Some readers might be wondering about whether yesterday's list of eight Senate races to watch might be a little shorter than it ought to be. It's true that some states I don't mention were carried by Trump and have an incumbent Democratic senator seeking reelection--an indicator for vulnerability and a possible GOP pickup. But it really isn't looking that way, in the view of Nate Silver or anyone else. There are six of these states. Let's put them in two categories, the ones Trump won by a lot (West Virginia and Montana) and the ones he carried in the Great Lakes region, mostly by the smallest margins (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin).
Trump won Montana by more than 20 points and West Virginia by more than 40 [sic]. One might therefore think that their Democratic incumbent senators would be toast in 2018, but, according to Silver and everything else I've seen, both Jon Tester and Joe Manchin are strong favorites to be reelected--Silver currently has Tester with an 86% chance of winning and Manchin is at 88%. Both have what I guess is called in the trade "strong local brands" in their home state. Tester, the Montanan, is to me a more mysterious case. A rancher with a crewcut who wears cowboy hats and boots, he voted against confirming Gorsuch, against confirming Kavanaugh, and against the GOP's Obamacare repeal effort. I don't mean to suggest he tricks Montanans with his style choices, but it's all I got. He must be a really good politician. Manchin, too, though plenty of people who see things my way despise him. I say he's better than whatever else we'd get from West Virginia. Also, it's enjoyable to see Republicans gnash their teeth over the prospect of these two guys getting reelected.
But Montana and West Virginia are small red states that probably shouldn't count too heavily when gauging the country's political mood. The other four are a different story. Ohio is quadrennially the biggest swing state after Florida. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were, pre-Trump, part of the so-called "blue wall" of states that had voted for the Democratic presidential candidate six times in a row. Bill Clinton won these three rust belt prizes twice, then George W Bush lost them all twice, then Barack Obama won them all twice--and then Trump won all three. Had Hillary won them instead, as every Democrat for a generation had, she would have clocked in with 278 electoral votes.
Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by about 77,000 ballots across the three states, so it wasn't by much, but they picked the president. Since by chance all three, plus Ohio, have Democratic senators up for reelection, it seems reasonable to gauge Trump's political strength by the prospects of Democrats seeking statewide reelection in these large, swing states. Well, I think it's reasonable; MAGA types might demur, because here is how Silver currently rates the chances of rust-belt Democratic senators holding on to their seats:
Bob Casey--Pennsylvania (98.0%)
Sherrod Brown--Ohio (96.9%)
Debbie Stabenow--Michigan (99.4%)
Tammy Baldwin--Wisconsin (96.6%)
The races for governor in these states tell a similar tale. In Pennsylvania, the incumbent Democrat is far ahead. There is no incumbent in Michigan or Ohio; the Democrat appears to be safely ahead in Michigan, and the race in Ohio is close. In Wisconsin, Republican incumbent Scott Walker is behind. The Washington Post has reported that Trump is being advised against having a rally in Wisconsin. It's possible Republicans consider Walker a lost cause. It's also possible they think a visit from Trump would actually hurt Walker's chances, so unpopular is the president in the state. Bordering Wisconsin to the west is Minnesota, which Trump very narrowly lost, and where this fall both US Senate seats are on the ballot, as well as an open race for the governorship. I haven't seen anything to indicate the Republicans think they have a chance in any of them.
The point is that Trump's fortunes seem to be sagging in the part of the country that put him in office. Consequently, in a year in which the political geography of the Senate elections by chance heavily favors Republicans--26 Democratic seats out of the 35 races, and 10 of those 26 in states Trump won--the list of imperiled Democratic incumbents has been reduced by more than half.
Comments