own brand in her own state to survive it. Hard to say. It's worth noting that, in modern history, senators who do flip parties have a tendency to serve out only the remainder of that term. It's not a promising electoral move.

Astrolinium wrote:

Ngelmish wrote:
If it somehow is a 50-50 split, both sides are going to scramble to flip a 51st vote, it's what always happens in that scenario. It's just that, looking at the individual senators that could make up that composition, who has the most incentive to flip? Such moves are rarely dictated by ideology in any meaningful sense which is why, for example, Manchin, but especially Collins are unlikely to ever go through with it.

Murkowski might, although it'd probably be a bad move for her to make if she wants to be elected again. She doesn't need the party establishment, but she needs some Republican votes and flipping would be a good way to lose more than she can afford. On the other hand, she might be the only senator in either caucus right now who has enough of her own brand in her own state to survive it. Hard to say. It's worth noting that, in modern history, senators who do flip parties have a tendency to serve out only the remainder of that term. It's not a promising electoral move.

If Murkowski leaves her party I could see her going the independent route. Of course, caucusing with Democrats would essentially be the same as becoming one; I confess I don't actually know what happens as far as control if we have 50 in the Democratic caucus, 49 in the Republican caucus, 1 with no caucus, and a Republican Vice President.

Valrifell wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
If Murkowski leaves her party I could see her going the independent route. Of course, caucusing with Democrats would essentially be the same as becoming one; I confess I don't actually know what happens as far as control if we have 50 in the Democratic caucus, 49 in the Republican caucus, 1 with no caucus, and a Republican Vice President.

Nobody would be dumb enough to not caucus with anybody. That's just a good way to make sure you'll never be on a committee.

Valrifell wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
If Murkowski leaves her party I could see her going the independent route. Of course, caucusing with Democrats would essentially be the same as becoming one; I confess I don't actually know what happens as far as control if we have 50 in the Democratic caucus, 49 in the Republican caucus, 1 with no caucus, and a Republican Vice President.

Nobody would be dumb enough to not caucus with anybody. That's just a good way to make sure you'll never be on a committee.

Astrolinium wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Nobody would be dumb enough to not caucus with anybody. That's just a good way to make sure you'll never be on a committee.

I mean, sure, but we're well into the realm of academic looks into wild hypothetical situations here. And there is a possible path onto committees in this case: I could see it as part of a deal with Schumer, sort of "stealth-caucusing" with the Democrats to protect her reputation. Again, this is a total hypothetical that I find interesting solely because I don't know what Senate rules say would happen in such a situation.

Valgora wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Nobody would be dumb enough to not caucus with anybody. That's just a good way to make sure you'll never be on a committee.

I'm pretty sure it's a rule that all independents must caucus with either the Democrats and Republicans.

Valgora wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Nobody would be dumb enough to not caucus with anybody. That's just a good way to make sure you'll never be on a committee.

I'm pretty sure it's a rule that all independents must caucus with either the Democrats and Republicans.