« Headlines | Main | Senate Candidate Websites »

May 04, 2006

Chuck Todd's Senate Rankings

Chuck Todd has updated his Senate rankings, and for the most part, I agree with him. His top 5:
Pennsylvania, Missouri, Montana, Rhode Island, and Minnesota.

Also, he suggests that we may have a better chance at taking back the Senate than the House:

Put another way, we can't figure out how the House would flip unless the Senate does, too, but we can picture the Senate flipping before the House. Here's why:

As longtime fans of this column know, this is the fifth cycle we've ranked Senate races based on their potential to switch control from one party to the other. We started this in the '98 cycle, and with the help of amazing editors, have created a rankings monster.

This week we went back to the last four columns we wrote during each election cycle to see how the final 11 or 12 "in play" Senate seats fell. What's interesting about all four cycles is that one party did distinctly better than the other each time.
...
The bottom line is that Senate races are very susceptible to national breezes. A wind was blowing in one party's direction in all four of the previous election cycles, and it made a big difference in determining which party won the lion's share of the competitive Senate seats. Assuming the pattern we've picked up on holds, no more than 12 seats will be in play going into the final weekend of the cycle. And the odds are the top-ranked race in our final rankings will be considered a no-brainer by that time.

For the sake of this argument, Democrats can consider one seat theirs before any votes are cast. So now the party needs to net five seats out of the races we've ranked 2 through 13 in order to gain control. There are six Republican seats in that group, and if Democrats have a good election night (i.e., just a breeze), it's likely they'll win nine of these 12 races. And that would net them, at the worst, another three seats for a four-seat gain. For those wondering, that's the number many handicappers are tossing around right now when pressed about an "all things being equal" election scenario.

This is an incredibly interesting analysis, so go read the rest. His reasoning certainly makes me more hopeful for a Senate takeover that I was before.

Posted by Max at May 4, 2006 01:35 AM

Comments

Chuck Todd Recent Senate Ranking
1)Pennsylvania
2)Missouri
3)Montana
4)Rhode Island
5)Minnesota
6)Ohio
7)Washington
8)Maryland
9)Tennessee
10)Nebraska
11)New Jersey
12)Arizona
13)Michigan
14)Virginia
I disagree with Todd on the Nebraska ranking- Nebraska should be ranked below Virginia.

Democrats are going to win Pennsylvania(+1)
On the Senate Races Ranked from 2-13
Democrats are favored to win
1)Minnesota
2)Washington
3)Maryland
4)Nebraska
5)New Jersey
6)Michigan

Republicans are favored to win
1)Virginia
2)Arizona

The 5 Races up for grabs are
1)Missouri
2)Montana
3)Rhode Island
4)Ohio
5)Tennessee

Democrats have a slight edge in winning Missouri and Montana. Republican's have a slight advantage in Tennessee and Rhode Island

Ohio or Missouri go down the wire

Posted by: Neal Patel at May 4, 2006 09:11 AM

Number of Sen. incumbents who lost each year (total seats lost in parenthisis).
2004: GOP 0(2); Dem 1(6)
2002: GOP 1(1); Dem 2(3)
2000: GOP 5(6); Dem 1(2)
1998: GOP 2(3); Dem 1(3)
1996: GOP 1(1); Dem 0(3)
1994: GOP 0(0); Dem 2(8)
1992: GOP 2(2); Dem 2(2)

For the democrats to take the senate, they would have to defeat at least five GOP incumbents (PA, MT, RI, MO, OH) and take either the open seat in TN or defeat another incumbent in AZ. The Dems would also have to hold all of their seats. The big gains made by the GOP in 2004 and 1994 were made largely in open seat races. The only time five incumbents lost was in 2000, when the GOP was defending the large class of 1994. It's also notable that the only time either party did not lose a seat was the GOP in the '94 landslide. It's rare for all the races to go one way. Will 2006 be for the Dems what '94 was for the GOP? For the Dems to take the Senate, it would have to be. My best guess is that the Dems pick up a net two seats, but we'll see.

Posted by: Mose at May 5, 2006 05:06 PM

I think Todd's rankings are just about right. My own feeling is that MT should be #1 - Santorum has trailed consistently, but he has energy, charisma, conservative loyalty, money to burn, and a wooden, bland opponent. Burns, on the other hand, is old, gaffe-prone, unloved, and stained by his associations with Abramoff. He should have hung 'em up. PA will be close, one way or the other. I think Morrison/Tester beats Burns going away (say 8-10 points).

Just for the fun of debating, I'll add that Nebraska belongs right were it is. Nelson is popular, I grant. He was a popular gov. when Hagel came out of nowhere and beat him for the senate seat in 1996. Nelson was still popular when he only won the seat by the skin of his teeth over Stenberg in 2000. The fact is that NB is one of the two or three most GOP states in the union, and Nelson, while certainly the favorite, won't be able to rest easy until after election night.

Posted by: Mose at May 5, 2006 05:21 PM

2006 is going to be a combination of 2000 and 1994.
2000 Democrats won 6 Republican Seats- defeated 5 Republican Incumbents(Roth-DE,Abraham-MI,Grams-MN,Ashcroft-MO,Gorton-WA). and picked up the open seat in Florida(Mack).
In 1994 when Republicans regained control of the US Senate- No Republican held Senate Seats went Democratic.

Posted by: Neal Patel at May 6, 2006 09:28 AM