A Small Senate Battlefield

[brooklynite]

Larry Sabato:

Since we last took a comprehensive look at the 2016 Senate races, a slew of new candidates have jumped in, some promising contenders have dropped out, and intraparty competition has intensified.

Sounds dramatic. Yet what most strikes us is the overall stability, thus far at least, of the Senate picture.

First, Democrats have a plausible but narrow path to a minimal majority, requiring a net gain of four seats if a Democratic vice president is also elected, or five seats if the GOP wins the White House. But as we note below, Democrats need to win the lion’s share of the small number of truly competitive seats on this cycle’s map.

Second, because the route to a Democratic majority is fraught with peril and obstacles aplenty, the Republicans are still more likely to keep the majority than the Democrats are to win it, though it would be a considerable surprise if the GOP’s 54-46 seat margin wasn’t reduced by at least a seat or two. Not losing any net seats probably requires the Republican nominee to not only win the presidency, but capture more than 300 electoral votes in doing so — something no Republican has done since George H.W. Bush in 1988.

Another reason I'm not going to risk the Florida race with Alan Grayson as a candidate. We're going to need every pickup we can get.

[Gothmog]

1. I am still hopeful for a change in the Senate