Skip links

2014 Senate

Sabato's Crystal Ball

Off to the Races

Earlier this week we offered a pre-Labor Day assessment of the midterm state of play in the Senate, House, and gubernatorial races coming up in November. The conclusion of that piece, written in Politico Magazine, is as follows: The overall picture is this: A Republican Senate gain of four-to-eight seats, with a GOP Senate pickup of six-to-seven seats the likeliest outcome; a GOP gain of somewhere around a half-dozen seats in the House; and little net party change in the gubernatorial lineup even as a few incumbents lose. So what could shift these projections in a significant way, beyond candidate implosions that move individual races on and off the board? For Democrats, the road to a better result than what we’ve sketched out is Republicans’ ideological disunity and their refusal to march together tactically and strategically. (The destructive sideshow over potentially impeaching President Obama is a prime example.) Last October, Democrats saw, briefly, how the government shutdown boosted their numbers. When Congress returns next month, Democrats hope Republicans will act foolishly just before the election, perhaps during consideration of a short-term continuing resolution to fund the government that Speaker Boehner will have to get through the House. For Republicans, a further curdling of

Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik, and Geoffrey Skelley

2014: More Than a Backlash From 2008

The 2014 Senate elections are not shaping up to be particularly favorable for the Democrats. While there are still scenarios where they could walk away breaking even, or even gaining a seat or two, those scenarios are pretty far-fetched. Current predictions vary somewhat, but seem to center around Republicans picking up somewhere between five and seven seats, with the overall range of possibilities a bit wider. The nonpartisan explanations for this state of affairs have centered around three different factors: the president is unpopular, the president’s party always loses seats in midterm elections, and the Democrats overperformed in 2008, setting them up for a rough year in 2014 (you can see Bill Schneider making all three arguments here). In this article, I’ll briefly discuss all three explanations, and then add a fourth. Very little needs to be said about the first factor: The relationship between presidential approval and electoral outcomes has been thoroughly explored, and I have little to add. Likewise, the tendency of the president’s party to fare poorly in midterm elections is so well-known as to require only an asterisk here: While the president’s party has lost House seats in all but two post-World War II midterm elections

Sean Trende

The Senate Race That Couldn’t Be Lost — And Was

U.Va. Center for Politics Director Larry J. Sabato is contributing a regular column to Politico Magazine. This week, he goes into the history hutch to look back at the 1964 U.S. Senate race in California, which had an unexpected outcome. — The Editors If there is one nightmare common to all U.S. senators, it’s the possibility of an unexpected upset by an underdog challenger come Election Day. Not only do they lose their seat, but the shock of defeat becomes one of the most notable parts of their biography. This November, no one wants to be the Senate’s Eric Cantor. For my money, one of the most jaw-dropping Senate results in modern history occurred exactly 50 years ago. It’s barely remembered even by the political community, but it shouldn’t be forgotten. This old race teaches enduring lessons about politics, and in 2014 we’ll see some contenders come up short because they ignore those lessons. An “inevitable” victor can lose anytime due to overconfidence, over-reliance on a prevailing national trend, overestimation of their own skills plus underestimation of the opponent, and an insufficient regard for public opinion. The 1964 election was destined to be a Democratic landslide. Riding a honeymoon wave

Larry J. Sabato

Senate: 2014 A Year All Its Own

Analysts always strain to generalize about elections. We want to “model” them, find the common elements, and project them as early as possible based on the commonalities. That’s a legitimate approach, but we need always remember that every election is different. Every single one. It isn’t just the candidates that change up, or the specific events that end up defining an election season, or the particulars about presidential and congressional job approval. In midterm elections, especially, the combination of competitive districts and states varies greatly, expanding or contracting the potential for change. Last year, and even in the beginning of 2014, we and others were inclined to think that 2014 would be another wave midterm, like 2006 or 2010. After all, it’s the “sixth-year itch” of the Obama administration — always a dangerous time for the White House party — and President Obama’s popularity had been sinking well below the 50% level. Then there was the Senate map for 2014. Arguably, this year features the best lineup for the Republicans since 1980. Almost all — some would say all — of the GOP’s 15 Senate seats are either in the bag or will be by Election Day, owing to the

Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik, and Geoffrey Skelley

The Hidden Barrier to a Republican Senate Majority

If Republicans are to win the Senate, they probably are going to have to do something they haven’t done since 1980: beat more than two Democratic Senate incumbents in November. In that Reagan Revolution election — one of the best for the Republican Party in its entire history — the GOP flipped 12 seats held by a Democratic incumbent who sought another term. The Republicans defeated nine Democratic incumbents in the November general election, and they won three other Democratic-held seats where the incumbent who held the seat ran for reelection but lost an earlier primary. Incredibly, in the 16 Senate elections since then, the Republicans have flipped only 12 Democratic Senate seats where the incumbent was running again: It’s taken them three decades worth of elections to match the achievement of that single 1980 effort. In recent times, Republicans have had some good Senate elections, like in 1994 — when they netted eight seats and took control of the upper chamber — as well as 2004 and 2010, when they netted four and six seats, respectively. But these were electoral triumphs built mainly on winning Democratic seats where incumbents were not running: In 2010, for instance, Republicans made their

Kyle Kondik

Notes on the State of Politics

Reaction to third-party piece In an article on the topic last week, we asked readers to chime in with other races where they thought third-party and independent candidates might have an impact on some statewide races. We got a lot of e-mails and tweets about the gubernatorial and Senate contests in Georgia, but multiple readers also mentioned the Connecticut gubernatorial race. Some thoughts on those three races are below. GA-Gov: With ethics troubles making his life more difficult, Gov. Nathan Deal (R) may not be able to win in November; that is, he might have to win in a December runoff. Deal’s problems, which also include lingering frustration with the state’s response to ice storms this past winter, might push some voters toward Libertarian Andrew Hunt, a former tech company CEO. In a June SurveyUSA poll, Hunt garnered 7%. Hunt could send the race into overtime, so to speak, if he helps keep either Deal or his opponent, state Sen. Jason Carter (D), from winning a majority. Should that happen, a Dec. 2 runoff looms. Nonetheless, unless Deal’s problems get even worse (which they could), he would likely be positioned to win that runoff, which would almost certainly feature lower

UVA Center for Politics

Americans Are Politically Divided and Our Feelings toward The Parties Show It

How politically divided are ordinary Americans? The recent release of a report on polarization in public opinion by the Pew Research Center has reignited a debate among journalists and academics about the depth of the divisions between supporters of the two major parties. One of the key findings of the report is that supporters of the two parties hold increasingly negative feelings toward the opposing party and its leaders. While some scholars like Morris Fiorina of Stanford University have disputed the significance of these findings, an examination of evidence from the American National Election Studies provides strong support for the conclusions of the Pew study. The ANES data make it possible to examine trends in feelings toward the Democratic and Republican parties over a fairly long period of time. Since 1978, the ANES has been asking national samples of American adults in every presidential election year and most midterm election years to rate both parties on a feeling thermometer scale. The scale ranges from zero degrees to 100 degrees with zero the most negative rating, 100 the most positive rating, and 50 a neutral rating. Ratings above 50 degrees are considered positive, while ratings below 50 degrees are considered negative.

Alan I. Abramowitz

An Above-Average Year for Incumbents?

