I'm Surprised It's Not Even More Lopsided

The Democrat-to-Republican spending ratio in the Georgia US Senate runoff between incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock and Republican challenger Herschel Walker, that is.

According to Newsweek as of last Wednesday, Democrats were in for $36 million on Warnock while Republicans were putting $20 million into Walker.

I wrote a couple of weeks ago (when I was still just four for five on my Senate predictions; my record has since improved to perfect):

If Cortez Masto does win Nevada, I don't expect big GOP funding for Herschel Walker in the Georgia runoff. Even if he wins, that won't get the Republicans a Senate majority, and there are big down sides to giving the Democrats six years of great scandal/mockery opportunities vis a vis US Senator Herschel Walker.

Cortez Masto did win Nevada, and on net there's nothing the Republicans could get out of a Georgia runoff victory that seems worth much spending or effort.

The only real up side for Republicans would be slowing down some committee approvals on e.g. judicial appointments -- appointments that the Democrats will still have enough votes to confirm on.

As long as the Republicans have 40+ votes in the Senate, they can still block passage of actual bills by voting against cloture to keep them from coming to the floor for votes. Walker in that seat wouldn't really do anything for them.

And the Republicans have a tiny House majority, too. So no bills are going to Joe Biden's desk for signature or veto without at least some Republican support.

The down side to having Walker in that seat is that he spends six years making Republicans look like idiots both nationally and in Georgia.

Looking like idiots in Georgia is proving costly for Republicans in presidential elections.  After going GOP six times in a row (Dole, Bush the Younger twice, McCain, Romney, Trump), the state returned to the Democratic fold with Biden in 2020. Those six GOP victories are six of the total of ten time Republican presidential candidates have ever carried Georgia. The other four are Goldwater in 1964, Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984, and Bush the Elder in 1988. Prior to that, the Democrats carried the state 24 presidential elections in a row going back to 1868, and another six of nine elections prior to the Civil War going back to Andrew Jackson in 1828 (it went Whig three times during that period). It even went for segregationist Democrat/Dixiecrat George Wallace, running on the "American Independent Party" ticket, rather than for Nixon (or Humphrey) in 1968.

It might be a little much to expect the GOP to overtly throw this runoff, but they have good reasons to not be that interested in winning it. Walker antics in the Senate could quite conceivably keep Georgia in the Democratic presidential column, which seems to be its natural home anyway, in 2024.

What do the Democrats get out of winning the runoff? Well, they get that slight amelioration of inconvenience when it comes to confirming appointees by getting committee majorities rather than tied committees. They protect an incumbent. And that one additional vote in pocket makes it just a little bit harder for e.g. Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema to game a single "balance of power" vote for special favors or hometown political points.

The Senate seat just seems like it should be worth a lot more to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

Election 2022: My Final US Senate Predictions ...

Why so early? Two reasons:

1. It's not fun waiting until the last minute, like the day before election day. Yes, there can be "October surprises," but it's not really much of a prediction if you're using exit polls.
2. Early voting has already begun in many if not most states, and it's going gang-busters. The bulk of the vote in those states will likely be cast in the next week or so (a note on that below, though).

My predictions for what were considered "toss-up" states earlier in the year:

Arizona: Incumbent Democrat Mark Kelly in a walk. This state never really looked like a "toss-up" to me. It was always "leans hard Democrat." The GOP's nomination of Trumpy Peter Thiel protege Blake Masters sealed the deal. An early October poll from OH Predictive Insights has Kelly up 46-33 over Masters, with Libertarian Marc Victor at 15% and only 7% "unsure." Yes, the third party vote tends to diminish as election day draws near, but the FiveThirtyEight polling average (which includes only Kelly and Masters) has Kelly up by 5.7 points.

