Here is the current state of the races most likely to matter in this quest.

Arizona: Democrat Mark Kelly vs. Republican Martha McSally. Kelly has led McSally forever, coming close to even or behind in very few polls. However, the most recent polling is concerning. A long term 6+ point average lead has devolved since the middle of October to a present near tie, and in the most recent poll, McSally has pulled ahead.

Republicans often have a major negative push in a campaign during the last two weeks, and that often pushes the poll numbers closer, but often, that does not seem (in my opinion) to change the actual voting, depending on the local culture. For example, in Minnesota, that usually backfires. But I don’t know what is likely to happen in Arizona.

Conclusion: Tossup.

Colorado: Democrat John Hickenlooper vs. Republican Cory Gardner. Gardner was essentially elected by accident in 2014, and Hickenlooper is popular. This race is considered to be so obviously Hickenlooper’s that there is hardly any polling.

Conclusion: We’ll assume this is a Democratic takeway.

Georgia: Democrat Jon Ossoff vs Republican David Perdue. There is no particular reason to expect Ossoff to win this race, but right now Georgia is undergoing a shift that could put him in position. As of late, the polling puts the two candidates at dead even, but that is probably a temporary quirk.

Conclusion: Republicans retain seat.

Iowa: Democrat Theresa Greenfield against Republican Joni Ernst. Challenger Greenfield has shown strong polling since mid summer, but once again, due to some last minute Republcian mojo, the race is suddenly essentially tied. This is coming down to how annoyed people might be with Ernst for not cleaning out the swamp, vs how concerned Iowans are with protecting their way of life, which is silly because Democrats are actually better at growing corn than Republicans are.

Conclusion: Tossup

Maine: Democrat Sara Gideon vs Republican Susan Collins. Susan Collins is one of the most annoying Republican Senators, because she is always pretending she will ultimately do the right thing, then never does. Not once. Ever. Challenger Sara Gideon is taking the fight right to Collins and is going to wump her in the final vote.

Conclusion: Democrats win, followed with 18 months by an indictment against Collins. What for? I don’t know, but obviously somebody owns her and once the spell is broken, which is till be on November 3rd, that can lead to indictmentitis.

North Carolina: Democrat Cal Cunningham vs Republican Thom Tillis. Cunningham essentially threw this race away and guaranteed a Republican win, and thus, no Democratic control of the Senate, because he couldn’t keep his SMS in his pants. But, on the other hand, Republican Thom Tillis is so disliked in his state that he is still losing anyway. Cunningham’s indiscretion basically shifted polling from a farily strong chance of winning to a race that is within the margin of error.

Conclusion: Tossup. Anything can happen in this race, but either way, somebody’s gonna lose them a trailer.

South Carolina: Democrat Jamie Harrison vs Republican Lindsey Graham. Graham is a long time frequently re-elected figure in South Carolina, so it is his race to lose. But he could. Graham is ahead in most polls, but has tied in three Quinnipiac polls in a row. There are indications that there is a rapidly turning tide. I’m going to assume this will not be a change, but the race is interesting enough that I put it on this list so you will know what to fret over on election night (and a while after).

Conclusion: Republican win. Or will it be?

Most likely outcome: Democrats take Colorado and Maine, and maybe one other race, and Republicans stay in control of the Senate. This causes all useful legislation to stall for another few years, and global warming gets so bad it can’t be fixed.

Most hopeful outcome: Despite Democrats stepping on their own SMS, as it were, and that fact that in most sates Republicans can out campaign Democrats with their eyes closed, Democrats take Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, and scare the bejesus out of Graham but he keeps his seat. That’s one more than needed.

Another possible scenario: Democrats also lose Smith’s seat in Minnesota. Suddenly, she is on the verge of falling behind. Minnesota voters are unreliable. It could happen.

In a sense, there were three branches of government, the monarchy (king), the aristocracy (we might call them the 1% today), and the democratic branch, aka, the unwashed masses. This conceptualization of the British government is neither new nor mine. In the words of “Massachusettensis,” quoted by John Adams,

“the British constitution consisting of king, lords and commons, is formed upon the principles of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, in due proportion; that it includes the principled excellencies, and excludes the principal defects of the other kinds of government—the most perfect system that the wisdom of ages has produced, and Englishmen glory in being subject to and protected by it.”

