Democrats Suffer Worst Mid-Term Defeats in a Generation

The November elections went horrendously for the Democrats, suffering their worst mid-term defeat in recent decades. In the Senate they lost nine seats, the worst defeat of any party in the Senate since 1980, when the Democrats lost 12 seats. In the House of Representatives the Republicans enlarged their majority by making a net gain of 13 seats. The defeat of Democrats in governor races was especially stinging, given the unpopularity of many Republican Governors. The only governor Democrats managed to unseat was Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania. However Republicans managed to gain Arkansas as well as three of the bluest states in the country: Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts! The Democrats also lost badly in other state level races across the country leaving the party with control of the fewest states since the Civil War!

There were a few bright spots for liberals; Alaska, Oregon and Washington D.C. all voted to legalise marijuana whilst Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois, Nebraska and South Dakota all voted to raise the minimum wage. In Alaska the Independent-Democrat fusion ticket for Governor and Lieutenant Governor ousted the incumbent Republicans. In New Hampshire Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen managed to hold off against Scott Brown, making it the only race that was expected to be close that the Democrats actually won. However that was cold comfort for the many Democrats defeated on election night.

There are many reasons why the Democrats lost so badly. The Senate was always going to be an uphill battle due to the number of races held in states that Obama lost twice. Yet the Democrats did worse than they should have, even then. One of the reasons was the abysmal turnout in 2014, at 36.4% it was the lowest turnout since 1942. If you know your history that was in the middle of WWII, when many Americans were a bit too busy fighting to vote. Low turnout tends to hurt Democrats as major elements of their base are even less likely to vote, such as Hispanics and young people.

As a result of the elections Republicans now have control of the Senate and therefore Congress. What they do with this power will have huge implications for the Presidential election in 2016. It also matters a lot for Obama’s judicial nominees who require the approval of the Senate. If a Supreme Court position opens up between now and 2016, expect a truly huge fight.

Obama's party was handed a heavy defeat in the November elections
source:uptownmagazine.com

What the Election Results Mean

The ramifications of these elections are wide reaching, especially important will be the effect on the 2016 Presidential Election. Several of the Republicans elected this year will undoubtedly run for President in 2016. The most commonly talked about is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who got 52% of the vote in Democratic leaning Wisconsin. However I believe that the dark horse of the 2016 Presidential election could be Ohio Governor John Kasich, he cruised to re-election with 64% of the vote. Kasich is undoubtedly conservative, but he can still get support from moderates, which is key to winning the Presidency. Ohio is a swing state, so if he can win big in Ohio, it is a good sign that he could win over the country.

Yet the effect on 2016 goes far beyond simply who the nominees will be. Republicans have expanded control of the House and taken control of the Senate, how they deal with their new found power is a huge question. If they go for impeachment of Obama (as many in their base want them to do) then I believe that it will be extremely damaging as Obama has not done anything that deserves it and the public do not support it. They will also be unable to convict him, as that requires the support of 67 Senators, so that would mean getting support from 11 Democrats, which they won’t get. Likewise if Republicans fail to do anything over the next few years, it could have a negative impact on their chances in 2016.

As I discussed in my previous post, state legislatures are very important. So why is this the case? Well they actually pass legislation, unlike the federal Congress. The current session of Congress (2013-2015) is on track to be the least productive Congress in the history of the United States, whereas in the same time period state legislatures passed 24,000 bills! Legislation like this can have huge impacts on people living in the states. Since Republicans swept to power in many state legislatures in 2010, they have passed many bills that are in line with their Tea Party base. The most common focuses have been on restricting abortion and voting rights. It also has another impact by reducing the Democratic bench for future elections, roughly half of the Democrats in Congress were previously state legislators. However, partisan control of the states can be rather important for determining who wins the Presidency. Each state gets to decide how elections are run in their states (even for federal elections) and how to award their votes in the Electoral College. Almost every state awards their Electoral College vote based on a winner takes all system. However two states, Nebraska and Maine, award them slightly differently, both have two votes for the candidate who wins overall in the state and then one for each congressional district.

There are proposals to change other states to this system by members of the Republican Party in states that they control, but have voted for Obama twice. The reason why they want to propose it is that congressional districts are gerrymandered to be more favourable to Republicans in many of these states. In fact if Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida had used this system in 2012 then Romney would have won the Presidency insteadof Obama. However Republicans are nervous about implementing this, as it has the potential to backfire on them; Ohio, Florida, Virginia are swing states, hence a Republican could easily win them. After all Bush won all three in both his elections. If they were to introduce this system, and then their candidate won the popular vote, they would accidentally have helped the Democrat. However Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin are much more consistently Democratic in Presidential elections, the former two haven’t voted Republican since 1988 and Wisconsin hasn’t done so since 1984! Since their candidates are unlikely to win these states for the foreseeable future, splitting their Electoral College votes could help a Republican win the Presidency in a close election. Fortunately Pennsylvania has just elected a Democratic governor, which will make changes there unlikely.

