6.01.2009

Senate Rankings, June 2009 Edition

Races are ranked in order of their likelihood of changing parties (by November 2010, accounting for all factors such as potential retirements, primary challenges, and so forth).

Likelihood of party switch has increased since last month's rankings.
Likelihood of party switch has decreased since last month.

1. Missouri (R-Open)
I'd promised a couple of weeks ago that we'd have a new #1, and it's Missouri, which displaces the spot that New Hampshire had held for the previous two months. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat, has maintained a pretty consistent polling lead. She also has had an easier time with fundraising than Republicans like Roy Blunt and has a cute picture of a pony on her website. What's not to like? Missouri, as always, will be competitive, but Democrats may simply have the more appealing candidate here.

2. New Hampshire (R-Open)
In New Hampshire, we now have a poll from the University of New Hampshire that puts Paul Hodes slightly behind prospective Republican opponent (and former senator) John E. Sununu. If you want to nitpick, UNH polls have a reputation for being a bit erratic, and this was a poll of all adults rather than registered voters (though generally speaking polling adults rather than registered voters tends to help Democrats). Nevertheless, when coupled with somewhat tepid 1Q fundraising numbers for Hodes, this argues for treating this race as more of a toss-up and less of a Lean Democrat. On the other hand, there are not yet any declared Republican candidates, and there is a chance that the Republicans won't nominate a candidate even as strong as Sununu or former U.S. Rep Charlie Bass, whom Hodes defeated in the Democratic wave election of 2006.

3. Kentucky (R-Bunning)
Rumors of Jim Bunning's retirement, it seems, were greatly exaggerated, as he now has his re-election website up and running. Like Carnahan's, it features pictures of horses, as well as the slogan "Keep Bunning":



Don't send poor old grandpa to the retirement home! Keep 'im around! He's good folk, and he just so happens to be on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee! If you keep 'im, he'll bring us some nice earmarks for Christmas, just like the ones that grandma used to make!

4. Connecticut (D-Dodd)
Somewhat better polling numbers for Dodd, although Quinnipiac still has him behind Republican challenger Rob Simmons. This is one case, however, where the filter of a primary challenge might be useful to Democrats. If the anybody-but-Dodd sentiment is still strong come next year, there's a decent chance he'll lose to Merrick Alpert, who would probably wind up being the favorite in the general election by virtue of the Democrats' partisan ID advantage in the state. If Dodd is strong enough to fend off Alpert, on the other hand, that suggests that his standing with the public will have improved at least a little bit, and that he's likely to make further gains on Simmons.

5. Ohio (R-Open)
The latest set of Quinnipiac polling has Democrats Jennifer Brunner and Lee Fisher each maintaining leads on Rob Portman, but with Portman having weaker name recognition than his rivals (and plenty enough money to make sure that changes), I'm not yet ready to read too much into those numbers.

6. Delaware (D-Open)
No official word yet from Mike Castle, Delaware's at-large Representative, whose entry would radically alter the dynamics of this race, but a Republican source tells David Weigel that Castle is leaning toward running.

7. Nevada (D-Reid)
Some conflicting evidence here, but on balance it points toward improved prospects for the Republicans. There's more polling to suggest that Reid is deeply unpopular at home, and while it's not clear that Republicans will identify a top-tier candidate, a second-tier candidate like State Senator Mark Amodei may have a decent chance if the Anybody-but-Harry sentiment is sufficiently strong.

8. Colorado (D-Bennet)
The nominal incumbent, Democrat Michael Bennet, is an appointed Senator with fairly low name recognition who has never held elected office; this race is therefore in some ways better thought of as an open seat. Still, the Republican candidates to have thrown their hat in the ring so far are fairly obscure, and this race is at risk of being demoted if we don't start to see some proof within the next month or two that Republicans will field a decent opponent.

9. North Carolina (R-Burr)
Republicans have caught a major break here as Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper now says he won't challenge incumbent Richard Burr. Still, polling has several other Democrats holding Burr below 50 percent with high numbers of undecided voters. The Democrats are somewhat lacking in second-tier races after Missouri, New Hampshire, Kentucky and Ohio, and whomever emerges as their nominee in North Carolina stands to get a decent amount of support from the party.