Georgia: This one's slightly more complicated. FiveThirtyEight has incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock up on Republican challenger Herschel Walker by 3.7% on average; RealClearPolitics has Warnock up 2.4%. So, close. BUT! In Georgia, a majority is required to avoid a runoff, and neither candidate is polling at 50% ... and Libertarian Shane Hazel is doing God's work. He forced a runoff two years ago, and last week he debated Warnock with Walker pulling a no-show. I expect Warnock to get more votes than Walker, but for the race to go to a runoff. And I expect Warnock to win the runoff, for two reasons. The first is that the Democrats will pour big money into the runoff; the second is that Walker is clearly a lost cause scandal machine and Republicans likely won't invest in trying to save him, especially with (as we shall see) doing so offering them no chance of getting the Senate majority they were hoping for.

Nevada: Both FiveThirtyEight and RCP have the race between incumbent Democrat Catherine Cortez-Masto and Republican challenger Adam Laxalt marked as pretty much a statistical tie with Laxalt up by 0.2% and 1.2% respectively. I predict a Cortez-Masto win.  It's a "get out the vote" game here. Democrats are traditionally better at GOTV. GOTV efforts are more effective in urban areas, and the Democratic vote is concentrated in Las Vegas/Clark County while the Republican vote is dispersed in smaller towns and rural areas. And, again, early voting (see note below).

Pennsylvania: No incumbent, open (previously Republican) seat. Yes, Democrat John Fetterman had a stroke earlier this year and has residual "auditory processing" problems. Yes, Republican Mehmet Oz is making the most of the "health issue." Yes, RCP has Fetterman up by only 2.4 points (FiveThirtyEight says 4.4). I predict that Fetterman wins this one. The people who would let Fetterman's health negatively influence their vote weren't going to vote for him anyway. The people who were going to vote for Fetterman are MORE motivated and sympathetic, since he's clearly not a vegetable or anything. Fetterman's a Pennsylvania mayor/lieutenant governor. Oz is a carpet-bagging TV quack with a foreign-sounding name who edged out the Trump base's preferred candidate in the primary. And, again, early voting.

Wisconsin: I didn't expect this one to be a nail-biter. I expected incumbent Republican Ron Johnson to go down hard to Democratic challenger Mandela Barnes. The polls say differently: FiveThirtyEight's average has Johnson up by 2.9%, RCP's by 2.8%. The power of incumbency is strong, there is no in-person early voting, and a witness signature (not especially inconvenient, it doesn't have to be notarized, but any inconvenience reduces vote-by-mail "turnout") is required for absentee ballot mail voting. I predict Johnson will pull off re-election. I could be wrong. If I am, I suspect it will be because really terrible weather shows up that depresses rural voting more than urban voting.

So: To get a Senate majority, Republicans need a net gain of one seat. If all the "non-toss-up" states go as expected, my prediction has the Republicans losing one seat. If Cortez-Masto wins in Nevada, then even managing to pull Herschel Walker through a runoff in Georgia won't get them to a majority.

Outlier:

Ohio: The polls have this race -- an open seat -- statistically tied. FiveThirtyEight has Republican JD Vance up 0.8% over Democrat Tim Ryan. RCP has the margin at 2.8%. Vance has proven to be a pretty poor candidate, but he's running for a previously Republican seat, as a born-again Trumper, in a state that Trump carried 53% to 45% versus Joe Biden in 2020 and 51% to 43% versus Hillary Clinton in 2016. It looked like things might go a different way earlier in the year, but now I predict that Vance is going to the Senate.

OK, so let's talk about my emphasis on early voting, especially voting by mail.

At the moment, it helps Democrats the most. That wasn't always the case. Republicans used to be all for it because, among other reasons, it makes it easier for their rural base voters to "turn out."

But, you guessed, it, Trump. He convinced a lot of Republicans that voting by mail was just a scam to help Democrats and discouraged them from doing it. Go to the polls on election day, he said. Cast your ballot personally, he said.

So, let's make some not terribly unreasonable estimates here: 50% of likely voters are Republicans. 30% of those (that is, 15% of the voter pool) still distrust voting by mail two years after Trump's opposition to it may well have cost him a presidential election. And 10% of those voters -- that is, 1.5% of potential Republican votes -- end up not voting.