Although I do believe that the Electoral College is unlikely to change, what may change is the ease of voting. There has been a concerted effort by Republicans across the country to make it harder to vote, particularly targeting Democratic groups. One of the most common ways they have tried to do this is by enacting laws that require you to show photo ID before being allowed to vote. The reason they give for introducing photo IDs is that it will help to prevent voter fraud. The problem is that the only kind of fraud that photo IDs would help to tackle is when a person pretends to be someone they’re not. This form of voter fraud is very rare and most elections have no cases of them at all. Photo IDs are blatantly unconstitutional, the 24^th Amendment to the Constitution states the following:

“Section 1. The rights of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay and poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Photo ID laws are effectively a type of poll tax as these IDs are not free, but can range from $8 to $20. The groups that tend not to have the IDs are young people, poor people and ethnic minorities; all groups who vote Democratic. The type of ID that you can use to vote should also indicate that the laws are simply a way to oppress the Democratic vote. Why are concealed handgun licenses acceptable to use, but not student IDs?

Dark red - Strict Photo ID laws
Light red - Less strict photo ID laws
Burnt Orange - Strict non-photo ID laws
Sand - Less strict non-photo ID laws
Grey - no ID laws
Source: Wikipedia, but it I created this map for Wikipedia

At the moment photo ID laws have been passed in several swing states; Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Wisconsin. You are required to show non-photo ID in Colorado, New Hampshire, and Ohio whilst Nevada and Iowa have no ID requirements when you go to vote. The states to watch for a change would probably be Nevada and Ohio as both have a Republican legislature and a Republican governor. Iowa, New Hampshire and Colorado will be unlikely to change as Democrats control part of the state government there.

Photo IDs are not the only way that Republicans are trying to restrict the vote. Early voting is used mostly by Democrats, by cutting early voting, Republicans can successfully reduce the number of Democrats voting in an election.

Expect a lot of fighting over the next few years in state legislatures across America – and pay attention, they could effectively decide the winner in 2016.

United States Mid-Term Results

So I have left it a week before posting about the US election results! I wanted to get a feel of what has happened.

The biggest deal was the Senate elections in which the Democrats were simply devastated by Republicans. At the moment the Republicans have gained eight seats, which will likely rise to nine when Mary Landrieu loses her run-off election in December. This means that the Republicans have taken control of the Senate. They won open seats in Montana, South Dakota, Iowa and West Virginia and ousted Democratic incumbents in Alaska, Colorado, Arkansas and North Carolina. Republicans also fended off challenges from Democrats in Kentucky and Georgia, whilst Pat Roberts successfully beat independent Greg Orman in Kansas. The surprise was not that the Democrats lost these seats, only Kay Hagan in North Carolina was leading the polls going into election day, it was how badly they lost. Going into Election Day the polls had Mark Pryor losing to Tom Cotton in Arkansas by 5%, he ended up losing by 17%! That is an incredible Democratic bias of 12%, this meant that Pryor only received 39% of the vote. Which is a rather large decline from 2008 when the Republicans didn’t run anyone against him and he got 80% of the vote! Overall the poll averages were biased towards the Democrats by 4%, the only close race which had a Republican bias was New Hampshire where there was a 1.2% bias.

The Senate was always going to be difficult for Democrats, however the gubernatorial elections looked favourable. There were Republican governors in Wisconsin, Maine, Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania that looked particularly weak. Unfortunately for Democrats they only managed to take Pennsylvania, with the Republican governors holding on in the other four states. To make matters worse they lost open seats in the heavily Democratic states of Massachusetts and Maryland, and incumbent governor Pat Quinn lost in Illinois. In Alaska the Republican incumbent was beating by independent, Bill Walker; this is the first time that Alaska has elected an independent as governor.