With the primary season more than half over, it’s fair to say that incumbents have done just fine this cycle so far: better than fine, in fact. So far this cycle, 273 of 275 House incumbents who wanted another term have been renominated, and 18 of 18 Senate incumbents. That includes results from the 31 states that have held their initial primaries; while a few of those states — Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina — have runoffs coming up later this month, those overtime elections for House or Senate seats are all in open seats. This is a better performance than the postwar averages in both chambers. Since the end of World War II, just 1.6% of House incumbents who have sought another term were not renominated by their party, and just 4.6% of Senate incumbents. The history of incumbent primary losses in each election since 1946 is laid out in Table 1 below. Table 1: Senate and House incumbent primary losses, 1946-2012 Note: Click here for a PDF of these data. Source: Vital Statistics on Congress Anti-incumbent insurgents are going to have to hustle to even match the paltry postwar averages. So what are their best targets? Let’s look

Kyle Kondik

2014 Races Where Third-Party and Independent Candidates Could Impact Outcomes

While it’s very hard for third-party and independent candidates to win statewide elections outright, they can have some impact on the outcome. This may be true again in some 2014 contests for U.S. Senate and governor. Some outsider candidates will get a fair amount of press, such as ex-Sen. Larry Pressler’s independent Senate bid in South Dakota or Libertarian Robert Sarvis’ second statewide run, this time in Virginia’s Senate contest (Sarvis won a sizable amount of the vote in the 2013 Old Dominion gubernatorial race). But only a few minor-party candidates will truly be in a position to actually affect the final results. Below are some races where this may be the case: AK-Sen: While most of Last Frontier ballot won’t be determined until the state’s Aug. 19 primary, Alaskan electoral history suggests that third-party nominees will get more than a few votes in November. In every Senate contest since 1992, non-major party candidates have won at least 5% of the vote, most notably Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R) write-in reelection victory in 2010 (where she won 39.5%). And in the state’s past three Senate elections, the victor has only won a plurality, not a majority. With vulnerable Sen. Mark Begich

Geoffrey Skelley

Republicans: “Thank God for Mississippi!”

Editors’ Note: A version of the story below appeared in Politico Magazine on Wednesday morning as Thank God for Mississippi. The Crystal Ball is taking a break for July 4, so our next edition will be published in two weeks, on Thursday, July 10. — The Editors “Mississippi adds another variant to the politics of the South. Northerners, provincials that they are, regard the South as one large Mississippi. Southerners, with their eye for distinction, place Mississippi in a class by itself…every other southern state finds some reason to fall back on the soul-satisfying exclamation, ‘Thank God for Mississippi!’” – V. O. Key Jr., Southern Politics in State and Nation, 1949 Establishment Republicans across the country are saying “Thank God for Mississippi,” but not in the derisive way that political scientist V.O. Key describes it above. The state’s Republican voters, and probably quite a few Democrats, allowed the GOP establishment to fend off a Tea Party challenge to a sitting senator. In the process, they kept Democrats from potentially expanding the Senate’s general election playing field in November and from giving anti-establishment forces in the Republican Senate caucus another ally. Mississippi, a state often ignored by the national political world,

Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik, and Geoffrey Skelley

Picking Your Primary Poison

Analysts are noticing the Democrats’ efforts to meddle in Republican primaries. In a Wall Street Journal article from last month, Janet Hook writes “Democrats increasingly are running ads against GOP candidates even before they win their party’s nomination. By attacking GOP candidates while they are still embroiled in a primary election campaign, some Democrats have seen an opportunity to promote the GOP candidate they think is easiest to beat, or to weaken the one they consider strongest.” Hook points to attempts by Democrats to swing the Republican nomination in North Carolina to candidates other than Thom Tillis, whom many viewed as the most electable Republican. Although Democrats failed to produce a potentially weaker Republican nominee in the Tar Heel State (Tillis won the GOP nomination), they have been more successful in other races. Perhaps most famously, Democrats devoted resources toward enhancing Rep. Todd Akin’s chances of winning the Republican nomination in the 2012 Republican Senate primary in Missouri. Shortly after winning the nomination, Akin made his infamous comments suggesting that a woman who was “legitimate[ly]” raped could not become impregnated, mostly guaranteeing that Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) would win reelection. In 2010, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) likewise helped