Overslept and didn't have time to vote before work. Babysitter called, sorry, can't cover for you after work. Blowout fight with the spouse, went to the bar to drink the troubles away. Flat tire on the way to the polling place, screw it. Just. Didn't. Really. Feel. Like. It.

In a close election, 1.5% is the ball game. Early mail voters can put their ballots in the mailbox tomorrow if they forgot to yesterday. Election day voters who don't show up to vote on election day are done.

So, yes, I think it makes a difference, and that difference is in favor of Democrats right now, because Trump is the gift who keeps on giving.

Florida Election 2022: My "Endorsement" for Governor

I consider voting neither a "civic duty" nor an initiation of force. It's just making a mark on a piece of paper to indicate a preference from among several choices in a bad system. The system is there whether I approve of it or not, and a governor will be chosen whether I fill in that little circle or not.

I could justify not voting on "who cares?" grounds or on "it won't make any difference" grounds.

I could also justify voting on Rothbardian "defensive" grounds (choose the least bad slave overseer since you're going to be getting one of those whether you like it or not) and on "send a message" grounds. In a particularly close election, I could justify it on "maybe it will make the difference" grounds.

It's pretty much a toss-up.

So, let's have a look at the race for Florida governor. Should I vote? If so, who should I vote for (or against)?

As I've pointed out elsewhere, the two "major party" candidates on my ballot -- Republican Ron DeSantis and Democrat Charlie Crist -- are "both swamp creatures, political careerists, tax parasites who’ve spent their entire adult lives either on, or trying to get on, government payrolls." There's absolutely nothing whatsoever that would justify a vote for either one of them.

That said, if the polls had the election within a single percentage point, I might consider choosing Crist as my vote against DeSantis. Not because I think Crist would be a better governor, but because losing this election would effectively take DeSantis out of the running for president in 2024 or 2028. If he can't get re-elected in his own state, he's just not national material. And I do not want a President Ron DeSantis.

What do the polls say? FiveThirtyEight's average has DeSantis up by 6.2%.

That could change (or the polling could be off due to sampling issues) as Latino voters whose parents fled Cuba or Venezuela take note of his idiotic "fly Venezuelan immigrants from Texas to Massachusetts to OWN THE LIBS" stunt.

But for the moment, the chances of my vote affecting the outcome between them are as low as is usual in large elections, which is to say effectively zero. I don't have to vote "for" Crist on the off possibility that doing so will let me OWN DESANTIS.

Who else do we have?

Carmen Jackie Gimenez lists a bunch of credentials and embeds Instagram and Twitter feeds on her campaign's "about" page, but there's no issues page. She seems like she may be reasonably good on immigration freedom and immigrant rights. And she's apparently endorsed by Jesus, which I'd expect to be bigger news than it is. But I'm just not getting the vibe that she offers much in terms of "defensive," "send a message," or "make a difference" grounds.

Other than write-in candidates, that leaves Libertarian candidate Hector Roos.

On one hand, he seems a little too closely affiliated with the Republican PAC that recently took over both the Libertarian Party of Florida and the Libertarian National Committee for my taste. And his background looks a little shady.

On the other hand, his campaign web site, minimal as it is, says the right things. And I suspect that the Mises PAC hasn't yet succeeded in its goal of reframing the Libertarian Party's message into "we're even more stupid and evil than the Trumpists, you should vote Republican" such that a vote for Roos would "send that message."

So, if I vote at all, and if the election doesn't turn into a 1% cliffhanger by the time I do, I'll be voting for Roos.

The NRSC Signals Its Agreement With My US Senate Predictions

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is canceling $10 million worth of advertising buys in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Rolling Stone reports (citing the paywalled New York Times).

Translation: The NRSC agrees with me that those states are pretty much irretrievably in the Democratic win column and will be redirecting the money to seeking turnovers in Nevada and Georgia, and saving JD Vance's hide in Ohio, which was supposed to be a relatively easy Republican "hold" but is now a real horse race with Democrat Tim Ryan polling 4.5% ahead.

