If we want to continue this...
Rob Portman - Heidi Heitkamp (the race is considered competitive early on, but is a pretty easy win for the incumbent on election day)
Mark Kirk - Joe Donnelly or Claire McCaskill (self-explanatory - race is hyped as "competitive" because the incumbent is "battle-tested" or "moderate", but it's not even close in the end)
Roy Blunt - Bill Nelson (probably only if Scott runs, though - the incumbent is considered "invincible" because of his landslide victory six years ago and early polling showing him ahead by a lot, but he underperforms on election day)
Joe Heck - Dean Heller (self-explanatory)
Pat Toomey - Jon Tester (The incumbent is ahead by double digits in early polling and very overrated by his own party. Many people think he will cruise to reelection because of his "weak opponent" who won the nomination after a nasty primary fight and the fact that he is apparently a "good fit for his state" who has a lot of crossover appeal, but the race is decided by the national mood and turnout in the end)
Um, nope. That one is not self-explanatory. Joe Heck was not an incumbent, like all of the rest of the names you mentioned. Heck was running for an open seat -- Harry Reid retired -- while Portman, Heitkamp, Kirk, Donnelly, McCaskill, Blunt, Nelson, Heller, Toomey, and Tester are all examples of a Senator who sought or is seeking re-election. You are implying that Heitkamp, Donnelly, McCaskill, Nelson, and Tester are going to all win re-election. So how does Joe Heck and Dean Heller compare to one another?
Poll