One of the biggest deals of the midterms has barely got any coverage on the national and international news circuit, and that’s the elections to the State Houses. They get less coverage for obvious reasons, but that does not make them less important, especially when you take into account the aggregate effect of them all. As with elections to all other positions, there was a Republican tide that left Republicans with the most state legislators since 1928 and the Democrats with control of the fewest state legislatures in their party’s history! Democrats took control of zero state legislatures whilst losing both state Houses in Nevada, leaving Republicans with complete control of Nevada governance. They lost control of lower Houses in West Virginia, New Hampshire, Minnesota and New Mexico whilst they lost control of state Senates in New York, Maine, Colorado and Washington.

Obviously this has massive ramifications for the next few years, if you want to find out more then read my post; “What the Election Results Mean”.

Final Senate Predictions

Updated Prediction

Safe Dem	Likely Dem	Leans Dem	Tossup	Leans Rep	Likely Rep	Safe Rep
DE, HI, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OR, RI, VA, MI		North Carolina, New Hampshire	Kansas, Iowa, Georgia	Arkansas, Colorado, Kentucky, Louisiana	Alaska, South Dakota,	AL, ID, ME, MS, NE, OK, OK*, SC, SC*, TN, TX, WY, WV, MT
47 Democrats			3 Tossups	50 Republicans

Most likely scenario is that the Republicans take control of the Senate. The Republicans need to secure just one of the tossup seats of a possible three. Democrats need to take both Iowa and Georgia and then get Greg Orman to caucus with them to hold onto the Senate. Polls at the moment are putting the Republicans in Iowa and Georgia ahead by 1% point, if the polls are accurate then a GOP majority is almost certain.

February Prediction

Safe Dem	Likely Dem	Leans Dem	Tossup	Leans Rep	Likely Rep	Safe Rep
DE, HI, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OR, RI, VA	Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire	Alaska, North Carolina, Michigan	Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana	Georgia, Montana	South Dakota, West Virginia	AL, ID, KS, ME, MS, NE, OK, OK*, SC, SC*, TN, TX, WY
50 Democrats			3 Tossups	47 Republicans

1% Democratic skew in the polls

Safe Dem	Likely Dem	Leans Dem	Tossup	Leans Rep	Likely Rep	Safe Rep
DE, HI, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OR, RI, VA, MI		New Hampshire	Kansas, North Carolina	Iowa, Georgia, Colorado	Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Dakota	AL, ID, ME, MS, NE, OK, OK*, SC, SC*, TN, TX, WY, WV, MT, AK
46 Democrats			2 Tossups	52 Republicans

As you can see any kind of pro-Democratic skew in the polls would result in a Republican majority without a doubt. Interestingly this scenario means that the Republicans cannot lose Kansas as Orman has promised to caucus with the party that makes up a majority.

2% Republican skew in the polls

Safe Dem	Likely Dem	Leans Ind	Tossup	Leans Rep	Likely Rep	Safe Rep
DE, HI, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OR, RI, VA, MI	New Hampshire, North Carolina	Kansas	Iowa, Georgia, Colorado, Arkansas, Kentucky	Louisiana	Alaska, South Dakota	AL, ID, ME, MS, NE, OK, OK*, SC, SC*, TN, TX, WY, WV, MT
47 Democrats			5 Tossups	47 Republicans
1 Independent

A sign of just how tough the election is going to be, even a 2% pro-Republican skew in polls doesn’t automatically produce a Democratic majority. Despite that, a 2% skew would probably produce a Democratic majority. If the Democrats want to win a majority without Orman’s support, then they need to win three of the five Tossups (remember that Joe Biden will break a 50-50 tie in favour of Democrats). It’s slightly tougher for Republicans as they could only afford to lose one of the Tossups. Considering that a 2% skew would mean that Iowa and Georgia are actually slightly more favourable towards Democrats and that Colorado would be a true tossup, it would be a huge struggle.

2% Democratic skew in the polls

Safe Dem	Likely Dem	Leans Dem	Tossup	Leans Rep	Likely Rep	Safe Rep
DE, HI, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OR, RI, VA, MI			North Carolina, New Hampshire	Iowa, Georgia, Kansas,	Arkansas, Colorado, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Dakota	AL, ID, ME, MS, NE, OK, OK*, SC, SC*, TN, TX, WY, WV, MT, AK
45 Democrats			2 Tossups	53 Republicans

Unsurprisingly a 2% pro-Democratic skew in the polls means that Republicans will definitely win a majority.