Additional translation: The GOP is giving up on the idea of a net gain of one seat in the US Senate to get a majority, and hoping to limit its losses to one or two seats.

My 2022 Senate Predictions, Updated

Since April, I've been saying that the Republicans weren't in very good shape to take control of the US Senate.

The polls seem to be catching up with my assessment.

Good news for the Republicans first: In Missouri, disgraced former governor Eric Greitens lost Tuesday's GOP primary to attorney general Erich Schmitt. while Democrats nominated a not-very-energizing heiress instead of a hard-charging populist Marine for the seat. If both -- maybe even either -- of those primaries had gone the other way, Missouri might actually be in play, at least to the extent of Republicans having to pour lots of money into the state to protect a formerly "safe" seat -- money that could have been spent elsewhere shoring up GOP prospects.

Bad news for Republicans in "leans Republican" territory: In Ohio, Democrat Tim Ryan continues to lead Trump-endorsed Republican JD Vance ... and not just by a little. This week's polling has Ryan up by 10-11%. I wouldn't call the seat "leans Democrat" just yet, but unless the GOP redirects a crap ton of money to pull Vance's fat out of the fire (and unless Vance actually starts campaigning instead of just e.g. doing photo opps in Israel), it's looking pretty damn iffy.

Now, to the "toss-up" states. At present, Republicans hold two of them (Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), Democrats hold three (Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada), and Republicans must win three of those elections (in addition to holding all of their "safe" and "lean" seats) to get to 51 in the Senate.

Arizona: I never really thought it was much of a "toss-up," but now it's far into the "leans Democrat" range. As in Ohio, the Republicans nominated a Trumpy McTrumpkin, Blake Masters, leaving incumbent Mark Kelly in good shape (at the moment, up by 5%, and likely to open that lead way up) to hold the seat.

Georgia: Well, it's still pretty close, and I'm still not going to try to predict it. All the recent polling that isn't specifically sponsored by one of the candidates' support organizations has incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock up by 3-5% over Republican challenger Herschel Walker. And walker is a train wreck in various ways, from dribbling out admissions of "secret" children by various baby mamas to just generally stumbling under questioning (and he's agreed to a debate). But there are just too many variables -- Democratic "Get Out The Vote" efforts, versus Republican "Keep The Voters From Voting" efforts, two African-American candidates potentially breaking that demographic as a solid bloc, etc. I'd still call this one a "toss-up."

Nevada: Incumbent Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto is polling (accounting for partisan pollster bias) slightly ahead of Republican challenger Adam Laxalt. On the one hand, "Laxalt" is a big name in Nevada (Laxalt's grandfather was a governor of, and US Senator from, the state, and he himself is the former state AG). On the other hand, three things have me rating this seat "leans slightly Democrat." One is the Dobbs ruling, which should drive Democratic turnout up by at least a little. Another is Cortez Masto's incumbency, which has her in good position to raise the funds, pack the events, etc. to win. And the third is that the Democratic vote is more urban (Vegas) than the Republican vote, making "Get Out The Vote" activities (rides to the polls, etc.) and media market focus easier.

Pennsylvania: No longer a "toss-up." Leans "hard Democrat," maybe even "safe Democrat." Most polling has lieutenant governor John Fetterman up 14-17% over GOP nominee (and, you guessed it, Trump pick) Mehmet Oz. Even specifically GOP polling has the margin at 6%, advantage Fetterman.

Wisconsin: I'm out on a limb here since the most recent polling is from June, before incumbent Republican Ron Johnson really got busted down over his role in the disgraced former president's attempts to steal the 2020 presidential election, and before the Dobbs ruling had a chance to get Democratic voters energized and "moderates" off the fence. But even then, before the Democratic field unified behind lieutenant governor Mandela Barnes,  Barnes was at least in strong contention with Johnson. If I took a guess now, I'd guess that Barnes is up on Johnson by at least 5% and likely closer to 10%. I mark this one "leans Democrat."