10. Texas (R-Open?)
The Dallas Morning News speculates that Arlen Specter's departure from the Republican conference may hasten Hutchison's, as she no longer needs to worry about giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority and, according to both partisan and nonpartisan polling, may be losing her favored position against incumbent governor Rick Perry, who she is expected to challenge.

11. Illinois (D-Burris)
Why are Republican blogs spending so much time on unfounded conspiracy theories and so little on Roland Burris, when evidence is mounting that Burris crossed many significant ethical boundaries en route to being hand-picked by the Blagojevich Bros. to the U.S. Senate? Nevertheless, this race gets a down arrow: Mark Kirk, the strongest potential Republican challenger, has been very very quiet, Peter Roskam probably won't run, and meanwhile Lisa Madigan, rather than trying to knock off relatively popular governor Pat Quinn, may run for Senate instead. If Madigan enters, expect Kirk to keep his seat in the Congress and for this race to fall off the radar screen.

12. Pennsylvania (D-Specter)
Tom Ridge isn't running; does Pat Toomey actually have a chance at defeating Specter or likely Democratic primary challenger Joe Sestak? Quinnipiac has Toomey within 9 points of Specter and 2 of Sestak, although the latter is impacted by very low statewide name recognition. Still, both Sestak and Specter qualify as moderate Democrats and it is hard to imagine that Toomey, who compiled an extremely conservative voting record in the Congress, would be able to hold the political center against them once things have settled down a bit.

13. Louisiana (R-Vitter)
Charlie Melancon, the only remaining Democratic Congressman from Louisiana, is now said to be re-considering a challenge to Vitter; a March poll put Melancon seven points behind him. While I still think there's more smoke than fire here -- Vitter isn't as unpopular in Louisiana as you'd think -- he is sure to make a few entertaining gaffes on route to trying to win re-election and Melancon would have a decent chance with a well-executed campaign.

14. Florida (R-Open)
Marco Rubio, who has shown no inclination to exit stage right for Charlie Crist, has started to rack up some endorsements like those of Mike Huckabee and Jeb Bush Jr. Even if Rubio were to upset Crist in the Republican primary, however, he'd still stand a decent-enough chance in the general election, as the field of Democratic candidates started out fairly weak and is getting weaker. Democrats might do better to concentrate their resources on the gubernatorial race instead, where popular state CFO Alex Sink is running and could help deliver Florida to them in 2012.

15. New York (Jr.) (D-Gillibrand)
Depending on which numbers you look at, Kirsten Gillibrand's favorables either are or aren't improving. What we can say for sure is that the White House isn't playing games, having begun muscling potential primary challengers out of the race, evidently reluctant to betray any sign of weakness that might encourage former Governor George Pataki, who polls competitively against Gillibrand, to enter the contest.

16. Arkansas (D-Lincoln)
Potential GOP opponents are inventing all sorts of ways to avoid challenging Lincoln, although John Cornyn is still talking up the opportunity.

17. Iowa (R-Grassley)
I somewhat overzealously bumped this race last month on retirement speculation, not realizing that Grassley had brokered a deal with Jeff Sessions to ensure him a premium committee seat in the 112th Congress -- which, of course, Grassley can't be a member of unless he runs for re-election. Grassley is 75 years old and so retirement cannot be completely ruled out, but it's looking less and less likely.

18. California (D-Boxer)
I'm giving this race a very slight bump upward on the theory that, given the depth of its budget crisis, California is going to hell in a handbasket, and chaos usually helps the underdog.

19. Georgia (R-Isakson)

20. Oklahoma (R-Coburn)
Coburn is dropping hints that he'll in fact run for re-election. Although some of the stronger Democratic prospects are within Macaca range against Coburn, odds are that Brad Henry or Dan Boren won't run unless Coburn vacates the seat. Coburn's announcement is expected today; if he pulls a fast one on us, we'll revise accordingly.

21. Wisconsin (D-Feingold)

22. Arizona (R-McCain)

23. Hawaii (D-Inoyue)

24. Kansas (R-Open)
Democratic Governor Mark Parkinson, who took over when Kathleen Sebelius became HHS secretary, says he won't run for the seat, further diminishing the Democrats' already-slim chances.