  

3% Republican skew in the polls

Safe Dem	Likely Dem	Leans Dem/Ind	Tossup	Leans Rep	Likely Rep	Safe Rep
DE, HI, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OR, RI, VA, MI	New Hampshire, North Carolina	Kansas, Iowa, Georgia	Colorado, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana	Alaska	South Dakota	AL, ID, ME, MS, NE, OK, OK*, SC, SC*, TN, TX, WY, WV, MT
49 Democrats			4 Tossups	46 Republicans
1 Independent

A Democratic majority would be all but certain. They would only need to win one of the tossups to secure a majority without Orman’s help. Even if they lost all the ones classed as Tossup, they could still court Orman into caucusing with them.

3% Democratic skew in the polls

Safe Dem	Likely Dem	Leans Dem	Tossup	Leans Rep	Likely Rep	Safe Rep
DE, HI, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OR, RI, VA, MI			North Carolina, New Hampshire	Kansas,	Arkansas, Iowa, Georgia, Colorado, Kentucky,	AL, ID, ME, MS, NE, OK, OK*, SC, SC*, TN, TX, WY, WV, MT, AK, LA, SD
45 Democrats			2 Tossups	53 Republicans

It feels almost pointless doing this one as the only changes are states going from leans/likely Republican to likely/safe Republican. 

Note: Although this will likely be my final blog post about the elections, I may update my predictions on Twitter. You find me at www.twitter.com/michaeljspence

Analysis of Next Week's Mid-Terms

It has been eight months since I last wrote about the Senate elections that will be held next week. Since then most of the news has been good for Republicans, they have made gains in about ten states and lost ground in just three. Considering they only need to gain six seats to take the Senate, this is a very good sign for them. The blog FiveThirtyEight, at the time of writing, predicts that the Republicans have a 64% chance of controlling the Senate, with the most likely scenario being one in which they control 52 seats to the Democrats 48. I will now review each close state and then make my updated prediction.

Kansas:

When I posted my Senate elections update in February I didn’t even mention Kansas, other than to put it into the “Safe Republican” column of my table. Incumbent Senator Pat Roberts only real worry was a primary from Tea Party challenger Milton Wolf. Roberts managed to survive the primary, but he came out severely damaged by revelations that he no longer owned a home in Kansas. This helped to promote an image of him being an out-of-touch member of the Washington elite.

You might expect the story to end there as Kansas is a very red state, the last time Kansas elected a Democrat to the Senate was in 1932! Roberts also had two serious challengers; Democrat Chad Taylor and an independent Greg Orman, who split the anti-Roberts vote. These two factors combined to offset his weakness and made it look likely that he was going to scrape to victory in the Sunflower State. Then came the bombshell that blew the race wide open, the Democrat Chad Taylor dropped out of the race and endorsed the independent! This meant that the anti-Roberts vote was no longer split between two candidates, seriously jeopardising Roberts’ chances! At the moment this race is probably the closest in the country, don’t be surprised if it ends up going to a recount.

Rating: Tossup

Iowa:

When I wrote about Iowa earlier this year I noted that the trend was positive for the Democrats. They had one candidate in the primary, Bruce Braley, compared to six candidates in the Republican primary. To make it even better, Braley was leading all candidates in the polls. With less than a week until the election this has changed completely. According to the HuffPost pollster average, Republican Joni Ernst is leading Braley 47% to 45.3%. I am genuinely shocked by this; Iowa is a purple state which would lead you to expect that extremes of right and left would not fare well in Iowa. However Ernst is a hardcore Tea Partier; she wants to abolish the IRS, the EPA and the Department of Education. She supports abolishing the federal minimum wage, and at least partially privatising Medicare. She also supports a personhood amendment which defines life as beginning at conception, effectively making all abortions illegal as well as some forms of hormonal birth control.

In a presidential election year she would probably lose, as the voters she turns off (women, ethnic minorities and young people) all turn out in larger numbers. My only explanation for how Ernst is doing so well is that the Republican vote is especially energised, whilst the independent and Democratic vote is depressed.

Rating Tossup

If all this was starting to get a bit much, have a break and watch this rather hilarious campaign ad from Joni Ernst.

Georgia

Back in February it was difficult to say how Georgia was going to play out due to the number of people running in both primaries, eight in the Republican and five in the Democratic. On the Republican side you have David Purdue, a businessman. On the Democratic side there is Michelle Nunn, the CEO of a charity, Points of Light, and the daughter of popular former Senator Sam Nunn. At the moment Nunn is doing surprisingly well in the Peach State, considering that it is a red state. Purdue is not helped by the relative unpopularity of Georgian Republicans. Governor Nathan Deal is trying to fend off a serious challenge from former President Jimmy Carter’s grandson, Jason Carter. It has caused Republicans to have a completely split message, Purdue is telling Georgians that the economy is terrible and that you should blame Obama and the Democrats. Whilst in the other race Deal is telling Georgians that the economy is doing great and that he should get the credit. Not exactly a consistent message that will win over independents come Election Day.