When the Founders famously founded, they created a different set of three branches, but with echoes of the British system. The Senate, of course, is the analog to the House of Lords. The Senate was not meant to be staffed by blue blooded stiffs, but it was meant to be kept separate from the rabble, not elected. Rather, Senators were to be sent to the Federal City (later to be Washington DC) by the states. According to Article I Section 3 of the US Constitution,

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

The hope was that by linking the Senate to the politics of the states, there would be a more seamless ratification of the Constitution. Lots of stuff was like that in the Constitution; compromises or payoffs of some kind to get the thing ratified or to satisfy some whiney faction or another, while standing against the central principles. This is how things like slavery got through that filter.

This got messy. A state legislature “chooses,” or for that matter, does anything, by passing a law (usually) so “chosen by the Legislature” meant “you figure it out” and from this many systems emerged. If I recall correctly, some states actually had a popular vote for Senate which was then recommended to the Legislature of the state and ignored or not. Some states had a ruling party pick a senator. The point of all this was to have the Senate be staffed by a better class of people as one might expect those already elected to be. The people elect and thus exert a Darwinian process on themselves, and among these, the better survive to elect others. By the time you get to the top you’ve got one fine class of leaders.

What the founders failed to grok is that within a few decades the entire American political system would be taken over by organized crime, and eventually, become the organized crime. With the exception of the occasional true leader, many elected officials were on the take or otherwise not particularly interested in governing. They were, essentially, paid off to keep their hands off the process of industry and commerce, not to represent the people. As for the people themselves, they were not much interested. Little known fact: early voting rates were lower than today’s. Voter apathy is not one of those problems our ancestors did not have and somehow we got. (Voting rates did go up by the end of the 19th century and stayed high for a while in the early 20th century, but this happened as the corruption in government started to become more of a problem, labor got organized, and totally fake leadership like we usually had in the US was being given a rather stern look by the populous. Then they went down again for reasons.)

So, for much of the 19th and early 20th century, the Senate was a mess. It was very common for a state to send only one, or even zero, Senators, for several months or years in a row to DC. Basically, what could have been a Darwinian process of selection for the best became a Darwinian process for of selection for the dirtiest in State governments, and having a Senator in Washington was not a priority at that level. Infighting and incompetence led to lack of representation in the American version of the House of Lords; Those who showed up tended to be those who best handled that ugly process. The British had a House of Lords. We had a House of … something else.

The people of some states rebelled, and forced their states to allow the direct election of Senators. After a while, there were enough of these Senators in the Senate, and thus favorable to this idea, to create a draft Constitutional Amendment. This was eventually supported by the House as well, voted on, and over a period of a few years, ratified. A process that started in the late 19th century finally culminated in 1913 with the 17th Amendment. This change happened:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote….

So, that was interesting, but what happens when a Senator dies in office or leaves for some other reason?

The 17th Amendment goes on to say,

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Once again, the US Constitution trusts states to do the right thing. Oh boy.

For the most part, in most states, if a Senate seat is suddenly vacant, the governor of that state appoints a replacement until either a special election is held, or the end of the term. Usually, there is a special election, but if the vacancy occurs after the typical November election before the normal expiration of the term, most governors will not bother with the election, and the appointed Senator simply holds office until the normal election.

In Wyoming and Utah, the governor is required to pick a temporary senator from a list of three put forth by the political party held by the Senator who left office. Alaska, Oregon, and Wisconsin require the special election and does not allow the governor to appoint. Oklahoma either calls for the special election or a governor’s temporary appointment, depending on the timing of the vacancy.

Hawaii and Arizona require the governor to appoint a temporary Senator from the party that the Senator who left office was from. So, for example, if Senator Mazie Hirono were to get a new job, the governor of Hawaii would appoint a Democrat to fill her spot. If a Senator from Arizona flaked out, the governor of Arizona would appoint a Republican, as both Senators from Arizona are Republicans. So there would not be a change in representation by party in the US Senate.

At present, 54 Senator caucus with the Republicans, and 46 caucus with the Democrats (two of those are Independant).

We should be shooting for a good majority of 61, just to be safe. That means fifteen Republicans have to go, to result in a 39 to 61 mix. To get a simple majority, only five Republicans have to be replaced, to produce a 49 to 51 mix. So, we should be working for replacing fifteen but hoping to replace at least five.

A perusal of The Internet provides a list of Republicans and open seats that seem to have a chance of a Democratic takeover. (Importantly and worth noting, not many Democrats are at risk, but Michael Bennet of Colorado may be. Also worth noting is that Harry Reid’s seat in Nevada seems more likely to go GOP, according to some sources).