25. Alaska (R-Murkowski)

26. North Dakota (D-Dorgan)

27. Maryland (D-Mikulski)

28. South Carolina (R-DeMint)

29. Washington (D-Murray)

30. South Dakota (R-Thune)

31. Alabama (R-Shelby)

32. Indiana (D-Bayh)

33. Vermont
(D-Leahy)

34. Oregon
(D-Wyden)

35. Utah (R-Bennett)
Bennett might actually be somewhat vulnerable in the Republican primaries, as Utah has a very weird nomination system involving a state convention that caters heavily to conservative activists. But our rankings measure the likelihood of a seat changing parties -- not merely changing candidates -- and, um, it's Utah.

36. New York (Sr.) (D-Schumer)

37. Idaho (R-Crapo)

48 comments

Derek said...

Bad month for democrats net negative of 3 arrows going for the republicans.

Richard said...

Nate, your key says: "Likelihood of party switch has increased/decreased". Is this accurate? Don't the arrows refer to the shift in the likelihood of a change compared to the other races rather than the shift in the absolute likelihood of a change?

For example, with the key as it is at present, it should be possible for all the races to stay in the same order, but for them all to have up arrows.

A little anal perhaps, but I though it might be worth clarification.

Derek said...

His arrows indicate the percent that said race will switch parties. In other words, Missouri went up a ranking but staid at say 67% likely to change. The reason they went up is because New Hampshire dropped say 4 percent from 68% to 64%. So to your question, all races could go up and down a percent but as long as that didn't make one race more or less likely than the race in front or behind it on the list would change before it would, then all races would stay in the same order but still have arrows.

Matt said...

Bennett is safe from a primary challenge: Even though he's a moderate, his only challenger, the state AG, supports in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and opposed the state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage-even Massachusetts Republicans are more conservative than that(no joke).

How nasty is the Ohio Democratic primary becoming? If it becomes too nasty, it could give Portman a free ride to the Senate.

Burris committed perjury. The tapes released by his own campaign prove it. The man MUST be expelled from the Senate.

Quinn will beat Madigan. The spending cuts and tax hikes he implemented haven't hurt his approval and he's an ethics fiend, so there's not an issue Madigan could use to primary him. She'd be better off running for Senate, where she's a shoo-in over Burris and any Republican.

John Rose said...

Personally, I would prefer to see what kind of percentage numbers he's thinking, even if they're completely speculative. There's a lot of room for interpretation in what Nate thinks are "first tier" vs. "second tier" races and whether he thinks this will be a big change cycle or if he thinks only 2-3 seats will change.

Derek said...

I think it is pretty clear where he draws the line. The first five are top tier with 4-5 being barely there and could drop while 6-10 or so are second tier with potential to become top tier given the right circumstances. Then the rest are third tier with the possibility of comming up to second tier or first tier given the right circumstances.

PorridgeGun said...

2. I'm thinking perhaps a Washington outsider would be the better candidate. If Hodes isn't raking in the money, he needs to run a flawless campaign to avoid a Shaheen type squeaker.

3. Maybe Cornhole and co. are getting to the stage where they think it's not worth the hassle trying to remove the old fart? Regardless if Bunning drops out, Dems still need to figure out who their best candidate is from an extremely deep bench. Question is, who?

4. Dodd is where he needs to be at the moment. A tie or slightly behind would obviously be great news, but he's got plenty of time to continue to improve his situation. And yeah, a primary is decent cover. He's not Ted Kennedy, but Dodd is a fairly reliable progressive who does bring something to the table. He's not a waste of space like most senate Dems.

5. Like KY, Dems need to figure out who is best equipped to pick this seat up. Looking at some polls Fisher seems the strongest, while having a Brunner remain as SoS is a big deal. More than any other toss-up, this race will hinge on the economy, considering the GOPosaur was Bush's budget guy.

6. It's unthinkable that Dems could lose this seat. Do they stay with the "placeholder" or go with Beau Biden?

7. Reid dug his own hole. Put simply, he needs to grow a pair and stop sending signals to the base that he's a Ben Nelson DINO. The fact that the president may have to dedicate more time to getting the "majority leader" re-elected is a fucking joke.