Current rating: Tossup

Colorado

I previously rated Colorado as likely Democrat, and it looks like I could be totally wrong.  The main reason for this belief was that I thought Ken Buck would win the Republican primary. In 2010 Buck had failed to unseat a much weaker Democrat in more favourable conditions. However it was Cory Gardener who won the Republican primary, he immediately showed that he had learnt from Buck’s mistakes. Gardener has been a supporter of controversial personhood amendments, and is still a co-sponsor of a federal bill that would make the position the law. However he claims that he has changed his mind (70% of Colorado voters rejecting a personhood amendment in 2010 may have been very persuasive). In the summer he declared his support for over-the-counter contraceptives. He is hoping to close the gender gap, or at least not to provoke women into turning out to vote against him.

Interestingly there is a personhood amendment on the ballot again in Colorado, if Mark Udall can successfully tie Gardener to the amendment then he might be able to scrape a win on Election Day.

Current rating: Leans Republican

Cory Gardener has plenty of reasons to smile, he's winning
a race that many expected him to lose.
Source: www.thinkprogress.com

North Carolina

In a mid-term election year with a Democratic President, you might think that a Democratic Senator in a Republican leaning state would have little chance of success. Especially considering her poor approval ratings, in a poll released on the 20^th of October, 41% of voters approve of Senator Kay Hagan job against 50% who disapprove. However, conditions in North Carolina may mean that she holds onto her Senate seat.

In 2012 Pat McCrory won the governorship of North Carolina, this meant that for the first time in over a century, Republicans controlled both the governorship and the legislature. They used this opportunity to pursue a very right-wing agenda. This has not gone down well with North Carolinian voters, in the poll mentioned before the legislature boasted an approval rating of just 25%. It has not been difficult for Hagan to tie her Republican challenger, Thom Tillis, to the failures of state Republicans considering he is the Republican leader of the State House of Representatives.

Current Rating: Leans Democrat

Kentucky

Kentucky is one of two states which actually might exchange a Republican Senator for a Democratic one (remember Greg Orman in Kansas is an independent). Back in February Kentucky was possibly the closest race in the country, eight months later it has slowly drifted towards the Republican. Flipping Kentucky would be a massive coup for the Democrats, even if they lost control of the Senate, as the incumbent Republican, Mitch McConnell is the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate!

Toppling Mitch McConnell has been made possible by his serious unpopularity in Kentucky. In recent years he has been the most unpopular Senator, with a majority of Kentuckians saying they disapproved of his performance. Luckily for the Democrats they secured a very strong candidate in Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Secretary of State for Kentucky.

However as we get closer to polling day it looks increasingly likely that Mitch McConnell will hang onto his Senate seat by a narrow margin. At one point the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (the committee tasked with getting more Democrats elected to the Senate) actually stopped running ads in Kentucky, although they reversed that decision a week ago.

Current Rating: Leans Republican

If you need another break, here is 2 minutes of Mitch McConnell released by his campaign. The first ten seconds are particularly hilarious, a smile just doesn't look right on Mitch.

Louisiana:

If the Republicans want to take back control of the Senate, then the really need to win Louisiana. If they lose Louisiana then they probably won’t control the Senate. Interestingly if Republicans are successful then this will be the first time they have won this seat since 1877! It will also be the first time they’ve held both of Louisiana’s Senate seats since 1872.

The incumbent Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu is Chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, a committee that is essential to the economy of Louisiana thanks to the oil industry. If Landrieu wins and the Democrats lose control of the Senate then she would become the ranking member on the committee instead. This would mean that she is still extremely important, are Louisianians really going to give up Landrieu for someone who will have no influence over the Committee that has most relevance to their state? Probably.

At the moment it looks highly likely that the Republican challenger, Bill Cassidy, will beat Landrieu to become the next Senator from Louisiana.

Current Rating: Leans Republican

Arkansas:

The Natural State has become significantly more Republican since Mark Pryor first got elected in 2002. When he assumed office, Democrats still dominated Arkansas; they had both Senators, both State Houses, three of four of Arkansas’ US House Representatives. Only Governor Mike Huckabee was a Republican, and that changed in 2006 when Mike Beebe won the election. However the state has gotten consistently more hostile to Democrats in the past few years. In 2010 Pryor’s fellow Senator Blanche Lincoln was crushed by her Republican opponent, John Boozman, and the Republicans made gains in the State Houses and the US House. In 2012 Democrats lost control of both of the State Houses and their final US House Representative was defeated. Pryor is now the only Democrat representing Arkansas in Congress, in 2008 there was only one Republican.