Here’s the list:

Arizona: John McCain. Challenged by Ann Kirkpatrick
Arkansas: John Boozman. Challenged by Conner Eldridge
California: Open Seat. Kamala Harris
Florida: Open Seat. Alan Grayson
Illinois: Mark Kirk. Challenged by Tammy Duckworth
Iowa: Charles Grassley. Challenged by Patty Judge
Kentucky: Rand Paul. Challenged by Adam Edleen
Maryland: Open seat? Donna Edwards
Missouri: Roy Blunt. Challenged by Jaoon Kander
Nevada: Open Seat. Catherine Cortez Masto
New Hampshire: Kelly Ayotte. Challenged by Maggie Hassan
North Carolina: Richard Burr. Challenged by Deborah Ross
Ohio: Rob Portman. Challenged by Ted Strickland
Pennsylvania: Patrick Toomey. No challenger yet
Wisconsin: Ron Johnson. Challenged by Russ Feingold

So, what’s missing? What’s wrong with this list? How would you rank it?

One word explains why we’re endorsing Kamala Harris for US Senate in California:

Exxon.

Shortly after Kamala Harris announced she was running to replace retiring Barbara Boxer as California’s next senator, she piled up tons of endorsements from California’s political establishment. For us, the big question was: would she be fierce enough to take on the climate crisis? As California’s attorney general, she’s vowed to defend President Obama’s Clean Power Plan in the courts. But at Climate Hawks Vote, we endorse only those leaders who will go on offense.

So we wrote a petition to her to investigate ExxonMobil for its systematic denial of climate science. RL Miller wrote a resolution, which was passed by the Ventura and Los Angeles County Democratic Parties, asking her to investigate Exxon. A week later, the Los Angeles Times reported:

California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris is investigating whether Exxon Mobil Corp. repeatedly lied to the public and its shareholders about the risk to its business from climate change — and whether such actions could amount to securities fraud and violations of environmental laws.

As Attorney General, she’s compiled a strong record opposing expansion of dirty fuel in California neighborhoods. She’s opposed Chevron’s plan to expand an oil refinery in Richmond, already one of the most polluted areas of California; Valero’s plan to ship crude by rail to Benicia; and the WesPac tar sands project in Pittsburg. She’s also sided with public transit and against freeway widening/gridlock in the closely watched San Diego County regional transportation plan. This month she filed a lawsuit against Southern California Gas Co. for causing the massive Porter Ranch gas leak.

For us, the deciding factor was whether she would have the political courage to investigate the ExxonMobil behemoth for its role in climate pollution and political corruption. And the answer is: yes! Her leadership as Attorney General earns her a Climate Hawks Vote endorsement.
Here’s the campaign plan: because California is a notoriously expensive state for campaigns – it’s too big for meaningful field operations and its multiple media markets are among the most expensive in the nation – we’re going to target influencers and the digital grassroots. We’re going to be visible at the California Democratic Party convention beginning next weekend, which is holding a key endorsement vote, and then engage in smartly targeted social media.

As per this endorsement, you may feel free to click on this link to give this candidate money!

President Obama mentioned this just before the election, as I recall, but the press ignored it, possibly because it is a little hard to explain.

There are 100 Senators, each elected for a 6 year term, and some are up for election every two years. The Senate is divided into three classes, about one third of the Senate in each, distributing them evenly across these two year intervals. This year, Class 2 was up for election.

Apparently a sample of 100 Senators divided into three parts does not produce even and identical results. The following table indicates the average percent of the vote among Democratic and Republican voters that went to Obama-Biden for the states represented by each Senate Class. The values are similar, but not identical. The mean for Class 2 is slightly lower, as is the maximum.

This graph shows the data in more detail. Class 2 is not an Obama-Biden friendly set of states, as a sample, because it lacks a peak representing a small number of strongly supportive states. Class 3 has other problems; it has a few very unsupportive states. Clearly, when it comes down to just a few races (which is what happens when there is a close Senate) Class 1 is likely to be friendliest to a Democratic executive (both high maximum and lack of low support) while Class 2 and 3 are less friendly, with Class 2 possibly being the least friendly (we can assume the low value states would be Republican anyway; it is probably the upper part of the curve that matters more).

The total number of Senate seats lost was low, and the chance of losing some were relatively high. So, as is the case with the House losses, what happened this year was more or less expected, and not exceptional. This was not an historic loss.