Just as I have done for the US House of Representatives (starting August, 2019), here is a thread dedicated to tracking the number, gender and party affiliation of all candidates running for the US Senate in 2020. First, some important details that separate the Senate from the HOR in terms of elections. 1.) In the HOR, the entire House is elected every 2 years. In the Senate, the terms are 6 years in length, divided into 3 classes and 1/3 of the Senate is elected every two years (alongside the entire HOR). So, here the Senate classes and next years of elections up to the year 2052: Class 2: 2020, 2026, 2032, 2038, 2044, 2050 Class 3: 2022, 2028, 2034, 2040, 2046, 2052 Class 1: 2024, 2030, 2036, 2042, 2048 I underlined the senatorial cycles that correspond to presidential cycles. 2.) Seats in the HOR are affected by the US census, taken every 10 years, resulting (when needed) in redistricting. Senate seats are not affected by either the census and/or the ensuing redistricting, as the number of Senate seats always remains the same at 2 seats per state. The logic that most ascribe to splitting the Senate into staggered elections would be to avoid the scenario of over 50%-75% turnover in the US Senate all at once. With staggered elections like these, this means that at most, 1/3 of the Senate could theoretically experience turnover in any one given election. One could have a very lively, respectful debate as to whether or not this logic is wise or even helpful. So, to the data. HERE is the online table tracking the Senate elections. The tabs look like this: In all tabs, all 100 seats are indicated, whether or not they are up for election this year or not. Here is the alphabetical tab: As is the case with the HOR data, the names of the candidate are hyperlinked to their campaign websites, the election year and their first election are indicated, the type of election (Incumbent, OPEN) and the last winning margin. Then, in the first tab, the numbers are per party. In the second tab, per gender. Please note that the numbers included candidates for Senate races in 2022 and 2024 as well. Yepp, people have already filed with the FEC for those races. The tab that may be the most helpful is the third tab: SEN 2020 - sort by year The races coming up this year are highlighted in yellow, and there are 35 of them. 33 were regularly scheduled races and 2 are special elections (AZ and GA, both class 3). There are three open races thus far: (KA, NM, WY). The following states currently do NOT have senatorial elections slated for 2020: CA, CT, FL, HI, IN, MD, MO, NV, NY, ND, OH, PA, UT, VT, WA, WI. As for predicting which seats are safe or not, I am more cautious with the US Senate, for a number of reasons: 1.) A day can be like a year in politics, lots can happen between now and election night 2.) We have seen candidates flip Senate seats that had been rock-solid for the "other side" for years on end. 3.) Scandals, unforced errors, family tragedies, injuries, deaths while in office and the like happen. 4.) And in the presidential cycle, waves can happen. If the wave is on the side of the President's party, that's one thing. But if the wave is against him and his party, that is an entirely different thing. Now, logically, when I see a seat up in Wyoming, a state where you cannot scratch together enough living and dead Democrats to even get to 30% of the vote, where the last Democratic Senator was elected in 1970 and served until the beginning of 1977 (meaning that the Democrat lost his seat in spite of a Democrat winning the Presidency in 1976), meaning that as of January 3, 2021, Wyoming will not have seen a Democratic Senator in 44 years, and seeing that incumbent Mike Enzi, who last won re-election for his seat by almost +58% in margin, then I would think it's pretty safe to say that Wyoming is going to stay GOP no matter what happens. Likewise, in Rhode Island, where only circa 10% of voters are registered Republicans, where Democrat Jack Reed was elected in 1996 (alongside Wyoming Republican Mike Enzi) to the Senate and the last time a Republican was elected to his seat (RI-SEN-2) was in 1930, where he last won in 2014 (in the middle of the red wave) by over +41% in margin, then as with Wyoming, I would think it's pretty safe to say that Rhode Island is going to stay in Democratic hands no matter what happens. But there are many GOP and DEM seats that are not so and we have seen, just in the last 3 years, swings of 30 points or more in order to pick up a seat. See: Alabama 2017. In other words, for the vast majority of SEN seats up for grabs, don't expect that past electoral history is simply going to repeat itself. It may, or then again, it may not. The Democrats only need to pick up 4 seats without