It’s 2016, when the election will finally get to the voters. Yes, the presidential cycle is already more than three years old. Republican candidates started competing for this year’s nomination the day after the November 2012 election, and Hillary Clinton probably started planning for 2016 at some point in 2009. But now it’s time to start watching other races, too:
▪ U.S. Senate. Republicans currently hold 54 seats, but Democrats have several opportunities to close the gap. That’s because the third of the Senate contested this year was elected in 2010, a good Republican year. “The question is not whether Democrats will pick up Senate seats.... It is almost certainly how many,” the National Journal’s guide predicts.
Republican incumbents in Illinois, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania are all endangered, as is an open Republican seat in Florida. The only similarly vulnerable Democratic seat is in Nevada, where Harry Reid is retiring. But the state has trended Democratic.
In recent cycles, a presidential vote has tended to predict House and Senate elections. And a relatively large turnout in presidential years has seemed to benefit Democrats, with midterms appearing to favor Republicans. But it’s hard to know if that effect is linked to different electorates (older and wealthier voters, who tend to be Republicans, show up more often in lower-interest elections, for example), or if it could be a consequence of the ebb and flow of a president’s popularity, the economy and other events.
Premium content for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Perhaps the most likely result this time is that the Senate will follow what happens in the White House race, so the incoming president’s party will likely have a narrow majority in the upper chamber. But it’s easy to imagine continued divided government, including a flip with Democrats taking the Senate while losing the White House.
▪ U.S. House. Everyone expects Democrats to gain some seats but fall solidly short of regaining a majority. After two Republican landslides in the past three elections, there aren’t many weak Democratic seats remaining. If it’s possible for Republicans to win a House seat, they’ve probably already won it.
But it’s still early. Watch for retirements in swing districts over the next several weeks. So far, more Republicans are leaving than Democrats.
Again, House voting will be closely tied to presidential voting. So the only way Republicans might pick up more House seats in 2016 is for the party’s presidential candidate to win by a landslide. And a Democratic presidential rout might be the only way Democrats have a chance to pick up the 30 seats they need for a House majority.
▪ States. Most elections for governor are now held during presidential off years; only 12 will be contested in 2016.
While Senate elections in 2016 look back to 2010, a good year for Republicans, gubernatorial elections this year look back to 2012, a presidential election year that was better for Democrats. Consequently, some Democratic statehouses are in some danger in Missouri, New Hampshire, Vermont and Montana. Fewer Republican-held seats are at risk. On the other hand, if Democrats retain the presidency, it will be their best chance to try to reverse large recent losses in state legislatures.
Elections – looked at in bulk – are about opportunity on one hand and partisan tides on the other. Because of big Republican wins in 2010 (Senate) and 2014 (House), Democrats have the opportunities for congressional pickups; Republicans have more chances for gains in gubernatorial races. As for partisan tides? Watch Obama’s approval ratings (currently mediocre, but not terrible) and the state of the economy for the general lay of the land.
Most models right now predict a close race, with perhaps a small edge for Republicans. But it will also depend on whether a party nominates a particularly poor candidate. Donald Trump, an unusually unpopular candidate, would qualify. Ted Cruz, because he’s perceived as extremely conservative, would probably count as well, but I’ve underestimated him before.
Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg View columnist.