8. This is the biggie for me. Bennet has no business being in the senate whatsoever. He personafies waste of space. Bill Ritter should be fucking ashamed of himself for making such a lame-ass appointment. Colorado Dems can do a lot better than this guy, I don't care what his fund raising is like. It's mostly all corporate dollars. Andrew Romanoff should view Bennet as a placeholder, nothing more. Romanoff would win easily if he primaried Bennet.

9. Dems should at least try to persuade Roy Cooper to reconsider. WTF is Cooper's problem anyway? He's an idiot for not running. You're lucky if you get one shot, and when it comes up, you take.

PorridgeGun said...

10. At least Dems know for sure that Bill White is the best they could put up. And you never know what'll happen in the space of a year.

11. Burris needs to be dropped into Pakistan along with Blago and Bobby Rush. Those three dipshits are responsible for there even being a question mark hanging over this seat. Luckily, Dems have Alexi Giannoulias and Lisa Madigan. Personally, I'd prefer to see Giannoulias in the senate and Madigan on the supreme court.

12. Sestak is quite correct to keep the pressure on Specter and possibly challenge him in a primary. This is a win-win for Dems. Specter is gonna have to vote like a Dem a shitload more than he did as a GOPosaur.

BTW, Bill "Concern Troll" Rendell needs to STFU.


13. Go Stormy!


14. I'll take the sure thing of a strong Florida Dem Governor over a senate toss-up with a weak Dem candidate any day. Also, Dems would be smart to throw a spanner in the works with the Crist-Rubio contest.

15. I don't like it, but I agree 100% with clearing the field for Gillibrand. If Dems had a deep bench in New Yorkto pick from I'd be all for a primary. At the end of the day the most attractive New York em is Andrew Cuomo, and he was born to be Govoner or Mayor. Gilibrand basically votes like Hillary anyway and has done some decent PR recently.

Of course, if Scott Murphy hadn't won NY-20, forget it, progressives would never have given her a chance to prove herself. Simple a that.


Actually, that's the one thing nobody ever speculated about, the negative fallout for Gillibrand if NY-20 had gone to Tedisco.

24. If you've got corrupt psychopaths like Ben Nelson and Max Baucus basically dictating whether the public option is on the table on health care reform, what's the point in a having Sebelius there at HHS? I still hink the wisest move was for her to run for the open seat. Like Napolitano, what does sebelius vring to the position that s so unique? I despise Tom Daschle. What a fuck-up.

25. Last I checked, Murkowski was trouncing Mooseburger on job approval in Alaska. And FReeptards think the latter has any hope of the presidency???

Zachary said...

I believe it's a "horsie" not a "pony."

markymark said...

I seem to say this every month, but I still think that the likelihood of seats changing hands will depend largely on the situation come November 2010. Noone quite knows what the economy will quite look like. My guess is that in the end things will be ok, and that not much will change. (1 or 2 seat swing either way in the Senate.) would guess that in the end NH, MO, OH, NV, CO are the most likely to change, beyond an economic melt down.

Beauchamp said...

I am curious to see how many moderate Republicans will get nominated to run for the senate in 2010. There are quite a few outh there

PorridgeGun, you're not nearly as smart as you think you are

contravert said...

In the thirty seven years I have voted in North Carolina, I"ve never seen a sitting senator with as little name recognition as Burr. I suspect any number of candidates with a reasonably well run and financed campaign would beat him. Personally, even though he's not in the best of graces with the progressive wing of the party, Heath Schuler will almost certainly run (note his recent trip to Sri Lanka - sudden interest in the Tamil Tigers or burnishing foreign policy credentials perhaps?) and will put together more than enough support to win.

rayjedd said...

I disagree that Kentucky is the 3rd most likely to change partys. True, Bunning may not be back due to retirement or losing a primary, but actually any other republican candidate would probably be a dramatic favorite.

PorridgeGun said...

Beauchamp said...

PorridgeGun, you're not nearly as smart as you think you are.
,



Wow, earth shattering analysis there, mate. What gave it away, the fact I referred to Ed Rendell as "Bill"? Explain. I'm genuinely curious.