losing any of their own in order to have an out and out majority in the Senate. Or, the Democratic Ticket wins the presidency in 2020 and then the Ds only need to pick up 3 seats without losing any. And on both sides, there are enough seats out there to either guarantee a continued GOP majority in 2021 or a party-majority shift to the Democratic Party. I see the following current R seats as prime D targets and very competitive: AZ (special election), CO, GA and GA (special), IA, KS, KY (McConnell), ME, MS, NC, SC and TX. Possibly also LA. I see the following current D seats as prime R targets and very competitive: AL, NH, possibly VA (albeit unlikely). Because of massive increases in voter registration in Georgia, the fact that GA has become a presidential battleground and the fact that 2 Senate races are up for grabs in that state at the same time, there is no doubt that GA will be a hotbed of political activity in 2020. Also, AZ, an erstwhile GOP bastion, now has it's first Democratic Senator in quite a while and boasts 2 female Senators (a first in that state's history). AZ has also undergone some major increases in VR and in population overall and is on track to gain a congressional seat as of 2022. It is going to be a hotbed of activity in 2020. Ditto TX. With the "Texodus" happening in 6 congressional seats (all Republican seats) and an extremely close Senatorial race in 2018, eyes are going to be on our nation's 2nd largest state, to be sure. So, with the backdrop of the presidential race and a sizeable wave forming for the Democrats in the congressional ballot (usually refers to the US HOR), the Senate races are about to become very, very interesting. A note about turnover: when you look at the last tab, you will see that 60% of the US Senate has seen new Senators since the 2010 mid-term elections, soon, 10 years ago. This is historical, provable fact: Also proven fact is that 1 of every 5 current Senators came to the US Senate via a special election, and in most cases, via appointment before said special election. This is not all too surprising: Presidents have often selected sitting Senators to fill cabinet posts, requiring an appointment, for instance: Ken Salazar and Hillary Clinton in the Obama administration, Jeff Sessions in the Trump administration. I will be tracking this data every two weeks or so. Again, I expect 2020 to be full of some real surprises. -Stat
Thanks Stat! The TX Senate race is probably one of the most interesting given that Beto O'Rourke only lost to Ted Cruz by a slim margin of 3% and now he is the challenger for the other Senate seat with a great deal more name recognition that previously. On top of that the demographics there are changing towards the purple end of the spectrum so yes, that is a potential D pickup.
I have mo senators up for election this year, one less thing I guess. I expect gop to hold majority but nothing would surprise me in this environment.
The Dems need (at least) 4. With AL flipping back a certainty. CO, AZ, and ME are a Must. IA and/or NC seem like the best chances for another Dem Pickup.
Robert O'Rourke is not challenging Cornyn's Senate seat. Cornyn does have some challengers. Unfortunately for the Senator, none of the people who have entered the race are as flaky and ethereal as BETO.
I really hope Nancy Pelosi and the other lifetime Senators are voted out but unfortunately I doubt they will be. We really need term limits for ALL politicians.
It's not a poll. It's the actual winning margin for the last election for that seat. See the heading above? "Last results"
Which is pointless here. That result was due to the Democrats scheme to smear Roy Moore and to do so after the time when he could have been replaced on the ballot. It's not reflective of the current situation.
No. I disagree with you, and strongly at that. The last winning margin for any seat is a data point that I use with every single race so that people can see a clear baseline from the last election for that particular seat. Whatever your opinion about that previous race is your thing, I couldn't care less what you think about it. What IS important is what history has recorded. Doug Jones (D) WON AL-SEN2 in December 2017 by +1.63%. He won, and his win has been entered into the congressional record. It's really that simple. Do Conservatives spend the entire day walking around this angry, and thus they cannot interpret the most simple of facts? Bellyache less, think more. It's what adults do by debate and beyond.
And you ignore the context of that win. Hey I am an Alabamian. Don't think you know better what happened in that election. It's not just about numbers that can be extrapolated. And snarkiness does not an argument make. Bring your debate up an adult notch.