Pryor was always going to face a tough re-election, even if he was the most conservative Senate Democrat in 2013, according to the American Conservative Union. It is looking very likely that Pryor will lose to Tom Cotton, current polls have Cotton up four points and FiveThirtyEight gives Cotton an 83% probability that he will win.

Current Rating: Leans Republican

Here's a campaign ad from Mark Pryor, if you couldn't tell that he was from a very conservative state with a lot of Evangelical Christians, you certainly can from this ad!

There is one more race I want to talk about that I think is interesting, but is not close (in my opinion); Alaska. To those of you paying attention to the mid-terms this year may be very confused by my Alaska rating. It has been constantly talked about as one of the closest races, either party could win. FiveThirtyEight currently has Alaska as the third closest race, and the HuffPost Pollster Average has Republican Dan Sullivan leading Democrat Mark Begich by 3.6%, not the widest margin. As well as that ballot initiatives on the minimum wage and marijuana legalisation will almost certainly drive up turnout amongst Democrats, in a way that may be hidden to pollsters. But it is the potential for a skew in the polls that has left me so certain that Democrats will lose this race. Alaska is notoriously hard to poll, in 2008 polls for the US House seat were off by an average of 12.5%! The polls have also been consistently skewed in favour of Democrats, this is true of every race since 2000. The average skew in favour of Democrats is 7.2%, which is an awful lot. This is why my rating for Alaska is likely Republican.

One of the really interesting things that could happen this November is the potential that we won’t know who controls the Senate the quite a while after Election Day. Three states have the potential to throw a spanner into the works: Kansas, Georgia and Louisiana.
In Georgia and Louisiana if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, then the top two candidates fight it out in a run-off. In Louisiana the run-off is almost certainly going to happen, the run-off will be held on the 6^th of December. The Georgia run-off is less likely but still has a good chance of happening. However Georgia’s run-off won’t happen until the 6^th of January, which is three days after Congress gets sworn in! This could mean we don’t know who controls the Senate in the next Congress until after Congress actually begins. The reason why Kansas could through a spanner into the works is that Orman has said that he could caucus with either party. If the Senate is split then this would mean that for the next two years Orman would probably be the most important person in American politics after President Obama. He has said that even if he decides to caucus with one Party, he could change his affiliation if he dislikes how that Party is running the Senate!

For the prediction on how each state will vote, plus what happens if the polls are skewed click here.

Strategising for the Democrats

The election of George W. Bush in 2004 was incredibly close, Bush beat his Democratic rival, John Kerry, by 2.4%. In terms of the Electoral College, Bush won 35 more votes than Kerry. This means that if a state worth 18 or more votes in the Electoral College had voted for Kerry instead of Bush, the former would have won the election.

Everyone knew that the election would be a close one and so Karl Rove, a senior adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign devised a plan to boost turnout amongst the Republican Party’s evangelical Christian base. So in eleven states around the country Rove managed to get referendums on same-sex marriage bans on the ballot. The hope was that this would encourage evangelicals to turn out to vote to ban same-sex marriage and at the same time they would cast a ballot for George W. Bush. Amongst those states was Ohio, worth 20 votes in the Electoral College, enough to swing the election. The margin of victory was only 2.1%.

Currently the Democrats have 55 Senators to the Republicans’ 45, which means that a net change of six seats would tip the Senate into the hands of the Republicans. So if the Democrats want to keep the Senate they need to be strategic. One of the ways that they can do this is by copying Rove’s 2004 strategy and get issues on the ballot that increase turnout. The Democrats have two issues which could help them in 2014: the minimum wage and marijuana.

According to a recent George Washington University poll, having marijuana legalisation on the ballot makes 40% of people “much more likely” to vote, whilst it makes a further 30% “somewhat more likely” to vote. This is good news for Democrats as it boosts turnout, particularly amongst young people who are notoriously bad at voting in midterms and a heavily Democratic demographic. Another constituency of the Democratic coalition are poorer people, who have the most to gain from raising the minimum wage. It is a massive encouragement for people to vote if what they are voting for is a basically a raise.

The minimum wage is highly popular and very successful on the ballot. Since referendums on the issue started in 1988 it only failed twice, once in Missouri and Montana, both in 1996. Since 2004 it has averaged 66% in favour and only 34% against. Having such a popular question is hugely beneficial to the Democrat in the same race as it brings the question of the minimum wage to more prominence.