Casual Observer said...

Another day in the world of FiveThirtyEight.com, huh?

Looks like more hackneyed reporting and analysis followed by the utterings and grunts of a bunch of knuckle-dragging troglodytes...

...Wake me up when this site ever finds that intellectual and insightful edge it's looking for and isn't just red meat for people on par with mentally handicapped schoolchildren.

Casual Observer said...

What gave it away, the fact I referred to Ed Rendell as "Bill"? Explain. I'm genuinely curious.

I'd like to volunteer for this one. It's nothing specific, really...but it is painfully obvious that pretty much anything and everything that emanates from your mouth is a veritable diarrhea of misinformation, obscenity, stupidity, incompetence, and underdevloped or underutilized mental faculties.

Cricket said...

I'm curious if the Illinois Dems will be pushing for Burris to step down as more evidence of ethics violations come to light. Wouldn't it make more sense to support a new candidate than to prop up a compromised one?
Are there other political factors that would keep Burris in play?

@Casual Observer
From 0 to ad hominem in one sentence. You are truly the Ferrari of trolls.

Alex S. said...

Heath Shuler is reconsidering his decision not to run against Richard Burr... his anti-Pelosi course has set him up well to do that. But the Democrats would only gain a conservative Democrat like Ben Nelson.
Likewise, the Republicans have to make a lot of ideological compromises to win their races (Crist, Castle, Pataki). It is strange that they don't put more effort into those races that would signify an ideological change (replacing center-left Michael Bennet with a center-right candidate in Colorado, replacing Harry Reid by a staunch conservative like Jon Ensign, or trying to beat Blanche Lincoln with a Tom Coburn-like conservative).

dre7861 said...

Nate - I would like to offer a small suggestion. When you post July's rankings can you also note what their previous ranking was like how most 'Best Sellers Lists' usually do. Mind you I'm just asking for this in the main posting and not in the graphic. I know it would be a huge help to my understanding. Thanks!

Casual Observer said...

@Cricket,

I could truly care less how my "ad hom" attacks are perceived on here. The comments section of this site devolve into a cesspool of vapid discussion and mockery on a daily basis.

Between all of the self aggrandizing behavior of Nate and his subjects and the navel-gazing and mental masturbation that follows, as well as the merciless derision and spiteful language towards anyone who might have a differing viewpoint from the progressive mainstream, I hardly feel an ounce of guilt over one of my own attacks when it's drowned out by so many others.

OldFatGuy said...

Another interesting post Nate.

To change the subject a bit, wondering if some of your baseball expertise and/or friends could be used to answer a question.

My Washington Nationals have a higher team batting average than team winning percentage, and it's June. I'd bet that hasn't happened very often in the past has it??? Curious, cause I'm thinking these Nats are redefining what it means to be really bad. (The 62 Mets held that definition for most of my life)

Cricket said...

@Casual Observer
Then the obvious question becomes: Why come to this site, or read the comments?
Is it just a desire to relish in your own supposed superiority? I usually just scan past the comments by people who tend towards the overly dogmatic or trollish. It really isn't that hard to do.

I don't really want to continue with this topic, since it has nothing to do with Nate's post, but I am mystified by people like you who seem to enjoy punishing themselves.

e3323 said...

Alexi Giannoulias will get the Illinois senate seat. Great canidate and Obama will endorse him for sure. That's his basketball buddy.

Cooper is a retard for not running....the other dem canidates are low tier.

Didnt Bunning say he was gonna endorse another republican for the primary, what happened to that? He change his mind. He's screwed if he really does run for re-eleciton. Could he lose a republican primary? I dont think anyone here has mentioned that possibility.

As for Florida Nate is right on the money when he says dems should focus on Alex Sink winning the gubernatorial race. Alex sink as governor + Obama's increasing popularity with hispanics...cubins especially because of Obama's ease on restrictions...could give obama a serious advantage in Florida. Republicans CAN'T beat Obama if he wins Florida....IMPOSSIBLE.

Casual Observer said...

@Cricket,

It really boils down to one simple truism to answer your question, which you pretty much answered correctly anyway.