Sean Trende

NOTES ON THE STATE OF POLITICS

House ratings changes A race-by-race analysis, as well as history, suggests Republicans are in line to make a small, mid-to-high single-digit addition to their majority, but there’s been little movement one way or the other in most races or in the overall climate. We’re planning to take a fuller look at the House picture next month, but in the meantime we have a handful of House ratings to tweak: Rep. Cheri Bustos (D, IL-17) — Leans Democratic to Likely Democratic: Bustos won a tough race against former Rep. Bobby Schilling (R) in 2012, and Schilling is running again. However, conversations with partisans on both sides of the race suggest that other contests in Illinois are looking more competitive, such as Democratic-held IL-10 and IL-12 and Republican-held IL-13. Bustos has more than triple the cash on hand of Schilling and, in recently announced multi-district ad buys, both the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee — the parties’ House campaign arms — ignored this district (although House Majority PAC, a kind of unaffiliated shadow DCCC, did make some future ad buys in markets here). It’s worth noting that the only district Republicans hold that matches President Obama’s 57%

Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley

Microscope on Magnolias

An old country phrase best describes the possibility of a turnout increase saving Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) in an upcoming runoff: That dog don’t hunt. But it’s also far from clear whether a bigger turnout would naturally help Cochran in the runoff anyway. Mississippi Republicans voted at record levels in the regular primary, and that of course wasn’t enough to push the incumbent over 50%. As to the first point, turnout generally falls in runoffs held after primary and general elections –significantly. Table 1 shows the turnout changes in Senate primary runoffs held since 1980. In nearly every case, turnout decreased from the regular primary to the runoff. Table 1: Change in turnout from Senate primaries to runoffs, 1980-2014 Notes: Florida abolished its runoff system in 2001; since 1989, candidates have only needed to win at least a 40% plurality in North Carolina to avoid a runoff; due to its blanket primary system, Louisiana results are not included. To view this table as a PDF, click here. Sources: State election boards and/or secretaries of state of the listed states; CQ Press Guide to Elections, Vol. II (6th ed.); ourcampaigns.com Most states don’t have runoffs, and the lion’s share of the

Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley

MCDANIEL’S ‘FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS’

In his classic book Southern Politics in State and Nation, V.O. Key Jr. wrote about the importance of “friends and neighbors” in one-party southern elections. More than half a century after the book was written, strength at home powered yet another Deep South candidate. Tuesday night featured about as dramatic a race as we’ve seen in recent years, which not only delighted the political hacks on Twitter but, more importantly, produced a result that suggests a victory for the more conservative wing of the Republican Party. Throughout much of Tuesday night’s GOP Senate primary in Mississippi, Sen. Thad Cochran (R) looked like he might not only finish with more votes than his Tea Party challenger, state Sen. Chris McDaniel (R), but also get above the 50% threshold he needed to avoid a runoff. Things were looking good for Cochran’s establishment backers, which includes much of the powerful Barbour clan, helmed by former governor and Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, as turnout came in much higher than expected and Cochran performed well in the northeastern part of the state, which some believed would be McDaniel country. But then Jones County, McDaniel’s home base in the southeast near Hattiesburg, finished reporting

Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley

Senate Class Population Imbalance

The Crystal Ball’s Kyle Kondik recently published a piece in Politico Magazine on 10 maps that explain the 2014 election. We recently highlighted one of those maps, which focused on the rather unrepresentative nature of the Senate Class 2 map that is up this November. Its 33 states contain slightly more than half (51.8%) of the nation’s entire population. However, Class 1 (the 2012 class) also features 33 states, but those states host three-quarters (75.2%) of the population, and Class 3, with 34 states and an upcoming election in 2016, is similar to Class 1, with 72.6% of the population. So how did we get to the point where two Senate classes are made up of states comprising roughly three-quarters of the states’ population while the other barely represents a majority? The answer is random chance, more or less. As detailed on the U.S. Senate’s FAQ page, when the first Senate met in 1789, members were divided into three groups (with no state having two senators in any group) and then lots were drawn to determine which would make up the three classes. Therefore, by pure chance, some senators in the first Congress were saddled with mere two-year terms while

Geoffrey Skelley