democrats: who is your 2016 "hit list" in the senate?

[freepcrusher]

My main four would be Toomey, Johnson, Rubio and Ayotte who are all from marginal or slight dem states that are arguably too far to the right for their respective state.

Then I would try to target some red state republicans who are perhaps beatable with a good candidate. Beshear, Beebe and Nixon could all run against Paul, Boozman, and Blunt.

The rest of course are the remaining democrats in which almost all of those seats are safe and republicans in safe seats or republicans who are inoffensive that I don't really mind (Kirk).

[OC]

I think it depends if we have the WH or not. Ayotte won't lose she will be in a likely place like Olympia Snowe or Collins have to retire before defeated.  Portman may be a sitting VP or a sitting senate but won with a high vote margin.  Toomey, Johnson of Wis, and I would like a moderate Dem in the seat of Rubio because Bill Nelson may lose.

[Gravis Marketing]

Paul, Johnson, Kirk, and Toomey are all theoretically vulnerable - Paul because he's ridiculous, Johnson is too conservative for a swing state, Kirk is an R in Illinois, and Toomey is potentially vulnerable but we will see. I don't see Ayotte losing, R women in New England are very difficult to dislodge. I don't see how Rubio loses because it's not as if there's a single Dem A-lister in the state to do it.

Blunt and Portman both seem unlikely to lose but we've had unlikely R losses in both states before. I would rate it as 10% chance as of now.

[GPORTER]

Paul, Johnson, Kirk, and Toomey are all theoretically vulnerable - Paul because he's ridiculous, Johnson is too conservative for a swing state, Kirk is an R in Illinois, and Toomey is potentially vulnerable but we will see. I don't see Ayotte losing, R women in New England are very difficult to dislodge. I don't see how Rubio loses because it's not as if there's a single Dem A-lister in the state to do it.

Blunt and Portman both seem unlikely to lose but we've had unlikely R losses in both states before. I would rate it as 10% chance as of now.

I think we will hold a lot of these senate seats in 2016, maybe loosing one or two considered vulnerable though. As a republican, loosing one or two will be unfortunate, all of them are fine public servants.

[Mr.Phips]

Paul, Johnson, Kirk, and Toomey are all theoretically vulnerable - Paul because he's ridiculous, Johnson is too conservative for a swing state, Kirk is an R in Illinois, and Toomey is potentially vulnerable but we will see. I don't see Ayotte losing, R women in New England are very difficult to dislodge. I don't see how Rubio loses because it's not as if there's a single Dem A-lister in the state to do it.

Blunt and Portman both seem unlikely to lose but we've had unlikely R losses in both states before. I would rate it as 10% chance as of now.

I think we will hold a lot of these senate seats in 2016, maybe loosing one or two considered vulnerable though. As a republican, loosing one or two will be unfortunate, all of them are fine public servants.

There is almsot no way Kirk, Toomey, and Johnson survive.  They are way too conservative for their states and Democrats wont be sitting home like they did in 2010. 

[perdedor]

Kirk is definitely a target. In a climate that couldn't have been sweeter for Republicans, he still only managed to get in by way of an incompetent opponent. I think he's a goner in 2016.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Toomey, Johnson (partially out of revenge for taking Feingold), Paul, Ayotte for incumbents. IA and AZ are the most likely open seats where we have a chance.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

Toomey (too conservative for his state), Johnson (ditto), Ayotte (not the next Snowe/Collins), Kirk (Illinois is too blue for him), Paul (brand of conservatism doesn't work in Kentucky), McCain (unpopular, will probably retire). Don't mind Kirk or Paul though.

On my minor list: Rubio (swing state, might run for Presidency), Blunt (unpopular), Portman (swing state), Grassley (will probably retire).

Whereas the only one that might lose as a Democrat is Reid.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kirk is some seriously low hanging fruit, too. He and Toomey are ridiculously out of whack for their state's views. Vitter should also be highly vulnerable. Obviously Ayotte, Rubio, and Johnson are good targets.

[freepcrusher]

Kirk is some seriously low hanging fruit, too. He and Toomey are ridiculously out of whack for their state's views. Vitter should also be highly vulnerable. Obviously Ayotte, Rubio, and Johnson are good targets.

Mark Kirk is not Phil Crane. His views are pretty similar to most of the people living in the collar counties and I've heard that those areas are swinging back to the republicans because of Pat Quinn's miscues.

[MilesC56]

-Burr
-Vitter (if he isn't Governor by then)
-Rubio
-Johnson

I think McCain's seat could also flip if Giffords runs.

[Gravis Marketing]

Ayotte (not the next Snowe/Collins)

She's certainly too party-line Republican to be Snowe or Collins, but that suits NH.

[Nagas]

Kirk, Toomey, and Johnson are our best shots at pick ups this far out.

And we need to focus on Kentucky. Paul is ridiculous.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Paul, Johnson, Kirk, and Toomey are all theoretically vulnerable - Paul because he's ridiculous, Johnson is too conservative for a swing state, Kirk is an R in Illinois, and Toomey is potentially vulnerable but we will see. I don't see Ayotte losing, R women in New England are very difficult to dislodge. I don't see how Rubio loses because it's not as if there's a single Dem A-lister in the state to do it.

Blunt and Portman both seem unlikely to lose but we've had unlikely R losses in both states before. I would rate it as 10% chance as of now.