I do come on here to validate my superiority...but it is ironically and oddly fulfilling because I do so by reading the reams and reams of inane drivel of people on here convinced they are the ones with superior intellect or other characteristics.

Common Knowledge said...

Isn't the filibuster calculation that you say Hutchison is making in Texas flawed? By my calculation, until Franken is seated a Hutchison resignation would drop the total number of sitting Senators to 98, and also drop the number needed to defeat a filibuster from 60 to 59. This scenario would make the Democrat's ability to invoke closure that much easier until a Republican replacement for Hutchison is appointed.

Am I wrong about this?

Charles said...

I really wonder about Bunning. Why are Cornyn & Co so anxious he does not run?

Is he that tough to beat in a GOP primary? Considering that he's become such a laughing-stock in many circles, I would have thought he'd have nearly as little a chance of winning the GOP primary as Burris winning the Dem primary in IL.

I just don't know how those Republican Kentuckians tick. Does anyone have a handle on this?

DustyEarth said...

Charles, Jim Bunning is very popular with Kentucky social conservatives and with good reason. The man has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate. It would be difficult to primary him for that reason.

Charles said...

> Charles, Jim Bunning is very popular with Kentucky social conservatives and with good reason. The man has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate. It would be difficult to primary him for that reason.

Really? Wow. But surely they could find a more effective messenger/champion for their cause?

I trust there are tons of very conservative GOP politicians in KY. Why stick to one who's an electoral liability and is making a fool of himself on top of that?

I don't understand that. I wouldn't back a lame horse even if it had one lots of Kentucky Derbys in the past...

If I were a KY conservative stalwart I'd go for someone younger, who can sell the right-wing agenda with a smile. Someone who doesn't scare off moderates while nonetheless ceding no ideological ground. That'd be my candidate.

Bob X said...

@Cricket: Casual Observer answered your question in a post where he said, "Wake me up when..." He has been sleep-posting, which explains a great deal.

Nichlemn said...

"It's unthinkable that Dems could lose this seat [Delaware]"

Why not? Castle represents the exact same constituents in the House and has won by comfortable margins for years. Not all statewide offices are equivalent, but At-large Rep and Senator are pretty close. What sort of voters will think "Yeah, I want Michael Castle as my Representative, but no way do I want him as my Senator"?

e3323 said...

Hate to say this but Nichlemn makes a good point. Nobody thinks "that guy is a great representitive but I would never want him to be a senator." You like a candidate or you dont. Plus its not like being a senator takes any more experience/qualifications than being a representitive.

coolstar said...

Re Nevada: that poll is useless (as are almost all polls reported by the Las Vegas Review Journal.) It had small numbers (650 or so) and asked the most ambiguous of questions to get an answer everyone already knew: Nevadans have never liked Harry Reid very much. surprise, surprise. the question is whether they will like him more than any right winger the Repubs can find to run against him.
Dean Heller's last two congressional races in a VERY conservative district have both been fairly to quite competitive so I don't see him as much of a threat. Obama, surprisingly, won NV in a walk and with him campaigning here for Reid I don't see a problem with him winning re-election. Might not be by an over-whelming margin (it seldom is for Reid), but he'll win, unless, as the saying goes, he gets caught with a dead girl or a live boy.....
And since when has Specter been a "moderate democrat"? that's laughable. As Sestak pointed out on Hardball on Monday, Specter supported ALL the conservatives on the Supreme Court, Gulf War II, AND voted against Obama's budget. I don't even live in PA anymore and I'll prob'ly give money to Sestak if he decides to run.

Jeff said...

Nate's Senate rankings are a good guide to how the pendulum swings back in politics (a law that most readers of this site are eager to deny, as we are now supposedly a permanent left wing country). Four of the top eight rankings are now Blue, and six of the top twelve. And this is with, arguably, a bit of pro-Dem spin fron Silver. And bear in mind that the landscape is most bleak for the GOP in the Senate, for various largely contingent reasons. Their prospects in Gov and Rep races is better. If the GOP were to hold steady or pick up one/two seats in the Senate in 2012, that would portend a much better showing in the House and statehouses. State level dynamics are also setting up well for them in places like California, NY, NJ, IL, maybe even MA.