So: The Republicans need to win at least three of those five races to get a Senate majority, If I had to give each race a final pick at the moment, I'd say they willy be incredibly luck to win two (Georgia and maybe either Nevada or Wisconsin), face a strong possibility of winning only one (Georgia), and could conceivably lose all five ... with Ohio as the dark horse candidate for yet another defeat.

Senate Prediction Update

Quinnipiac on Georgia: Warnock Opens Up 10 Point Lead Over Walker.

To garner a majority in the US Senate, Republicans need a net gain of only one seat.

But there are only five seats in obvious contention -- the others look reasonably likely to stay in the same partisan column as before -- and at the moment the Republicans hold two of those five seats and the Democrats hold three.

Pennsylvania looks likely to switch from Republican to Democrat.

Wisconsin looks likely to switch from Republican to Democrat.

Arizona looks likely to stay Democrat.

And now Georgia looks likely to stay Democrat.

That leaves Nevada, where the most recent polling is from May and has incumbent Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto up by 21-23 points over the two plausible Republican nominees.

So ceteris paribus, if the election was held today, the Republicans would probably lose a net two seats.

Is ceteris pribus? That is, could any leaning/"safe" seats move into "tossup" territory?

Well, sure. But it's not looking that great for the Republicans there, either.

Ohio "leaned Republican" (as it already was) until JD Vance got the GOP nomination. As of May, the polling was mixed with Vance and Democrat Tim Ryan within a couple of points of each other.

In Missouri, even disgraced former governor and accused wife-beater Eric Greitens is polling well against all likely Democratic nominees to succeed Republican Roy Blunt ... but anti-Trump Republicans are trying to put an attorney (whose latest position has been as an investigator for the January 6 exploitation committee) on the ballot as an "independent." So the Show-Me state could move from "safe Republican" to "dicey" as well.

Four-and-a-half months is a long time in politics, but I don't think it's long enough for Republicans to recover from a two-seat loss to a one-seat gain, especially since things are moving in the opposite direction.

So I'll make my first firm "my story and I'm sticking to it, call me on this if I was wrong" prediction: The Republicans will not come out of the November elections with 51 or more seats.

The Dobbs Ruling's Effect on the November Midterms

Three important questions heading into any election:

1. What have you done for me lately?
2. What have you done to me lately?
3. What are you likely to do to or for me next?

The second and third questions are bigger turnout drivers than the first one.

Fox headline: "New poll: Only 15% of voters view abortion as most important midterm election issue, economy still top concern."

But of the 15% who consider it important -- or who maybe even constitute "single issue" voters, the "pro-life" voters just got what they wanted, while the "pro-choice" voters just got something they had taken away from them, and want it back.

Which means that more of the "pro-choice" voters are going to be more motivated to get out and vote.

Even if the effect is small on net in any direction, that direction this November "Democrat," and that will make the difference in some close races.

Among other things, it probably dooms the GOP's chances of taking control of the US Senate.

270 to Win still rates five states -- Arizona (currently Democratic), Georgia (currently Democratic), Nevada (currently Democratic), Pennsylvania (currently Republican), and Wisconsin (currently Republican) -- as "tossups."

Assuming the Republicans win all of their safe and "leaning" seats (and at least three of the "leaning" seats -- Ohio, Missouri, and Utah -- might get dicey for them), they need to win three of those five seats.

They're almost certainly going to lose both of the two seats they currently hold:

Ron Johnson in Wisconsin was already in trouble. Then this week he got (more) mired in the January 6 scandals, and now the Dobbs ruling will get out the vote for Democrats.

The seat in Pennsylvania is "open," but Democrats are pretty united around / motivated by lieutenant governor John Fetterman, Republicans are not particularly united around / motivated by Trump endorsee Mehmet Oz, and the Dobbs ruling just gave Fetterman a boost.

Mark Kelly was already on cruise control toward victory in Arizona, polling well versus any likely Republican opponent.

Which leaves Nevada and Georgia. Even if the Republicans take both those seats, they're right were they were before -- 49 seats. And I suspect they'll take only Georgia, if even that, knocking them down to 48 seats.

