Senators from the opposite party that you are willing to vote for

[nclib]

Potentially Susan Collins if against a right-wing Democrat.

Potentially Lisa Murkowski, but only in a three-way race.

That's pretty much all the moderate GOP Senators. In cases like Alvin Greene and Mark Clayton, I'd vote Green party.

[freepcrusher]

Mark Kirk
Susan Collins
John Hoeven
Lamar Alexander
Lisa Murkowski
Thad Cochran

a lot of past senators I would vote for however:
Javits
Brooke
Mathias
Weicker
Snowe
Cohen
Jeffords
Stafford
Chaffee
D'Amato
Case
Spector
Heinz
Percy
Danforth
Durenberger
Hatfield
Packwood
Baker
Stevens (except for 2008)

[hurricanehink]

Probably Murkowski. I could see a scenario voting for a powerful Republican incumbent if the Dem candidate has little statewide experience (like McCain in 2010) or in the past for someone like Lugar who had no Democratic opposition in 2006 in Indiana.

[Spamage]

1. Ron Wyden
2. Heidi Heitkamp
3. Mark Warner
4. Kristen Gillibrand
5. Angus King

[traininthedistance]

Current Republican Senators?

Right now, only Murkowski (no, no way would I ever vote Collins, not in a state like Maine).  I guess I might also vote Republican in Alvin Greene/Mark Clayton-type situations, but only if the Pub incumbent was demonstrably better than a Tea Partier and it was a deeply conservative state- otherwise I'd spoil my ballot*.  Such situations can hardly be considered voting for a candidate, however.

*Technically I'd vote Green or something, but those things are functionally equivalent.

[Orser67]

As it is - "person is everything for me, party - almost nothing"))))

Interesting. I don't think like that at all, but I can definitely respect where you're coming from. In some ways, I think it might be better if more people thought like that...we might have a greater chance of getting stuff done in Congress.

Regardless of what the say in terms of promises to the represent the state and not the party and so forth, when Reid needs them, they are there

I don't think this is true quite to the extent that you argue, but there's a lot of truth to what you say, which is a major reason why I wouldn't vote for a Republican. On any given attempt to get 60 votes, a Democrat from say Arkansas is gettable, while a Republican from Arkansas (usually) isn't. For that reason, when liberals say that someone like Pryor (or, before him, Ben Nelson) is no different from a Republican, I think it's a little silly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As it is - "person is everything for me, party - almost nothing"))))

Interesting. I don't think like that at all, but I can definitely respect where you're coming from. In some ways, I think it might be better if more people thought like that...we might have a greater chance of getting stuff done in Congress.

Regardless of what the say in terms of promises to the represent the state and not the party and so forth, when Reid needs them, they are there

I don't think this is true quite to the extent that you argue, but there's a lot of truth to what you say, which is a major reason why I wouldn't vote for a Republican. On any given attempt to get 60 votes, a Democrat from say Arkansas is gettable, while a Republican from Arkansas (usually) isn't. For that reason, when liberals say that someone like Pryor (or, before him, Ben Nelson) is no different from a Republican, I think it's a little silly.

Yes the gun vote would argue the contrary, but I have seen that before. It looks remarkably similar to the 2007 immigration vote in terms of Reid either losing his interest and/or losing patience on the matter and just letting the cards fall where they may. But on Healthcare and immigration, they got them all when they were needed.

It is a lot harder to do that on the GOP side post Delay, then before. Now as long as they aren't scared of a primary, a Kirk or a Collins is just as a free of control (from the perspective of Mitch McConnel) as Mike Lee or Ted Cruz.

[illegaloperation]

None now.

As recently as last year I might have been tempted to say Manchin, Pryor and Tester.

Regardless of what the say in terms of promises to the represent the state and not the party and so forth, when Reid needs them, they are there, every last one of them. If the election is four years away or five years away like with Manchin, or if otherwise a promise of a cabinet post is what will secure their votes. In 2017, lets say Clinton is President and there is a vote on cap and trade, you can bet a cabinet post will be waiting for Manchin if he is the deciding vote so that he can vote for it and not have to face the voters.

Didn't a bunch of them (Pryor, Heitkamp, etc.) just voted against background checks for gun shows?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

None now.

As recently as last year I might have been tempted to say Manchin, Pryor and Tester.

Regardless of what the say in terms of promises to the represent the state and not the party and so forth, when Reid needs them, they are there, every last one of them. If the election is four years away or five years away like with Manchin, or if otherwise a promise of a cabinet post is what will secure their votes. In 2017, lets say Clinton is President and there is a vote on cap and trade, you can bet a cabinet post will be waiting for Manchin if he is the deciding vote so that he can vote for it and not have to face the voters.

Didn't a bunch of them (Pryor, Heitkamp, etc.) just voted against background checks for gun shows?

I just responded to that matter in my last post in this thread. I get the distinct impression that Reid isn't very interested in the issue or is in some ways hostile to it himself and thus wasn't willing to twist the arms to get the job done.

[ElectionsGuy]

Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich, Joe Manchin, Ron Wyden, Bill Nelson maybe. That's about it.

Also the republican has to be somewhat generic/boring or bad. In a case like Manchin vs. Raese I would vote for Manchin.

[Orser67]

I get the distinct impression that Reid isn't very interested in the issue or is in some ways hostile to it himself and thus wasn't willing to twist the arms to get the job done.

To me it was a mix of a)gun control being a really tough issue for red state D's, b)the bill being watered down in the eyes of many Democrats, c)the Democrats needing one more Republican vote even if they kept all their own, and d)the fact that the bill probably wouldn't pass the House anyway.

I do think that part of the reason it sometimes feels like Democratic Senators are always there for Reid is that Reid (as would any competent party leader) picks his battles so that he doesn't try to bring up votes that conservative Democrats wouldn't vote for anyway.

[morgieb]

Murkowski
People like Hoeven and some of those pork farmers from the South, because they won't elect a Democrat and they're at least decent.
Collins assuming she wasn't really challenged (which she isn't really, but I find her a little too moderate hero)
Kirk or Heller in different states (or if they became established and safe)

No idea who else. Like freepcrusher/smoltchanv said, there were better Republicans back in the day.

[tpfkaw]

If I say that the Democrats are the "opposite party," since there's at least a measurable minority of Republicans that I like, I guess Mark Pryor if his opponent is Tom Cotton, but that's because of Cotton.