Admit it Dems: the GOP is doing better at recruiting candidates than you had hoped (with the exception of losing Ridge). When you are a minority, it makes the move to the center easier (as its necessary for survival). A large majority (like the Dems now have) pulls you toward the left or right margin (because your victories supposedly "vindicate" your ideology). Electoral democracy is self-correcting in that way. I would be very surprised if the Democractic Party isn't at its high water mark for their current high tide. Gravity will set in as they are forced to govern in difficult times with a party that encompasses everyone from Heath Shuler to Maxine Waters. These dynamics will aid the "Whig's" comeback. Nate's Senate rankings, which have improved markedly for the GOP only three months into Obama's first term and basically during his honeymoon, drive this point home.

juvanya said...

When the economy recovers by the year's end, there will be a 70-seat majority.

Ron said...

juvanya: I'm going to assume here to give you the benefit of the doubt you mean a 70-30 majority, not a majority by 70 seats (which would be 85-15), but even so, I think this is just a pipe dream (as much as I'd like to see it). For this to happen even with every democratic seat up for grabs staying democratic, the democrats would have to win 10 seats that are currently republican up for grabs.

The currently GOP seats up for election are
MO,NH,KY,OH,NC,TX,LA,FL,IA,GA,OK,AZ,KS,AK,SC,SD,AL, and UT. Granted that there are 18 GOP seats up for election, but I'd guess that only maybe 9 or 10 could even be competitive. There is no chance of a democrat winning in Utah or Oklahoma (for example) pretty much no matter what happens between now and 2010. Frankly if the Senate gets to even something like 63 or 64 democratic seats I think that will be enough to deal with most issues.

dsimon said...

prorridgegun: I don't like it, but I agree 100% with clearing the field for Gillibrand. If Dems had a deep bench in New Yorkto pick from I'd be all for a primary.

There were several good candidates that could have challenged Gillibrand in a primary. Just because they don't have national recognition doesn't mean that NY didn't have a deep bench here.

The issue, though, is pretty moot at this point.

OrlandoJDR said...

On the Florida Senate Seat, I think the analysis is a bit off. As a Floridian in the midst of it, Dan Gelber's dropping is not a sign of Dem weakness but of frontrunner Kendrick Meek's strength. He's already been endorsed by Bill Clinton and posted some impressive fundraising numbers. I think Gelber getting out of the race clears the decks for Meek to run unoppoed (another candidate is but token opposition). Meek is African-American and a great public speaker who Obama used as a proxy a good bit (and thus owes some support).

Dems would be smart to support Meek; if he can inspire the African American vote to turn out in numbers greater than usual (a la Obama) then he helps all the downticket races - including Sink for governor (who has a great shot).

As to Crist and Rubio - it's going to be a bloodbath. If Rubio wins, he may be too conservative for the general electorate (Florida gets bluer every day). If Crist wins, many hard-right Republicans may not vote for him to avoid giving him a national platform where he could eventually run for President. Overall, I think a much tighter race than this analysis allows.

Michael said...

I believe I read on Swingstate that Roy Cooper simply doesn't want to move from North Carolina until his youngest children are in college. According to his campaign site, his youngest, Claire, is now 13, so if that's the real reason, give him about 5 years. Being committed to one's family is not stupid and something we should all respect.

Michael said...

OrlandoJDR:

You don't believe that Crist will get enough votes from Democratic and independent fans to make up for however many far-right folks choose to stay home or vote for a third-party candidate (are there any, by the way)?

RubyPanther said...

As a longtime Democrat, I can't help but hope that we "lose" Reid.

It would be worth one vote to get another shot at some leadership.

OrlandoJDR said...

Michel-
I don't think Crist is as popular among Democrats and Independents as he once was. He's certainly a strong candidate, but I think the changing demographics of Florida hold out hope for Dems. Last election the Dems did a great job in votor regirstration and there was a huge swing in voting from Republicans to Democrats. Add to that the fact that the State budget is in shambles (and we have a Republican dominated legislature) and is cutting schools and services, but giving developers breaks (despite the fact that overdevelopment is one of our biggest economic challenges) - my bet is people are going to look to see what leadership he offered and find none. Further, insurance premiums are going to shoot through the roof next year - despite his supposed taking action to stop that. If a hurricane hits, the impact on the State budget and insurance rates will be mind-bogglingly catastrophic.