Looks Like I was Wrong About Arizona

 On April 25th, I wrote:

In Arizona, the nomination of anyone but [state attorney general Mark] Brnovich on the Republican line moves the race [from "tossup" status"] into at least "leans Democratic," and maybe even "safe Democratic."

May polling has incumbent Democrat Mark Kelly up on Brnovich by 17 points. It's also got him up 13 points on fake Trump elector Jim Lamon, and 16 points on Blake "the cause of gun violence is black peope, frankly" Masters.

Arizona is definitely in "leans Democrat" territory even with Brnovich as the GOP's US Senate nominee.

Prepping My Midterm Election Predictions, Part 2

In my first "prepping" post, I went over which of this year's Senate elections are for "safe," seats, which seats "lean" toward one party or the other, and which are "toss-ups." Now let's look at what has to happen for control of that body to switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

The TL;DR is that the Republicans have to get a net gain of one seat. The Senate is currently split 50-50 ... sort of. Actually, it's composed of 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and two fake "independents" who are functionally (even to the extent of seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination twice in the case of Bernie Sanders) Democrats and caucus with the Democrats.

In terms of policy, a net gain of one seat wouldn't change that much at the raw final vote level. There are several "moderate" Republican Senators (three that come to mind are Mitt Romney of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine) who often vote with the Democrats (or, simply, with the party of the president, whichever party that might be). And there are at least two "moderate" Democrats (Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia) who often vote with the Republicans.

A small net gain also wouldn't change the math of cloture, in recent times used as a poor synonym for "filibuster." It takes 60 votes to move a bill to the floor for a final vote, so only 41 to block that final vote.

What it would change is "leadership" within the body, not just including positions like Majority Leader, but also committee chairmanships (and majorities). Which would mean bills Republicans didn't like wouldn't even make it to, let alone over, the cloture hurdle.

There's a lot of opportunity for gridlock here. Which would be a good thing if that opportunity got seized, but real gridlock doesn't happen much anymore. Instead of shutting down bad things, the majority and minority just trade away good things so that both sides get the bad things they want.

So, a net gain of one seat is required. Of the 35 seats in play, 23 are "safe" -- unlikely to change parties. Of the remaining 12, seven are "likely" to go to the same party they're already held by.

That leaves five seats as "toss-ups."

Two of  those seats are currently held by Republicans (Pat Toomey in Pennslyvania, who isn't seeking re-election; and Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, who is).

Three are currently held by Democrats (Mark Kelly of Arizona, Ralph Warnock of Georgia, and Catherine Masto in Nevada -- all are seeking re-election).

If the "safe" seats remain "safe" and the "lean" seats continue to "lean," then the Democrats just have to win their own three "toss-up" states to retain control of the Senate, while the Republicans have to win both of their toss-ups AND one of the Democratic "toss-ups" to get where they want to go.

This looks like harder going for the Republicans than most analysts seem to think, for a couple of reasons:

1. In Pennsylvania, the Republicans don't have an incumbent. It's an open seat.
2. In Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona, as well as the "leans" states of Ohio and Missouri, "the Trump factor" seems to be working against, not for, Republican victory. That is, Trump himself has endorsed candidates who aren't the "Trumpiest" pleasers of his base, and/or who don't poll the best versus likely Democrats (Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania and JD Vance in Ohio); he seems to be leaning toward endorsing the GOP's worst nightmare, Eric Greitens, in Missouri; and he's made it pretty clear that he won't endorse the Republicans' bet bet, Mark Brnovich, in Arizona.

A Greitens nomination in Missouri would move the state at least close to "toss-up" status, and Ohio may already be there. The Republicans are going to have to spend a lot of money just to keep one seat that they otherwise would have won in a walk and another that they wouldn't have likely had too much trouble with.

An Oz nomination in Pennslyvania versus Democratic Lt. Governor John Fetterman will move the state out of "toss-up" territory and into "leans Democratic."