For the purposes of recording electoral statistics, the "context" of any win (which is, of course, opinion, and therefore, subjective) is absolutely irrelevant for the purposes of the data I have provided on this thread and therefore I don't need to talk about the "context" of this election, or any election, for that matter. The reason is it irrelevant is because a win is a win is a win is a win and whether or not you like it, the Democrat won that election fair and square in December 2017, the results were recorded by YOUR state's secretary of state and approved by YOUR state's election division and also entered into the congressional record. Doug Jones (D-AL) WON that election and was seated in the US Senate, where he is currently an incumbent Senator. Actually, if you were really interested in facts, you would have thanked me for providing cold, hard, corollary information. But no, because you are a hyperpartisan, all you see are enemies left and right and you assume the worst in what someone from "the other side" writes. This is not only supremely stupid, it will also be your undoing as a debater.
Ignoring the context is folly and check my message count I don't think you are in a position to critique my debate your bromides and platitudes notwithstanding.
But, Everyone KNOWS that "Message Count" Proves (or Means) NOTHING. In fact, no one could possibly believe that "Post Count" (Alone, without greater context as to "Quality") is indicative of one's "contribution". But, back on topic, to the greater point involving the AL Senate Seat: Clearly, Jones' Win was a fluke and Sessions should EASILY Win it Back.
Just to get us back on topic, this thread is strictly about the currently declared candidates for the US Senate races in 2020, just as I have a (corollary) thread for the HOR. Now, whether or not one candidate or another 'should' win a seat, I will leave for history to write, because the last years have taught us all that the craziest of stuff can happen and something tells me that 2020 is going to be the whackiest and wildest of them all. That being said, yes, Jones is considered (among all electoral prognosticators) to be the most (and maybe, the only) endangered Democratic Senator in 2020. And again, to the content of a member whom I have now blocked, because, you know, life is short and I do not abide trolling, is that "context" is, whether or not we want to admit it, subjective, and I try my hardest to keep these kinds of threads objective. If I write a long posting that is subjective, I also go out of my way to make sure that people know that it is simply my opinion. This thread is supposed to be overwhelmingly objective. It never ceases to amaze me how so many maga-types literally froth at the mouth over cold, hard, easy-to-access information that is neither meant to encourage nor to incense. It's.......weird....and childish....and not worthy of debate at all.
And here is the latest Cook's Political Report for the Senate. As of today, the likelihood that Democrats flip the Senate seems fairly low. By the way, does anyone know what happens to the "majority/minority leader" position in the case of a 50-50 tie?
An update to the Cooks Political Report for the Senate. I haven't posted an update since January 13th, **** I am really not enjoying 2020. Solid Democrat - No Change Like Democrat - No Change Lean Democrat - No Change Toss-Up Democrat - One Fewer (AL- Jones now Leans Republican) Toss-Up Republican - Two More (MT-Daines and NC-Tillis are now Toss ups) Lean Republican - Two More (GA - Perdue and GA - Loeffler and IA-Ernst are now Lean R) Likely R - One Fewer (TX-Cornyn and AK-Sullivan and SC-Graham joined the list, MS-Hyde-Smith now rated as Solid R) Solid R - Three Fewer On the whole, Democrats are now in a stronger position as it relates to the Senate. While one Democrat has shifted towards Republicans, there are four Republican seats that have shifted towards the Democrats. Although Republicans can take heart in the fact that the only shift among those five to be placed into the column of likely to switch is the Democratic seat.
The Cooke Report always tends to look at the most conservative possible outcome with respect to seats changing parties for obvious reasons such as incumbency in the Senate and gerrymandering in the House. It would be interesting to see how close the CR was in 2006, 2010 and 2018. Does anyone know if that data is available? And yes, 2020 sucks and most of us would prefer a do-over because surviving a global pandemic was never on my Bucket List.
Cooks Political Report just released their latest report for the Senate. While there are no differences between this report and the last time that I made a post with an update, apparently Lindsey Graham's seat moved from Lean to Likely and has now been switched back to Lean.