If Democrats want to keep hold of the Senate then they need to make sure that Republicans gain no more than five seats (assuming the Democrats gain none). To do this the Democrats should get marijuana and the minimum wage on the ballot in as many states as possible, especially in ones where a close race is expected. Even in states without a competitive Senate race, it is still a good idea to have these initiatives to help bolster House Democrats. There are attempts to get the minimum wage on the ballot in several states, but so far only Alaska and South Dakota definitely have it on the 4^th of November ballot. Alaska is also the only state with marijuana legislation on the ballot and Florida has medical marijuana on the ballot. Alaska is also one of the states with a good chance of going Republican in November, having both on the ballot should boost Senator Mark Begich’s chances of being re-elected.

2014 Senate Elections Predictions - Update

As promised I have written up a prediction for how the 2014 Senate elections will go.

Kentucky:

Without a doubt Kentucky will be this year’s most interesting Senate race. Mitch McConnell is the most powerful Republican in the Senate and deeply unpopular in Kentucky. His defeat would be a huge blow to Republicans and could save the Democrats from losing control of the Senate. First McConnell must fend off a challenge from the Tea Party candidate Matt Bevin. Current polls show him easily beating Bevin in the primary which takes place on the 20^th of May. His most serious challenge is from the state’s attorney general, Alison Lundergan Grimes. At the moment the HUffPost Pollster average shows them tied on 43.3%! That makes it the closest race in the country at the moment.

Current rating: Tossup

Arkansas:

Mark Pryor is possibly the weakest Democratic incumbent to face re-election in 2014. Pryor is facing a tough challenge from Representative Tom Cotton, who was first elected to Congress in 2012. Current polling shows Cotton holding a very slim lead over Pryor.

Current rating: Tossup

Louisiana:

The incumbent Senator is Mary Landrieu, a Democrat who has held the seat since 1997. Despite winning on three occasions, her races have always been close. Her 2014 challenger is likely to be Bill Cassidy who has served in the House since 2009. Louisiana has an odd system in that it holds a ‘jungle primary’ on election day. If no single candidate gets enough votes then the top two advance to a run-off in December.

Polling has been very thin in regards to this race, the most recent poll was taken by the Republican leaning firm Rasmussen and showed Cassidy leading Landrieu by 4%. Due to Rasmussen’s terrible 2012 polls, I am inclined to disregard it.

Current rating: Tossup

Montana:

When Senator Max Baucus announced his retirement, Democrats placed their hope in the popular former governor, Brian Schweitzer. Unfortunately Schweitzer declined to run (raising speculation that he might run for President in 2016), blowing the race wide open. Current polling shows Steve Daines winning the Republican nomination, John Walsh winning the Democratic Party nomination, but Daines winning the final election.

BUT! There has been a twist in the race. Obama has appointed Baucus as the US ambassador to China, as a result he had to resign his Senate seat. This lead Democratic governor Steve Bullock to appoint John Walsh as Baucus’ replacement. Being the incumbent Senator should give Walsh a very small boost.

The primary election is on the 3^rd of June.

Current rating: Leans Republican

North Carolina:

It seems that North Carolina may continue its march to the right and turf out Democratic Senator Kay Hagan. Unfortunately for Republicans, several candidates have declared that they will run for office, this makes it impossible for them to rally around one person early on. The primary election will take place on the 6^th of May and a run-off on the 15^th of July. The lateness of the primary is bad news for Republicans.

Current rating: Leans Democratic

Iowa:

When Democratic Senator Tom Harkin announced his retirement last year, it left the Republicans with a great opportunity. Unfortunately for Republicans, since then things have gone better for Democrats. Six people have declared that they will run for the open Senate seat on the Republican side, whereas only Representative Bruce Bailey has done so on the Democratic side. Only after the primary on the 3^rd of June will Republicans be able to coalesce around one candidate.

If I was a Democratic strategist in Iowa I would try the McCaskill tactic. This is whereby Democrats run adverts leading up to the Republican primary calling the weakest candidate a ‘true conservative’ in the hopes that they can win the primary. As a result of their win, the Democrats would be better placed to win the general election.

So far all polls show Bailey leading every potential Republican opponent.

Current rating: Likely Democrat

Michigan:

The incumbent Democratic Senator, Carl Levin, has spent 35 years in the Senate, which makes his retirement all the more painful for Democrats. Originally it looked likely that the seat would stay Democratic but recent polls show that the likely Republican nominee, Terri Lynn Land, has the edge over the likely Democratic nominee, Gary Peters.

