Democrats should go all-in on Nebraska. Yes, Nebraska

Updated Senate Forecast

As I've been a broken record about, despite their better-than-perceived position in the Electoral College (much better than tossups)

Democrats are still medium underdogs to take the Senate. Down to 34% in my recent update, which I'll share below.

First, West Virginia is gone, so that leaves Democrats at 50. They have to defend lots of swing states, AND win at least two of Ohio, Montana, Nebraska, Texas, Florida - or maybe get really lucky in Missouri. It's a tall task.

Ohio: Democrats are still favored. But it's likely to be close. Trump on the ballot means Republicans will turn out in big numbers, and that is a big boost for Moreno.

Brown has hit 50% just once in high quality polls. Moreno hasn't in any, but this supports the idea that there are more “undecided” in the Senate race than Presidential.

In Ohio, the best bet for those “undecideds” is not 50-50, but lean-R, much like 2022.

That makes the math in Ohio a little weird: Brown is almost certain to get to 47, 48%, and despite being “ahead” in the poll average, he's less likely to get to 52% than Moreno.

In other words, if Brown wins, it's highly likely he's done so narrowly: with just 50-51% of the vote. Moreno at 52-53% wouldn't be shocking, even though Brown is favored.

Harris isn't campaigning much in Ohio - because Brown is running well ahead of her and is relying on lots of ticket-splitters. Whether Democrats turn out in big numbers for, mostly, a Senate race is the hardest “if” to quantify.

For that reason, unlike my position on the Presidential race (it's not a tossup) I'm not as adamant that the Ohio Senate race isn't truly a tossup, or even that Moreno is a small favorite. It's a hard one.

I have a feeling we will know early on election night how things are going here: Ohio has several Obama-Trump counties that Sherrod Brown must win to have a realistic chance.

Also: OH-1, OH-3, and OH-9 are in play for the House, though Democrats are favored in all of them, how easily they win them (or if they lose them) will be a strong indication of how the House turns out - sharing that forecast in another post.

Needless to say, I'll be one of the few people following Ohio that closely on election night.

But Brown would only be Dem's 49th seat.

Forecast Update

I don't have too many competitors this year.

For consistency's sake, I've been comparing my forecasts to Morris (previously Economist, now FiveThirtyEight) and Silver (previously FiveThirtyEight, now Silver Bulletin).

Might need to change in the future if Silver is giving up on forecasting it.

Here was the 2022 Senate Forecast comparison:

(Ignore 538 at 0% in May, their forecast didn't come out until June and I didn't notice them mistake until recently)

But for what it's worth, some other forecasters in the Senate:

Split Ticket: 25% Dem chance

Race to WH: 39% Dem chance

And FiveThirtyEight says: 12% chance

Why the discrepancy?

It's all about Ohio and Nebraska, the two hardest states to forecast for the Senate.

Here's a comparison of Ohio win probability, to election win probability:

FiveThirtyEight is a clear outlier here. The difference is, mainly, Nebraska.

But their forecast doesn't stop there. Despite being at only 6% win probability for Osborn, the Independent in Nebraska, FiveThirtyEight also assigns an equal chance that he caucuses with Democrats, Republicans, or no one:

It's far from a given that he'll caucus with Democrats - or anyone - but given that they only have him at a 6% win probability, regardless of the assumption made, it still has a big impact overall.

My forecast assumes that if he wins he'll caucus with Democrats. Not a guarantee, but I think that's the most likely scenario.

On that note…

All-in on Nebraska

I'm, well, a little more optimistic about Dem's chances in Nebraska than FiveThirtyEight.

Fischer’s unforced errors, and Osborn's relative popularity as an Independent, has secured his position as the most likely of the unlikely outcomes in my forecast.

One metric I introduced in 2020, Progressive Above Replacement, is basically a way to strategically allocate funding: whether you're an individual donor, or political party.

The idea is to measure this:

A candidate's “progressiveness” relative to their state, incorporating their win probability.

That is, a solid progressive from a state like Ohio (hello, Mr. Brown) is more valuable than someone even more progressive from a state like California.

The reason is: Sherrod Brown, despite some solid progressive bona fides, has won and could win in a medium-red Ohio.

His “replacement” on the ballot for Democrats, were he to not run for reelection, would be far less likely to win and probably less progressive. And his opponent is far right.

California, on the other hand, offers safe seats for Democrats, so their seats will - for the foreseeable future - not be as important.

Nebraska, despite Osborn's political leanings probably being more “moderate” would save Democrats from a reliably far-right vote in Fischer, and there's a good chance he even caucuses with them, even if he doesn't always vote with them. That gives him a high rating, given a fair win probability.

Here's what the “Progressive Above Replacement” metric says about the Senate map for 2024:

Remember, this is about allocating funding to hold or flip these seats.

Though Baldwin and Slotkin are favored (even Gallego, Casey, and Rosen) they are far from certain: Democrats must spend to hold those seats. Plus, those states are all swing states, so holding those seats for Democrats is absolutely vital for their chances in 2024, 2026, even 2028 (getting ahead of myself).

Not to be mean, but since she said it I will too - taking a state for granted can get you Hillary'd.

But Sherrod Brown basically breaks this metric because of his track record and because his race is so close. Democrats should be spending lots of money here - and they are.

But in order to get to 50, Dems need some luck.

So let's just look at the seats Democrats are underdogs in, to illustrate why I say they should go “all-in” on Nebraska.

These are the four seats that could realistically go (or stay) blue if Dems have a very good night.

Incumbency (Tester in Montana) can play a role in win probability…but he's faded to the low-teens in my forecast. While a moderate from Montana would be a huge benefit, he's just not likely to hold it.

That doesn't mean Democrats should pull out entirely, diversification and all, but for my money, I'm trying to make Nebraska happen.

But since both Osborn and Tester have to distance themselves from Harris to have a chance in their red states (and Brown too, for that matter) you can see why Dems are using their other asset - time (and Beyonce) on the longshot that is Texas.

And f*ck Ted Cruz, for the record.

Polls in Nebraska are all internals, so to be taken with even smaller grains of salt than individual polls should be taken. But the few quality polls that have been conducted there, despite high undecided in a red state (why Fischer is still favored) point to Osborn having a decent chance there.

Senate Forecast by State

Updated range of outcomes

A good night for Republicans sees them flipping multiple seats - Ohio, and in the famous swing states.

A good night for Dems is…pretty much anything that includes keeping Ohio.

There's a greater than 60% chance the final result ends with Democrats at 48, 49, or 50 seats.