Skip links

2016 Senate

Sabato's Crystal Ball

THE TRUMP SURGE

And then, everything changed. Well, not everything, but enough to generate the first major revision in our electoral map, and all of it is in Donald Trump’s direction for now. Let us make our view perfectly clear: We still believe that Hillary Clinton is more likely than Trump to win the election, and she still has the advantage in the Electoral College. Yet it is equally apparent that she has stumbled badly in recent weeks, fueling Trump’s polling advance. And the Republican nominee has more pathways to 270 electoral votes than he did before. Clinton disappeared for long stretches before Labor Day to do fundraising and failed to define any overriding positive message about what a Hillary Clinton presidency would mean. Then came the “basket of deplorables” gaffe (which some believe might actually help Clinton with her party base) and the lie by omission about her pneumonia, a serious condition that deserves scrutiny. Instead of transparency, there was a bold gambit by Clinton to avoid any health disclosure that might give credence to longtime, far-right theories that she was at death’s door. This ill-advised error reinforced the public’s view that Clinton is secretive and untruthful. At the same time, two

Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik, and Geoffrey Skelley

The Political Science Election Forecasts of the 2016 Presidential and Congressional Elections, Part 5

Dear Readers: This is the final posting in a series of political science forecasts for the 2016 races for the White House and Congress. James E. Campbell, author of the new book Polarized: Making Sense of a Divided America, has assembled presidential and congressional forecasts from eight different individuals and/or teams this year. They were gathered for a symposium to be published in PS: Political Science and Politics, but are available first here in the Crystal Ball. The models are based on factors such as the state of the economy, polling, whether an incumbent president is running for reelection, and other indicators. They can often be a better predictor of the eventual results than polls alone, and many are finalized months before the election. We are pleased to feature the work of the many top political scientists who have built these models, both in an attempt to predict the outcome of the election and, more importantly, to identify the factors that actually affect presidential and congressional races. The details and predictions of the final set of forecasts is presented below along with an updated table of all the presidential and congressional forecasts in this series. An early look at the

UVA Center for Politics

SENATE 2016: FLIP FLOP

It seems like only yesterday when the Republicans took over the U.S. Senate. Actually, nearly two years have passed since that big moment, when the GOP gained nine seats and took a 54-46 majority (including two independents who caucus with the Democrats) after eight years of Democratic control. But this may prove to be the shortest period of control for a party since the early 2000s. From the vantage point of Labor Day, it appears as though that 2014 flip could become a 2016 flop, and on Nov. 8, Democrats have a good chance to grab at least a tie (broken by the new vice president) and possibly a majority of as many as several seats. We let the Senate races settle over the summer but summer’s effectively over — and we are making eight different ratings changes this week. Many favor Democrats, but a few favor Republicans. The takeaway is that as we head into the stretch run of the campaign, the Democrats seemingly hold a narrow edge in the race for a majority. But that majority could be quite small, small enough that Republicans could be poised to wipe it out in 2018, perhaps leading to another bare

Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik, and Geoffrey Skelley

The Political Science Election Forecasts of the 2016 Presidential and Congressional Elections, Part 4

Dear Readers: This is the latest in a series of political science forecasts for the 2016 races for the White House and Congress. We’ll be featuring forecasts from nine different individuals and/or teams this year, which James E. Campbell is assembling as part of a project for PS: Political Science and Politics that we are also featuring in the Crystal Ball. These models are based on factors such as the state of the economy, polling, whether an incumbent president is running for reelection, and other indicators. They can often be a better predictor of the eventual results than polls alone, and many are finalized months before the election. We are pleased to feature the work of the many top political scientists who have built these models, both in an attempt to predict the outcome of the election and, more importantly, to identify the factors that actually affect presidential and congressional races. Below, Campbell lays out the details and outlook of his presidential forecasting model, and Michael S. Lewis-Beck and Charles Tien present their Senate forecast. We have also updated our tables to include all the presidential and congressional forecasting data presented in this series. — The Editors The Trial-Heat Presidential

UVA Center for Politics

Generic Ballot Forecasting Model: Democrats Could Take Back Senate but Republicans Likely to Hold House with Reduced Majority

Since the conclusion of the Republican and Democratic national conventions last month, pundits, political reporters, and ordinary Americans have, for understandable reasons, been preoccupied with developments in the presidential campaign. And the contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has certainly provided plenty of material for serious political observers as well as late night comics. With the presidential contest getting so much coverage in the national media, however, much less attention has been devoted to the critical battle for control of the next Congress. Regardless of the outcome of the presidential election, whether Republicans or Democrats control the House and Senate will have enormous consequences for the direction of the country and the ability of the next president to carry out his or her agenda. At present, Republicans hold a 247 to 186 seat majority in the House of Representatives (with vacancies in two formerly Democratic-held seats that the party will easily hold onto). All 435 House seats and 34 of the 100 Senate seats are up for election this year. In reality, however, only around 50 House seats and perhaps a dozen Senate seats are really in play — the rest are completely safe for one party or the