In Arizona, the nomination of anyone but Brnovich on the Republican line moves the race into at least "leans Democratic," and maybe even "safe Democratic."

In Nevada, Masto is not yet "safe," but April polling has her up by eight points versus either likely Republican nominee (Sam Brown or Adam Laxalt), and incumbency will probably bring in the money to keep her in good shape.

In Georgia, Democratic incumbent Ralph Warnock is running behind likely Republican nominee Herschel Walker, but other than having a football name to conjure with, Walker doesn't seem to be a very good candidate, and the same Democratic turnout machine that put Joe Biden and Warnock himself over the top in 2022 will likely be operating on steroids this year.

I'm not ready to make actual predictions yet, but at the moment, it looks like this just may be one of the rare years in which the president's party gains Senate seats.

If the Democrats win only two of their three current seats that are in "toss-up" status -- Arizona and Nevada -- and only one of two currently Republican "toss-up" states (Pennsylvania), the balance of power doesn't change.

If they can also win Georgia or Ohio or Wisconsin (where Lt. Governor Mandela Barnes seems to be polling well against Ron Johnson), they'll gain a seat.

But the election is more than six months out, and six months is forever in politics. I'll probably make my actual predictions in September.

Starting to Prep My Midterm Election Predictions

270 To Win is my usual source for initial "these races might be worth watching" information.

Of the 100 US Senate seats, 35 are up for grabs this year.

270 To Win has 22 of those seats marked "safe" -- Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma (both seats), South Carolina, South Dakota,  and Utah for the Republicans; California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Oregon, and Vermont for the Democrats.

The first thing to notice there is the Republican advantage -- they've got 15 "safe" seats to the Democrats' seven. Every "safe" seat is a seat that isn't eating up a bunch of money from the party's national committee, Senatorial election committee, national PACs, etc. That money can pour into the contested seats.

Of the 12 non-"safe" seats:

• Three (Florida, Missouri, and Ohio) are marked "likely" Republican, and one (North Carolina) as "leaning" Republican.
• Two (Colorado and Washington) are marked "likely" Democratic, one (New Hampshire) "leaning" Democratic.
• Five (Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) are marked as "toss-ups."

I'm not going to touch the "safe" states yet, but I'll be keeping an ear to the ground listening for anything that sounds like a sea change (how's that for mixed metaphorism?).

In the "likely" category:

• In Florida, the last poll shown at FiveThirtyEight had incumbent Republican Marco Rubio up 18 points versus US Representative Val Demings. Personally, I'd mark Rubio's seat "safe." Demings is pretty popular as Florida Democrats go, but otherwise the Democrats aren't sending their best into this election. Governor Ron DeSantis is likely to win re-election in a walk, and his coattails will save even some Republicans who might otherwise have been in trouble. Rubio's not in trouble and isn't likely to get in trouble.
• In Missouri, the only real hope the Democrats have is if the Republicans nominate former (resigned under a legal cloud) governor Eric Greitens. And even after his ex-wife accused him of abuse in divorce filings, he's still in the running. As of last week, a Trafalgar poll showed him in a close second place at 24% behind US Representative Vicky Hartzler 's 25%, and ahead of Attorney General Eric Schmitt at 22%.
• Ohio looks interesting. If JD Vance's endorsement by the disgraced former president boosts him to the nomination, it's looking like a tossup -- both likely Democratic nominees (US Representative Tim Ryan and former State Treasurer Amy Acton) were polling, as of last month, at 2-3% ahead of Vance and also neck and neck with State Treasurer Josh Mandel and Ohio GOP chair Jane Timken.
• My gut feeling is that the three "leans Democrat" states will continue to lean harder that way and be "safe" Democratic seats by November. But I haven't taken a hard look at them yet.

I'll get into those "leans Democrat" states, and the states that are already "tossups," in a later post, and also look at how many races each party has to win to keep, or take, the Senate majority. The takeaway for this post is that Missouri and Ohio could conceivably go from "leans Republican" to "tossup" status, and that could make the difference for control of the Senate.