But it is still too early to tell as 20% of the voters are undecided. Add to that the Democratic nature of Michigan.

Current rating: Leans Democratic

Georgia:

Other than Kentucky, this is the only Republican held seat with a chance of turning Democratic. This is thanks to the retirement of Saxby Chambliss, resulting in an open seat. What promises to plague both parties is that the amount of people running in the primary elections. There are eight running on the Republican side and five on the Democratic side.

There are two primaries, the first on the 20^th of May and a run-off on the 22^nd of July.

Due to a lack of polling on Georgia, it is difficult to accurately predict how the race will go.

Current rating: Leans Republican

West Virginia:

Despite the fact that West Virginia has not had a Republican Senator since 1956, it is the most likely state to change parties in 2014. This is thanks to the retirement of popular Democratic Senator, Jay Rockefeller, and the popular Republican Representative Shelley Moore Capito. The little polling done shows Capito easily beating any potential Democratic challenger.

Current rating: Likely Republican

South Dakota:

The retirement of Democratic Senator Tim Johnson was a huge blow to the Democrats. This blew the race wide open and gave the Republicans their second best change of flipping a seat. Polling has been sparse, but the current indicators are that former Governor Mike Rounds is the most likely to win.

Current rating: Likely Republican

Colorado:

Democratic Senator Mark Udall was first elected in the Democratic wave of 2008. So far his prospects are looking good in the Centennial State. No-one is challenging him in the primaries, which gives him an advantage over Republicans. There are six declared candidates in the Republican primary. It is important to note here that Ken Buck is currently leading the primary field. This could bode well for Democrats as Buck failed to oust a much weaker Democrat in 2010 when the atmosphere was much more favourable to Republicans than 2014 will be. Buck will not pose much of a threat to Udall if he wins.

Current rating: Likely Democratic

Alaska:

Democratic Senator Mark Begich is likely going to be the target of Republicans due to the red nature of Alaska. At the moment there are five declared candidates on the Republican side, which will hamper their side significantly.

The best candidate for the Republicans is Mead Treadwell, the current Lieutenant Governor of Alaska and the candidate most likely to defeat Begich. The best hope for Democrats is that Joe Miller, who almost sabotaged the 2010 Senate race for Republicans, wins the primary. This is another race where the McCaskill tactic should be employed, if Miller wins the primary, Democrats will win the general election. Watch for the primary on the 19^th of August.

Current rating: Leans Democratic

New Hampshire:

Jeanne Shaheen is the incumbent Democratic Senator and most likely to win this race. All polling shows Shaheen leading any potential challenger. There has been talk that Scott Brown, the former Senator from Massachusetts, could enter the race. Even if he did enter, I believe that the charge that he doesn’t care about New Hampshire would be too strong.

Current rating: Likely Democratic

Prediction table:

Safe Dem	Likely Dem	Leans Dem	Tossup	Leans Rep	Likely Rep	Safe Rep
DE, HI, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OR, RI, VA	Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire	Alaska, North Carolina, Michigan	Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana	Georgia, Montana	South Dakota, West Virginia	AL, ID, KS, ME, MS, NE, OK, OK*, SC, SC*, TN, TX, WY

* indicates special election

Colour indicates which party currently holds the seat

If I take my predictions as certain (i.e. count all leans/likely as definite) then that would result in 50 Democrats and 47 Republicans with three states (Arkansas, Kentucky and Louisiana) up for grabs. This is why I predicted that Democrats would hold the Senate. Despite this, things are far from safe for Democrats. A screw up in any of the lean seats could cause them to lose control of the Senate.

My advice to Democrats would be to employ the McCaskill tactic, particularly in Alaska, Georgia and North Carolina. My advice to Republicans would be to choose moderates in close races to avoid defeat.

Here’s a timetable of the primary elections for states I felt had interesting Senate races. For the full 2014 list click here.

State	Date
North Carolina	6th of May
West Virginia	13th of May
Arkansas	20th of May
Kentucky	20th of May
Georgia	20th of May
Montana	3rd of June
South Dakota	3rd of June
Iowa	3rd of June
Colorado	24th of June
North Carolina run-off	15th of July
Georgia run-off (primary)	22nd of July
Michigan	5th of August
Alaska	19th of August
New Hampshire	9th of September
Election (Louisiana primary)	4th of November
Louisiana run-off	6th of December
Georgia run-off (general)	6th of January 2015