Alan I. Abramowitz

The Political Science Election Forecasts of the 2016 Presidential and Congressional Elections, Part 3

Dear Readers: This is the latest in a series of political science forecasts for the 2016 races for the White House and Congress. We’ll be featuring forecasts from nine different individuals and/or teams this year, which James E. Campbell is assembling as part of a project for PS: Political Science and Politics that we are also featuring in the Crystal Ball. These models are based on factors such as the state of the economy, polling, whether an incumbent president is running for reelection, and other indicators. They can often be a better predictor of the eventual results than polls alone, and many are finalized months before the election. We are pleased to feature the work of the many top political scientists who have built these models, both in an attempt to predict the outcome of the election and, more importantly, to identify the factors that actually affect presidential and congressional races. Below, Campbell lays out the details and outlook of his congressional forecasting model. Additionally, we have updated our running tally of presidential and congressional forecasts to include a new version of the presidential forecast by Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien, as well as the forecasts for Alan Abramowitz’s congressional

UVA Center for Politics

How to Tell if 2016 is a Wave Election

With Hillary Clinton taking a large lead in the polls following the Democratic National Convention, journalists have begun to discuss the extent to which Democrats may be able to capitalize on these gains in down ballot races for the House and Senate. As has been the case in every recent election cycle, some journalists have even begun to write about whether or not 2016 could be a wave election. Given the popularity of this concept among journalists and elections experts, being able to classify elections as either a “wave” or “not a wave” would appear useful. Unfortunately — and surprisingly given the widespread use of this term — there is not a precise definition of this concept. To try to correct this, I have developed my own definition that combines both scholarly rigor with the basic intuition of a wave election being a “big win” for one side at the expense of the other. Specifically, I define a “wave election” to be a congressional election that (1) produces the potential for a political party to significantly affect the political status quo as (2) the result of a substantial increase in seats for that party. What exactly do I mean by

Jacob Smith

The Political Science Election Forecasts of the 2016 Presidential and Congressional Elections, Part 2

Dear Readers: This is the latest in a series of political science forecasts for the 2016 races for the White House and Congress. We’ll be featuring forecasts from nine different individuals and/or teams this year, which James E. Campbell is assembling as part of a project for PS: Political Science and Politics that we are also featuring in the Crystal Ball. These models are based on factors such as the state of the economy, polling, whether an incumbent president is running for reelection, and other indicators. They can often be a better predictor of the eventual results than polls alone, and many are finalized months before the election. We are pleased to feature the work of the many top political scientists who have built these models, both in an attempt to predict the outcome of the election and, more importantly, to identify the factors that actually affect presidential races. The two sets of forecasts below feature outlooks for both the presidential and U.S. House of Representatives. As we feature new models, we will update Tables 1 and 2 to provide a running tally of these forecasts. — The Editors Economic Expectations and Political Punishment Model (President and House) By Brad

UVA Center for Politics

THE 35TH SENATE SEAT ON THE BALLOT: VIRGINIA

Everyone is rightly focused on the 34 Senate seats already on the ballot this fall. But there is actually a 35th, the Class I Senate seat currently held by Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine. Of the four major-party candidates for national office, only one contender holds a position whose term will not be finished by Inauguration Day, and thus a vacancy will need to be filled if he is promoted. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) was elected in 2012 and therefore Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) will appoint a temporary senator should Kaine become vice president. The appointee will serve until a senator is elected in November 2017 in a special contest to be held simultaneously with the election for Virginia’s next governor.[1] The GOP won every White House race in the Old Dominion from 1968 to 2004, but all that changed in 2008 and 2012 with Barack Obama’s victories. The Crystal Ball now rates Virginia as Likely Democratic this November, and Kaine is certainly a major reason why. Yet the Democrats’ dominance is reduced in non-presidential election cycles, which see lower turnouts, especially among minority voters. The potential Senate vacancy may be a godsend to Democratic hopes, however. Behind the

Larry J. Sabato

PROF. SABATO WELCOMES THE NATION’S NEWEST CITIZENS AT MONTICELLO

Dear Readers: Larry J. Sabato, founder and director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, will be the keynote speaker for the 54th annual Independence Day Celebration and Naturalization ceremony at Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson and a must-visit American treasure. This ceremony is the oldest continuous naturalization ceremony that takes place outside of a courtroom. As 76 people from 40 countries prepare to take the oath of citizenship, Prof. Sabato’s remarks will focus on the value and importance of citizen participation for the health of American democracy. The text of his speech is below. If you would like to watch the ceremony live this morning, it will be livestreamed here beginning at 9 a.m. EDT. We wish you and your family a safe and happy Independence Day. — The Editors Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen, Thank you for that kind introduction. I’m grateful to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Chairman Donald King, and President Leslie Greene Bowman for inviting me to speak to you today. If I may be permitted a point of personal privilege: Over the last decade my UVA Center for Politics has hosted delegations of students from more than 40 nations around the world including

