Senate Update
Will environmentalists have any leverage in the Senate? Here are the races to watch.
Where are we in the battle to control the Senate? I’ve posted previously about eight key races. Here are the current predictions from two leading forecasters. In every case where both candidates for these Senate seats have LCV scores, the Democrat’s score is at least 40% better than the Republican’s, and often the disparity is far greater. So instead of using party labels, I could have called the candidates “Pro-Environment” vs. “Anti-Environment.”
Bottom line: in the individual races, almost anything could happen in November. But the Dems have to hold more seats than the Republicans to win, so they’ll need a major wave to get Senate control.
| Race
(D v. R, incumbent in bold) |
Sabato | Cook Political |
| Arizona:
Sinema v. McSally (predicted faceoff) |
Toss-up | Toss-up |
| Indiana:
Donnelly v. Brown |
Toss-up | Toss-up |
| Missouri:
McCaskill v. ?? |
Toss-up | Toss-up |
| Montana:
Tester v. Rosendale |
Leans-D | Likely D |
| Nevada:
Rosen v. Heller |
Toss-up | Toss-up |
| North Dakota:
Heitkamp v. Cramer |
Toss-up | Toss-up |
| Tennessee:
Bredesen v. Blackburn |
Leans R | Toss-up |
| West Virginia:
Manchin v. Morrisey |
Toss-up | Toss-up |
I’ll update this table and also present more details about the environmental views of the candidates as we get closer to November.
Reader Comments
3 Replies to “Senate Update”
Comments are closed.
About Dan
Dan Farber has written and taught on environmental and constitutional law as well as about contracts, jurisprudence and legislation. Currently at Berkeley Law, he has al…
READ more
Like R candidate in Missouri is Josh Hawley.
BQRQ wrote:
“Our old friend Anthony St. John has been begging for help to educate and warn the public about the catastrophe of global warming which threatens all humanity. Perhaps you should contribute your energy and intellect to helping Anthony save the world instead of wasting time in worthless arguments with deniers.”
It is the deniers that are chiefly responsible for holding back policy changes. Trying to persuade you in particular would indeed be a worthless use of time if you are immune to evidence, as you have demonstrated yourself to be thus far.
Overall though, I don’t plan on convincing you. My intent is to illustrate to casual readers how deniers can only hold on to their belief by avoiding addressing facts and evidence. When you come here and then run away whenever you are faced with a piece of evidence that undermines your view, you help me illustrate to those that are less informed that being a denier is an intellectually bankrupt position.
Other arguments you make that help illustrate this are that we should focus on heaven rather than the Earth, or that there is some mysterious conspiracy between climate scientists and homosexuals.
I thank you for your overall participation in this effort.
The most inconvenient truth is that political and intellectual establishments are a total failure at protecting the human race because of the power of money plus refusals to unite and cooperate with each other.
We have now run out of time, opportunities, abilities, resources and leadership.
Blog posts like yours and Robert Reich prove this to be a fact of life today.