No doubt, though, Crist is genial and generally likeable. But, at the end of the day, my impression is that his support among Dems and Independents is pretty thin and can be pulled away by a strong Dem challenger. Meek matches Crist in geniality - if he can bring Dems home and pull in independents (which make up an ever-increasing part of our electorate), I think he's got a pretty good shot.

russell said...

i'm from ohio, so maybe i'm biased, but it should be third...there's wide spread discontent for anyone with an "r" behind their name 'round here, while i don't see KY or CN changing parties..[candidates, maybe, in KY...]...my sense is that the best case outcome for the dems would be a two seat pick-up

nblue said...

OrlandoJDR,

As an Orlando Democrat myself, I must note that I am certainly hopeful that your assessments are correct though both my experience and analysis lead me to the conclusion that your statements are more aspirational than factual.

I think Meeks is a decent candidate but assuming an African American turnout anywhere near 2008 I think is unlikely without Obama on the ticket. Meeks is a nice candidate but he is no Obama. In a state with dominant Republican margins in both legislative bodies I think any belief that a young state rep who has never faced a contested election is going to take down the Republican machine -- especially if Crist wins the nomination is somewhat pie in the sky stuff. If Rubio takes down Crist then maybe there is a shot but Meeks isn't getting within 15 points of Crist, if that.

nkpolitics1279 said...

If Rubio takes down Crist then maybe there is a shot but Meeks isn't getting within 15 points of Crist, if that.


Meeks is in a similar situation as Harold Ford Jr.
Ford Jr came close to winning the 2006 TN US Senate Race because 2006 was a pro Democratic Year but TN was a red state and the Republican Nominee Bob Corker was more moderate than Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary. If Harold Ford decided to run for the US Senate in 2002 when Lamar Alexander decided to run for the US Senate. Ford would have lost to Alexander by a landslide margin- similar to Meek loosing to Crist by a 60-40 margin or Alan Wheat losing to John Ashcroft during the 1994 MO US Senate Race.

Guardian of the Chicken Coop said...

Check Bob Krause's web site at www.krauseforiowa.com. There is a facebook and twitter link on the page. He's running against Grassley in Iowa, and starting early!

Jim said...

Loved 538's electoral vote analysis during the Presidential election, but you are badly misreading Florida (#14 on your list).

Your backup for your statement, "The field of Democratic candidates started out fairly weak and is getting weaker." is NOT time series polling data, but merely a news article on the switching of Dan Gelber(D) from the US Senate race to the Florida Attorney General race.

Dan Gelber's switch reflects not a weakening of the field but, a consolidation of the early organizational advantages of Congressman Meek(D) who secured key union endorsements, is running a statewide petition drive to qualify for the ballot and has made astute campaign staffing decisions.

Congressman Meek's campaign manager is former Florida Democratic Party (FDP) Executive Director Ana Cruz; while his Central Florida field director is Chris Dunwody a top Obama organizer who lead astounding student turnout at the University of Central Florida (UCF).

As the initial enthusiasm for Organizing for America (OFA) fades, more Obama organizers and volunteers will join the Meek for Senate campaign.

Crist is vulnerable when his term of office is matched up against a timeline of economic statistics such as the Florida unemployment rate or home foreclosure statistics. The correlation is striking -- a high quality communications team could strike a mortal blow with those stats.

Florida in 2012 will be won on the ground, with the opening of four regional offices nearly 18 months before the election in Miami, Tampa, Orlando and Tallahassee Meek leads in the ground game.

Congressman Meek has demonstrated statewide leadership in his successful advocacy and leadership of the Class Amendment petition drive and ballot initiative. The Class Size Amendment campaign collected 500,000 signatures and over 2,500,000 votes statewide.

Crist, although currently riding high in the polls, he has no where to go but down. Although a formidable opponent, if Meek has enough resources to fund a vigorous field operation and a smart communications strategy, Crist is vulnerable.

Jim Callahan
Orlando, FL

Jose said...

Where are your July Senate Rankings???? The latest they've been posted was the 10th.

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,