Larry J. Sabato

As deadline approaches, Rubio ponders

The horrifying massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando forces us to ponder whether it will somehow change the national electoral calculus. The short answer is that it’s too soon to tell, but the grim reality is that the frequency of mass murder in the United States — committed by ISIS-inspired lone wolves or others — suggests that this, terrifyingly, might not be the last major spasm of violence that takes place between now and the election. How candidates react could have consequences in November, although it’s also easy to overstate the potential impact of jarring events on the choices that voters make. After all, the American electorate is partisan and the vote choices for the vast majority of them don’t waver much throughout the campaign. But the Orlando attack could have other political consequences. As the clock ticks down to a June 24 filing deadline, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) gave his strongest signals yet that he might be reconsidering his decision not to seek a second term following his loss in the GOP presidential primary. Speaking with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Rubio said that the attack gave him “pause to think a little bit about, you know, your

Kyle Kondik

GROWING URBAN-RURAL SPLIT PROVIDES REPUBLICANS WITH DOWN-BALLOT ADVANTAGES

The 2012 election provided two powerful reminders about the electoral implications of overly-concentrated Democratic voters. First, the Republicans held their U.S. House majority, won in 2010, despite the fact that the Democratic candidates in the 435 House districts received more votes than their Republican opponents. Second, these House results were echoed by Democrat Barack Obama’s defeat of Republican Mitt Romney by nearly four percentage points nationally despite the fact that Obama carried fewer House districts than Romney did (211 to 224 based on the most recent congressional maps). Whether by dint of the nonpartisan self-segregation of voters or partisan gerrymandering, Democratic voters are distributed inefficiently in U.S. House districts. Of course, House districts and state legislative districts can be redrawn each decade in ways that concentrate or diffuse voters to the electoral benefit of either (or neither) party. What do not change are borders for state, county, and local jurisdictions that elect officials and that also may happen to confer an advantage on one party or the other. For example, as I document in my latest book, The Stronghold, for the better part of a half-century Republicans have enjoyed inflated representation in the Senate by virtue of their greater strength

Thomas F. Schaller

Senate/Governor 2016: Several ratings move toward Democrats

When you look at the big picture of presidential elections, and you try to discern the connection between the White House contest and the 34 Senate elections on the same ballot, it becomes obvious there are two types of years. The first type we might call “disjointed.” Voters seem to be separating their judgments about these very distinct offices in most competitive races. The presidential candidate who wins adds only a handful — or fewer — additional Senate seats to his party’s total. The presidential coattails are short. The second type could be termed “intertwined.” The candidates for the White House are very polarizing and distinct, and one or both major-party contenders color the voters’ perceptions of all officeholders on the same partisan label. The party whose letter (D or R) becomes toxic loses a substantial number of Senate seats; thus, the presidential coattails are long. The second type is somewhat rarer, to judge by the elections for president since World War II, as shown in Table 1. However, the six-year cycles of the three different Senate classes and the current party makeup of each class obviously matter. For instance, the Democrats only gained two net Senate seats in 1964,

Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik, and Geoffrey Skelley

Further Down the Ballot: How the 2016 Presidential Primaries May Influence Congressional Primary Voting

Amidst the onslaught of news stories about the 2016 presidential primaries, it is easy to forget that voters in many states will soon be casting primary ballots in races for a variety of other offices. We haven’t yet heard much about incumbents “getting primaried” this year, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. This year’s crop of outsider candidates is likely to draw new voters to the polls in many states, and in the 19 states that hold concurrent presidential and nonpresidential primaries this year these voters will certainly pose a challenge for handicapping congressional and senatorial primary outcomes. This may well be a particular problem for Republican incumbents. We know little about the causes of voter turnout in primaries. Certainly many of those who participate are habitual voters who show up no matter who is on the ballot. But there is also evidence that the composition of the primary electorate is driven by the nature of competition in the races at the top of the ballot. The chart below shows voter turnout for state-level primaries (that is, governor and senator) in states that hold concurrent presidential and nonpresidential primaries and those that do not. The chart shows that there

Robert G. Boatright

The down-ballot outlook as 2016 approaches

The upcoming battle for the Senate depends to a large extent on the presidential race; Democrats should gain House seats but not truly threaten the GOP’s big lower chamber majority; and Republicans are positioned to add to their already-substantial majority of governorships. That’s the early line on next year’s down-ballot contests as we prepare to turn the calendar from 2015 to 2016. Of course, a lot can and will change with these ratings, particularly as the identity of the Republican presidential nominee becomes clearer (and if something goes seriously amiss for the current Democratic presidential favorite, Hillary Clinton). But here’s where we stand now: The Senate Map 1: 2016 Crystal Ball Senate race ratings The Republicans currently hold a 54-46 advantage, so they can afford some losses and still maintain their majority. We currently have them as underdogs in two seats they are defending, Illinois and Wisconsin; three other seats — Republican-held Florida and New Hampshire as well as Democratic-held Nevada — are Toss-ups. There are additional Democratic targets, particularly Pennsylvania, which Leans Republican now only because of uncertainty over the strength of the Democratic nominee. Assuming the eventual Democratic standard bearer isn’t damaged beyond repair in what could be

Kyle Kondik