I think we will hold a lot of these senate seats in 2016, maybe loosing one or two considered vulnerable though. As a republican, loosing one or two will be unfortunate, all of them are fine public servants.

There is almsot no way Kirk, Toomey, and Johnson survive.  They are way too conservative for their states and Democrats wont be sitting home like they did in 2010. 

Toomey has approvals similar to Bob Casey at present and is a very shrewd politician, don't ever count him out.

[Keystone Phil]

For all of you shouting about a Dem grabbing Kentucky, please realize that Republicans will hopefully remove the Tard in the primary or he will voluntarily leave to follow in his loser father's footsteps as a failed Presidential candidate. Either way, sanity will score a pick up here.

[Landslide Lyndon]

For all of you shouting about a Dem grabbing Kentucky, please realize that Republicans will hopefully remove the Tard in the primary or he will voluntarily leave to follow in his loser father's footsteps as a failed Presidential candidate. Either way, sanity will score a pick up here.

So you think that if Rand is renominated he will be defeated?

[Keystone Phil]

For all of you shouting about a Dem grabbing Kentucky, please realize that Republicans will hopefully remove the Tard in the primary or he will voluntarily leave to follow in his loser father's footsteps as a failed Presidential candidate. Either way, sanity will score a pick up here.

So you think that if Rand is renominated he will be defeated?

I don't know what I'm eating for lunch tomorrow let alone what the political climate will be in 2016.

[Gravis Marketing]

he will voluntarily leave to follow in his loser father's footsteps as a failed Presidential candidate.

You think he'd challenge President Santorum in a primary?

[Keystone Phil]

he will voluntarily leave to follow in his loser father's footsteps as a failed Presidential candidate.

You think he'd challenge President Santorum in a primary?

Of course he would. You can't reason with the insane.

[Senator X]

Although looking to 2016 this early is meaningless, my list would be as follows:

Kirk, Toomey, Ron Johnson (these three are obvious)

Portman, especially if Tim Ryan runs, but either way Portman has embarrassingly low name-rec for a Senator, only 42% of Ohioans knew enough about him to give an approve-disapprove opinion in the last poll I saw on the subject.

Blunt (especially if Nixon runs, but even if he doesn't, Blunt has never struck me as a super-strong candidate and it's not like we don't have a bench here)

Iowa (if Grassley doesn't run for reelection)

Rand Paul (if and only if we can recruit the right type of candidate and Paul wins his primary)

Rubio (if the FL Democratic party can get its act together and find a decent candidate)

Definitely Burr (no one seems to like him for some reason )

Ayotte (but only if it looks like a neutral or Democratic-leaning year nationally).

[Stranger in a strange land]

Kirk, Toomey, and Johnson are our best shots at pick ups this far out.

And we need to focus on Kentucky. Paul is ridiculous.

Paul is probably more at risk of losing in the Republican primary, and if it looks like he's in trouble, he might just retire after one term to run for president.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

You people make it sound like Mr. Marco Rubio will survive what is sure to be a repeat of Palin's vice presidential nomination.

If (when) he is nominated for VP, and Romney loses in November Rubio won't have a political career left. Try explaining to your state, which is struggling BADLY economically, why you decided to attempt to switch jobs after less than 2 years on the national stage!



Of course, this is all meaningless.


And if Romney-Rubio win in November, Rubio will obviously not be in the Senate.

Also, to clarify, I don't hate Rubio, I love the guy, but I do not believe he should be Vice President. Period.

[freepcrusher]

You people make it sound like Mr. Marco Rubio will survive what is sure to be a repeat of Palin's vice presidential nomination.

If (when) he is nominated for VP, and Romney loses in November Rubio won't have a political career left. Try explaining to your state, which is struggling BADLY economically, why you decided to attempt to switch jobs after less than 2 years on the national stage!



Of course, this is all meaningless.


And if Romney-Rubio win in November, Rubio will obviously not be in the Senate.

Also, to clarify, I don't hate Rubio, I love the guy, but I do not believe he should be Vice President. Period.

yep, it kind of reminds me of George McGovern. Granted, he survived reelection two years after his run for president but that was only because of the Watergate year. He did however lose the next time he was up, which was in 1980.

[Stranger in a strange land]

You people make it sound like Mr. Marco Rubio will survive what is sure to be a repeat of Palin's vice presidential nomination.

If (when) he is nominated for VP, and Romney loses in November Rubio won't have a political career left. Try explaining to your state, which is struggling BADLY economically, why you decided to attempt to switch jobs after less than 2 years on the national stage!

That Palin doesn't have a political career anymore is the result of her own gaffes, pettiness, personal vendettas, and inability to work with others. The fact that she's associated with a losing campaign wouldn't be that bad in and of itself if her interview performances hadn't played such a large role in crashing it. While I'm not saying Marco Rubio is an intellectual giant or anything, I doubt he'll make a fool of himself anywhere near as badly as Palin did.

[Zioneer]

Just one Republican Senator on my "get out of office list": Mike Lee of Utah. I despise this man as everything that's wrong with Utah politics today. He's a Tea Partier, a shill for corporations (especially NuSkin, since he was legal counsel for them), smug, arrogant, childish, utterly self-absorbed and unwilling to work with anyone less conservative than he is.

Sadly, since this is Utah, he'll probably stay in office for as long as Orrin Hatch.