Ayotte and Kirk are up for re-election. They are going to need all the help that they can get, due to approval ratings of 25% (Kirk -- the Klingons will finally get him in 2016) and 38%. In moderate-to-liberal states such numbers practically ensure defeat in a non-wave election. Contrast Senator Grassley (R-Iowa) who seems out of reach, and who could win re-election even in a wave year for Democrats.
From another thread, for illustrative purposes:
Approval polls only, except for an estimate in Utah.
White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange -- Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Blue -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --
"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.
Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.
An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.
Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.
NO PARTISAN POLLS.
